Saturday Night Distraction

and

OhiObama!

By GottaLaff

Ohio for Obama!

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland received a standing ovation Saturday night when he predicted the state will again tip the race for the White House — this time, delivering it to Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting Barack Obama.

Strickland, noting that he had backed Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination, said she would want him to deliver a message.

I love one of the messages he delivered:

"Aren't you glad to be a Democrat?" Strickland shouted. "Aren't you really, really, really angry with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?"

Sherrod Brown had a message of his own:

Sen. Sherrod Brown told the crowd a McCain presidency would be a "third term for George Bush."

He criticized the Republican nominee for visiting Ottawa, Canada, on Saturday rather than Ottawa, Ohio — where the state has seen economic hardship and lost jobs. Brown said McCain is out of touch with Ohio voters.

"There is no way, no how that John McCain's going to carry Ohio in 2008," Brown told the crowd of about 2,500 on the Ohio State Fairgrounds.

It would be great to pull an Ohio win without resorting to, you know, election fraud like other people do.

Ron Paul's Montana supporters refuse to give up

Gotta love them. Plus, there's always the possibility that they'll make a HUGE stink at the GOP convention.

MISSOULA, Montana (AP) — Sen. John McCain may be the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but supporters of Ron Paul in Montana refused to abandon their candidate.

The group led an impassioned fight Friday at the Montana GOP convention, shaking things up in a failed effort to secure the state's 22 national convention delegates for Paul — who suspended his presidential bid earlier this month.

While the battle jazzed up a normally dull delegate selection process, Paul supporters could not muster enough votes to trump McCain's backers. In the end, McCain received all 22 delegates
despite a close vote, party officials said.

(snip)

Paul's supporters said they would continue to fight for delegates at the national convention to honor the principles of the campaign, and as a way to continue pushing their ideals.

Paul finished second in Montana's Super Tuesday caucus — behind Mitt Romney and ahead of McCain, who came in third.

CNN points out John Sidney McCain's "missteps"

By GottaLaff

The corporate media really crossed the line this time. CNN dared, dared to enumerate a few of John Sidney McMuddled's "self-generated controversies". "Even some Republicans have cringed in recent weeks at the campaign's efforts to ramp up for the fall campaign, although they will speak only privately." Hell has officially frozen over:

• [O]n Tuesday, he criticized his rival for proposing a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. The attack was complicated by McCain's earlier statement that he would consider the same thing.
• The following day, he met with a group of Hispanics in Chicago. Aides who had kept word of the event secret were placed on the defensive within hours after one participant criticized some of McCain's comments.
• On Thursday, the Arizona senator flew to Iowa, a likely battleground state in the fall, where he expressed sympathy with victims of severe flooding and pledged support for federal recovery aid. The event was overshadowed by President Bush's appearance elsewhere in the same state on the same day.
• Friday's trip to Canada brought more controversy. McCain arrived aboard his chartered campaign jet, yet told reporters at a news conference, "this is not a political campaign trip." The senator added he didn't feel it was appropriate to have the government to pay "while I am the nominee of my party." The centerpiece of the six-hour visit was a speech to the Economic Club of Canada that amounted to a cross-border political attack.
• McCain's schedule also included mention of an unspecified "finance event." While that is customarily campaign jargon for a fundraiser, foreigners may not donate to U.S. candidates

As CNN puts it, he's having "growing pains".

At 71.

John Sidney McObsolete: "I do not support Roe v. Wade, it should be overturned."

By GottaLaff

This video is dedicated to anyone out there who voted for Hillary Clinton, and is now tempted to support John Sidney McCain.

I just donated what little money I could afford, to Barack Obama.

Where are Michelle Obama's feminist defenders?

By GottaLaff

I just read two pieces in the Washington Post that got me riled up on behalf of Michelle Obama. My personal opinion of her? From everything I've seen, she is someone to be admired and respected. She's smart, accomplished, eloquent, confident, and an obviously loving wife and mother. She's be a superb First Lady and is already an asset to the public discourse. And boy, is there a lot of public discourse about her. First, from The Gene Pool:

So I started reading other Michelle-bashing on The Web. It's pretty intense, and equally willfully ignorant. [...] Ms. Obama's 1985 undergraduate senior thesis from Princeton [...] presents a well-articulated and completely reasonable argument, certainly for 1985. On the Web, it is treated as though it was a call for global race riots. Part of the explanation is that this sort of thing is what passes for political discourse in a ridiculously polarized society. But I think part of it is deeper and darker.

And this from Mary C. Curtis:

An educated, successful lawyer, devoted wife and caring mother has been labeled "angry" and unpatriotic and snidely referred to as Barack Obama's "baby mama."

Democrats, Republicans, independents, everyone should be offended.

And this black woman is wondering: Where are Obama's feminist defenders?

Where, indeed? She goes on:

But just as you didn't have to be for Clinton to decry the sexism in the coverage of her campaign, you don't have to be an Obama supporter to defend Michelle Obama against similar treatment. [...]

I've long been frustrated, as a black woman and a feminist, with our national conversation. I didn't hear the cause speaking up for women of color or for women who have always worked in blue-collar or service jobs. Choice was not their issue.

The woman who employed my educated mother to clean her house never quite saw her as a sister in the struggle for equality.

Just as the Rutgers women's basketball team was miscast by Don Imus, Obama is being labeled something she clearly is not. Her achievements are being dismissed.

But in America, there's seldom a cost for disrespecting black women.

I'm waiting for feminists who speak of second-class citizenship and being pushed to the back of the bus to remember the civil rights movement that gave birth to those words. After all, it was a black woman, Rosa Parks, who took her seat up front and pulled others there, too.

I'm not holding my breath, though. [...] Yet when an African American made a different kind of history, it seems that feminists can't share in the triumph.

They don't have to vote for the husband to defend the wife.

Here are a few of the comments from both pieces:

• It seems fairly obvious to me. She's well-educated, independent, intelligent, speaks her mind, and won't be a "traditional" First Lady like the Bushes.
• She has thoughts! And ideas! And can express them in an intelligent fashion! Run for the hills (where women stay in the kitchen and make sandwiches)!
• She will be well-received as soon as Barak has an affair, and she's on-stage with him for his apology.
  Then she'll be welcomed as part of the club.
• Like most educated women in the American job market, both Ms Obama and Clinton have encountered the sexism crap we've all experienced, much of it easy to laugh off. But I doubt either of them has ever been seriously blocked in their careers by sexism. Racism, on the other hand.......
• Michelle Obama can be the first lady--or she can decide to be a victim. She really can't be both because the voters are not going to be intimidated into voting for anyone.
• [In response to some very ugly comments] Wow! I'm really amazed at all the hateful comments about Michelle. It really more than illustrates the author's point. Michelle really hasn't done much different than any other first lady so I have to assume it's because of her race. Really sad.

Your turn.

Justice ScaLIEa

By GottaLaff

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: You're guilty. Guilty, guilty, and once again, guilty.

Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research has issued a report revealing that Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, which accords Guantánamo detainees the right to habeas corpus review in federal court, cites inaccurate information that was retracted by its original source, the Department of Defense (DoD).

Aren't judges, especially Supreme Court ones, supposed to have good, you know, judgment?

On June 12, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion on the ruling stated that “[a]t least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo Bay have returned to the battlefield.”

Scalia: Guilty.

Professor Mark Denbeaux, director of the Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research commented, “As lawyers and judges we have an obligation to be careful with our facts. The notion that 30 detainees ‘returned to the battlefield’ was disproved a year ago. It is distressing that Justice Scalia in Boumediene was not more careful in such an important matter, especially since he was relying uncritically on information that originated with a party in the case before him.”

Scalia: Guilty.

Joshua Denbeaux, senior fellow and co-author of the report, stated, “A Supreme Court ruling that includes patently inaccurate information diminishes the Court’s credibility and tarnishes the international reputation of the highest court in the United States. Just as disturbing, DoD seems incapable of producing credible information about what has actually happened to former Guantánamo detainees. If the decision to release detainees had been made by the courts, rather than political appointees of DoD, America would be safer.”

Scalia: Guilty, on all counts. Court is adjourned.

(Justice Scalia, the Department of Defense, and the Perpetuation of an Urban Legend was compiled by the Center’s student and graduate research fellows. The report may be read at http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pdf.)

Big Bad John Cornyn: The Movie

By GottaLaff

The reviews are in!

"I laughed! I cried!... but mostly I laughed!" -- GottaLaff

"What's he running for... Head stable boy?" -- Daily Variety

"Lorne Greene already had that face." -- Pernell Roberts

"Worst political ad I've ever seen. Two thumbs down." -- Richard Roeper

"Make that three thumbs." -- Roger Ebert

"He's hott! I want him... now!" -- Ann Coulter

"Who's he kidding?" -- Texas Online

"I wish I'd thought of that." -- George W. Bush/Bill O'Reilly

"A good man always knows his limitations."-- Clint Eastwood

"WTF?" -- Everyone else

Canada's Obama crush

By GottaLaff

I've always loved Canadians (Kirsten, are you listening?):

If Canadians were allowed to vote in the U.S. presidential election, according to a Harris-Decima poll, 55 per cent would mark their ballot for Barack Obama, while only 15 per cent would support Mr. McCain.

Now that makes sense!

On the face of it, this makes no sense.

Wait, what? Okay, Canada article, explain yourself:

Self-interested Canadians should probably be backing the Republicans in this election. Mr. McCain defends and supports free trade, while Mr. Obama has vowed to renegotiate or even rip up the North American free-trade agreement. Mr. McCain came to Canada in the middle of an election campaign to make exactly that point to American voters.

He would. Party pooper.

That Canadians themselves have no time for his message, that they support a Democratic candidate who could visit great harm upon the Canadian economy, might be a sign of Canadian foolhardiness. It might also, however, reveal a deeper wisdom.

I've always said, "Canadians have a knack for deeper wisdom." Okay, I haven't, but it was apropos to this part of my post.

Canadians may see Mr. Obama as the prime minister they never had.

Awww! That made me all misty! Ooo! Ooo! Have you heard the one about the drunken Homeland Security official?

Figures in the Department of Homeland Security view Canada with a suspicious eye. At a gathering a few weeks ago, I chatted with a very pleasant woman who was joined by her rather drunken husband, a mid-ranking official in Homeland Security. When he learned I was a Canadian journalist, he growled: "You guys let a lot of people in and you don't know who they are."

That was fun, but what does it have to do with Canada's Obama crush?

[I]t should be obvious that, for Canada, Mr. McCain is a preferable choice — an experienced, multilateralist free trader who could be counted on to protect NAFTA and who would be sympathetic to Canada's interests, should Congress start to get ugly.

And yet for so many other reasons, which are every bit as important as they are intangible, Canadians identify with Mr. Obama.

The crush! What about the crush? Why is Canada batting her eyes at Obama?

The most obvious reason is that Canadians are Democrats, except in Alberta. It has been said that the greatest contribution Canada could make to global civilization would be to allow ourselves to be annexed by the United States, thus ensuring Democratic administrations in perpetuity. So when Mr. Obama speaks of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, when he calls for greater public involvement in health care, when he promises to fight global warming, he is promoting policies and espousing values shared by some Americans but most Canadians.

Finally. Geez, that was worse than watching an episode of Grey's Anatomy. What, there's more?

More important, Mr. Obama epitomizes the multicultural present that Canada celebrates. [...] Mr. Obama shouldn't belong to the United States. He should belong to us.

Hey! He's ours! And don't you forget it! Barack...? Call me? I need you!

And perhaps at an intuitive level, Canadians understand that America needs Mr. Obama. The country is in a funk.

That's better. For a minute there, I'd nearly lost hope.

Whether or not Canadians grasp the specifics of Mr. Obama's platform, they seem emphatically to buy his message of hope and change. [..] Canadians support Mr. Obama despite his disquieting talk on trade because Canadians want change they can believe in too, and can't find it in any of their own leaders.

Tell me about it.

IAEA chief: If Iran is attacked, I resign

By GottaLaff

Paddy summarizes links so I don't have to! Here's one now! And what a link it is. Yikes:

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency is warning that any attack on Iran could turn the Mideast into a "ball of fire."

Israel's Israel's dry run 'attack on Iran' has everyone a little on edge. Did I say on edge? More like:

ElBaradei also warned that he will resign as chief of the UN nuclear agency if Iran is attacked by any country. He says a military strike against Iran now would make him unable to continue his work.

I know what he means. If we attack Iran, and the region goes kablooey, and the world economy, environment, and general well-being are affected the way experts predict, I'm guessing a lot of us would have trouble continuing our work.

Gone with the Bushies: Final cut

By GottaLaff

What if you were at a movie theater watching an abysmal film, one that took years to produce but still got two thumbs down, and right in the middle of it, at its very lowest-most-panworthy point, the director walks into the theater and yells, "Cut! This is not only bad, it's horrendous! Send it back to the editor!" Mr. DeMille had just gotten previews of the early reviews, and decided to take a final, drastic step to save his reputation and his very job. The projector grinds to a halt, the audience hoots in protest, and the director hopes he can salvage what's left of his abominable reputation. Enter, stage far-right, the Bush administration:

The Bush administration wants to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.

The government has stood behind the evidence for years. Military review boards relied on it to justify holding hundreds of prisoners indefinitely without charge. Justice Department attorneys said it was thoroughly and fairly reviewed.

Now that federal judges are about to review the evidence, however, the government says it needs to make changes.

Cut!! Are these guys union? No? Remove them from the set!

The decision follows last week's Supreme Court ruling, which held that detainees have the right to challenge their detention in civilian court, not just before secret military panels. At a closed-door meeting with judges and defense attorneys this week, government lawyers said they needed time to add new evidence and make other changes to evidentiary documents known as "factual returns."

Attorneys for the detainees criticized the idea, saying the government is basically asking for a last-minute do-over. "It's sort of an admission that the original returns were defective," said attorney David Remes, who represents many detainees and attended Wednesday's meeting. "It's also an admission that the government thinks it needs to beef up the evidence."

Fade out. The End.

There are some directors who deserve to be blacklisted.

More here.

Obama sets sights on Nevada, New Mexico

I can also report that the Obama campaign is going to be expanding in Indiana, since I got one of those Obama Organizing Fellowship emails this morning. In Indiana of all places.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is heading west next week to campaign in two states he hopes to turn blue this November.

The Senator from Illinois is scheduled to hold a campaign event in Albuquerque on Monday and Las Vegas on Tuesday. CNN considers Nevada a battleground or swing state as both parties think they can win Nevada in the general election. President Bush carried Nevada in 2004, but by only two points over John Kerry.

CNN considers New Mexico a state that leans Republican, but the Obama campaign has the state in its sights. President Bush won New Mexico four years ago as well, but by only one percent, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a major Obama supporter.

This Is The Fox Business Channel?

Seems very unbusinesslike to me.

Links For Thee

My sinuses have decided to revolt, due I think to the inordinate amount of dust I wrangled with yesterday. (hello attic!!) So here are some links to tide you over for a bit while I wait for my head to clear.

US Asks to Rewrite Gitmo Evidence

Teacher accused of burning cross on student's arm

U.N. Official Warns Against Attack On Iran

Paying off a debt with a daughter

U.S. Candidates in Canadian eyes

Governor wants to give Alaskans cash to offset energy costs

Ready to Attack Obama, if Some Money Arrives

U.S. president has less power than candidates might lead you to think

Stonehenge: Summer Solstice Arrives

Bill O'Reilly's Show In 60 Seconds

More than enough, but I thought you might be wondering what you were missing. Via TRex.

Confidence in Congress: Lowest Ever for Any U.S. Institution

Below HMO's? That was taken before yesterday. Can't even begin to wonder where it is now. (Once again the image won't upload for me. Click on the link to see it)

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's annual update on confidence in institutions finds just 12% of Americans expressing confidence in Congress, the lowest of the 16 institutions tested this year, and the worst rating Gallup has measured for any institution in the 35-year history of this question.

Gallup first asked about confidence in institutions in 1973, repeating the question biannually through 1983, and obtaining annual updates since then. This year's update comes from a June 9-12 Gallup Poll.

In the latest update, Congress ranks just below HMOs, for whom 13% of Americans express "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence. Big business, the criminal justice system, organized labor, newspapers, television news, and the presidency all receive relatively low confidence ratings.

In contrast, Americans express the most confidence in the military, as they have each year since 1988 (with the exception of 1997, when small business edged it out). Small business ranks second in the current poll, just ahead of the police. These are the only three institutions that for whom a majority of Americans express a high degree of confidence.

From 1973 through 1985, organized religion was the top rated institution. Today, just 48% of Americans are confident in organized religion, one of its lowest ratings ever. The lowest score for religion to date was 45% in 2002 at the height of the Catholic Church's priest sex abuse scandal.

White House dismissed advice... again

By GottaLaff

Guess what Zelikow's talking about:

"The administration pursued the policy course it wanted," said former State Department counselor Philip D. Zelikow [...] "It planned for the best instead of preparing for the worst, and decided that it would prefer to fight for what it wanted."

Iraq? Nope. Legal advice about detainees:

Senior lawyers inside and outside the Bush administration repeatedly warned the White House that it was risking judicial scrutiny of its detention policies in Guantanamo Bay if it did not pursue a more pragmatic legal strategy that considered the likely reaction of the Supreme Court. But such advice, issued periodically over the past six years, was ignored or discounted, according to current and former administration officials familiar with the debates. [...]

"Through misjudgment and overreaching, the White House ended up with the very result it sought to avoid -- heavy judicial involvement and erosion of deference to the president's view of wartime necessities," said Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee affairs at the State Department and the Pentagon before leaving last fall to teach law at Columbia University.

Albert Einstein: Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Poll-itics, New Hampshire Senate Edition: Sununu in trouble

By GottaLaff

Poor Johohohohn Sunununununununu, he's being trounced by a girl:

Democrat Jeanne Shaheen has expanded her lead over incumbent John Sununu in New Hampshire's U.S. Senate race. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state found Shaheen ahead 53% to 39%.

Last month she was ahead by 7%. Oh, but wait, it gets better:

Any incumbent who polls below 50% is considered vulnerable. Sununu has not polled over 50% since tracking began and is in a worse position than other Republicans up for re-election. However, New Hampshire is far from the only Republican seat at risk in Election 2008. At least eight other Republican seats are potentially in play this fall, including Alaska, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Mississippi, Kansas, Virginia and Kentucky. So far, just two Democratic incumbents are polling below 50%--Mary Landrieu in Louisiana and Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey.

Bad sunu-news for Republicans.

FISA Via Countdown

My hero, John Dean.

Obama: "...young...inexperienced ...he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?"

By GottaLaff

Those words in the title are from Obama quoting an imaginary Republican:

At a fund-raiser in Jacksonville, Fl., presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he expects Republicans to inject race into the campaign. Pool report from John Broder, New York Times:

Obama “The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? He’s got a feisty wife.”"

They already have done that. But I love how he gets right back in their faces without missing a beat. It doesn't make up for this, yet, but it reminds me of why he's such a good candidate.

Ahem

I've had the luxury of being off the intertubes due to real life and computer problems. Let me state up front, as to Senator Obama's reaction to the FISA bill my first reaction was WTF over?

Then I started thinking. Hmmm, what about his background would make him want to go along with this crap? Nothing I can see, especially here-

Teaching
1993-2004 Visiting Law and Government Fellow, then Senior Lecturer, in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and put my faith behind Senator Obama. Believe me, it's not blind faith. The man is way too mainstream for my view of a progressive America (and there's this), but I see him as a step in the right direction. I really believe there is something more going on in the background here that none of us can know.

But Pelosi, Hoyer and my own Donnelly? Toast.

Obama's in the money

By GottaLaff

Obama'$ take:

(CNN) — The Obama campaign said Friday it had raised $21.9 million in the month of May, along with nearly $690,000 in general election funds.

In its monthly campaign finance report filed with the Federal Election Commission, the campaign said its cash on hand figure was $43.1 million.

In April, the Obama campaign reported $31 million in donations. Monthly FEC reports for all presidential candidates are due by midnight.

I wonder if his FISA compromise will affect donations...

Obama and McCain: Gallant and Goofus

By GottaLaff

In case you missed this, here's the short version.

H/t: AmericaBlog

Good News/Bad News: Poll-itics + my anger at Obama

By GottaLaff

First the good news: New Newsweek poll: Obama 51%, McCain 36%.

In addition to that, Bob Cesca said this to me in Comments:

"Hey Gotta -- He's definitely against this bill. It's a smart and nuanced position, but he has pledged to try to remove the retroactive immunity section. And of course the House Democratic leadership caved on telecom immunity -- that's what made this bill so awful and why so many of us are against it. Including Senator Obama."

Now, the bad news:

Glenn Greenwald is on Rachel Maddow's Air America show right now. He says there's no way, with Obama supporting the FISA compromise, that the Senate will vote it down now. He says Obama's statement that he "will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses" was said with the full knowledge that nothing will happen.

I was for John Edwards way back when... The above statement by Obama is an example of why I couldn't initially throw my full support to him. We have our differences , and additional ones were brought to light by former Commenter OhDave when he sent me this piece. Both OhDave and I both ended up being enthusiastic Obama supporters.

This is not to say I'm turning on him, but it does confirm my initial misgivings. I still think, however, that he's strong, bright, charismatic, exquisitely calm and rational, capable, and able to win the election. I agree with many of his ideas, but when he veers away from my progressive ideals, and basic freedoms in this case, I get angry.

Right now I'm angry. I'll get over it.

Potpourri, including McCain: "I didn't love America..."

By GottaLaff

• First this:
  

• Then this: White House Snubs House Panel: Administration invokes executive privilege, refuses to release papers in fight over air standard.

• And finally:

What will all those patriots say about Michelle Obama now?

More on the FISA compromise

By GottaLaff

Froomkin's take on the FISA compromise:

What kind of a country is it where, when the head of state asks you to do something that may well be illegal, but assures you that he considers it legal, you can't be held accountable for doing it?

Welcome to the new U.S. of A.

Under the surveillance "compromise" that the House of Representatives approved today, telecommunications companies that participated in the government's warrantless surveillance program would get immunity from civil lawsuits as long as they showed that they were told that the program was authorized by President Bush and was determined by his legal team to be lawful.

With Congress having largely abandoned its oversight obligations on this issue, and with little chance of Bush's Justice Department investigating itself, these lawsuits were really the only remaining avenue of accountability -- at least until the next administration.

But the new law would prohibit federal judges from addressing the merits of these suits. Instead, since the government did provide assurances about legality that the companies can easily document, judges would be required to dismiss them.

In a system of laws, a permission slip from the president isn't supposed to supercede duly enacted legislation -- and the Constitution.

So how did Bush get his way with Congress -- again? It was just four months ago that House Democrats defiantly rejected what they called Bush's fear mongering and refused to vote on a surveillance proposal that included telecom immunity. It appeared that Bush's iron hold over Congress on national security had finally been broken.

But, on some issues at least, Congress is apparently still willing to cave to The Man.

My head hurts.

Oy, on MSNBC Pat Buchanan just gave Obama kudos for his statement. Now my head hurts even more.

Barack Obama's statement on FISA

By GottaLaff

Via Booman. Obama's statement:

Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA Compromise

“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. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

“That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

“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.

“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. 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. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

“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 addtional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”

On MSNBC just now, John Harwood suggested that Obama would like a little blowback from the Dems to win over more conservative voters. This could work in his favor, he says.

Obama comes out against FISA Bill... or does he?

By GottaLaff
NOTE: I changed the title, it was misleading.

It's being spread that Barack Obama supports the FISA Bill. Randi Rhodes just read his statement, in which he opposes it in no uncertain terms.

UPDATE:
I'm confused. Now I see this. Still poking around.

Which contradicts this, from January.

UPDATE:
H/t Commenter Mainsailset for this (who posted a copy of Obama's e-mail statement) from Booman:

Let's start with the positive news. Obama will work in the Senate to remove the retroactive immunity portion of this bill. Let me be clear about something. If Obama wants the Dems in the caucus to filibuster the bill, it will be filibustered. 'Working' to remove immunity means nothing unless it is removed. It will not be removed unless the bill is killed altogether. Obama can't play us for fools here.

He's also totally wrong about this bill's merits for oversight. I'm a little too angry right now to blog responsibly, so I'll just leave it at that for now. All I can say is that Obama's 'work' in the Senate better be 'work we can believe in'.

On MSNBC, where Rachel Maddow is substitute host today, they're saying that Democrats are angry, but that generally, Democrats are also less concerned about riling their own base than riling the Republicans. Booman's commenters are angry, and they're Dems. Example:

Change. What change?

Obama clinched the nomination and has moved right of center.

He'd better not keep this up.

I had also heard the talking heads (it might have even been Thom Hartmann) say, right after Obama's nomination, that he would move to the right (meaning, more centrist) and that some of us should prepare ourselves. This must have been what he was talking about.

Even Lou Dobbs wants Bush impeached

By GottaLaff

His reasons for wanting to impeach Bush have nothing to do with Iraq, torture, FISA or even immigration. It's all about food safety.

I'll take what I can get.

Anti-Obama racist tee shirts pulled

By GottaLaff

Via Think Progress:

Michael James at DailyKos spotted several racist t-shirts targeting Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) being sold on the website Road Kill T-Shirts, which says that it sells “funny” shirts. Some of the designs featured a noose and Ku Klux Klan members chasing Obama:

Wow! Um, wow. "Funny" doesn't begin to describe them. Not even close. As you know, I write comedy, wrote for TV, still do for theatre productions, and hey, boyoboy, do I know comedy. These shirts are undeniably-- well, there are no words. I can barely breathe for all the--- We've gotta track down that freelancer (see below), and... throw him in a cage somewhere. For a long, long time.

Because I do know comedy, and guess what, "Road Kill" freelancer... those weren't funny. In the least. They were beyond vile. And you don't need to know comedy to know that.

The response that James got after he e-mailed them assured him that they'd pulled the offending shirts, and continued:

“We recently hired a freelancer to create designs and post them on our site,” wrote Mike from Road Kill T-Shirts. “We have teams of them and, unfortunately, these were put up in the last couple of days without approval. While the site can be edgy…I can guarantee you this is not the type of stuff we approve of.”

Good riddance.

Barney Frank will have Nunn of that

By GottaLaff

I posted on some of Nunn's problems here. But Barney Frank says this isn't just a problem, it's a deal breaker. I agree:

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told the Rothenberg Political Report Friday that he “would have a hard time voting for the [Democratic] ticket” if Sen. Barack Obama picks former United States Sen. Sam Nunn as his vice-presidential running-mate.

Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and the first member of Congress to announce that he is gay, has expressed those views to Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy, who are leading the search for Obama’s running-mate, as well as to others close to the Illinois Democrat.

The Massachusetts Democrat cites a number of examples of what he calls Nunn’s “real record of hostility” toward gays, placing greatest emphasis on Nunn’s September 1996 vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which failed in the Senate by a single vote.

Obama has made some real overtures to the gay community. This would be a reversal.

MoveOn moves on: No more 527

By GottaLaff

Move on, MoveOn:

MoveOn.org announced today that it is dismantling its 527 group in response to Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy.

The MoveOn Voter Fund, which was able to take in unlimited donations, has been essentially dormant since 2004, when it brought in $20 million of the group’s $50 million-haul. MoveOn will rely instead on its political action committee, MoveOn Political Action which can take in up to $5,000 from an individual.

Mr. Obama, who announced yesterday that he would not take public financing for his general election campaign, has been critical of the influence of outside groups, especially the so-called 527 groups, seen by many as a soft-money loophole.

Quote-O'-the-Day, Good & Pawlenty edition

By GottaLaff

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is the leading candidate at the moment to be selected as John McCain's running mate. Here's an oldie-but-goodie that may be held against him, as it were:

And, Pawlenty has already shown signs that he may not be ready for prime time. To wit: In a radio interview last month with a local station, Pawlenty said of his wife: "She loves football, she'll go to hockey games and, I jokingly say: Now, if I could only get her to have sex with me." That's not the typical tone of a vice presidential candidate.

Next! How about that Mitt Witt guy...

Oh Prime Minister Harper? John Sidney McCain's visiting today.

By GottaLaff

He's a candidate for the President of the United States, but is completely ignored by our Canadian neighbor:

Here's the message of the day:

PRIME MINISTER HARPER ANNOUNCES NEW BRIDGE TO COMPLETE RING ROAD AND EASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN SASKATOON

June 20, 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, joined by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Saskatoon Mayor Donald Atchison, today announced that the three levels of government are joining together to build the South River Crossing bridge and complete the Saskatoon Circle Drive Southwest Project.

And it goes on and on about the bridge. Poor John Sidney McObsolete. There is an upside. This gives him more time to nap.

Scott McClellan hearings, liveblog: Part 10

By GottaLaff

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: It's not the crime, it's the cover-up. The real crime was the way the war was sold. You say Bush believed in coercive democracy. Was there a conclusion to go to war at the outset, fit the facts to the ultimate end?

Scott: The facts were packaged to make the sale.

Debbie: You don't think there was deliberate deception?

Scott: As a whole... there might have been individuals... but I can't get in their heads.

Debbie: Bush, distorted or deceived?

Scott: He treated his war campaign as a political one. That's the big mistake that was made.

Debbie: You implied SOME didn't intentionally deceive? some did?

Scott: I can't rule that out.

Debbie: Who did?

Scott: No direct knowledge... But no sinister attempt to deceive the people.

Debbie: But you think it evolved into that?

Scott: The result was misleading.

Debbie: Bush, Card, Cheney knew there was no imminent threat? Distorted the facts?

Scott: The way we portrayed it wasn't "imminent" but grave... that argument was most convincing.

Debbie: did Karl Rove lie about Plame scandal?

Scott: Yes.

Debbie: Cheney?

Scott: Don't know.

Debbie: Rove lied about other matters?

Scott: Don't know.

Debbie: Who should be brought here?

Scott: On Plame? Cheney, go down the list: Libby, Rove, Fleischer... They should do it under oath.

Keith Ellison: Friendships damaged now? You could have made a lucrative living doing something else?

Scott: Yes. .. and I could have made money elsewhere, not on a book. The last 10 mos. were disillusioning, found out I'd been misled by Rove and Libby... and then the NIE came out... other events. [Q: What to do about this?] Oversight is very important... and a White House that is committed to transparency....

Keith: Daniel Levin... acting asst't. A.G. for awhile... Addington and Yoo's torture memo. Were you privy to any convos before this? Did you wonder about it?

Scott: No. I had to speak about them though, so some info was given to me. We had briefings with Gonzo... others... I trusted them to give me assurances on these issues... Looking back, I had some reservations that were said then.

Keith: Abu Ghraib: Did you think it started higher up?

Scott: The White House thought it wasn't higher up... just the few individuals, that was their attitude... Bush felt that way... Rumsfeld, no direct convos with him, nor Haynes... My info was what I said publicly... I didn't hear about getting to the bottom of it, maybe it was higher up.

Keith: Gitmo... privy?

Scott: Not direct discussions... I do talk to individuals with some knowledge of the issues... what the message is and what to share with the public...

Keith: Rendition... did the administration say what you should do to defend that policy?

Scott: We spoke publicly, but no...

Conyers: I'm impressed with your precision on incidents, names, issues today... Record will remain open for 5 days for you or the Committee to submit for the record.

Scott McClellan hearings, liveblog: Part 9

By GottaLaff
PLEASE NOTE: BLOGGER WILL BE DOWN FOR 10 MINUTES AT NOON PACIFIC, 3 EASTERN... THIS WILL INTERRUPT MY LIVEBLOGGING...

Tammy Baldwin: You said Bush played the game by the rules? I disagree.. he's broken the rules of the game, and those are the laws of the Constitution (I know you meant something else). Re: Plame. It's hard to comprehend that they lied about Iraq, and then instructed Libby's perjury. It's horrifying political retaliation... the only thing worse than knowing we'll live with that, is knowing how many have already suffered or died. On that note, thank you... How were you prepped...for press briefings? Who did you speak to? Who gave you permission to say what you did, say about Abu Ghraib?

Scott: Sometimes Bush, sometimes Nat'l Security Advisor, or staff. I was used in Plame episode, but not a deliberate effort to mislead the American people... more the permanent campaign mentality.

Tammy: Bush doesn't condone torture, but you were there for Abu Ghraib and other torture issues. ... Comment on previous statements?

Scott: No, there was info I didn't know at the time... relied on their assurances.

Tammy: Were you intentionally used to mislead?

Scott: Some there believe that that's true... others don't.

Tammy: Did you observe convos or actions in violation of federal law?

Scott: No.

Trent Franks: There's a feeling in my heart that if you felt you were misleading people, you should have spoken up THEN. Ari Fleischer thinks the book doesn't make sense... Not once did you approach him privately or publicly... Scott made the case for war, up to a year ago, on Bill Maher... If you thought this was wrong, then you should have spoken up then. Blah blah...

Scott: I gave the admin. the benefit of the doubt... and it wasn't the intel.. but how it was used.

Scott McClellan hearings, liveblog: Part 8

By GottaLaff

Betty Sutton: Did the war become inevitable?

Scott: Yes, because Bush left himself no wiggle room.

Betty: In reacting to Larry Lindsey and his estimate for the cost of war at 1-2 billion dollars... you said, We were in campaign mode now...Are you aware of any cost/loss of life discussions that would be unacceptable?

Scott: No direct knowledge. .. Lindsey's comments, yes. ...

Betty: Was it contemplated what would be unacceptable, did you hear those discussions?

Scott: No, I was Deputy Press Secretary.

Betty: Did you become aware of them? Concern expressed for loss of life?

Scott: Larry Lindsey's comments, but otherwise, no. ... no direct convos on that.

Betty: Cheney and oil reserves... Washington Post reports on oil firms signing with Iraq, today.

Scott: It's hard to know what his intentions were... but if Iraq didn't have oil, it wouldn't have been on the radar screen of this administration... White House is never out of campaign mode, they still are.

Brad Sherman: Focus on why Plame was exposed. To discredit Wilson, by discrediting how he was selected.. or punish him by imperiling her career. Did anyone say either?

Scott: It was to undermine his credibility.

Brad: Nov. 2004, Gitmo detainees were treated humanely, you said. When did you find out otherwise?

Scott: I used their talking points, only heard about it when it came out publicly. I got assurances from the Pentagon and White House.

Artur Davis: Re: Karl Rove... you say he encouraged you to repeat a lie... We've invited him to appear under oath... Rove has not surprisingly declined. Then said he'd talk if there is no oath, no cameras, no notes made.. surprised at that?

Scott: No. It's part of an effort to stonewall the whole process.

Davis: Would you trust him not under oath?

Scott: No.

Davis: If under oath?

Scott: I'd hope he would, but he's not willing, but I have concerns about that.

Davis: He was only concerned about legal action and protecting himself... is he capable of lying to protect himself from legal jeopardy?

Scott: Yes...

Davis: Administration War strategy, not being candid... things you wrote about... firing of U.S. Attorneys... Is the Bush admin. capable of lying about the U.S. attorneys?

Scott: I have no direct knowledge, don't want to answer that.

Davis: If they'd come up with a cover story to conceal motives, have they done that before?

Scott: In the Plame leak, it's clear that they were more interested in stonewalling.

Davis: Rove, allegations that he tried to influence the Siegelman prosecution... how long have you known Rove?

Scott: Since 1991 or so. He views the other side as the enemy...

Davis: Capable of influencing the prosecution?

Scott: Don't want to speculate.

Davis: Tell R's that there's a tradition, other than being cutthroat, of Teddy Roosevelt... thank you.

Scott McClellan hearings, liveblog: Part 7

By GottaLaff

Steve King: This isn't a democracy... There were impeachment hearings in 1998. Charlton Heston said to Clinton, when you say something that's wrong, and you don't know that it's wrong, it's a mistake. If you know that it's wrong, it's a lie. You made reference to Bush's SOTU address, about the uranium from Africa.

Scott: He might have thought it was credible.

King: It was accurate, even today it is.

Scott: The CIA disagrees.

King: I have a CIA report in my hand, re: Wilson, 2002. This report directly contradicts Wilson.

Scott: I don't know if I've seen that before, but the CIA director told Bush to take the Niger info out of his speech.

King: The SOTU is factual today. If your life depended on it, would you trust Wilson or Bush?

Scott: I won't answer that hypothetical.

King: What's your advice to your successors as to how they should handle telling the world, and will the president have to be worried about revealing info?

Scott: By speaking up, the country can learn from what went wrong. I want to see things change here.

Hank Johnson: Commutation of Libby's sentence... He denied many, many petitions, granted Libby's. He presided over executions in Texas, only commuted one sentence. Now we have W.H. confidant Scooter Libby. Many Americans believe there was an attempt to silence him, a misleading of them on the War, lying to them... that Wilson was punished by the administration, ordering the revealing of his wife as a covert agent... in return for Libby putting his head in a meat grinder, after he was convicted... and sentenced to 30 mos. in prison... and his appeals denied... Libby headed to prison imminently... on the same day Libby found out the Court of Appeals wouldn't reverse, that's when Bush issued a commutation... inconsistent with his previous history. ... Without consultation with his own Justice Dep't. ... he decided to issue a commutation. ..Some believe he did that to stop Libby from spilling te beans on Cheney. Do you agree?

Scott: I don't know, I can understand viewing it that way. It's the President's right to do that, though.

Hank: What were the administration's real motives in misleading us to war?

Scott: In Bush's view, the idea of transforming the Middle East. Change Iran into a democratic state with Afghanistan and Iraq on either side, being democratic.

Hank: Ever hear about possibilities of controlling Iraq's oil?

Scott: Not personally.

Liveblog, Scott McClellan hearing, Part 6

By GottaLaff

Steve Cohen (D): Who was the bigger influence, Cheney or Rove?

Scott: Vice President foreign policy influence, Rove, political influence.

Steve: Blackberry private account emails used?

Scott: I knew people used them, yes. I sent to both accounts of Rove's. ... There was a focus on Iran, still is.

Steve: 2004, familiar with Swiftboating discussions?

Scott: No.

Steve: Several editors on your book. What did they edit out?

Scott: Nothing of interest. I gave a clear view of the big picture.

Steve: Civilian casualties: You should have spoken up on. Any others?

Scott: There were other things, but the Pres. expected us to march in lockstep.

Next, Tom Feeney:

Tom: Should this book be out? Sets a precedent for decision making system to come out... be available to the press... What if that happened with plans for WWII?

Scott: Of course, those kind of things should not come out.

Tom: But you talk about motives for going to war.. you said othing new, though. You speculated a lot. Rumsfeld had experience, so did Cheney. Why, knowing they'd be judged by history, would they lie? Knowing they'd be outed?

Scott: I said it wasn't a deliberate attempt, but spin and manipulation has become part of the culture, so America doesn't get the full truth.

Tom: If Saddam had complied, they would have had access to the truth. Did Bush know about Libby or Rove's disclosure of Plame's I.D.?

Scott: No.

Next: Bill Delahunt:

Bill: I don't think Scott's suggesting we share info with the enemy, but with the American people. I applaud you for the book. The Bush admin. lacked accountability because Bush didn't embrace openness, you say. I concur. We've had those problems dealing with this administration. Right now there's an agreement being discussed between Iraq and the U.S. There has been no real consultation with Congress. Today in the Hill, the headline is "Cheney Gets Last Laugh"... stonewalls Waxman. But these decisions are important, and you've opened up the debate about public discourse. We have to have an informed citizenry. I voted against the war, as did 133 of my colleagues, 125 Dems, simply BECAUSE OF INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. There were no WMD. It was a hard sell, a tragic one at that. Disturbing: The secret declassification that only Bush and Cheney knew about... YOU didn't know, we didn't.

Scott: That's a prime example... no one knew.

Bill: This is not a democracy: Classify, declassify, reclassify. You have plenty of company, others say this: Paul O'Neill was stunned. I'd like to have you both come before my committee AFTER the election, so there's no impugning of anyone's integrity.