Good points all. No need to shout.

Posted at July 3, 2008 2:49 PM in response to Serious question (really): Why is the FISA telecom immunity important?

A couple of comments from a non-lawyer.
I agree with those who say that suing the telecoms is the only way to get at the Bush White House for at least one of its transgressions against the Constitution. Certainly there would be some satisfaction in that -- but I also agree that we may be better off foregoing the pleasure of seeing Bush and Cheney twist in the wind, write it off to an electoral mistake (we did elect the bastards once, after we already knew that they were crooks). There is so much else to be done, including saving the planet.

And Elizabeth's evocation of Rove whispering in Bush's ear that this is all a welcome distraction, a stick stirring up the anthill, rings very, very possible. I'd like to hear a few more experienced lawyers weigh in on whether the telecoms really do have any exposure. Because anything that turns us on ourselves, turns us on our candidate, benefits The Other Guys more than us.

At the end of the day, we know we want Obama as president. There's no one else even close to as desirable, so let's dance with the one we came to the party with. Running for president, like occupying the White House itself, is a job where you learn in the saddle. Obama is going to learn a lot very quickly and perhaps this is a prime example. It would be nice if he could stand up to the mike and tell us that yes, he said one thing in the past but he's come to understand the matter in a different light and tell us what that new understanding is. That's part of what we're looking for in our next leader: the ability to change his/her mind as facts on the ground change.

Posted at July 3, 2008 2:12 PM in response to Serious question (really): Why is the FISA telecom immunity important?

Psst. The Jewish vote. 'Nuff said.

Posted at June 11, 2008 6:00 PM in response to Lieberman: McCain's "Not Too Important" Comment Doesn't Matter Because He Served In Vietnam

John Kerry was down on the ground where the bullets flew, yet his service was nothing, according to the GOP of 2004. Now, we have McCain, who flew high above his victims until he got in the way of a SAM, then suffered as a POW for five years. How, please, is that more valid? And how does that make him a hero? I'm sick of McCain wearing the crown of "Hero" when he did nothing heroic. It devalues the word, IMO.

Posted at June 11, 2008 5:58 PM in response to Lieberman: McCain's "Not Too Important" Comment Doesn't Matter Because He Served In Vietnam

If Obama is going to be about some "new" kind of politics, I hope he'll start by choosing his advisors, cabinet ministers, department heads, etc., etc., without regard to whether they displayed "loyalty" by backing him earlier than someone else. Let's hope he fills those posts strictly on merit. We've had enough of administrations that function on the basis of loyalty.

Posted at June 1, 2008 4:33 PM in response to Richardson Says Obama Will "Remember" Super-Delegates Who Endorse Before Voting Ends

The latest version of swiftboating, trying to make Obama look like a chickenshit. Interesting ploy, because now Obama can't go to Iraq without looking like he's McCain's little bitch. OTOH, Obama doesn't need to go to Iraq to see/say that we've wasted hundreds of billions trying to mop up a horrible mistake, in the process taking a balanced budget and bankrupting it without adding anything to the U.S. infrastructure or security.

Posted at May 28, 2008 5:22 PM in response to McCain Attacks Obama For Refusing To Go On "Baghdad Stroll"

Clever move. Now, if Obama goes, it looks like he's going because McCain dared him to, instead of on his own initiative.
Obama might point out that if he went, he'd be given the same bullshit tour the Pentagon Puppets and McCain himself got. You don't have to go to Iraq to know that the trillions being spent there are not creating anything new and wonderful, they're just an attempt to mop up a horrible mistake.
The new president's job is to figure out how to get schools and roads and REAL security back on track, not to continue the fiasco in Iraq no matter how "successful" it can be dressed up to look.

Posted at May 27, 2008 11:06 AM in response to McCain Challenges Obama To Visit Iraq

This is baloney. McCain is going to lose the election, no matter who wins it. Obama with Jim Webb (for example) need have no fear of being abandoned by a significant part of the party because HRC isn't on board. Nor any fear of being beaten by tired, old, crazy John McCain. HRC's people are trying to set Obama up to look like a jerk if he doesn't choose her -- it's the last aria in her opera of desperation. Hopefully, Obama won't let himself be pressured.

Posted at May 23, 2008 1:21 PM in response to Hillary's Top Fundraising Official Says There's "Risk" Of Obama Loss If She Isn't Invited To Be Veep

This is baloney. McCain is going to lose the election, no matter who wins it. Obama with Jim Webb (for example) need have no fear of being abandoned by a significant part of the party because HRC isn't on board. Nor any fear of being beaten by tired, old, crazy John McCain. HRC's people are trying to set Obama up to look like a jerk if he doesn't choose her -- it's the last aria in her opera of desperation. Hopefully, Obama won't let himself be pressured.

Posted at May 23, 2008 11:42 AM in response to Hillary's Top Fundraising Official Says There's "Risk" Of Obama Loss If She Isn't Invited To Be Veep

Nothing wrong with his timing. What a relief, after watching Kerry self-immolate by taking the "I'm not going to dignify that with a response," route in '04. The Right Wing Noise Machine is going to learn: you fling shit at Obama, shit comes flying straight back at you!

Posted at May 16, 2008 1:08 PM in response to Obama Hits Back: Debate With McCain And Bush Over Foreign Policy Is One "I Will Win"