Field Hands: It's About the Organizing

I am number 400 and joined Oklahoma!!  Umm...there's only two of us but I will start recruiting more!!

Al, I just wanted to comment that your acknowledgement of my recent nuptials is greatly appreciated. 

And I sent an email wedding announcement to all my friends and family linking them to my Fieldhands blog, so that more people would be exposed to the community we are building there.

The DKs of the Democratic Party are going to be so surprised when they finally realize that they have been rendered irrelevant by the power of community organizing.

I'll be staffing an Obama booth at tomorrow's Sacramento Pride Festival, and assisting with the Folsom, CA Families for Obama's Unite for Change gathering on June 28th.  We're doing it as a picnic and have a huge number of signups through the web already, and many of the names are unknown to the leaders of our chapter.

I'm an example of a middle-aged man and longtime Democrat who has never been more engaged and active than I am in this campaign.

While Field Hands are proudly getting organized, I see the rest of the progressive blogosphere flirting with what Al has called "beautiful loserism".  I figured it wouldn't take long before folks at Daily Kos (and elsewhere) took their eyes off the ball and started eating our young over FISA (and by extension, everything else) even before we've made it to July, let alone November.

 

That said, it'd be nice to figure out what productive things we can do with Field Hand groups that would be in addition to or different from similar groups organized via the my.barackobama.com tools.

but thanks to dkos and TheWurx I found you again. I thought it was strange to be routed to the back forty with no Al and articles averaging 2 to 10 comments. I thought you went the way of "The Wege", an irreverent blog called Norwegianity. Glad I found you I've missed your politically astute commentary.

BR:

 

I agree with you about DKos.  They really need to get a grip regarding FISA.  Obama has his statement out over at Politico.  Anyway, they panicked without knowing exactly what is in the compromise legislation.  I am not making excuses for Obama but I work for a politician and am a lawyer.  Sometimes a little compromise can get you a lot more that stomping your feet and refusing to do anything!

Anyway, here in Oklahoma I am hoping to get together enough Field hands in order to get Inhofe kicked out of Congress and elect Andrew Rice.

The energy to self-organize even appears to have hit the vets in addition to Kerry who were dissed by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the last election.

Now four years later and after a $1,000,000 challenge from SBVT funder Boone T. Pickens last Nov to prove him wrong, they are hitting back. (Actually they hit back in Nov. but Pickens raised the proof stakes, which they now have.) Sam Stein has the story on HuffPo, and it's worth reading.

But more so, worth noting that the vets delayed anger didn't go away during the past four years. It lay fallow, waiting for the field to renew its nutrients, and new rain to fall. (Just as Alinsky predicted.)

There is a revolution happening this year but it isn't in the physical streets. It's happening across our virtual highways, and this one will be found next Dec. to be more far-reaching than anticipated. (How do I know this? Why do I make this claim? From talking to kids under 25 working to pay for school etcetera in local bars. Lots of them. Which you might diss, but I dont, not based on what I've heard.)

As I noted on the ex-Field, the new FieldHands site had an instantaneous vibrancy to it when it was created. Will be interesting to see what it morphs into, which morph it will. (So when a researcher assesses the response to the new Field here, dont forget to add that site as well.)

I've written two letters to the editor.  I don't know if I should pick one as they would never publish both.  Or do I just send both in to be considered?  What might make them better?

OSD

On May 30, 2008 when asked if he supported additional offshore drilling, John McCain stated, "With those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels."  Cut to Tuesday, June 17^th (18 days later) and John McCain states in Houston to a room full of oilmen, "I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.”  Furthermore, in mid-May 2008 Senator McCain was quoted saying he didn't "like obscene profits being made anywhere," and, as such, would be "glad to look" at a windfall profits tax on oil companies.  On June 17th, however, he criticized Barack Obama for wanting "a windfall profits tax on oil.”

 

Curious how on June 18^th, President Bush called on Congress to overturn the moratorium on offshore drilling.  No connection there I suppose.  So what’s happened in the last month to prompt such an about face on these positions?  I’m sure those Texas oilmen and their money didn’t have anything to do with it, because the Maverick McCain doesn’t associate with such lobbying activities.  And lest I mention that the the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) which in their Annual Energy Outlook 2007, reported:  "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

Campaign Finance

The AP story Obama Opts Out of Public Election Money states that Obama “abandoned his once-stated desire to compete within a system designed to reduce the influence of money in politics.”  This would be all good and well if each candidate received only the money from the public financing and didn’t reap the rewards of soft money, such as 527s, which  play by very loose rules.  Does the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth sound familiar to anyone?  Privately funded with many millions of dollars from very large dollar donors, they decimated Kerry, who sat on the sidelines, his public primary funds insufficient to match that kind of firepower.  And John McCain made it very clear the other day that he was powerless to stop those types of organizations when he said “I can't be a referee of every spot run on television.” 

 

In the meantime, I received a note in my email box today indicating that MoveOn was disbanding its 527 arm in order to comply with Obama’s wishes that all donations be channeled through the official campaign.  Hmmm, Obama doesn’t seem powerless to run the type of campaign free from outside influence.  But since McCain couldn’t or wouldn’t reign the 527s in, I think Obama made the only choice he could.  The system is broken.

 Besides, I think most people would agree that 1.5 million donors contributing an average of $100 pretty well defines a publicly run campaign.

 

Sorry to be off topic about this Al, but DKOS, AmericBlog, Firedoglake and their commenters are having litters of kittens about Obama's supposed embrace of FISA. What are your thoughts as you have cooler head than some in the blogosphere.

I also wanted to note that Barry Crimmins indcicated something to the effect that Al organized the FieldHands.  While he certainly encouraged it, it was the Fieldhands themselves that did it and that's what makes it so powerful.

 

Allan, I've been thinking about your wedding.  Yeah!!  Have you rec'd help from the campaign for your Unite for Change meeting?  I had to call campaign HQ today and ask for follow up.  They took a message for me.  I have organized a kid and wine friendly gathering.  (Don't worry, the kids don't drink the wine!)

Zinzen, yes litters of kittens indeed...LOL!  But there are a few cooler heads over at Kos:

 

"I fear that my years of voting, arguing, living, breathing, fighting and just being generally partisan on behalf of the Democratic Party must come to an end at midnight tonight if Barack Obama doesn't don his Superman Cape and Elven Ring of Power and fix everything, exactly like I wanted, by midnight tonight.  If he doesn't save the world by the time I turn into a pumpkin, I'm giving my partisan vote to the GOP to show my righteous indignation at all the things I cannot change."

Yup. they are going mad those bloggers who are refusing to give money to BO and wont vote for him in Nov. It's actually stupid and faintly amusing even. Would love to know what all of you think. Obama has been a bit slow on this one though. Don't know why but just does not seem to be in the top of his game somehow as he usually is.

Hey Tara, I saw that post over at DKOS and thanks goodness the cooler heads are reccing it up.

On topic, I have got to reach out to my Northern CA Fieldhands and get some movement going on.

Congratulations Allan!

Ah, yes.  Good snark is always welcome!  :)

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. . . It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -– and the liberty –- of the American people.

He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the “compromise.” Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. The full Obama statement is here.

This is my take on FISA. I happen to agree with Joe Klein on this one. Wow, I can't believe I am admitting this!

 

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/on_fisa.html

a.k.a. geekygirl602

Hey Al,

Any chance we could pay for you to come to St. Paul for the RNC? I think that will be equally important to cover and I'm sure my fellow members of local 9 would be happy to help get you here and find you housing.

Any chance you'd do that if we could raise the money?

Mea Culpa! I have posted the following

 

http://barrycrimmins.com/index.php?page=news&display=1060

 

UPDATE/CORRECTION: Tara Van Niman points out that Al Giordano didn't organize the Fieldhands into geographical affinity groups, they did so themselves. I apologize for my inaccurate statement and will make sure to get it right if and when I mention the Fieldhands' organizational structure again. -- Barry Crimmins

Al,

This is a terrific community we have growing here at The Field. This weekend I'm going to post something over on the "Chicago Field Hands Local #1" about the Obama campaign passing on public financing. I think the message about it is all distorted and needs to be REALLY emphasized that it is the best thing to happen to the U.S. electoral process in modern times and IS truly Campaign Finance Reform in it's finest form and something that all Americans can and should embrace.

I thought the video Obama made the other day about it didn't seem to contain that as a clear message. I'm thinking of a Ross Perot type of charts and graphs presentation as the average person doesn't really know what public finance is and what a 527 is. The whole line of "Obama reneged on his promise" needs an akido-like response.

Presenting this in a more positive and transparent way will help move a lot of Independents towards Obama as the one carryover from McCain's 2000 campaign run was that a lot of Independents (including me) thought he had some good ideas back then about campaign finance reform. We need to be more clear on this issue to win those type of voters over to the Democratic Party this Fall.

p.s. Tara - both of your letters are great but my vote on your letter to the editor would be the campaign finance one.

There's folks who want to get things done, and there's folks who want everyone else to obey their wishes. And there's no much you can do to change the latter to the former. They'll grudgingly come around, or they won't. The ones who won't will sit the election out.

Obama is not a leftist, an environmentalist, a gender warrior...he's a community organizer. He brings people forward, as many as will go with him. So there are going to be a lot more "compromises." That, frankly, is how any of us get anything done. What, we thought everyone was going wake up on January 21, 2009, cast off their chains, and march together to Washington to shake off the oppressors?

I just picked up "Rules for Radicals" from the library. I cracked it while putting it discretely into a corner by my desk and found treasures on every page I flipped by.

I'll still vote for Obama, and I will still work hard to get him elected, but his position on telecom immunity is rotten from the inside out.  This is a big issue to me.  My continued support of him is a compromise. 

Why didn't the dems work directly with the telecoms and agree to immunity in exchange for testifying or something? 

So while I think there may be some vitriolic wah-wahing going on, those who oppose telecom immunity on principle are right to be disappointed. It might even be morally right for them to turn away from Obama as their choice and .. go to no choice.  Which is, of course, what Obama is counting on.

With all this talk of the FISA compromise, it's got me to thinking, about compromising, in general, and as it relates to community-building in particular (so as to remain vaguely on-topic? - but if this kind of comment is not desired here, I'll happily move it to my fieldhands page). 

What with Obama supporting the incumbent over the netroots fave candidiate in Georgia, and now the chicken-littleing over the FISA compromise (although, admittedly, I am not anywhere close to educated on either issue) - it's gotten me to thinking about what exactly people think the word "compromise" or "unity" or "community-building" or "organizing" mean. Because what all of this, to me, sounds a lot like what I hear (and have heard) in my community, when people are trying to get organized around an issue, or campaign. Which is that people have some vision of compromise, or an ideal community, or community-building experience as being one in which everyone is happy and comfortable. Like there is a way in which we can all agree to always agree, or at least agree to not disagree publically, no matter what. 

Anyways, it makes me remember to re-read Bernice Johnson-Reagon's speech from 1981, talking to the West Coast Women's Music Festival. The speech was talking mostly about organizing in the feminist movement, and more specifically about women-only spaces, and race, but every time I read it, I get something new from it. 

Read it here

I'm with Johnson-Reagon. Coalition-building is about survival, and as such, it necessarily involves making really big sacrifices and working with people who may be trying to hurt us. Even telecom giants. 

My 2 cents on these issues. 

 

Julie Bays:

 

Thanks for the link. As usual, the best part of a JokeLine post is the eviseration he receives in his own comments sections.

 

Don't understand what one would agree with out of JokeLine's argument. Apparently some feel the Constitution is the law of our land, except when a few people determine it's getting in the way. Then, we can just ignore it when Those Who Know Better tell us it's OK. Make no mistake about it - this latest FISA "compromise" is a complete trashing of what the Founding Fathers and Mothers fought and died for. Sad that Obama's going along with it. Completely understand how O-man has to pick his battles wisely, but I'd think fundamental elements to the Constitution would be worth standing up for, especially for someone who has "taught the Constitution" to college students.

 

JokeLine's last paragraph, or punchline, is so incoherent and contradictory it is hysterical.

Here's why: it's a bad bill, giving the Repubicans everything they want, especially legal cover for their criminality.

Barack can go on the Senate floor and say, "This is a bad bill, I'm voting against it -- who's with me?"

I can think of maybe 2 Democratic Senators who would buck him if he did that. It's the right issue, and it would be good practice at whipping the Senate into line when he's President. He claims to be a constitutional scholar -- here is his chance to prove it.

I haven't had time to really look into it but the understanding I've got from what I've read is that although the FISA compromise bill as a whole is not as strong as people would like, the immunity provision is what everybody has been denouncing and rejecting. And since Obama said that he opposed immunity and would work in the Senate to remove it, I am not sure what people are still having kittens about, except that they did want him to use his Elven Ring of Power to save the entire world before midnight.

It seems to me like Steny Hoyer pushed this very hard and very fast, and maybe didn't consult with Obama on it (though this is pure speculation on my part) and that is why Obama was caught off guard.

Actually, I suspect that Bush himself was originally behind the push, hoping to use it to divide Democrats or make us appear weak. From the looks of things at Daily Kos, he seems to be succeeding at the division part.

I have not seen such childish behavior in a long time.

I can't seem to get my link to post properly, despite the fact that it showed up just fine when I previewed the post. 

 

But please, do yourselves a favor, and google "Coalition Politics: Turning the Century" by Bernice Johnson-Reagon. I know that it has been re-published on a couple of blogs recently. 

As I said in the Scagliotti thread--the "progressives" threatening to take their ball and go home because Obama hasn't towed their line verbatim re: FISA are simply not seeing the forest for the trees. Have they not read Obama's books?  Have they not seen his senate record?  He is not a pure leftist.  He's never claimed to be.  We knew all along that we weren't getting a pure leftist in his candidacy.

What we DO get is a community organizer.  An inspiring leader.  A fallible, yet brilliant politician.  A good man who wants to make our government better than it has been.  A man who has inspired  new activist movement larger than his campaign and largely independent of his personal politics.

I'm not sure why the FISA stance is such a shock.  Firstly, it's not out of line with Obama's other policies, and moreover he does not support Telecom immunity.  But whatever your point of argument is regarding Obama's stance on this one issue, what I fail to understand is how so many can be so petulent as to ignore the importance--and independence--of the activist reawakening going on in our party as we speak.  Without an Obama presidency, that movement becomes sorely restricted, if only for the logistical limitations imposed by a Republican regime.  Obama has inspires us, but it's irrational to suddenly expect liberal purity from him--and most irrational to say you're pulling your support from him because you didn't get purity this time.  I'd rather try to push further left under Obama than under Roadblock McSame, wouldn't you?

It just seems to me the ones so willing to "give up" on Obama now are the ones least able to see the potential for movement--or the restriction thereof under another Republican administration, as the case may be.  Be upset and angry with Obama, by all means. We can and should criticize his policy stances when we feel he's on the wrong side of any issue (and believe me, I firmly believe Obama is WAY too centrist regarding certain poverty issues, particularly welfare reform...but I digress)

But please, stop threatening to sabatoge his candidacy, take away your support, vote Nader, or assist McCain in any way.  Remember that we have more than one issue to work on.  We have work to do.  Let's give ourselves ideal conditions for agitation, yes?

OT, but necessary to look at.

While you're checking out the new FISA bill as signed, check out this alert yesterday from FreedomWorks (Dick Armey's group) about "Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government."

If you read a summary of the bill carefully, this is a sneaky way of getting internet taxes passed without a single solitary debate. Note the term "payments by third party settlement organizations." All info about what you buy is going to the IRS and the Feds. This obliterates political privacy, if you choose to donate to a PAC. This records all your buying habits. Once you let this flow from the credit card companies to the govt go through, you will never reverese it.

I dont know what the comment period is, but the bill to object is "House Amendments to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3221 – Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008."

The press release about this lists a phone number. I just called and ranted. I would love to know who added this.

In the "world's largest democracy", our Indian Government openly says that they won't allow blackberries in India yet because they don't the technology to tap them yet.

Yes, it is an official statement.

"Telephone tapping = Terrorism stopping" seems to be the motto in many countries now-a-days.

@6:25pm

<i>I can think of maybe 2 Democratic Senators who would buck him if he did that. It's the right issue, and it would be good practice at whipping the Senate into line when he's President.</i>

I don't want a president "whipping the Senate into line." That's what we've had for 8 years -- a continued centralizing of power and control into the executive branch.

And I know this is *really* chicken littling, but I can't help but think that there's some unknown attorney at Justice right now crafting a memo for the White House on the legalities of simply not vacating on January 20 in the event of an "emergency."

 

Hey Al don't know if anyone else  brought this up but i kinda miss the saloons and Sixshooters and family farm stuff you had up over at the  other place.  Any plans to but some of that kinda stuff up again?

 

I only read the summary of the bill, not the bill itself, but that seems to be an income tax measure, not an internet tax thing. As I see it, the bill provides that if a payment service sends you more than $10,000 in more than 200 transactions, that information gets sent to you and the IRS (probably on a 1099 form). That impacts eBay Power Sellers, not the average Joe selling their TV.

As for privacy, any small business person can always get a separate Tax ID number instead of using their SSN.

Heather Hansen-Munro

That's a pretty good explanation.  As a leftist (not the same thing as a liberal), I've been pretty much holding my nose, but I think it is true that Alinsky is not about changing the system as much as getting a seat at the table, at least that seems to be the modus operandi of Ernesto Cortes and the Industrial Areas Foundations.  I'm old enough to have observed the new deal coalition get a seat at the table and then be thrown under the table by a vicious resurgent neoliberalism over the past 28 years.  Regaining that seat is going to be immeasurably more difficult this time around.  But if that is all you've got then I guess...that's where you go.  It's truly amazing that things have evolved to the point where the "people" are just merely trying to get a seat at the democratic table. And our hero is uh...well, he's no Huey P Long

Glad number Field Hand 402 is in Nevada: i need to alert him that several Nor Cal Field Hands are organzing and heading to his neck of the woods for a weekend of volunteering in end of August, complete with a nighttime public art plastering across Reno. Ill photo blog the event.

Obama's support of the FISA "compromise" is a big disappointment.  Who cares what the political reasons were for his going along with it... this is a lousy bill & it gives Bush everything he wanted.  Obama is far too knowledgeable about the Constitution to really believe this is nothing but a capitulation.  It all but decimates the 4th Amendment.  If Obama wanted to blow this bill off, who would've stood up against him -- Give 'Em Heck Harry Reid?  I also have no doubt had Hillary Clinton supported this FISA compromise during the campaign, almost of all us here would have jumped all over her.  The bottom line is, as great as Obama is... and he is great... he's also still a politician.  And with that as your life's gig, we have to take the bitter with the sweet.

I'm now a co-publisher!

I noticed the "chicken-littles" or worse over @kos starting yesterday.  They're starting to sound like HRC supporters--my way or McCain!  Yeech!

Seems like we not only have to *teach* others, but we have to teach ourselves!

What has additionally made me very sick in the last couple of days is the MSM acting like BHO is *flip-flopping* on Campaign Financing!

He said that he would agressively make sure that public financing was available!  That he did; he just chose not to use it himself!  Now McC has said he won't either!

Re: FISA...

Haven't these people learned ANYTHING from Our Candidate and other Progressive Leaders?  One person isn't supposed to do everything him/herself!

I would expect most of the people on these blogs to be at least a few thought processes above the average person--too much to hope for?--and look at the bigger picture, as BHO has always done!

Nothing will be done in Congress until we have a plurality!

Nothing is accomplished without some compromises on both sides!

I fully understand the implications of FISA; but I also understand the implications of falling apart over one issue that is part of the bigger picture of changing the way things are done in Washington from the bottom up.

OT: today is the Summer Solstice...I'm going outside to salute the sun and do some good old *thinking*...

I'm doing voter registration tomorrow afternoon in Clark Park in SW Detroit...can't wait!

Liberal with a Capital L!

Barry Crimmins said: Mea Culpa! I have posted the following

http://barrycrimmins.com/index.php?page=news&display=1060

 

Barry, that is an act of class in my book, and the difference between radicals and liberals -- and conservatives.

Radicals get to the root of things; liberals are about the root of themselves (to the exclusion of most other folks); conservatives just want to forget about the roots when it proves inconvenient.

I suggest the radical perspective is the hidden force behind human evolution. 

Bumperstickery I know (and no one is that black and white, but we all have tendencies that present us with choices at those forks in the road).

Bottom line, I still like what Barry did.

 

 

Cooperative Research has the timeline for the FISA discovery after Mike Klein blew the whistle on AT&T/Narus/NSA. Klein cites the sophisticated data-mining computer called a Narus STA 6400, a “Semantic Traffic Analyzer… known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets.”

Go here, and search for Narus. [Disclosure: I taught NSA guys in the use of AT&T Private Line Network (PLN) as a private contractor over two decades ago that involved the use of similar machines for similar uses; they grabbed everything wholesale. This has been going on a long time. The Israelis only became involved after April 1994 when CALEA passed, and all was deregulated. I know what all this technical gobbledegook means because I had to learn it in order to teach it. :-) And I can tell you the story we are getting is not the truth. Everyone on the Hill is covering their ass for decades of illegal activity in this regard.]

is all over the liberal blogs. DKOS has several recc'd threads about FISA. I get the impression from some supporters that Obama is "their" politician who if he does something they do not like, well they are going to go vote for Bob Barr. That to me is just silly, and lacking insight into political compromises that have to be made.

the sound from the blogs is escalating from having a litter of kittens to birthing bovines.

 

Zinzen

KKKarl Rove loves this kind of purity.  He encourages it.  Purity is what keeps yeggs like Rove in power.  Screw it.  Maybe that's the Chardonnay talking but I'd like to think not.

@ amk:  Does India have the equivalent of the US Bill of Rights in general or the 4th Amendment in particular?

@ downplaying this decision by O --  Individual liberties trumps community organizing. 

Set me striaght, please. We were blogging away about how we all could provide assistance to Al when he was in Denver. We were tring to coordinate meetings places, video cameras  and the like [including designated drivers]. Someone suggested taking it to a conversation site. Volia - Susan found a site and Fieldhands was off and running. It was all about supporting the [ex] Field at the convention. Nothing radical. Just organizing to have the best reporting available at the Dem Convention. Right?

I should have clarified my remark but was in a hurry. As a matter of fact, FISA is abomination towards our Constitution. I don't agree with everything that Joe Klein writes in that article. I don't agree with the last line. I should have wrote that I agree that this is exactly why Obama had to follow along. That's what I meant. Klein and many others would have pounced on Obama like flies on shit! Obama would not have been able to overcome it...I believe it would have been a "political bludgeon."

 

Right now, we need to step into the enemy's den in order to make any change at all. That is where it needs to start. I don't think Obama had a choice in this decision.

 

Sorry that I sounded like some "freaked out by terrorists okie", but after reading my post, I can understand it.

 

Believe me, I understand more than most what is going on.

 

Julie

Bill, I loved Barry's line: The problem with Tim Russert wasn't found in the questions he asked. The problem was found in the answers he accepted.

He gets it. It takes a little trust right now. Okay, a LOT of trust. But he is our best hope...

Jeez, I think I just experienced a flashback to Star Wars. ;)

@ Susan Kitchens - Just wanted to give you a high five for the "handy" work you did with the Field Hand design! Very cool design.

@ Pamela Hilliard-Owens - new fellow co-publisher!  I completely agree.  DKos Obama supporters are all righteous about something that I would bet 90% of them haven't read.  Unfortunately, attempting to interpret the legal language in these bills gets me lost by the 2nd paragraph.   I would love for one of the Dkos diarists with some legal background to write up a layman's interpretation of it with actual factual content description instead of just opinion.

It goes to the Senate next, the "deliberative" body. Not that this might happen, but not that it won't -- plenty of breaks for a long stall in action between news cycles, which could be communicated as strategy behind the scenes, without the potentially politically damaging showdown of a floor or media-jello wrestling match. 

We'll see, but I don't see the Senate Dem.'s being smart in allowing action on FISA give-aways prior to the convention at any point. If the Republicans try to make an issue of it after the convention, then you can see where your options are, but why close them down before then?

That would be smart politics, no? Unless everyone's been bought off as the most cynical observer might advance. In that case, what could Obama do anyway, besides piss in the wind in the middle of an election?

(For the record, I assume this communication is now being monitored since it likely crossed international lines over the Internet -- wish the monitors would weigh in, as long as it doesn't show up on my phone bill ... make it more interesting.)

Here's the Senate calendar (below) as best I can figure at this point:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/two_column_table/2008_Schedule.htm

Jun 28-Jul 6		State Work Period Independence Day
Aug 9-Sep 7		State Work Period
Aug 25-28		Democratic convention
Sep 1-4		Republican convention
TBD		Target Adjournment Date

You are right about DKos.  They and half of the House of Representatives haven't read it.  I am sure that most of you have heard the old addage regarding "making sausage."  You really don't want to know how UNinformed your legislators are.  It's downright scary.

What this legislation does is to put us back to a somewhat sane level of judicial review of search warrants.  It doesn't put us back to the actual "real" judicial review that we all took for granted under our Constitution but it's a start backwards towards our roots.  Under the Constitution, we WERE protected from "unreasonable search and seizures."  This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that someone in the Judiciary must review each and every search warrant. The Judiciary meaning an independent judge.  This includes all wiretaps and interceptions of any electronic communications. However, FISA changed under the Patriot Act. It gave special provisions for the Federal government to intercept messages in certain cases of emergency.  Under FISA, the Feds still needed a judicial review at some point.

What Bush and Company had done is even remove the provision of ANY judicial review of a search warrant or actually the NEED for any search warrant.  Today's compromise puts back the provisions that required a judicial review...of sorts.

I could probably write a 40 or so page essay on it but I think I need to leave that to the Constitutional law professors.  It's a hard subject to try to explain.

I keep trying to compose a comment about FISA, but I am not having any luck writing anything logical and coherent. I just hope you guys (or Al) keep sharing your thoughts until I can get my head around the whole thing.  

For now, I am overwhelmed with emotions, shaking my head, unable to figure out why the democrats would choose to bring a vote on this awful bill now, and in the way that they did.  I keep thinking there must be something we don't know that would allow it to make some sense.

Okay, one more thing...

I find it really disturbing that Barack's statement on FISA hasn't been posted on barackobama.com.  I mean, they routinely post Barack's statements on all sorts of things that are a lot less important than this.  That says to me that Barack doesn't feel good about it, and I find that worrisome.

P.S. If I am going to get a chicken little lecture, please be gentle, this has been a tough couple of days...

I wasn't looking for a correction but it does change the narrative a bit, eh? Al encouraged it but it really was a very organic thing that happened among Fieldhands - with big thanks to Susan Kitchens.

Thank you.  I was thinking it was in that general description so thank you for providing clarity to it.  And to wrap it up, with the previous rights restored but unfortunately with telecom immunity for past unlawful acts.  And Obama doesn't agree with the immunity portion of  it, said so, and the Senate possibly won't vote on it without extensive discussion of that aspect of it.  In fact, possibly won't vote on it at all  due to the election calendar.  The purists would like to think that BushCO and the CEOs of all the telecoms would  all be found guilty and imprisoned.  I would be dancing in the streets if that were to happen but realistically it won't and so granting or not granting immunity is just going to be a lot of hot air. 

Me thinks over at DKos there is a severe degree of already being tired of having to get excited about McCain gaffes and they might even be missing Clinton to write diaries about.   I completely understand.  Baseball is very similar with the playoffs often much more exciting than the World Series. 

Raised 'only' $22 million in may, roughly the same as Mccain.

 

 

My response to some of the above comments regarding the FISA bill.  I will note up front that I'm as much of a civil libertarian as most (as an Independent with Libertarian leanings).

 

Timing:  The reason for the current timing, besides because Bush likes to mess with spineless Dems, is because the warrants allowed by the FISA court under the legislation passed last fall are about to expire.  There is no "safe" mechanism in currently in place to deal with this stuff, so both sides were pushed to do something.  I always hate it when politicians try to be seen "doing something".

 

FISA:  FISA itself (I mean pre-2001) has been found Constitutional many times by the Supreme Court.  No sense arguing that it is unconstitutional (as much as we might like to).  That includes some pretty liberal Courts in the earlier days, so it would take some serious Court-packing to get that reversed (and even then you'd lose.

 

New FISA:  The new bill, from what I've read, at least tries to reasonably address the shortcomings in FISA resulting from new technology.  It also tries to close the loopholes that Bush drove his truck through, and codifies the idea that nothing done outside of the FISA court's purview would ever be legal.  Is it perfect?  No.  Is it a lot better than we've seen before now?  I think so.  I don't think Bush won this particular part.  FISA did need updating, and this part seems to go against most everything Bush argued for earlier.

 

Telecom Immunity:  I hate it.

 

Overall, my position, even as something of a Libertarian, is that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Telecom immunity sucks.  The other provisions seem not too bad.  And there is no way you are going to win a "You may not do anything ever" argument, even in this anti-Bush climate.

 

My $0.02.

From Bob Cesca on Obama and Fisa: http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2008/06/a_wanker_really.html

I see the FISA thing as a trojan horse, politically of course. As another commenter said, to really make change you have to step into the lion's den. Think big picture - if Obama wins the presidency, perhaps he'll work to repeal FISA? And for now, what kinds of compromises did the Republicans make to get their bill passed? What are they going to owe Obama and the Democrats?

So it's my opinion that chicken littles ticked off about this FISA thing really ought to settle down, especially the chick-littles at DKos. Yes, it's ridiculous that this is passing, but I suspect something bigger is at play here than we are led to believe.

I got this letter second-hand but it is from Granny "D" the 93+ year old woman who walked across America for Campaign Finance Reform. Given some comments here about Barack's decision I am sharing it here for the Field readers. — Dear Friends and Family,— Everyone I know seems quite upset that Mr. Obama has said that he will opt out of the public financing system for his campaign. I have been a big fan of campaign finance reform in general and public campaign funds in particular. Indeed, I have quite a few miles on my shoes to promote such reforms. But the point of using public money to finance campaigns is to get the fat cats out of the system, so that regular citizens can again be heard. Obama's creative use of the Internet to raise small donations from a million and a half people essentially achieves the same result: Regular people are again being heard over the shrill and selfish voices of the fat cats. So I am fine with what he is doing. If Mr. McCain will get a million or so small donors, and if he will just say no to fat cat money and lobbyist-bundled money, then I will say good for him, too. Mr. Obama has reformed the system in his own way. He has used the social networking aspects of the Internet and got around the problem of fat cats. He owes some thanks to the old Dean campaign as devised by Joe Trippi to thank for this, as I'm sure he knows. I am sure that there are no permanent problems or solutions in our politics. But for now, I like the looks of Mr. Obama's small donor miracle. Very sincerely, Doris "Granny D" Haddock —Can't get paragraph spaces in my preview I hope they come out in the post.

I also find it ironic that those ridiculing Kucinich for introducing the Articles of Impeachment "because this is an election year and we cannot afford the distractions, demonstrable crimes of the administration or not" and those who are tonight lamenting the Obama camp's (likely) politically-driven statement on FISA "because it doesn't matter that this is an election year, even if it's a distraction- it's the principle of the thing" are the same people. To me, frankly, impeachment is the more important of the two, particularly since FISA hasn't even made it to the senate yet and for all we know, the good Senator might be cooking up a fight yet (benefit of the doubt and all that)...

 

And for whatever it's worth, I think Obama came out fairly strongly on one of the most important (at least in the progressive blogosphere) issues, telecom immunity.

 

J-NC@9:47 pm said:

"we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good..."

Absolutely too true.  And we cannot allow a quest for progressive purity stop us from winning.  Obama knows--as should we all--that in this political climate the President will not--can not--start a left-wing revolution.  So progressive change won't happen from the top down.  It will start from the bottom up--but for a progressive mandate to go anywhere, we need a Democratic president who is open to organizing and activism as a legitimate form of communication.

 

J=NC ... or + What?

Not something I've ever heard from a die-hard Libertian before -- and if you're leaning, you seem to have already past the stress point.

Not trying to be insulting, really, but the Electronic Freedom Foundation, arguably quite Libertarian in its outlook -- seem to recall a Grateful Dead tune (and they did have a Libertarian influence) John Perry Barlow, one of/it's founders -- the band anyway sang the song, that says to this effect:

"Saw a bird with a tear in his eye / Walking to New Orleans, my oh my / Said, 'Hey bird, wouldn't you rather die / Than walk this world when you're born to fly?'

Here's what the EFF says about the FISA bill:

EFF has obtained a copy of the new FISA "compromise", and -- surprise! -- it contains blanket immunity for telecoms that helped the NSA break the law and spy on millions of ordinary Americans, just as we predicted yesterday. House Leadership intends to bring this bill to the floor for a vote tomorrow, so please contact your Congressperson now and tell them to vote NO on H.R.6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

For a shortcut, libertarian-style, their view:

http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf

So if you built a lean-too in the woods with a Libertarian bent, it just fell down, sorry to say.

Now, I'm not all that pure (though confess to enjoying good music and lyrics that stretch my mind), but in terms of the FISA bill itself, the way I see it, well, would you trust me to spy on you to keep you safe?

I always would prefer a third party firmly entrenched in between, if that has to be the case -- and accountability across all spectrums absent historically aberrant precedents. Not certain we get that when accountability is measured in pure purchasing power -- from all I've seen, it seems, that is the operating principle here in th FISA compromise. I guess that makes me less than welcoming of spying advancements during the balance of this administration -- but they continue nonetheless. 

But the politics of it are a whole other matter. Still, I wouldn't begin to justify immunity or the granting of Title III powers absent a warrant as called for in the Constitution. Even back in those days of no deodorant, they recognized that King George was not the guy you want listening into your pillow talk absent the leverage of having the legal leverage of being able to listen in on him in a pinch -- via court-ordered discovery, which is only possible if the government has to produce records of their transgressions.

Cover-ups excepted so long as the people follow their orders.

My personal take on the FISA bill is, it's an abomination.  I understand why Obama has done what he's done, I'm just not happy about it.  I am one of those "Progressives".  I can live with it "for now".  I will be deeply disappointed if he does nothing about after election. 

I'm highly disappointed with Obama's position on FISA.

George Bush used the fear of 9/11 to expand police powers and convinced corporate america to go along with him as he built the infrastructure of a repressive, Orwellian system. This system was (and is) aimed at crushing domestic dissent to the government, not at arresting Turban McTerrorpants off in Far Bhaguanistan.

The progressive blogosphere is freaking because they 1) smelled a rat 2) built opposition to FISA into a movement and 3) are getting sold out by Congressional leadership - including Senator Obama.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism" said Benito Mussolini *(more or less) because it's a merger of state and private power. The FISA immunity is about letting private power off the hook for cooperating in a fascist act by the Bush Regime.

The reason the Fieldhands are important, outside of Deb's Rural Field, and outside of Obama's Community Organized Campaign, is so we can put pressure on him when we need to.

And we don't do this by threatening to vote for McCain, we do this by sending an organized message that we're on the same side, that we would love to know what he was thinking, we would love him to know what we were thinking, and want to know how we can move forward together.

J-NC and some other commenters:

Seems like you might be missing the point of all this. People are pissed that huge corporations can knowingly and repeatedly break major laws while willfully ignoring the Constitution, and not face any punishment whatsoever. Perhaps you'd like to mention this to the cop if you ever get a ticket for speeding or having a tiny bag of weed, and see if they'd let you off? Let me know how it goes

It's not about FISA itself. I haven't seen anyone arguing that we need to eliminate FISA. It's about this telecom behavior that went on for years after 9/11, unlike what Time's JokeLine says. Quest refused to do it all, and the others could've done the same. This sets a precedent. Very, very dangerous stuff.

Yes, Obama has yet to vote on this. His word now carries a lot of weight. All the more reason we should be rising up now and letting the Senate know that this is wrong, and perhaps they'll stop it.

Doesn't it seem like a good idea to influence Obama's decisions as much as we can? He needs to know he can't pander to Liberals only to give BigMoney exactly what they want, over and over and over again...like the Clintons and other DLCers have been doing for decades now.

Liberal complaceny, and arguing, "Hey, it's better than the alternative" is all I ever heard through the 1990s, and is largely why we are now currently living in a Constitutional Crisis

I mostly just read here and one other place, and have not seen anyone saying they'll vote for Panama John over Obama because of this. Seems to me y'all are the chicken littles, fretting that any criticism of the O-man means he's gonna lose.

I spent last week in the Deep South and got three Repubs I was working with there to re-consider their support of CrazyTrain McSame, and will continue to do that until we have a President Obama, but I will not take the attitude that we should just blindly follow whatever Obama says. A bottom-up, grassroots movement is all about speaking up, isn't it?

You said:

"And we don't do this by threatening to vote for McCain, we do this by sending an organized message that we're on the same side, that we would love to know what he was thinking, we would love him to know what we were thinking, and want to know how we can move forward together."

I like the way you've framed this. I really do. How do you propose we come together to make our collective voice heard? This is productive, to me. It doesn't smack of childishness or petulence. It doesn't ignore the big picture or the wider context of this election. But you're right--there is no reason to simply piss into the wind. If the progressive voice is upset, then it has every right to be heard--constuctively, as a movement.

Though I'll reiterate, for the record, that I wish all this righteous indignant rage the progressives have discovered today could have been channeled into supporting the impeachment of George W. Bush for the demonstrable crimes he has perpetrated during his tenure. Here we are, railing against a bill that's still a maybe--one that our candidate has promised to work to change (i.e. his opposition to telecom immunity)--but on the other hand, we have a real, honest to God law-breaker in our midst who has abused his power time and again and we do but-nothing about it? I don't like those priorities, frankly. if anything sends a bad message to the executive branch, it is that we'll roll over and play dead and not pursue impeachment for even the most blatant of violations.

Does India have the equivalent of the US Bill of Rights in general or the 4th Amendment in particular?

We have our own Constitutionally Assured Rights, thank you for your "concern".

And your point was ?

New McCain 527 Ad Calls Obama a Muslim

The full link is here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/223128/818/541/539504

Are you mad yet?

"By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act."

Well, maybe it was just because I read these words of Obama just as I was watching him gently veer to the right but for some reason it annoyed me even more than the immunity issue which I feel strongly about. I perhaps was emoting more than thinking. I do wonder at this though. Is he just promoting organizing? But why here? I seem to have missed the grass roots movement for oversight. Maybe its the circles I run in but all the ground level passion I've seen around this has been precisely on the issue of immunity. The oversight and accountability seemed like givens.

I've started a discussion on this at Fieldhands.

I encourage people to join Fieldhands, for first, and then if you have a specific Obama/FISA comment make it here first, then duplicate it at Fieldhands.

Sorry, folks--I didn't realize that if I edited my post, it'd republish it as though it were a new comment.  My fault--next time I'll just leave the typos.  ;)

 

amk

I studied Indian democracy -- patterned after English parlimetarianism if I recall /after the Indian victory over colonialism/ (though fluxed with political U.S. bicameralism ... not sure how that happened) and underpinned by the father of civil disobediance (Ghandi Gandhi)-- I recall the story of the snake who crawled across his body without harming him, still he was executed by far wearker creatures who feared him) unless you consider a short stay on a pond in transcendental American (Thoreau/Emerson) as in any way a thought that might bridge Eastern and Western realities.

Relax, in this forum, the main goal is to blow off a bit of steam and still accomplish a larger goal in reality. If we do that, we are kicking ass compared to any most (always an exception, as logic teaches us; and the hope for the future beyond this) other virtual reality in reality.

My earlier post on FISA was about how things work in many countries visa-a- vis privacy rights being sacrificed at the altar of "war on terror", including in our country. And I am glad our msm is far more enlightened about our defending rights when compared to constant gotcha-moments in what passes for media in US today.

So your "snake-pond-TM" reference was a typical, age-old, "western" view of India being a country of snake charmers and rope tricksters and spiritualists, which I find quite insulting.

BTW, since you seem to have editing rights, you might want to change our national leader's name to Gandhi, who was a far more radical, grass-roots organiser than any other 20th century leader.

Ok. I have blown my steam now as you advised.

Congratulations to San Diego, now Field Hands Local #16!

Could everyone calm down about FISA. Just maybe Obama knows what he's doing, he's privy to a good deal more information than us and he has a pretty good track record. Remember that whole judgement argument that we're making on his behalf?

Obama did not vote on the bill, he just failed to come out against it as strongly as some people wanted. Maybe having a presidental canidate come out for against a bill strongly ties the hands of people in the other party who want to support McCain.

No this is not the same thing as blind faith. Obama has done a lot of good stuff so far, but if just one questionable thing which we don't have all the facts in is enough to give up on the guy then we're in trouble.

I am neither American nor a resident but a reader, though not a contributer to the comments, of the Field.

Do I qualify to be a fieldhand - like maybe fieldhand abroad?

AMK....

Cool to blow off steam ... but I think you missed my point on the snake thing -- which might be as you say, a Western slight, but Gandhi did allow a snake to "pass over his body," as he himself notes, according to Mahadev Desai, Gandhi's personal secretary:

The snake was passing over my body. In a case like that, what could I or anyone else do except lie motionless. This hardly calls for praise. And who knows whether or not the snake was poisonous? The idea that death is not a fearful event has been cherished by me for many a year, so that I recover soon enough from the shock of the death even of near and dear ones --- The Diary of Mahadev Desai

For the typo on Gandhi's name, I do apologize -- a gottcha moment for you. But the facts is the facts -- and the irony of his ultimate fate vs. his philosophy of nonviolence was the allusion (much like that of Dr. King, who also helped shape a nation at great personal cost).

Please don't mistake the truth for a cheap stereotype.

If I seem to take part in politics, it is only because politics encircles us today like the coil of a snake from which one cannot get out, no matter how much one tries. I wish therefore to wrestle with the snake. — Mahatma Gandhi

 

Wan - To answer your question, I don't think there is any requirement of citizenship to any country, nor of being a regular commenter here, to sign up with Field Hands. All one needs is the dignity of being human and occasional access to a modem!

I have read Obama's statement on FISA and he does not support the immunity part of the bill. He does support the rest of it, correct? Does this mean he is going to vote for it or will he first try to strip that part from the bill? If this passes will the telecom compainies still be subject to criminal but not civil penalties?

 

A lie cannot live. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

@ Wan:

Continuing on the answer from Al...

There is a Field Hands Abroad Group you can join if you desire...see the sidebar on the right.

AND...you can sign the petition to get Denver Credentials for Al!

I love the international support we are receiving with the signatures, and your signature will continue that powerful statement!

Most of all, keep reading...and pass this site on to all of your like-minded friends and family!

Thanks!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I have to say, the level of conversation on this blog has grown A LOT recently, and I'm not sure what to attribute it to.  It has certainly gotten (is that a word?) better since moving to the Narcosphere, for whatever reason. There is a level of sober thinking and civility that I defy any other blog with the number of readers as this blog to replicate.  I think using our names is big, and I congratulate those who have taken up the challenge to do this, while I respect that some may have perfectly good reasons for not doing so. Big ups to Catherine Cain, Alexa, Julie Bays, Pamela Hilliard Owens and Bill Conroy for really taking it to another level.  I think we have been seriously blessed with commentary from a number of real professionals here on the Field.

Wan

I am an Indian national who had similar doubts about gang initiations. Took a chance yesterday and viola - became a fieldhand abroad. The whole thing took about a minute.

(Right now though, there seems to be a tech glitch in all fieldhand.nings.com sites. So, you can try later.)

And listen to Pam and sign the petition.

Christi - I haven't "weighed in" heavily regarding the FISA vote because I look at how somebody votes on legislation through a strictly practical lens: If the vote on a bill is so close that only a few votes make the difference between pass and fail, those are the situations in which I pay attention (for example, last year's Immigration Reform Bill in the Senate could have gone either way). In those cases, it matters a lot to me how one legislator votes.

But in situations like this one where the bill is going to pass no matter what one (or a few) Senators do, I see the vote as impotent to begin with. At those moments, I don't mind so much if a presidential candidate makes a calculation that he or she doesn't wish to trade political capital for merely symbolic reasons.

I consider most of what Congress does, frankly, to be a distraction, full of symbolism over substance, and the greater priority for me is changing the system, which is something that taking the levers of power in the executive branch will have far more impact on than a symbolic legislative vote by one senator.

I understand that not everybody views it that way, and I respect their opinions, but I choose not to be sidetracked by it, or spend a lot of time on it.

I have a question and a challenge for all Field Hands. If we have over 400 members, why are there not 400 signatures on the petition to reinstate Al's press credentials for the Democratic convention? All Field Hands should be on deck (love those mixed metaphors) for this. Go to this site and sign, please:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

It's easy and can be anonymous if desired.

amk - really, I meant no snark -- and no concern either.  Whether India has a 4th amendment (prohibition against unreasonably searches and seizures) is relevant because without a 4th amendment, there is no comparison between the actions of the two countries.  It is the 4th amendment, US Constitution that makes the FISA amendment necessary, and raises the need on the part of the telecom industry for immunity. Most governments prefer unfettered ability to spy on people for reasons of national security. But is there a legal civil liberty out there that pushes back on this?  If India does not have it, then the countries are not comparable on this issue.

 

I'll toss in a couple more comments, based on some of the response from my post last night.  Then I'll shut up.

 

FISA:  The new bill updates FISA, but FISA itself has been around since 1978 (and precursors before that).  It is constitutional, as determined in many Supreme Court cases.  Read the opinion from the Federal judge that declared the warrantless program unconstitutional if you want more specifics.  She agreed to the constitutionality of FISA.  It does NOT violate the 4th amendment (or the body) of the constitution.  That amendment doesn't say, "you can't spy on me."  It says, "you can't spy on me without demonstrating probable cause to an independent authority."  FISA established the court to handle that for intelligence cases.

 

Loopholes:  Here's the problem.  New technologies left loopholes in the FISA process that you could drive a Mack truck through.  This administration drove as many of them through the loopholes as it could.  Who is next to do so?  The new bill does a halfway decent job of closing those loopholes to prevent the same thing happening in the future.  That is the "good" I mentioned in my statement to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Closing those loopholes is important in order to keep to the 4th amendment, where the government must show probable cause to the judiciary.

 

Immunity:  Yep, when they go to court the telecoms they will probably get immunity for their past support of the administration in all this.  It sucks.  I don't like it any better than anyone else.

 

So, do I throw away the part of this thing that closes the loopholes because I'm pissed about immunity?  Which is safer?  Holding out for absolutely no immunity, and getting no help on the loopholes?  Or the other way around?  Keep in mind when you're thinking about that there there are 7 months remaining of an administration that has demonstrated it will abuse the loopholes in FISA for all they're worth.

 

So yes, I do still consider myself to have libertarian leanings.  I'm also an engineer, so I have a practical streak a mile wide.  If it is necessary for preventing abuse in the future, I'm willing to give a little on the past even if I don't like it.

While I think all elected officials have to make political choices on legislation, a presidential candidate's choices are relevant and instructive.  Hillary Clinton voted "yeah" for the Iraq War. Had she done otherwise, she very well may have been the demo presumptive nominee.  BUT, there was no way the bill authorizing the war would have been voted down. So she made a political calculation (or she believed in her vote) and came out on the wrong end of the historical stick (this go around).  The corollary is interesting as well -- opposing  a bill is merely a political calculation? So Obama would have voted for the Iraq War had be been in the senate at the time and that would have been ok?

Given this rationale, at some point, this becomes nothing but a game of mirrors and the poor schmuck voter is out there electing smoke but believing it is real.

I am going to work tirelessly for Obama. I want him elected. The whole friggin population is so conditioned by Rovian tactics and Nixonian theories of the electorate that Obama throws me a bone about being against the telecom immunity and I'll take it because otherwise, I won't eat.It has to be enough right now. But it pisses me off.  And it is no small thing, despite the comments on here to the contrary.  It is a big thing, and it remains to be seen how it will play out.  Also, I think public opinion on this one was more in favor of no immunity than the pols think.  But Obama has to win an election, and the repubs are already painting him as an effete, terror loving pansy, and he can not afford to look weak on terror, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Al, you said:

"I consider most of what Congress does, frankly, to be a distraction, full of symbolism over substance, and the greater priority for me is changing the system, which is something that taking the levers of power in the executive branch will have far more impact on than a symbolic legislative vote by one senator."

Yes and yes.  This is what I've been driving at in my wordy posts, though I doubt I could have boiled my point down as succinctly, lol!

Let's "take the levers of power in the executive branch" and g