She is my new hero.

You may recall, I wrote about my recent experience at the, um, hands of the TSA. A full body sexual assault as the result of having an airplane ticket. As I sat in an airport on Tuesday, on my way to a couple of Yankees’ Spring Training Games, and having had to endure yet another sexual assault as a result of my knee replacement, my thoughts turned to Rep. Cissna.

I hated my last experience so much, found it so offensive, that I asked my partner if we could drive to Miami for our cruise, rather than fly. She, of course, agreed. So we made the 9 hour (one way) drive to and from Miami to spare me the unwanted, unwarranted, full body search. Unfortunately, we did not have the luxury of driving this time around, hence my Round 2 of TSA sexual assault. Gee – can’t wait for the return trip home. Ahem.

Before I get into more about Rep. Cissna, though, and in light of my recent pat-downs, I want to share my conversation with the TSA agent this morning. I had to wait in line for my pat-down behind an 88 year old woman who had a knee replacement(hers was 3 years ago). I asked the agent why we could not be wanded down instead, something that would so easily show why we set off the metal detector. She said it was because of the Underwear Bomber. You know the one – the young Somalian man who was on a plane to Detroit that the Powers-That-Be were hesitant to label a terrorist. Yes, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was charged as a civilian, not a terrorist, which included being read his Miranda rights. It is because of this one man, and the failure of the TSA to catch him, that many of us who have health issues are subjected to this invasion of our privacy.

While I was getting my stuff after the TSA assault, I was standing right beside a man who looked like a pilot. He was indeed a pilot, as it turned out, when I could see his “Crew” badge. He, too, was having to get a pat-down. Why? He wore orthotic shoes that he could not take off, lest he “fall over” (his words).

Wow. I feel so much safer, don’t you? And I sure wish someone could tell me why my setting off a metal detector then results in this pat-down to swab for explosives. If it is METAL, then a wand will find it. Just saying.

Now, back to Rep. Cissna. The L.A. Times relates her story in this article, “Alaska’s Legislator’s ‘No’ To TSA Pat-down“:

When Alaska state Rep. Sharon Cissna passed through airport security a few months ago, the false breast she has worn since her mastectomy set off an alert on the new full-body scanner and triggered what she called a “humiliating” pat-down search.

Last week, it happened again. The Anchorage Democrat was leaving Seattle to return to the legislative session in Juneau when her prosthetic breast sent her once again toward the rubber gloves.

“The horror began again,” she recalled, except this time, she refused.

Cissna caught a small plane to British Columbia and boarded a ferry for a two-day journey back to Juneau.

She arrived in the Alaskan capital Thursday to expressions of support from fellow members of the Alaska Legislature, which passed a resolution backing Cissna’s stand that declared “no one should have to sacrifice their dignity in order to travel.”

Alaskans — residents of a state with so few roads that most journeys must be taken by boat or plane — say they do not enjoy the same ability as other Americans to refuse security measures imposed by the Transportation Security Administration.

“We can’t take Amtrak, we can’t take Greyhound, we can’t drive ourselves. Those options aren’t open to us. We have a choice of fly or stay home,” said Republican State Rep. Alan Dick, who spoke on the House floor about Cissna’s case before overwhelming approval of a resolution in support of her. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Anyone who has seen the Discovery show, “Flying Wild: Alaska” knows this is true. Everyone from sports teams to hunters, to mothers returning to their villages after showing off their new babies to family living elsewhere in Alaska, to teachers getting back to their villages in time for school, flying is a way of life in Alaska on par with the rest of us hopping into our cars to go to another town or county.

Rep. Cissna’s colleagues are standing behind her in a big way. The Alaskan House passed a resolution asking that these kinds of pat-downs by the TSA be stopped. To that end, Rep. Cissna has headed to Washington, DC, to discuss this excessive pat-down:

[snip] Cissna says she has heard from people throughout Alaska and across the country expressing their concerns, and she has a clear message to bring to Washington, where she will appear before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Wednesday.

“We’re asking Congress to go back to the physical scanning that was done before. People didn’t have a problem with it. I didn’t have a problem with it. A light pat-down and sometimes they use a wand. The way it used to be.”

The TSA has argued that when anomalies appear on full body scanners the enhanced pat-down is necessary to make sure those anomalies are not dangerous items such as explosives and bomb parts.

Says Cissna, “We want safe skies, believe me. I want people safe. But there’s no proof this (invasive pat-down) is keeping people safe.”

She says her husband has mapped out a route for her trip to Washington that will only include airports that do not yet have full body scanners but rather use metal detectors, which do not red flag her scars.

Cissna will share her own experience with Congress, she says.

“I’ll be talking about the human part. And my fellow representatives have just added a piece of the human part. The people of Alaska will be heard in Washington D.C., will be heard across America,” she says. “This procedure is a feel-up. That may be harsh, but it was harsh.” (Click here to read the rest.)

I concur – it is harsh. And it needs to stop. Now. There are better ways than forcing those with disabilities, or previous illnesses, to endure this kind of harassment.

Apparently, this young man, who is also my hero, Aaron Tobey, concurs that this practice is outrageous. Mr. Tobey, in protest of the illegal search of US citizens, stripped down to his skivvies, revealing the 4th Amendment on his chest:

[snip] The Constitution’s Fourth Amendment outlaws “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Tobey, a 21-year-old University of Cincinnati architecture student, had those very words scrawled across his chest and abdomen when he stripped down to his underwear at a Richmond, Va., airport back in December. He was heading to his grandfather’s funeral at the time. Tobey was arrested and cited for disorderly conduct.

The misdemeanor charge has since been dropped, but Tobey is still suing. The defendants listed in his legal filing are Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the head of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, the Richmond airport authority and several security officers there. He’s seeking $250,000 in damages and reimbursement for legal fees.

“This action seeks vindication of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Aaron Tobey, who … was arrested without probable cause, falsely imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted,” the legal complaint states. The civil lawsuit was filed on Tobey’s behalf by the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Good for him. Good for Tobey for standing up for what is right, even though he endured some hardship as a result. He is my hero, too.

Thank heavens for people like Alaskan State Rep. Sharon Cissna, and Aaron Tobey. Cissna is a godsend, given her political clout. I hope, and pray, she is successful in getting this practice abolished. Tobey, too, for also shining a bright light on this un-Constitutional practice, is a brave young man, and I applaud him for his actions. No doubt about it, the TSA assault on American citizens needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. I, for one, cannot take much more of this. And I am not alone…

She is a Republican. Therefore she is not human. She has chosen to raise a Down Syndrome baby and therefore that makes her something of a Neanderthal.

“She is only the Governor of Alaska – not a real state after all. Don’t they just have lots of snow and ice up there? I mean, who lives there, like 50 people, you know, next to that bridge to nowhere. What does she: shovel moose poop in front of the door of the shack she lives in with that husband of hers and five brats? God, she’s really stupid, huh? What an airhead. It’s a disgrace. Just because she can see Russia from her window, what does she know about foreign policy?

She’s a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I mean, McCain’s on his last legs, isn’t he? So she commands the Alaska National Guard – what are they, like, the boy scouts? What did Congressman Charlie Rangel say – “she’s disabled”?

It just keeps getting better.

I was in the yard while the Vice Presidential debate was taping. A neighbor poked her head out to say, “He’s slaughtering her!” I read some news story in the Boston Globe where a voter talking to Joe Biden said, “Take her down.” Someone else said, “Make her cry.”

Do all these filthy degenerate pustules of the lowest order have any idea of the hateful misogyny they are guilty of?

Thursday night, all the feelings came back – the misogynist Hillary horror show of the last nine months. Every nasty thing they said. Every great thing she did that they pretended didn’t exist. Every time the media, the DNC elite and the Obama thug squad keep moving the goal post and rearranging the rules to suit themselves and saying:

It’s not enough. You’re not enough. You’ll never be enough. No matter how you do it, we will find something wrong with it. We will find something wrong with you. Your pantsuits. Your ass. Your face. Your cackle. Your statements. Your family. Your solid record, which we will pretend amounts to much less than the empty briefcase of the charlatan against whom you are running.

Cold comfort to see this was not reserved for Hillary alone. How nice for her that she gets to sit in Washington, D.C. or in her New York office and witness this debacle leveled at Sarah Palin, so she can relive the lovely experience herself as well.

I was never so ashamed of having spent my life as a Democrat. What makes Democrats any better than the Republicans they have been forever characterizing as evil? I thought we were the party of tolerance, equal rights, equal opportunity and openness.

I was wrong.

We have been screaming at the Bush administration not to condone torture. Tell me, to whom do I apply for redress when I feel like I am being figuratively tortured having to listen to, and by extension, be slapped with these kinds of insults and demeaning behavior.

It is abuse. It is misogyny. It is vile no matter the source or object.

God forbid you find fault with someone on the issues. On something real.

A peripheral friend emailed me an offensive piece of material on Palin. It was written by Eve Ensler, another pretend feminist who penned something so vile and so bogus, I wonder that her nose didn’t grow and poke a hole in her computer screen before she hit the send button. Prior to this, the friend and I had not talked politics this year. I politely, so politely, informed her that I am not an Obama supporter. Her response was that she was shocked! Shocked!!

Oh, the humanity!! The self-righteous, pretentious outrage of it all! My response to her little missive, suffice it to say, was somewhat more thorough.

And you can take that any way you want to take it.

I suppose now, for all my education and the respect I have previously received from this person, and all the times I have fed and entertained her at my home, I am now considered a low information Neanderthal as well. Everything before has been wiped away. She even intimated we must be suffering from some deep seated racial bias.

She is an idiot. Let her worship at the foot of his “HOPE” poster and never darken my door again. Our friendship is over.

After our neighbor gave me the ‘review,’ I finally sat down with my husband to watch the debate we had TiVo’d for myself. Imagine my surprise when Sarah-cuda gave as good as she got – in fact, by all accounts she did much better than that.

I found myself weeping. It’s not that I’m so enamored of her, but I was so puking sick of watching yet another woman treated like dirt. Well, plenty of Dems treated Hillary like dirt. What did I expect they would do to a woman on the other side of the aisle?

It must be truly threatening to see a successful woman step up to the plate and stake a claim to something even bigger. The ‘male’ whom history seems hell bent on anointing as this ‘historic candidate’ is as thin as tissue paper but how dare we tell the truth about that. The contrasts in acceptable criticism of one versus the other show so wide a chasm, it defies description.

The horrid occurrences that came flooding back once again ensured I will never stand with any of this hateful cadre. If they can win this election, let them do it on their own.

What kind of a decent human being can treat a woman, a mother of five, a fellow human being this way? Have we lost so much as a society that this kind of low behavior is tolerated, even accepted?

Registering as an Independent when the primary ended was not only an act of protest against this undemocratic Democratic Party, but it helped to open my eyes. I can actually see how the other side has a point and is sick of our side’s elitism and snobbery.

Since the DNC says we need to elect Obama because he is a ‘symbol,’ well, America is a symbol as well. And electing ‘Party’ is not half as important to me now as electing character, decency, and honor.

Rove’s thugs may have stolen at least one of the last two elections. Does that make it permissible for our side to do it? The answer is a resounding no.

Just because neo-cons hijacked the Republican Party eight years ago, if the far left hijacks the Democrats, will that lead to a better end? Again, no.

Since I mentioned torture earlier, that is as good an analogy as any. Abu Graib represented the worst of America, not her best. We are who we are because we respect others rights, because we stand for freedom and decency. Once we show that it is all right to treat the other side with depraved indifference, we are no better. And they have succeeded in turning ‘us’ into ‘them.’

Likewise, if you think that Obama’s fraudulent tactics, nefarious connections and constant dissembling are acceptable, then Rove, Cheney and their ilk win.

The people attacking Sarah Palin are just as vile, if not worse, than any attack ever leveled at ‘us’ by Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

What makes us better?

What makes the left better than the right?

Right now: nothing.

I noticed that a few posters were feeling completely distraught about the possibility of an Obama presidency and the devastation that might ensue.

In the name of keeping all of us on an even keel, a reader named Ivory Bill Woodpecker wrote the following very entertaining comment that I think I’ll share with you. It gave me a much needed chuckle at the end of a very long week.

Cheers to you all.

Comment by Ivory Bill Woodpecker| 2008-10-04 02:35:08

Uh, before we push the panic button so hard it goes through the control panel…

If Plastic Jesus Obama wins, he is not going to be able to turn the USA into a dictator state even if he wants to do that. If the Chimperor and Darth Cheney couldn’t do it, neither can Plastic Jesus do it. …

Ivory Bill Woodpecker continues:

Oblahma will still be facing a very powerful, well-funded Right-Wing Noise Machine and a GOP that will remain powerful even as a minority party.

And if you see our police and military forces–whose cooperation would be needed to make a dictatorship work, and whose members are still drawn mostly from the “bitter” white working class–dutifully lining up behind a Whole Foods Nation snob who snuggles up to Rev. GDA and Billy “the Bomber” Ayers, well, your Imagination Fu is stronger than mine.

Hitler 2.0? Castro 2.0? Mugabe 2.0?

Jimmy Carter 2.O would be more like it–a freak accident who got in because the GOP Just. Screwed. Up. That. Bad.

An Obama presidency, if it happens, will galvanize the GOP base and bring the GOP back from death’s door in 2010 and 2012, in a way that a Clinton presidency probably would not do. What in sulfuric HELL were the Democratic bigwigs thinking?

Chat away!

With the collapse of IndyMac and Bear Stearns, mounting home foreclosures, a tanking economy and no end in sight in Iraq, we need someone far smarter and more knowledgeable than we are on matters of foreign and economic policy, national security, and our place in the global community. Someone who regards as sacrosanct the role of the President in upholding our Constitution. Someone who will stand up for what is right. FISA comes to mind. Senator Clinton kept her word and voted against giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity while Senator Obama blithely reneged on his, throwing the 4th amendment under the bus.

As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Senator Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, has done his level best to make you fear – not voting for his candidate. If you don’t vote for Obama, we will consider you a racist. If you don’t vote for him, they will overturn Roe v. Wade, they will nominate conservative Justices, they will keep us in Iraq for 100 years.

Most worrisome to me, however, is that whenever I speak to an Obama supporter, they can give me nothing to rest their hopes for change on. Their number one statement is: “He’ll surround himself with really great people.” This strikes me as code for ‘We are electing a symbol. We know he’s too inexperienced, but the old ‘pols’ will protect and help him.’ So perhaps their faith in his scintillating judgment is not as strong as they pretend.

Congressional approval is at an all time low. Nancy Pelosi, once elected Speaker, turned from a tiger into a pussycat, and with her pasty smile, said “impeachment is off the table.” Democrats have taken nary a bite out of Bush since they took back Congress, making their integrity suspect. Are these really the people you want whispering in Obama’s ear?

Now, apparently, we are not even allowed to poke fun at Senator Obama – so thin is his skin. Oh, let me not mention the word skin, lest that be taken the wrong way. What are his supporters so afraid of?

Do they secretly realize with all his policy flips flops, gross inexperience, and 20 years of nefarious, crooked and divisive associations that he is hanging on by a thin thread as it is?

This week, we saw more evidence of the thin-skinned Obama campaign.

The New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle has everyone up in arms over the possibility that we are either offending or besmirching the chosen one. Regardless of whether one thinks this cartoon is great satire or misses the mark, if Senator Obama’s skin is that thin, what is he doing running for the highest and toughest office in the world?

Even the LA Times, and the NY Times’ otherwise inexcusable Maureen Dowd, both long on the Obama bandwagon, were making fun of the humorless Obama campaign.

What if Hillary Clinton had behaved this way, taking issue with every negative, smarmy or unfair depiction of her? She would never have had a moment to campaign, being too preoccupied fighting shadows. Only once did she come out swinging: when David Shuster of MSNBC piggishly asked if the Clintons were “pimping out their daughter Chelsea.”

Doesn’t it make anyone uncomfortable that Barack Obama has enjoyed political cover the likes of which have never been seen before? Hillary enjoyed no such advantage. In fact, it was exactly the opposite.

I don’t want to play tit for tat here. Honestly. But as disgusting as the disrespect and misogyny leveled at her was, and no matter how much her political rivals, aka, the “boys” piled on, no matter the Democratic Party elites stabbing her in the back for their own selfish gain – didn’t it make you feel better knowing that she could handle it?

She actually got taller and stronger the longer the campaign wore on.

The White House pressure cooker is a non-stop stress machine. The President has it coming from all sides, foreign and domestic, and must stand ready to take a pounding like the heavy bag at the gym. The honeymoon is over 20 minutes after the Inauguration, I can assure you. In fact, if the past couple of weeks are any indication, it looks like the bloom is already off the rose.

Are we really saying that Senator Obama does not have the intestinal fortitude to laugh off this magazine cover? That is preposterous. Or was this outrage merely feigned? Another tactic from the brain of Axelrod – get preoccupied about a cartoon, so that the damaging and/or unfavorable contents of the article itself would go largely ignored.

On Larry King Live, Senator Obama just commented The New Yorker cover was an insult to members of the Muslim community. Really? It seems the Muslim community was far more offended when two Muslim women, in traditional dress, were removed from sitting behind him at a photo op. Again, his comments are a diversion, more tactics of fear in order to protect and advantage himself. The only upset is the upset he is fomenting as another distraction from the real issue: him.

Watching how Senator Obama’s fans protect him and the party elites run political interference for him (remember Bush’s remarks at the Knesset), almost makes me feel like I’m at an Al-Anon meeting. We are not here to enable this man. He has to be ‘able’ without our help.

Do you really want to buy four years of this? How will you feel when your student loans keep you in indentured servitude and he has no plan to help but instead continues to be enamored of Reaganomics?

How will you feel when he keeps capitulating on the Constitutional protections this country is built on? How will you feel when women’s rights are further whittled away on Roe v. Wade because late term abortions should not be permitted when, as he so insensitively and cluelessly put it, a woman is “feeling blue”?

The fact that Hillary Clinton, out of the race for the past five weeks, is still polling better than Obama against John McCain should telescope something very significant here.

What will you do in the somewhat unlikely event that Senator Obama is elected? I promise, you will quickly tire of making excuses for him.

“Oh, he’s just running to the center.” The center of what? All his supposed political principles have been thrown out the window. Gun control, women’s rights, Iraq, FISA, the death penalty, NAFTA, and more.

Senator Clinton, as the true progressive in the bunch, evidenced once again with her FISA vote, would need to make no such adjustments. Whether or not you agreed with her on every point – her policy positions were straightforward from the beginning and she would require no waffling or fence-straddling now.

This is no time for a trainee. Fortunately, though the DNC would have you believe otherwise, this situation is not irreversible. There is a very clear path to the stronger candidate and if responsible Super Delegates have any courage, they will take it at the Convention.

Otherwise, please ask yourselves, how long can you protect someone who has shown he has no interest in protecting you?

Barack’s looking real tired on the campaign trail. He forgets how many states we have. He says the problem in Afghanistan is that we don’t have enough Arabic speakers. Well, I guess if anybody actually spoke Arabic in Afghanistan, that might be a problem. I guess with a ‘mic’ in his hand, sans teleprompter, he doesn’t do so well. All Hillary’s fault.

“Can’t I just eat my waffle?” “You’re wearing me out, brother.” “Come on, guys. I just answered, like, eight questions.” “My uncle helped liberate Auschwitz” – uhh, well, no, he didn’t. Sorry if FISA is a deal breaker for you guys , but, you know, where else you gonna go? “…Get over it!” he said, at a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rep. Diane Watson warned Barack not to use that particular phrase …

Hillary’s fault!

Let him eat his waffle! Where did that sixty-year-old woman get the energy to go meet plant workers at shift change at 5:30 a.m.? Obama, 14 years her junior, was constantly exhausted and exasperated.

Primary going on too long. Creating a fissure in the party. Hillary’s fault.

Heaven forefend the American people, all of them in all 50 states – yes, Barry, that’s 50, not 57 – should actually have a say in who we choose as the standard bearer of our party.

Remember when Obama called Hillary supporter, PA Gov. Ed Rendell in early April saying “You know I’m going to be the nominee, right? You’re not going to do anything to make that difficult, right?” Barack must have been real pissed that he actually had to look like he was working for it.

Remember Barack’s piss poor debate performance on ABC in April – Hillary’s fault. She went after him too hard. He didn’t have time to do his homework. Yes, they really said that. Whatsamatter, Barry, can’t handle it without Campbell Brown fluffing your pillows?

I guess not, because Howard Dean forbade any more debates after that. Why? Afraid the citizenry would actually see the truth? That the inexperienced Senator Obama was and is in over his head. He could not even explain what a Capital Gains tax is – or that it is a tax.

How encouraging for us, considering that IndyMac just collapsed and the stock market is tanking and people are losing their homes. He has not addressed any of this. Friday, on talk radio, the endlessly entertaining Arianna Huffington suggested Barry give a speech on the subject. Just what we need – another speech from Barack Obama. Who will write it for him, since, clearly, he does not understand the economy – or appear too worried about it. But when millionaire Michelle thinks you’re going to take your rebate check and buy a $600 pair of earrings with it, what does that say?

Damn that white witch in a pantsuit, not just crumpling up like so much tissue paper. Damn her always being ready and en pointe with policy. Damn those great debating skills. Damn her that she actually has a solid point of view and isn’t afraid to tell you what it is. Damn her toughness, her record, her resilience, her compassion, her experience, her smarts and most of all, damn the fact that she actually gives a fig about regular working folks. Damn her for making Obama look pale – yes, I said pale – by comparison.

Didn’t she know the DNC had already fixed this for him???

No kidding. Donna Brazile with her plotting little Slate article dated Nov. 5, 2004, “Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue – Tapping into the Obama factor.”

Setting the stage.

The all but unprecedented move by John Kerry to hand pick a State Senator from Illinois – no, not a U.S. Senator, but someone in the Illinois State Senate – you know, the guys who are in session 55 days out of the year — to give a huge speech at the Democratic Convention in ’04.

Setting the stage.

How long ago was the date for the 2008 Democratic Convention chosen? The last week in August is pretty late in the calendar, no? I know it has occurred to more than a few out here that it is the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. Gosh, I wonder whose candidacy that is supposed to coincide with? How long do you think Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Kerry & Co. have been rubbing their paws together plotting that one.

Setting the stage.

So if anyone wondered why Florida and Michigan delegates were given the death penalty way back when, in contravention of the Rules & By Laws Committee actual rules, which decree they can only be penalized by half, now you have your answer. If those two delegate rich states actually had even half their delegates when it counted for something, since Hillary was 20 points ahead in both, by the end of January, she would have won 4 out of 6 contests. Those wins, coupled with her momentum and important victories on Super Duper Tuesday would have sealed this thing up – for her.

Why do you think 3 other states were allowed to move their primaries up beyond the legal limit with no penalty? South Carolina, for one – a state with a very large African American population. Hmmm. Makes a girl think. Remember, Hillary was also supposed to lose New Hampshire by double digits – and won. Interesting that Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Donna Brazile were suddenly talking about tears for Katrina and the Bradley effect. Hmmm.

Even with his sweetheart ride in the press, backstabbing DNC party elites, all the money on the planet – probably sent from everywhere on the planet, dear Barack still couldn’t close the deal. Damn that Hillary.

Now that he has been ‘selected’ as the nominee, it seems he can’t raise funds the way he, and The Huffington Post, were bragging he could. I guess that’s Hillary’s fault, too.

Well, if Joan of Arc in a pantsuit is that all-powerful, then the weaker man should step aside, bow out for the good of the party, and let her do the job she is clearly ready, willing and more than able to do.

And she doesn’t even care if she gets to eat her waffle.

Hell, way back in 2005, even Senator McCain admitted she would make a good President – and got into hot water with his own party for doing so.

Tell you what, Senator Obama, you just high tail it back to Illinois and you can have all the waffles you want. Hillary will take the job. She actually knows how to help the ailing economy. If you doubt this, take a look at Hillary Clinton’s exclusive April 3rd interview with Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money, and Alegre’s “Unemployment Rising.”

And Senator Clinton actually has correct positions on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and has had them all along.

Senator Obama, what will happen if your Sunday pander to NASCAR fans fails?

Since you have so upset the Democratic base and many of your own supporters by reneging on FISA, public financing, womens’ rights, gun control, Iraq, Iran, not to mention endlessly angering Hillary’s supporters with your extremely disrespectful behavior toward her and them, where will you go? And who will you blame? Who is left?

Please. Tell me, Senator Obama. If the stress of your chickens coming home to roost grows a boil on your behind, will that be Hillary’s fault, too?

Another highlight was watching the FISA votes from the Senate visitors’ gallery at the capitol [Wednesday, July 9]. Senators Clinton and Obama were there, as were Leahy, Dodd, Webb and Specter. It was my version of a star-studded movie premier. Sadly geeky, I know.

As we all know, the three amendments against Telecom Amnesty failed and the FISA bill passed — complete with Telecom Amnesty. One result: we taxpayers may em>never find out the extent to which telecom companies and the Bush Administration had violated our nation’s laws. 

Not only was Wednesday’s vote a blow to the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, it was
also a blow to government accountability.  But I digress.

I went to the Senate gallery about an hour before the voting was scheduled to start.  Being alone, I was able to change seats numerous times as visitors came and went.  Just before the voting started, I managed to get a seat with the broadest view of the chamber.

I’d expected an efficient voting process: i.e., that all senators would take their seats and push buttons that electronically record their votes.  It wasn’t like that.

Instead, Senators trickled into the chamber, most of them not punctually.  Even before the chamber filled up, a lady at the dais slowly and repeatedly read the list of all 100 senators’ names, in alphabetical order, trying to record a vote for each one while most senators were gathered in  clusters, chatting with each other.

It looked like a cocktail party, minus the open bar, though I can’t swear that none of our senators were carrying concealed flasks of hooch.

The gallery visitors were mostly silent until Sen. Barack Obama entered.  Incidentally, he’s as handsome in person as on TV.

Unfortunately, Sen. Obama was chomping on a wad of gum as he made his way around the chamber floor, stopping every few feet to give enthusiastic hand shakes and shoulder pats to his visibly senior, mostly graying colleagues.

Sen. Obama didn’t exactly swagger: it was more like a studiedly relaxed gate — like a high school athlete walking into an awards dinner. 

I was surprised, because Sen. Obama comes off as dignified — even elegant — on TV.  His air was nearly the opposite in person that day.  I half expected him to deliver elaborate, frat-boy handshakes.  I was relieved that he did not.

My advice to Sen. Obama’s handlers: tell him to lose the gum, as it undermines his image among people who are — how shall I say it –  concerned about dignity and maturity.

A few minutes later Sen. Hillary Clinton arrived, and the gallery crowd stirred even more.  I’d hoped that she would glance up to the gallery, so I could wave a subtle hello in her direction.  She did not.

Oddly, Hillary and Barack did not interact during the floor votes — even when they were 10 or 15 feet apart. I didn’t even see them look at each other.  They just kept chatting with other people.

Admittedly, I don’t know what they were thinking, because my mind-reading skills are still in New England, protesting Florida’s oppressive humidity. 

The only interaction I saw between them for what seemed like nearly an hour was when Sen. Obama was getting ready to leave. As he headed for one of the four exits, he made a pit stop in front of  Sen. Clinton, formally shook her hand, and patted her upper arm. 

Sen. Clinton and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) also chatted briefly.  The interaction didn’t look unpleasant, but neither of them made efforts to smile.  McCaskill, as you may recall, has been parroting misleading sound bites in favor of Telecom Amnesty since at least February.  Hillary has been against it for months.

Sen. Obama and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVA) — who led cheers for Telecom Amnesty– briefly interacted, both sporting smiles. 

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who has repeatedly spoken against Telecom Amnesty, interacted with Sen. Obama twice.  Once, Leahy’s back was toward me, and Obama was smiling.  Once, when Obama was talking to two other senators, Leahy approached and tried to say something but couldn’t seem to find a place to interject.  After a few moments, he walked away.  I have no idea what that was about because I don’t have bionic ears, but Leahy didn’t look particularly jovial.

Soon thereafter, Leahy approached Hillary.  They talked and smiled for a few minutes.  Leahy was one of the Party Elders who publicly endorsed Obama early this year, urging Hillary to drop out of the race. 

I wonder if Sen. Leahy now regrets that gesture, given that Sen. Obama  ended up opposing Leahy’s strong stance against the FISA bill and Telecom Amnesty, while Sen. Clinton ended up voting with Leahy.

That’s it for my people watching. I don’t know what to make of my observations: I just thought I’d share them, for whatever they’re worth.

Incidentally, I was also at the Senate gallery on Tuesday [July 8] to hear debates about the FISA bill and Telecom Amnesty. 

An actual debate never really happened.  It was more like individual senators taking turns making speeches.  Except for the people at the dais, including a gaggle of interns or pages (I don’t know the difference), the chamber was almost empty.

When I first arrived, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) was speaking.  At least I think it was Bond: the reason I’m not sure is that in person he looks about 20 years older than in his website photo. 

Many other senators also look different in person than on their websites.  My advice: update your photos, so that visitors can recognize you more easily. Don’t worry: we taxpayers are the ones paying the photographers.

Anyway, Sen. Bond made misleading statements about Telecom Amnesty, saying that telecom companies would refuse cooperate with governmental efforts to track terrorists in the future if they could be held legally liable for doing so. 

Apparently, Sen. Bond wasn’t aware that if the government presents a telecom company with a valid warrant, the telecom company would have to cooperate and couldn’t be held liable for doing so.  I found his apparent unawareness stunning, because Sen. Bond graduated from law school at the top of his class.

I stuck around for a half hour or so and got to hear Sens. Arlen Specter and Leahy argue against Telecom Amnesty.  Wanting to leave on a high note, I departed shortly thereafter.

Mr. Hedges emphasizes a critical component I mentioned in a previous piece, but from the perspective of a world-class journalist. He writes:

If the sweeping surveillance law signed by President Bush on Thursday — giving the U.S. government nearly unchecked authority to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans — is allowed to stand, we will have eroded one of the most important bulwarks to a free press and an open society.

In order for a free press to operate effectively, it has to be able to assure its sources that their identities will be protected. Otherwise, why would they risk their livelihoods, their homes, their families, possibly their very lives, to share information? And no, I am not over-stating the case here. Mr. Hedges, for 20 years, worked for the New York Times as a foreign correspondent, doing much of his work in the Middle East, and knows exactly the potential ramifications of which he writes. One important aspect that I had not even considered was this:

The law, passed under the guise of national security, ostensibly targets people outside the country. There is no question, however, that it will ensnare many communications between Americans and those overseas. Those communications can be stored indefinitely and disseminated, not just to the U.S. government but to other governments.

This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours. It will hang like the sword of Damocles over all who dare to defy the official versions of events. It leaves open the possibility of retribution and invites the potential for abuse by those whose concern is not with national security but with the consolidation of their own power.

(Emphasis Mine) I admit – it had not even occurred to me that the US government might be concerned about information about ITS actions, not just the actions of others. That adds a whole other layer to this unconstitutional law – that the US Government can use it to make sure we do not find out what the government is doing in our name.

With the passage of this new law, we are facing a dangerously slippery slope. What other rights will be taken from us? When they are taken, what is our recourse? Mr. Hedges writes:

I have joined an ACLU lawsuit challenging the new law along with other journalists, human rights organizations and defense attorneys who also rely on confidentiality to do their work. I have joined not only because this law takes aim at my work but because I believe it signals a serious erosion of safeguards that make possible our democratic state. Laws and their just application are the only protection we have as citizens. Once the law is changed to permit the impermissible, we have no recourse with which to fight back.

Exactly. We will have no recourse for actions taken against us by our own government if our rights have been systematically stripped from us.

Now, I am just sitting here in the comfort of my own home, and when I write, I refer to articles written by people like Mr. Hedges, a journalist who has gone to where the stories are. In fact, I rely upon these journalists for accurate information, with verified sources. Again, I had not considered some of the more insidious ways in which this new law affects ALL of us:

The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.

What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man’s story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity. Under this law, all those who hold information that could embarrass and expose the lies of those in power will have similar fears. Confidentiality, and the understanding that as a reporter I will honor this confidentiality, permits a free press to function. Take it away and a free press withers and dies.

And that’s just it – if reporters cannot do their jobs, if they cannot dig for the information we need to have in order to make well informed decisions, in order to maintain checks and balances with our government, in order to protect ourselves, in order to determine who is best to represent us, in order to expose human rights violations, in order to expose wrong doing by our government or another – we need a free press, a press that can assure its sources that their confidentiality is protected. And now, we can no longer do that.

In the recent post I wrote on FISA, I included a juxtaposition by Andrew Sullivan on why he supports the new law on FISA, yet objects to torture. I, personally, thought it was a false distinction. Chris Hedges agrees with me:

I know the cost of terrorism and the consequences of war. I have investigated Al Qaeda’s operation in Europe and have covered numerous conflicts. The monitoring of suspected terrorists, with proper oversight, is a crucial part of our national security. But this law is not about keeping us safe, which can — and should — be done in a constitutional manner and with judicial oversight. It is about using terrorism as a pretext to permit wholesale spying and to silence voices that will allow us to maintain an open society.

Exactly. It highlights the attempts by people like Andrew Sullivan (who was just shilling for Obama to give him an excuse for throwing any semblance of integrity, or respect for the Bill of Rights, aside) to justify this erosion of our rights as a necessary evil for National Security as the baseless argument it is. Chris Hedges knows better. He’s been in the trenches, and he knows first hand the negative effects of silencing informants. He knows that when our right to privacy is taken away, when our phone calls and emails can be monitored without our knowledge, that we will no longer get the full story, that people will not take the risks necessary to expose our government, or other governments, when they engage in illegal activities. Mr. Hedges knows that eroding our civil liberties by monitoring our speech will mean less speech, less oversight, less accountability, and more repression. And that is simply unacceptable, simply UNCONSTITUTIONAL, for the United States of America.

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

But, WHY did you think that, Bob?? For what reason did you EVER think Obama meant any of his flowery speeches? On his record?? Hardly. On his lie-filled books?? I mean, seriously – while it may be idiotic to not think a candidate may move to the center some to win an election, it is pretty idiotic to support a candidate simply on a campagin slogan, too! That is to say, there was no reason in the WORLD for you to believe anything that Obama said, because his RECORD, what there is of it, indicates a man who votes, or not, for whatever is most politically expedient at the time. If you bought into his whole, “I am not a politician” schtick, well, it makes me wonder about your political savvy. Heckfire, Bush said the same thing, creating this whole, “I’m just a Texas boy and don’t know nothing about the ways of Washington,” despite ALL of his history to indicate otherwise. So, yeah – if you bought the whole “Hope! Change! I’m Different!” hocum, it says a lot about you.

While I am at it, your gratuitous swipe at the best president we have had in decades with THIS little tidbit,

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is

.
Was just uncalled for – you could have picked about a GAZILLION things Bush has done over the past 7 1/2 yrs, but you take a dig at Clinton?? Wow – truly no good deed goes unpunished. Bill Clinton did more for the African American community than any other president, and this is how he is repaid.

And how has Obama been for the African-American Community, Bob? Oh, yeah, right, according to YOU, not so hot:

There has been a reluctance among blacks to openly criticize Senator Obama, the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency. But behind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over Mr. Obama’s move away from progressive issues, including his support of the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

Huh. Imagine that. Maybe if you had done 1/20th, even 1/50th the level of scrutiny of Obama’s record (or lack thereof) that you and others of your ilk (political commentators) did on Clinton’s, you would not be at ALL surprised. And Obama would not be the presumptive nominee!!

But wait, there are more people who have been thrown by a loop with Obama’s move to the right, and his desire to throw away the Constitution. Yes, the so-called Constitutional scholar has decided that he doesn’t need that pesky piece of paper, either, just like BUSH! Maybe someone should have asked just what the hell he was TEACHING in those classes?!? Ah, too late now! Anywho, Big Tent Democrat, over at TalkLeft, has a post entitled, “My View: I Do Not Believe Obama On The FISA Capitulation Bill.”

The article begins: Yesterday, Barack Obama said:

Obama blamed criticism from “my friends on the left” and “some of the media” in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. “You’re not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don’t assume that if I don’t agree with you on something that it must be because I’m doing that politically,” he said. “I may just disagree with you.”
I do not believe Barack Obama. I will go further. I do not want to believe him. Because the alternative is worse. Because if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President.

Well, I would contend he never WAS fit to be president!! Again, I ask, WHAT HAS HE DONE to make anyone think he is capable of the presidency besides being able to read a teleprompter? And even then, many of the words that so swayed his followers were actually written first for other candidates!! He didn’t even write them himself!!!

BTD continues,

If Barack Obama really believes this about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is as dangerous as George W. Bush:

[G]iven the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”
(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me, but the Constitution does not work that way. Firm pledges from the President do not compensate for evisceration of the Constitutional right to privacy.

BTD really didn’t see any of this coming? I just don’t get that, all respect due to BTD. I mean, Obama is the guy who claimed it was “fair” for him to be given Clinton’s votes and her delegates. “Fair” for him to take the voices never given to him, people who pulled the lever for his opponent, not him. Yet, he thought that was “fair.” Some alternate universe in which Obama lives, it seems!!

BTD continues,

Obama’s “firm pledge,” (given he pledged to filibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity, the irony of his new pledge is nauseating), IF HE WINS is worth nothing. His position here is nothing short of disgusting.

But politics is disgusting. And pols do what they do. I remind Barack Obama of the words of Louis Brandeis:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
They tell me Obama is a Constitutional scholar. I assume he is familiar with Brandeis’ words. So no, I do not believe he believes this FISA Capitulation bill is good or even acceptable. I believe he is acting out of political calculation (and bad political calculation at that.) Indeed, if that is not the case, then his position is unacceptable and he is not fit to be President.

I would state again, no he is not fit to be president. He wasn’t fit PRIOR to this capitulation, and he sure as hell isn’t fit AFTER it. There was one person left in this race, and she is still there, who IS. One person who did NOT capitulate, who stood up for the Constitution and for our civil liberties. The nomination is not official YET, despite all efforts to convince us otherwise. If this does not show Obama’s followers the stuff of which he is truly made, nothing will. In that case, there is nothing to be done for them. But for the over 18,000,000 of us ho could see through him from the very beginning, there is another road to take, and that is to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee. But only if the Democrats want to re-take the White House. If not, then by all means, keep supporting Obama, and expect another four years of Republican (McCain) or Republican Lite (Obama) rule.

Jesse Jackson is now falling all over himself to apologize for his “hot mic” comments about Senator Obama. Rev. Jackson intimated Obama is threatening his own support within the African American community by lecturing them on morality and talking down to them. Actually, I think Jackson said he wanted to cut off Obama’s “member”, or maybe he felt Obama was cutting off his own ‘member’ with these kinds of statements – but I’m trying to be polite. [Don’t miss Larry Johnson’s classic post last night, “Is Jesse Jackson in Trouble with the Secret Service?.”

Well, Reverend, you’ve done many good things in this country. I hope you are not the latest to go under Obama’s big, fat bus. It’s OK if you are. Join us. We’ve been down here for months. We’re kinda getting used to being disenfranchised. All us bitter voters who are actually taking a stand. You know, kind of like Hillary did today when she voted NAY on FISA. Yeah, didn’t you hear? She voted against giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for spying on us. But, your friend Senator Obama; the one with the “redemptive and historic” candidacy, just threw the fourth amendment under the bus, along with all his supporters – and voted YEA. How do you, and they, reconcile that, exactly?

Seriously, Reverend, you’ll like it under the bus. We’ve opened a concession stand – we serve hot dogs and turkey burgers every day at 4 pm. Along with some bitter chips and arugula.

Guess if your son goes out and accuses President Bill Clinton of being a racist when you knew it was nonsense and said as much, albeit ever so quietly, maybe next time you’ll slap your rude kid upside the head and tell him to stop lying – and stand up for your old friend Bill with a little more gusto.

Oh, and Reverend, did you hear, Senator Obama just insulted some more Americans. He was Uuhh-ing and Errrr-ing his way through some public remarks and said the following:

“Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can speak English – they’ll learn English – you need to be worrying about whether your child can speak Spanish.”

So now English is no longer the official language of this country? I think he ought to encourage more people to learn to speak English properly, instead of pandering to the Europeans. We should be worried about the fact that our public education system is so abysmal, we have huge numbers of kids not graduating high school.

Chuckling, as usual, he pointed out how embarrassing it is that foreigners come to this country and speak several languages and we go to France and can barely say “merci beaucoup.” How about working on reading, math and science instead of French. I speak French, which is a lovely language. It hasn’t done doodle-y squat for me. And I beg to differ with him that all Europeans speak several languages. We have a number of immigrants in the U.S., with citizens originating from many countries, who lock themselves within their own communities and do not bother to learn our language. If I moved to France, you’d better believe I’d need to put all my years of school French to work toute de suite.

This ELITIST cannot resist any opportunity to make disparaging comments about all in his wake. Open mouth, insert foot, leg and thigh bone. Perhaps it is his instinct to people-please. He works so hard to ingratiate himself to his adoring crowd, forgetting everything he says is captured for replay to other folks who might not find that particular comment so appealing. Let’s go to the videotape!

Not that I want common ground with the notorious Karl Rove, but we agree on one thing: Obama is like a man at a cocktail party, sipping his extra dry martini, tossing out ‘bon mots’ and snippy insults about everyone else in the room.

So, Reverend, listen, now that he is insulting the African American community, according to you and anyone in this country who doesn’t speak a second language. And ‘bitter’ voters. And Asian voters. And women voters. And just about anyone who didn’t see fit to vote for him. And he’s flip flopped on every policy he had in the first place, why should we be so enamored of him?

And let’s not forget our most recent addition – Wes Clark – who reaped a little Karma last week by making the colossal mistake of speaking up for the unity pony, touting Senator Obama’s ‘great judgment and communication skills.’ General Clark used the unfortunate sound bite that ‘getting shot down in a plane down does not qualify you to be President.’ While his remark may be true, not a smart statement no matter how you slice it. Next time, Wes, forget all that post-primary unity crap. Just stick with Hill till the bitter end and say PUMA!

I can see where the General was hamstrung because Obama has little else by way of accomplishments to speak for him. In going for the jugular on Senator McCain, Clark found himself chowing down on some turkey burgers and bitter chips, too.

Do you two know each other – well, let me introduce you!!

The Under the Bus Support Group meets every night at 6 pm sharp. At the end of each meeting, you can recite your own version of the Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity to accept that I have lost credibility in the political community, the courage to like being ostracized and vilified for the next five news cycles and the wisdom to never be so stupid as to endorse a dissembling, inexperienced charlatan again.

Speaking of Karma, Jesse Jackson, Jr. made this statement about you yesterday:

“Reverend Jackson is my dad and I’ll always love him. He should know how hard that I’ve worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. So, I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

Wow. Your own son just threw you under the bus. This is absolutely amazing! You should ‘keep hope alive’?

What hope is that? Are you gonna put up with this crap when you were absolutely correct. There is nothing hateful in pointing out that Barack Obama displays a superior attitude towards just about everyone.

Hillary Clinton was also absolutely correct when she said, “You don’t need a President who looks down on you.” Never mind that it is no way to get votes.

You cannot lift people up by putting them down. Most people do not get inspired by being on the receiving end of a slap, particularly by a man who regards them as one would a bug under a glass.

Stephen Covey’s book, The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People, has a chapter: “Seek First To Understand, Then To Be Understood.” Senator Obama might do well to read it.

Barack Obama promised to filibuster the FISA bill, but instead, he voted for it, and many of his supporters are understandably concerned about his willingness to compromise our civil liberties. As Dawn Teo wrote for Huffington Post:

Last week, Obama supporters created a “Get FISA Right” group using the Obama campaign’s web-based social networking application. The group was an unusual addition to the website — formed as it was by Obama supporters for the purpose of protesting Obama’s position on the FISA bill…The group became the largest one on the Obama website within days, growing to more than 21,000 members in less than week.

Obama posted a response to the Get FISA Right group in which he reassures his supporters that:

…once I’m sworn in as President — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Will Mitchell, an member of the Get FISA Right group on Obama’s website, hand delivered a letter yesterday to Obama’s Chicago campaign office, appealing to Obama both to reconsider his own support of FISA and to speak on the floor of Congress against the bill:

We ask that you back up your words with action by addressing your constituents on the floor of the Senate with the same oratorical power you used in Philadelphia to lay out your vision of a ‘More Perfect Union.’ The American people have just as much right to know of the dangerous precedent this Congress would be setting by granting retroactive immunity to those who “may have violated the law” and allowing spying on law-abiding citizens …. We ask you to reconsider your current position on the bill as a whole and strongly oppose a bill about which you said, “I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power.” In your statement you also wrote, “In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited.” We agree.

That was yesterday, and today we know that Obama voted in favor of FISA. Hillary voted against FISA, just like she said she would. She didn’t do it without consideration; our national security is amongst the New York Senator’s greatest concerns. But as she makes clear in her statement, the FISA bill goes against our constitutional rights:

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.

The comments on Obama’s website make clear how disappointed his supporters are. Here’s one example of the many comments left by fellow Democrats, who believed Obama was a man of his word:

FISA Bill

By Paul – Jul 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm EDT

Also listed in: Senator Obama – Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right

When Bush was elected in 2004 I was dejected, disappointed and totally deflated because I felt my country had let me down. We failed to send W back to Texas. How could that many Americans have deliberately voted for him? The effect of Senator Obama voting for the FISA bill today is similar though not as profound. I am dejected, disappointed and partially deflated because I feel that the Senator has let me down. I can not rectify his deliberate turn about and support of this bill. Since he clearly operates by making politically calculated votes, it makes me wonder how he would of voted had he been in the senate when the authorization to use force was passed. I think he may have voted for it. I also suspect that he would have voted for the Patriot Act since Senator Feingold was the only one to oppose it. It seems that Senator Obama is not the champion for my civil rights that I took him to be. I wonder how many of Bush’s executive excesses President Obama will reverse. Maybe very few since presidents seem loathe to relinquish any priviledges.

I am sadder but wiser now. He is no longer a champion for my rights. He is simply a presidential candidate….

Obama Says His Critics Haven’t Been Listening

“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he told a crowd gathered at a town hall-style meeting in this Atlanta suburb. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”

So inclined to consider himself a common man, Barky imagines that if he suffered from a hearing problem for those 20 long years he was in that racist church that he didn’t know about maybe, just maybe that is the same problem the rest of us have. He’s hoodwinking hoping so.

He might just as well have come right out and said: “Look deep into my eyes.” Because that is the routine he is laying on us. “I Barky the All Wise have made your mind up for you.”

And when you translate the Cult-speak the message is clear: “Hey, see that cliff over there. Wouldn’t it be great fun if we all ran over it?”

Lessee…

He agrees with Scalia on gun control. He wants to kill child rapists. But don’t we all? And he wants to spy on Americans. Except that he wants it to be legal spying. Institutionalized. Allowed.

And yet we are told that we aren’t listening.

I am someone who is no doubt progressive

In a world where freedom equals slavery that might be true. But I will never consider any government progressive that wants to take away my constitutional rights.

Barky Sweetie. May I call you Sweetie?

It ain’t progress when you start taking stuff away.

Oh, and Sweetie… PUMAs have fine hearing. Exceptional in fact. We hear you loud and clear. That is why we criticize you. Hear us roar.

Clearly you are the one with a hearing problem.

Supporting their own demise. Like good little lemmings. And Cultists.

I tell you. Our prospects aren’t that promising.

If it is any consolation, a recent poll confirms that the electorate believes our country has veered away from the principles of it’s founding. And it’s founders.

CNN poll: Most say Founding Fathers wouldn’t be impressed

According to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, 69 percent of adult Americans who responded to a poll June 26-29 said the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed by the way the nation has turned out overall.

So realistically 31% of Americans believe we are on the right course.

Not even a third of us.

And this all took place in the short space of a few years.

“In 2001, 54 percent thought that the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be pleased with the state of the country today.”

A 23% shift of confidence in 7 years.

23% closer to tyranny.

1) He said that Sen. Obama has a second chance to fight FISA

2) He indicated that he still believes that Obama has a secret plan to criminally prosecute Telecom folks even if they get immunity from civil suits.

Actually, there is no second chance to fight the new FISA bill, which the House has already passed and the Senate will likely vote on next week.  The numbers needed to defeat the bill just aren’t in the Senate: we’ve known this for some time.

The U.S. Senate is nearly 50% Republican, and most Republicans support the new FISA bill and Telecom Amnesty.  That and too many Senate Democrats (like Jay Rockefeller and Claire McCaskill) have sided with Republicans on FISA and Telecom Amnesty. 

When the FISA bill comes to a vote, chances are great that the Senate will pass it — however Sen. Obama votes, whatever words he speaks.

The only real chance to effectively fight the FISA bill existed before the House passed it.  [The House has far a larger proportion of Democrats than the Senate does.]

Sen. Obama’s chance to really fight FISA evaporated on or about June 20, when 94 House Democrats changed their mind and voted to pass the FISA bill.  That was around the same time that Sen. Obama publicly voiced support for the bill.

If Sen. Obama had been truly committed to defeating the FISA bill, then he would have used his popularity to pressure House Democrats to vote against the bill.

Now, all Sen. Obama can do is vote against and speak against the FISA bill. This might make some of his supporters believe that he really meant to fight it all along — except those supporters who are actually aware of the current composition of the Senate and House.

That’s why I consider Mr. Olbermann’s idea that Sen. Obama will get a "second chance" on FISA next week to be purely fictional.

The other mistake that Mr. Olbermann made was trying to perpetuate the myth that Sen. Obama had planned to let FISA pass then later go after Telecom folks on criminal grounds.

Sen. Obama is smart enough to know that President Bush has the power to pardon all Telecom folks who end up targeted for criminal prosecution — even before they go to trial.  President Bush knows this, because his father (in 1992) pardoned a few guys involved in the Iran-Contra scandal before they went to trial.

It wouldn’t be that hard to arrange. The current President Bush has a very compliant Justice Department.  If FISA passes without providing immunity from criminal prosecution, President Bush could get the Justice Department 1) to open investigations into a list of Telecom folks, 2) to issue quick indictments, and 3) to schedule trial dates. 

Then, President Bush could simply swoop in and pardon the defendants.

Even if President Bush’s pardoning powers weren’t an obstacle to effective criminal prosecution, Sen. Obama is too smart to let a constitutionally disastrous FISA bill become law on the mere hope that he could start criminally prosecuting Telecom folks come January.

That would involve enormous risks — especially with government accountability and fundamental rights at stake — because Sen. Obama might not win in November.  In that case, John McCain (who likes FISA and Telecom Amnesty) would be left to push for accountability and carry out the criminal prosecutions.

I suspect that Sen. Obama — who has taught Constitutional Law for years — places too high a value on our constitutional rights to roll the dice like that.

That’s why Mr. Olbermann’s criminal-prosecution ideas seems to have been pulled out of Mr. Olbermann’s habitually flaring nostrils.

Below is some background info, for those coming in on the second act.

In January, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann capital-H Hated the Bush Administration’s attempt to 1) expand its domestic spying powers, and 2) grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had broken the law (likely against their lawyers’ advice) while helping the Bush Adminsitration spy on Americans. 

Mr. Olbermann repeatedly, intensely and rightly railed against these things and against the Bush Administration on his show. (See video here.)

In June, Barack Obama publicly supported a new FISA bill that would 1) expand the Bush Administration’s domestic spying powers, and 2) grant retroactive immunity to telecoms. 

Did Mr. Olbermann intensely rail against Sen. Obama’s reversal on FISA — the way he
had railed against the Bush Administration?  Absolutely not.

Instead, Mr. Olbermann meekly — and without any nostril-flaring intensity — said that he was "confused" by Sen. Obama’s reversal on FISA.  Then, Mr. Olbermann concocted a rickety defense: that Sen. Obama was secretly planning to let FISA and Telecom Amnesty become law then later prosecute Telecom folks criminally. (See video here.) 

In short, Mr. Olbermann continued leading cheers, though Sen. Obama had committed what should have been a deal breaker for Mr. Olbermann.

Salon‘s Glenn Greenwald (and others) took Mr. Olbermann to task for his reversal and explained the inanity of Mr. Olbermann’s imaginary, double-secret plan — essentially delivering a humiliating knock-out punch that left Mr. Olbermann’s pompoms and pleated skirt blood stained.

That seems to be what prompted Mr. Olbermann to do his "special comment" on Monday about Sen. Obama’s reversal on FISA.

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable – and necessary – for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.

Words from one of the most enlightened and pragmatic of our forefathers mean nothing to Obama. He thinks that he knows better than this very wise man. After all, what good is a 4th Amendment if it gets in the way of positioning oneself politically to appeal to the right?

Keeping one’s word? That also means very little. Once you hoodwink the folks into believing you it’s time to move on. Screw em! Who else are they going to vote for? Certainly not that old man that will vote the exact same way.

And so it goes. On into perpetuity. There is no new politics of hope. It is just some fancy slogan that makes people believe and thus support you. It has exactly as much meaning as the phrase A Thousand Points of Light. A slogan that the elder Bush admitted meant absolutely nothing. A staffer wrote it and it sounded good. So they kept it and attempted to make it seem like it was a political strategy. A force to unite the country.

Move over Papa Bush. You don’t know who you are messing with here. Barack is the king of the Hoodwinkers. No doubt about that.

Here is how he justified his betrayal of our Constitution.

The bill has changed. So I don’t think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.

Go ahead an watch him say it yourself. If you have a strong stomach that is. I thought that shit was supposed to come out of one’s ass.