[I]f you're going to break a filibuster then you need to have those 41 votes to do so. And it may come to that, if in fact this legislation, this language in the FISA bill remains.

And that is to strip out this provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as it's been rewritten. It that doesn't work here; if this bill leaves the Judiciary with this provision still intact then I'll be filibustering this bill.

That's because the country has a moral obligation to provided limited immunity for the assistance the telcom executives provided to the FBI and NSA in the 9/11 hunt for Al Qaeda. The books I have read with insider accounts suggest that the executives, who expressed concerns, were assured that their cooperation was legal by the Bush Administration. These executives committed their companies to aiding their country following a major attack on a US city and did so in good faith.

If the country does not honor the assurances these companies were givin regarding 9/11 assistance, then the United States will be hard pressed to ask companies to help in the future.

Now, I am aware of the concerns about immunity being overly broad and unintentionally covering unrelated events, so it is reasonable to be careful with the language of the bill. But, I would be inclined to vote against any Democrat forcing a knee-jerk blanket ban on immunity just to make points with the left blogs to prop up a flagging vanity Presidential campaign.

Shouldn't we pressure them to give us specific answers on issues we care about? Isn't that a good way to figure out what kind of president they will be?

Sure, if you have access to the classified material that would enable you to evaluate the language of the bill instead of just reacting to what amount to sensationalized tin foil hat conspiracy theories.

I've read several of the books dealing with the participation of the telcom and financial companies in the post-9/11 anti-terror fight. The more I have learned about it, the more I realize that we are talking about a very nuanced gray area with no absolute answers. Tough calls, here. Very difficult questions. IMO, the lefty blogs lack the information to reasonably impose simplistic demands. These kinds of calls are why US Senators get paid the big bucks.

I see you have no problem using these Jesus Freaks to get your message out. Maybe along with your disclaimer that you support Clinton, you should put that as a disclaimer in your posts here. That you think you are talking to a bunch of lefty Jesus freaks might be of interest to your readers.