News Feeds

Dear members of the press,

Please stop repeating the administration's lies about domestic spying as fact.  

AP:

Bush says the House version "would cause us to lose vital intelligence on terrorist threats" and would not give liability protection against lawsuits to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

NYT:

Some 40 lawsuits are pending in federal courts, charging that by cooperating with the eavesdropping program put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the phone companies violated their responsibilities to customers and federal privacy laws.

AP:

Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

That bold part -- that part of the "reporting" that doesn't have quotation marks around it and doesn't have any correcting remarks after it and doesn't have a bullshit flag preceding it -- is a lie. How is it a lie? Let us count the ways.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week. [link]

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court. [link]

Everytime you repeat the lie that domestic spying began "after the Sept. 11th attacks,"  a data miner in some basement at the NSA gets his wings.  

Really, though. You would think that whole WMD in Iraq thing would have taught you guys a lesson about repeating administration lies as fact.  Try harder to stick to the truth next time, not the spin.  Thanks!

hugs and kisses,
georgia

This sounds fairly promising...

Michigan Democrats are close to an agreement with presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to hold a do-over primary.

Party officials and the campaigns negotiated on Thursday, and state Democratic leaders were hopeful that an agreement could be reached on Friday, said Democratic officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks. To go forward, any plan would require the approval of the two campaigns, the Democratic National Committee, state party leaders and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is backing Clinton.

So then what the hell is this about?

Details of a possible delegate plan under discussion:

-Michigan's 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

-Florida's existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention--but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

- The two states' superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

Halperin goes on to predict that if this compromise measure were to be offered, that Hillary Clinton would accept it, albeit reluctantly, and that it would then be in Barack Obama's court. Huh? Really? I know Clinton has been fairly consistent in her calls for the MI and FL delegates to be seated according to the January primary, but seriously, why would she agree to a compromise that results in something less than a delegate goldmine when the deal would also rob her of potential late big primary victories and all the psychological and media benefits that go along with that. Her entire electability argument targeting the superdelegates is based on having won the "big 4" states: Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I'm not sure how much weight the argument is going to have in the first place, but certainly it will be less so if the victories in two of those four states have asterisks next to them as MI & FL currently do. Fight on a level playing field where both candidates campaign and are on the ballot so that the argument can at least be made with some intellectual honesty and then we're talking. But this compromise looks like a sucker bet if you ask me.

Today, I called on Rep. Gary Miller to reimburse the taxpayers $1.28 million for an earmark that he placed in the 2005 Highway bill.

I am sick and tired of letting career politicians who care more about their personal business than the peoples' business run our country.  
For those of you that don't know the Gary Miller story, in 2005, Rep. Miller inserted an earmark into the Highway bill.  This earmark paid for street improvements near Diamond Bar Village.  This is a local commercial and residential development.

The catch? The development is co-owned by Mr. Miller and his largest campaign contributor, ,Lewis Operating Corporation.

I don't think our tax dollars should be used to personally enrich Gary Miller or his biggest campaign contributor. According to law, Members of the House are prohibited from, "taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else."

This is not the first and only time Rep. Gary Miller has blurred the lines.  In a 2006 LA Times story, members of his Congressional staff say there was "never a clear line between what was Congressional business and what was just business.  The expectation was that you would do both." (The Times link is dead. If you have it please let me know.)

The problem for Gary Miller is, there is a clear line between right and wrong and he's crossed it.

Here is what we want to do.  Our goal is to raise $16,384 to help defeat Rep. Gary Miller.  That's 128 contributors at $128 dollars per donor.  But I realize $128 is too much for many people so here's how you can let everyone know that you want to highlight Gary Miller actions - add $1.28 to each contribution. If you want to help hold Gary Miller accountable then contribute now.

When we launched this campaign we did it because we believed it was time to hold Gary Miller accountable.  We believe that it is time for the first candidate for a federal office from the netroots to run for Congress.  

We need your help right now.  Sign up and Contribute. Link to this diary and tell our friends. I promise that I will work hard each and every day and build a local grassroots campaign for Congress that has not been seen in Orange County in a long time but I need your help. I can't do it without you.

Alex Spillius at The Telegraph interviewed John McCain aboard The Straight Talk Express:

While adopting a more conciliatory tone to US allies than George W Bush, the man he hopes to succeed in the White House, the Arizona senator will take his uncompromising message on the war to London, Paris and the Middle East next week. ...

"My aspiration is that if we show success in Iraq that our European allies will come in and help out in the myriad of ways necessary to rebuild that tragic, war torn country," he said, making it clear that he was determined to keep US troops in Iraq.

"One of the debates of this election will be if the American people want a candidate who wants to get out [of Iraq] as quickly as possible.

"If we do that then al-Qa'eda wins, we have chaos and genocide throughout the region and they will follow us home. That's been my position - forever," said Mr McCain, who will battle either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for the Democrats in November's presidential election. ...

For all his campaign trail rhetoric about "chasing Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell", he confessed that an earlier visit Pakistan's tribal areas brought home the challenges of
tracking the al-Qa'eda leader.

"I went to Waziristan once and it gave me a much better understanding of how difficult it is to get Osama bin Laden. When you see the terrain and the people that have controlled it for 1,000, 2,000 years...I really learn from these trips."

Days since Mission Accomplished: 1780

Percentage of respondents, according to the Pew Research Center poll, who know how many Americans in uniform have died in Iraq since the invasion: 28%.

Top Comments are posted.

The Overnight News Digest is posted.

Well, ok, not really "secrets" since there's no way we could know what was discussed because it was, um, secret, but Steny Hoyer did have this to say upon the session's end:

"I did not hear any new information tonight that dissuades me from my very strong belief that the FISA bill House Democrats have produced – and which the House will vote on tomorrow – is a reasonable, thoughtful, appropriate piece of legislation that will ensure that the intelligence community has all the tools it needs to protect our nation, while also respecting the Constitutional protections that Americans rightfully feel are so important. Tomorrow, I will urge members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation."

Because there was no new information to be had. The House leadership called the Republicans' bluff--they probably called for the damned thing thinking the Dems would reject it, and then they would have some great tool to use against them in the debate. I can just hear them now: "Not all the secret information was heard, it's irresponsible of them to go forward with this vote."

Well, leadership let the Republicans have their little session, even though they admitted on the House floor in the debate leading to the session that they had no new info. They were left standing there holding the bag, just creating one more obstruction. Funny way for them to behave, considering how dangerous they say it is for the nation to go one more day without resolution of the FISA issue.

Almost enough to make one doubt their sincerity, no?

This evening's Rescue Rangers are vcmvo2, PaintyKat, Avila, grog, blue jersey mom, Wes Opinion, and joyful with Got a Grip wielding the red pencil.

Tonight's diaries cover a variety of interesting issues not covered by the MSM with the kind of research, perspective and analysis we see here every day.

• Translator takes us on a tour of the element neon in Fun with Nature Series v3 - Neon. (vcmvo2)
• PaulMorel urges us to save a tree by signing a petition supporting a "do not mail" list to end unwanted junk mail in Sign the Do Not Mail List Petition. (blue jersey mom)
• environmentalist urges us to call Senator Bingaman and ask him to swiftly introduce the El Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area legislation in a beautiful diary on the New Mexico wilderness,The Things We Do in the Big and Wild. (blue jersey mom)
• Justus analyzes the 2002 Bolivian presidential election and its consequences via A Documentary Film Review: "Our Brand is Crisis". (vcmvo2)
• blueness discusses the primary difference between Democrats and Republicans in I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For. It's all about 'extending your soul', something many Republicans don't have. (grog)
• digitalmuse writes Dear Dante, Glad You're Not Here, a letter to his son that is one of the most effective rebuttals to Gerry Ferraro's bigoted blatherings you will ever read. (grog)
• Every now and then Diary Rescue needs a rambling rant. Tonight, billysumday explains Why this 28 year old white guy doesn't get Ferraro. His pissed offedness mirrors ours. (grog)
• grog shares the response he got from his Senator when he inquired into her stance on the FISA retroactive immunity for telecoms in Sen McCaskill's reply to her Save AT&T Vote. (Wes Opinion)
• SmileySam fills us in on the cronyism as the Prison Industry Wants It's Own Judge Seated For Life. (joyful)
• burlinea questions whether Iraq has become the biggest non-story of this campaign in Did Some Mention Iraq? Not Lately. The answer to which is undeniably, yes. (PaintyKat)
• ThisDudesArmy suggests that unless you know how many of your fellow countrymen have died in Iraq, Chances Are, You're Uninformed while fellow veteran RockRichard reminds us that We Can be Anti-War and Pro-troop. (joyful)
• Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop: The Violent Vision of McCain's Newest Mentor is a startling bio on Pastor Rod Parsley. (joyful)

brillig has Top Comments: This Time Last Year Edition 03.13.08.

Enjoy these selections and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread.

This would be cheaper than spending $30 million on hasty contests.

Michigan’s 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

–Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

– The two states’ superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

Split them all 50/50, and you've got a deal. (As if I have a say in this at all...)

The delegates continue to stream in:

Illinois U.S. Senator Barack Obama officially picked up two more delegates today in his bid for the White House. They were awarded to him after the Illinois Board of Elections recalculated the delegates assigned after the state's primary [...]

Clinton lost the delegates because she didn't receive the required 15 percent of the vote in two South Side congressional districts. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to our calls for comment.

That's two delegates previously assigned to Clinton, now shipped over to Obama, making it a +4 delegate shift in Obama's favor.

Meanwhile, final certified results in Colorado and New York favored Clinton -- she got four new delegates in Colorado (previously unassigned) and an extra one out of New York. Per Obama's math, he loses two votes in Colorado (negating the Illinois additions), while his math was already spot on in New York.

Clinton, however, picked up three new super delegates helping her offset the loss of Spitzer. I haven't been able to find out who those three were.

Meanwhile, don't look now, but it looks like we have two more debates coming, one in Pensylvania 4/16, the other in North Carolina 4/19 (assuming Clinton accepts the latter). Me, I'm sick of debates.

(h/t)

What's on your mind?

Update [2008-3-14 2:15:8 by Todd Beeton]:Well, that's two posts I've lost today, just in case you were wondering where we are. Wow, sometimes the computer gods really f'ing have it out for you. Sorry, everyone. Recreating it now.

The Justice Department's Inspector General published a report (PDF) today on the FBI's continued abuse of National Security Letters. However the IG postponed reporting on the abuse of "blanket" NSLs. We learned about the existence of these only today from the NY Times. They're an example of how the Bush "administration" actually employs retroactive immunity to shield its own lawbreaking.

In 2006 the FBI, having issued truckloads of warrantless NSLs illegally, decided it needed a way to make all of them legal retroactively. So it did what any agency would do under this "administration" - it waved the magic wand handed over to it by Congress, and presto! The FBI simply issued "blanket" NSLs to each of the telecoms in question to justify after the fact all the records it had previously scooped up.

Senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation repeatedly approved the use of "blanket" records demands to justify the improper collection of thousands of phone records, according to officials briefed on the practice...

By 2006, F.B.I. officials began learning that the bureau had issued thousands of "exigent" or emergency records demands to phone providers in situations where no life-threatening emergency existed, according to the account of Mr. Youssef, who worked with the phone companies in collecting records in terrorism investigations. In these situations, the F.B.I. had promised the private companies that the emergency records demands would be followed up with formal subpoenas or properly processed letters, but often, the follow-up material never came.

This created a backlog of records that the F.B.I. had obtained without going through proper procedures. In response, the letter said, the F.B.I. devised a plan: rather than issuing national security letters retroactively for each individual investigation, it would issue the blanket letters to cover all the records obtained from a particular phone company.

So there was no effective oversight of the use of warrantless NSLs. Nor were there any objections to the FBI granting itself blanket retroactive immunity for breaking even the nominal restrictions that Congress imposed on NSLs in the Patriot Act. In fact, the NYT quotes an FBI official saying that these blanket grants were "pure of heart" even if, you know, illegal.

Notice that this story confirms again what Kagro X has been saying: Every day of delay during the FISA debate brings further revelations about how the Bush "administration" abuses any surveillance power it's granted.

On March 5, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Inspector General's investigation into NSL abuse during 2006. He led the Senate to believe that the IG would find nothing more than a continuation of the abuses that already had been exposed for the years 2003 to 2005.

The new audit, which examines use of national security letters issued in 2006, "will identify issues similar to those in the report issued last March," Mueller told senators. The privacy abuse "predates the reforms we now have in place," he said.

"We are committed to ensuring that we not only get this right, but maintain the vital trust of the American people," Mueller said. He offered no additional details about the upcoming audit...

Several Justice Department and FBI officials familiar with the upcoming 2006 findings have said privately the new audit will show national security letters were used incorrectly at a similar rate as during the previous three years.

Funny, we heard nothing at all back then about "blanket" NSLs, either from Mueller or from those anonymous FBI officials who were being so helpful to reporters. Yet today, this scandal just emerges out of the blue...and only because it was revealed by the lawyer for an FBI whistleblower, Bassem Youssef. How many more of the Bush "administration's" secret abuses of surveillance powers remain to be exposed?

And then their names get sent out on all Democratic mailers, and that's not a little thing.  Endorsed party candidates are in a very strong position.  It doesn't mean the voters won't have their say, but it's a big help.  In fact, there's a credible argument to be made that the party shouldn't endorse one Democrat over another in a primary.  But that's the system we have now.

Throughout the weekend, it'd be good to hear from those party officials and delegates with reports on who, if anyone, received endorsements in the various districts.  I'm particularly interested in AD-80, AD-78, SD-03, and some of the Congressional seats with multiple candidates like CA-24 and CA-42, among others.  

Still reeling from the recent loss in IL-14, here is more bad news for the NRCC: they apparently had even less cash-on-hand than they thought at year's end, due to massive fraud by their former treasurer, Christopher Ward.

The National Republican Congressional Committee overstated by $740,000 its cash on hand as of Jan. 31 because of fraud allegedly committed by a former employee, an NRCC document obtained by Roll Call reveals.

An ongoing investigation into accounting irregularities at the NRCC has determined that ex-committee Treasurer Christopher J. Ward allegedly funnelled "several hundred thousand dollars" from the NRCC into his own bank accounts since at least 2004. The probe has also found that Ward submitted to the NRCC’s bank and to House GOP leadership "bogus" audit reports for years 2002-2005, with an additional "bogus" audit report provided to the NRCC’s bank for 2006.

An NRCC document detailing this information and prepared for the NRCC executive committee for presentation this afternoon represents the first time Ward has been publicly named by the NRCC as the culprit in the accounting scandal.

The NRCC didn't have a lot of money to begin with, so this is exceptionally unfortunate, particularly as it's also a rather nasty and embarrassing scandal. Not an exciting sex scandal involving prostitutes and/or diapers, fortunately for them, but you can't have everything.

Part of the NRCC's well-documented fundraising woes has been due to a realignment of its fundraising strategy. Since the ascension of Tom Cole to the NRCC chairmanship, the committee has apparently focused on rebuilding its direct-mail operation at the expense of telemarketing, which had previously made up the lion's share of NRCC fundraising:

The changes are expected to pay dividends in future election cycles — but not in time to help House Republicans in what is turning out to be a very difficult 2008 cycle.

...

"You have to think of the long term. That usually calls for some people being willing to have less so that their successors can have more," Cole said. "It will take several cycles, in my opinion, to get where we need to go."

Of particular interest in this Roll Call piece, however, is one point which indicates a tremendous advantage that the DCCC has, and will hopefully maintain into the future: a significantly larger list of online donors:

But at the DCCC, where contributions have spiked considerably now that the Democrats are in the majority, the fundraising breakdown is approximately one-third grass roots, which includes phones, mail and especially online contributions; one-third Member transfers; and one-third major donors.

Direct-mail fundraising is generally preferable over telemarketing, since it costs less to raise money through the mail than it does over the phone. Internet donations are even less expensive. The DCCC, with an online donor file of more than 2 million contributors, would appear to have an edge over the NRCC.

The NRCC is turning to direct mail because, once a significant donor file is built, it is far cheaper to raise money via mail than over the phone. Democrats, however, have an even cheaper and lethally effective way of soliciting donations; via the Internet.

So it is left for the Republicans to use everything they have in their arsenal to catch up with the DCCC's fundraising advantage this cycle; in this case, they've been forced to call in the big dogs, like the Decider himself.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which has lagged far behind its Democratic counterpart in fundraising this election cycle, went some distance toward closing that gap tonight – with a little help from President Bush.

With Bush headlining the dinner going on right now at the Washington Hilton Hotel, the GOP's House campaign operation is reporting receipts of more than $8.6 million. The one-night haul exceeds the $6.4 million total cash on hand the party committee reported at the end of January.

...

The NRCC still has a fair distance to go to catch up to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which reported $35.5 million cash on hand at the end of January.

$8.6 million is a good bit of change, although I don't think that takes into account the cost of putting together these gala events. And they'll need every dime of it, after dumping $1.2 million into a losing race in IL-14.

This is what happens after eight years of Republican mismanagement of the economy:

The U.S. has finally slid into recession, according to the majority of economists in the latest Wall Street Journal economic-forecasting survey, a view that was reinforced by new data showing a sharp drop in retail sales last month.

"The evidence is now beyond a reasonable doubt," said Scott Anderson of Wells Fargo & Co., who was among the 71% of 51 respondents to say that the economy is now in a recession.

[...]

The survey, conducted March 7 through March 11, marked a precipitous shift to the negative from the previous survey conducted five weeks earlier. For example, the economists now expect nonfarm payrolls to grow by an average of only 9,000 jobs a month for the next 12 months -- down from an expected 48,500 in the previous survey. Twenty economists now expect payrolls to shrink outright. And the average forecast for the unemployment rate was raised to 5.5% by December from 4.8% in the previous survey.

As important as the sentiments of these economists on high are, even more important are the views of actual Americans who overwhelmingly realize that the policies espoused by George W. Bush -- and overwhelmingly embraced by John McCain -- have done great harm to the American household. According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (.pdf), just 34 percent of Americans say that they are better off than they were four years ago -- the lowest mark in the poll since 1992.

With this in mind, it's good news and good politics that the Democrats, and Barack Obama in particular, are hitting McCain for toeing the Bush line on the economy. Keep it up. McCain should not be allowed a pass on the economy, particularly when he advocates for a continuation of just the policies that have led America down this troubled path. In the end, the question before the American people should be made a simple one: Do you want more of George W. Bush in John McCain, or do you want change? And with the American economy apparently in recession and Americans worried about their financial security, I think the answer to that question will be very easy for voters.

There was a brief moment – remember? – when it looked as if the megamedia were going to make amends for having operated as a wide-open spigot for the propaganda of the Cheney-Bush administration in the Global War on Terror™ and actually do their job: finding the truth. For that brief moment, it wasn’t just Knight Ridder (later McClatchy) doing the heavy lifting in covering the Iraq war and occupation. Now we’re back to business as usual.

You can see what’s been happening quantifiably thanks to the graphic below from the Pew Research Center on People and the Press (based on data from the Project for Excellence in Journalism). Of course, this doesn’t say anything about the quality of the recent coverage. Nor does it point out that, however good or bad the coverage has been, the bulk of it has appeared on page A10, or beyond. Indeed, more evidence for the death of irony, the news of the Pew survey itself was on page A12 of today's Washington Post. As for television coverage, well, pffffflllbt.

As Scott Keeter and Robert Suls at Pew note, this reduced amount of coverage has been accompanied by a reduction in one measure of people’s awareness of what is happening in Iraq: knowing how many Americans in uniform have died there. Last August, 54% of those polled could correctly put the number of fatalities at around 3500. In the current poll, only 28% could correctly answer the question: "Since the start of military action in Iraq, about how many U.S. military personnel have been killed? To the best of your knowledge, have there been, around 2000, 3000, 4000, or 5000 troop deaths?"

(The actual figure, as of today, is 3987, as calculated by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, the volunteers who have been doing an excellent job of keeping tabs on the situation since July 2003.)

Keeter and Suls write:

The drop in awareness comes as press attention to the war has waned. According to the News Content Index conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the percentage of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined since last year, dropping from an average of 15% of the newshole in July to just 3% in February.

As news coverage of the war has diminished, so too has public interest in news about Iraq. According to Pew's News Interest Index survey, Iraq was the public's most closely followed news story in all but five weeks during the first half of 2007; however, it was a much less dominant story between July 2007 and February 2008. Notably, the Iraq war has not been the public's top weekly story since mid-October.

Along with declining interest in news about Iraq, a Pew poll last month found a significant increase in the number of Americans who believe that military progress is being made in Iraq.

That previous Pew poll kindled a report Wednesday at Politico by David Paul Kuhn saying that since support for the war is higher than it’s been since 2006, Senator McCain is going to benefit if the eventual Democratic nominee argues in favor of withdrawal.

The uptick in public support is a promising sign for Republican candidates who have been bludgeoned over the Bush administration’s war policies. But no candidate stands to gain more than McCain.

"How could Democrats possibly hand McCain a better issue than to let him run on his record of advocating a robust U.S. presence in Iraq with all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country?" asked Michael O’Hanlon, a national security adviser at the Brookings Institution who has been at the center of the Iraq debate since the war’s outset.

The inimitable Glenn Greenwald eviscerates the Politico story and O’Hanlon’s view today in his regular blog at Salon.com. Greenwald points out that, whether Americans know how many of their fellow citizens have been killed in Iraq or not, most polls show continued opposition to the war and a desire to get out. In the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll, released today:

Which would be better for the United States?

Keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better: 35%

Set a timetable for removing troops and stick to it regardless of what is going on in Iraq: 60%

Among those who support withdrawal:
 30% Withdraw troops as soon as possible
 69% Set a timetable for gradual withdrawal

Most telling in light of the view that allegedly changing attitudes mean good news for McCain is Greenwald’s coda:

Less than a week ago, Democrat Bill Foster was elected to Congress in Denny Hastert's long-time, bright red district in Illinois. The centerpiece of his campaign was opposition to the Iraq war, and he defeated a pro-war candidate whose policies mirrored those of John McCain. Might that development have merited a mention by The Politico in this piece? Public opinion on the Iraq War is "re-shaping the political landscape" alright -- just in exactly the opposition direction as Kuhn claimed here.

Given the rotten megamedia coverage of the Iraq war and occupation, it’s no doubt true and no surprise that most Americans aren’t aware that there are perhaps a million Iraqis dead, millions wounded, millions in exile or displaced inside the country, an economy in shambles, public amenities still far worse than in the worst days of Saddam Hussein, and a political solution nowhere in sight.

And even though most Americans don’t seem to know this is a $3 trillion war, with U.S. fatalities on the cusp of 4000 (and casualties over 30,000, with spin-off consequences touching hundreds of thousands of kin, friends and co-workers of those deployed to Iraq), the majority of people in this country are not keen on the prospect of a hundred years’ war. They want the troops to come home and they want the government to do something about the mess made by Cheney-Bush and cronies.

If John McCain’s campaign team wants to run on sticking it out forever and a day in Iraq, then, in the notorious words of the man whose legacy of death and destruction McCain embraces, I say, "bring ‘em on."

The Clinton campaign is really grasping at straws these days.

On the Clinton call earlier, Mark Penn said, "We believe that [the Pennsylvania primary result] will show that Hillary is ready to win, and that Sen. Obama really can't win the general election."

He later revised it to say that losing Pennsylvania would raise question about Obama's ability to win.

But it's a pretty strong thing to say.

If this charge were not so absurd on its face it would merit a long-winded takedown, here and elsewhere. However, in short I'd point readers to a couple of things: One, state-by-state polling showing Barack Obama to be at least as strong a competitor to John McCain as Hillary Clinton, as well as national polling that quite consistently shows Obama either leading McCain or tied with him (and running at least as well as Clinton against McCain); and two, the analysis of non-partisan election tracker Marc Ambinder, who doesn't have a dog in this race and generally calls these things fairly and evenly.

Of course Obama can win the general election; it's illogical to generalize from the vote totals alone, as I and others have pointed out. Yes, Obama's Gary Hart-Jesse Jackson coalition is untested in modern general elections, but we live in hyperpartisan times, Democrats have an enormous partisan identification identification advantage, and Democrats are much more enthusiastic about their candidate than Republicans are. There's just no way to justify Penn's assertion from reading a poll.

With this in mind, the most sensible conclusion I seem to be able to infer from Penn's statements are that after the Clinton campaign gets done with Obama he won't be able to win a national election -- in other words a promise from the Clinton campaign to make Obama unelectable.

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely room for the two campaigns to hit one another on legitimate bones of contention or to make the case that their candidate is relatively stronger. And both candidates should be and need to be scrutinized so that the Democrats can put their best foot forward in November. But when a campaign begins lashing out senselessly, as appears to be the case in this instance, it simply must be put to a stop -- for the good of the party and for the good of the nation, which cannot afford to go through the third Bush term with a McCain presidency.

Chat away...

UPDATE: Here's a good read for the evening.

FISA fight got you down? Fed up with the Congressional Democratic leadership? Tired of watching Dems cave, and Republicans use the rules to run roughshod over them?

Perhaps you've heard about how House Republicans have used the motion to recommit to trip up various versions of the FISA bill that don't give retroactive amnesty to the telecom companies. And perhaps you're concerned that despite the much-improved FISA language coming to a vote in the House this week, it'll be undercut by another such motion.

Well, dig this:

The RESTORE Act, H.R. 3773, passed the House last year without including retroactive amnesty for the telecom companies and sent it on to the Senate.

When the Senate took up the issue, it opted not to deal with H.R. 3773, but instead passed its Rockefeller-backed FISA bill (S. 2248) that did include retroactive amnesty. And there was a tremendous uproar among immunity opponents over the procedure the Senate used, making the Bush-backed Rockefeller legislation the base bill, and the immunity-free Judiciary committee bill the substitute, creating an uphill battle for the fight against immunity. That situation created a lot of ill will toward Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Everyone remembers that.

But here's the interesting part. Rather than send S. 2248 to the House once it passed, Reid sent the bill on a little detour. With the unanimous consent of the Senate, he stripped out the language of H.R. 3773 and substituted in the language of S. 2248, vitiated the passage of S. 2248, and sent the amended H.R. 3773 back to the House.

That put the House in the position of considering the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773, as opposed to the original version of S. 2248. What difference does that make? Well, it makes no substantive difference, in that H.R. 3773 as amended now included retroactive immunity, along with all the other garbage we didn't want the Senate to pass.

But as I've stressed a number of times, control of procedure can, in the end, control the substantive outcome.

So, what's a House that's opposed to retroactive immunity to do? Amend H.R. 3773 to take it back out, of course. And that -- along with a number of other substantive improvements -- is what Chairmen Conyers and Reyes plan to do, in the form of an amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773.

Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? The sort of thing people say when they make fun of the legislative process: the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3773.

Only guess what's special about offering an amendment to the amendment that isn't true of just starting over with a new House bill that doesn't have immunity in it?

You can't move to recommit an amendment to an amendment.

So the House gets to strip immunity (and the other junk) back out of H.R. 3773, and the Republicans can't just undo that work with a motion designed to peel off Blue Dogs. If the amendment to the Senate amendment passes, it pops right back out of the House and goes back to the Senate on the express bus, no stops.

And there's more. It arrives back in the Senate in privileged form, as a message from the House (the message being: we amended your crap) the consideration of which is not subject to filibuster. To be sure, the Republicans (or anyone willing to stand in their shoes) can filibuster the actual debate on the House amendment to Senate amendment, but they can't filibuster the question of whether or not to even have that debate, as they can with most other legislation.

That doesn't mean we're out of the woods, of course. The Senate, at Jay Rockefeller's urging, can still decide it wants to overlook the ridiculous trail of surveillance overreaches and lawbreaking in the "administration's" use of surveillance tools that emerges with each passing day. The Senate, at Jay Rockefeller's urging, can still decide that it quite inexplicably continues to trust the Bush-Cheney "administration" with these tools and that they want to blindly continue in their almost childlike belief that they'll somehow be able to exercise oversight of these immense new powers, despite all of the roadblocks the White House routinely throws up in the way of even the most routine inquiries.

The Senate, and Jay Rockefeller, may yet decide they really do want to stand before the American people and say they they're the last people in the country who trust George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on this, even as the effect of the "administration's" fearmongering fades before their very eyes, and new members are elected to Congress in explicit defiance of it.

They might do that.

But if they do, they'll have to do their own dirty work on it, because Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have set up the chess board so that the House won't be forced to do it, nor will it let the Senate just quietly pass their immunity bill away from the now-brightening spotlight that's revealing the extent of the Bush-Cheney malfeasance on domestic spying.

In preparation for tomorrow’s unveiling of the new and improved ThinkProgress, the site will be undergoing maintenance this evening. Commenting will be turned off between 7:30 PM and 12 AM EST, and we apologize for any other technical issues that may arise. Check back in tomorrow for the redesign.

By Mary Lyon

Can we clone David Paterson?

Granted, most of the country is only starting to get to know New York's incoming governor, but perhaps that's an indication of just how desperate these times are. At least for Democrats.

Everywhere else, it's a mess.

The campaign that started out on such positive, lofty notes, and an entire stage-ful of mature, statesmanlike candidates offering confidence, hope, and a better way of solving the country's problems and leading America away from Wrong-Track Republican policies has devolved into a pie-fight worthy of the Three Stooges. It's not just Obama versus Clinton, either. We have a former vice presidential hopeful with her entire leg inserted in her mouth while defiantly ripping the scabs off slowly-healing wounds left over from generations of discrimination. Then, there are the squabbling party leaders in Florida and Michigan who insist they have a right to get back into the game after they willfully spit in the eyes of the referees, tore up the rule book, and stomped off the field months ago.

I don't know a single person now, either loyal Democrat or disgruntled Republican defector, who hasn't thrown up his or her hands in near-complete disgust.

This all looked terrific on paper, once upon a time. We were poised to take our country back and fix everything that George W. Bush and all his pirate pals broke, ransacked, or wiped their muddy track shoes upon. Much of the nation, according to multiple polls, was looking to the Democrats to put the REAL adults back in charge once the drunken GOP frat party was, at long last, brought to an end. Now, it looks like everybody's moved into Animal House.

The heck with all of 'em. I want David Paterson for president.

Here's a guy who's already done plenty to ease the agony of the state of New York after the staggering Eliot Spitzer implosion, four days before he formally replaces the disgraced governor. Paterson arrived on the scene like the proverbial dove set loose by Noah, that returned with the olive branch in its beak as the storm clouds and floodwaters receded. And he can't even see clearly - in a physical sense, at least. Evidently in a different way, he has perfect vision. At the very least, he's struck the perfect note.

The House is still wrangling with the budget bill, now on the Republican substitute. When they finish up work on the budget, the House will recess for a few hours for a sweep of the chamber in preparation for a secret session requested by minority whip Roy Blunt so that Republicans can "present information about the current spying debate that cannot be publicly discussed."

To which Chairman Conyers responded (by e-mail):

"The more my colleagues know, the less they believe this Administration's rhetoric. As someone who has chaired classified hearings and reviewed classified materials on this subject, I believe the more information Members receive about this Administration's actions in the area of warrantless surveillance, the more likely they are to reject the Administration's scare tactics and threats.  My colleagues who joined me in the hearings and reviewed the Administration's documents have walked away with an inescapable conclusion: the Administration has not made the case for unprecedented spying powers and blanket retroactive immunity for phone companies.

"Whether this is a worthwhile exercise or mere grandstanding depends on whether Republicans have groundbreaking new information that would affect the legislative process. There must be a very high bar to urge the House into a secret session for the first time in 25 years. I eagerly await their presentation to see if it clears this threshold. As someone who has seen and heard an enormous amount of information already, I have my doubts."

Amusingly enough, this was the response of the Republicans when a group of progressive Democrats asked for a secret session on FISA early on in the debate:

Boehner’s spokesman, Kevin Smith, derided the secret session proposal as a stalling tactic.

"There are clear rules and procedures for how Congress handles classified information," Smith said. "This nonsense is nothing more than another stalling tactic from a bunch of liberals who don’t want to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe."

Heh. Nonsense and a stall tactic. The Republicans as they can see that they're losing on this round, and it would appear that the Dem leadership are going along with it to rub their noses in it.

Nonetheless, this could push the debate and vote on FISA to tomorrow. Look for updates here as necessary.

Update: Word from leadership staff is that the debate and vote will be tomorrow.