Harry Reid spoke bluntly on energy issues the other day.  Looking the Faux and Balanced cameras square on, he spoke truth:  

Coal makes us sick ...

This is an important statement.  Reid is speaking truth to an audience that isn't used to hearing it.

Hillary Clinton could make some news today.

We already know Dodd and Feingold are fighting FISA.

And, to his credit, Harry Reid is opposing the deal:

It is a position that puts the Democratic Senate leader at odds with his own party's presumptive presidential nominee, Barack Obama, who also has pledged to fight for the removal of immunity but will vote yes on the final package.

"I am not going to vote for the FISA bill," said the Nevada Democrat. "There are people, Mr. President, who have worked on this FISA matter for three months or more and again the administration worked with them. Did they, on the FISA bill, move enough to make me vote for the bill? The answer is no."

But now comes something a little more interesting. Chuck Schumer, Clinton's close Senate ally and a member or the leadership, is also voting no on the capitulation:

Chuck Schumer's spokesman tells us that he's going to oppose the current version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation, which immunizes telcom companies for past implementation of Bush's requests and expands the government's capacity to surveil without court approval.

If Schumer backs an effort to remove the immunity provisions, that could be a big deal. Obama has come out against those provisions, but Schumer is a strategic signal caller in the Senate. The key question: Will Schumer support a filibuster on removing immunity from the bill?

Hillary Clinton was welcomed back to the Senate this week. And with two members of her caucus leadership standing against the deal, she could return with a bang.

Update [2008-6-25 15:58:57 by Josh Orton]: Now might be a great time to head over and buy one of Feingold's great "Don't Spy On Me" shirts, which look like the photo above.

cross-posted with permission of diarist @ This Week With Barack Obama and digg it!!

Folks, the powers that be in the Democratic Party have shot across the bow of the Clintons.

First, Congressman Jim Clyburn (D-SC), third ranking leader of the house will hold a press conference on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 to announce his endorsement.  This is happening the day OF the Montana and South Dakota primaries.

This move is significant because it has been Clyburn who have warned the Clintons continuously about their campaign tactics throughout this campaign, which did not sit well with him.  So, now under Pelosi, he is endorsing on Tuesday.  Also, this move is a signal to other fence sitters in congress and those who want to "switch hit" that now is the time to get on board, not later.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Leader of the Senate, is on the move too.  He specifically said, "...this is not going to the convention."  He has been on the phone and has told members to get ready to show your t-shirt.  It will not be a fight at the convention.

But, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House was poignant and on target in her assessment.

"There is too much at stake in our country for us to be thinking that we can afford the luxury of intra-party battles eight weeks before the election," said Pelosi, in her strongest words yet on the battle over seating delegates from Florida and Michigan. "We've had many months to have a debate, to come to a conclusion. And one way or another ... we have to come together."

Next, she is enthusiastic and understands the Clinton supporters, but this is one fight that is ending and it will be swift and sweet.

Pelosi responded to Clinton supporters who have vowed to take the New York Senator's fight all the way to the floor of the convention - chaired by the Speaker.
"I admire the enthusiasm of those who want to take this to the limit," Pelosi said. "But it will harm our party's chances to win in November. Their enthusiasm is wonderful ... but it's a luxury I can't afford."

Lastly, the democratic process is based on PLEDGED DELEGATES, not the popular vote.  I know that the Clinton Campaign has been running this, but in the end the rules of the Democratic Party are the rules.  

Pelosi stressed she is "respectful of Sen. Clinton and the magnificent race she is making," but in the end, "whoever has the magic number of delegates will win the nomination."

I know many of us have been on pins and needles, but with the swift movement of the DNC to put Florida and Michigan to rest, this is over after Tuesday, June 3, 2008.

And new spanish language Obama Music Video, Enjoy:

Cross posted from My Silver State.

Remember 2004? When the incumbent Senate Democratic Leader was beaten when he was running for reelection in South Dakota? The first time the Republican  Senate Leader Bill Frist broke one of those so called DC "gentlemen's agreeements" of not actively campaigning against the leader of the other party?

You want that to happen again in 2010?

No? Then follow me below the fold to see what you can do NOW to stop the Republicans from beating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010!

A week ago I noted that both Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe and key Clinton congressional backer Barney Frank were talking about the race for the Democratic nomination being over in June, seemingly agreeing with the sentiment of many in the party that the primary battle should not extend all the way to the convention in the hopes of maximizing the party's ability to win back the White House in November. It looks like you can add Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean to the list pushing for the process to end when balloting finishes in June.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday that three of the party's most influential figures might join to convince Democratic superdelegates to make up their minds on which presidential candidate to support.

Reid said he, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean might write a joint letter, or individual letters, to superdelegates after the last primaries in early June, "unless something comes up."

Reid rejected suggestions that the nominating fight may extend to the Democratic Convention in August, and expected superdelegates to make up their minds before the beginning of July.

"I've said for several weeks now that this matter will be over by sometime in June, or no later than the first of July. I still believe that that's the case," he told reporters.

Some Clinton supporters online are unhappy with the news that there might be an end in sight to the nominating process. However, this end (though not necessarily with these means) is exactly what some in the upper echelons of the Clinton campaign were calling for just this month. As alluded to above and discussed at greater length here, Congressman Barney Frank, a strong Clinton supporter, said recently that he believed the candidate with "no practical chance of winning the nomination" should drop out by June 3rd, at the latest, and "probably sooner" than that. Even Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said last week that he thought "it will be over in June."

So, it seems, a consensus is building -- the race for the Democratic nomination should be over long before the convention in late-August, probably as early as June, a few weeks from now.

The fictional brokered convention scenario got me thinking about something that's been bothering me for a while: what, exactly, is the point of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions?

Nominally, the conventions have three goals:

1. To nominate a party's candidate for president;
   
2. To nominate a party's candidate for vice-president; and
   
3. To adopt the party's platform.

In reality, the party's platform is worked out months in advance by members of the respective parties' Platform Committees, and are ratified by the conventions as more or less a formality. For the most part, all people care about when paying attention to the conventions (to the extent that anyone actually does pay attention...) is the nomination of the parties' tickets, which brings me to my second question: What is the problem with having the primary campaign actually last up until the convention?

Straight from the source :

http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html

While Democrats across the country are anguished about the bitter fight for their presidential nomination, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't appear to be losing any sleep over it.

Asked about it last week, Reid said he remains convinced the nominee will be decided well before the August national convention. He wore a serene and mysterious smile.

But Reid isn't one for lengthy explanations. The conversation went like this:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

That's all the Nevada Democrat would say about it. . . .

Furthering rumors of an attempted back-room negotiation for the nomination, Adam Nagourney writes in today's New York Times,

The delegates said they hoped to avoid being portrayed as party elites overturning the will of Democratic voters. They spoke of having some power broker -- the names mentioned included Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee; former Vice President Al Gore; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- step in to forge a deal.

Yet even as some of them pleaded for intervention, they said they were not sure what could be done in a race with two candidates who have so much support.

"I think it has got to be brokered before the convention," said Bill George, the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in Pennsylvania. "I think there should be a couple of people -- maybe Howard Dean and Al Gore, they have some credibility -- to do it. Dean should call a meeting, and the two camps should be forced to do it.

Might I propose my own backroom deal? The Hillary Clinton supporters here may not like it, but here goes nothing: Clinton for Senate Majority Leader.

It's hard to argue with the suggestion that Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history. This would make FDR-style consensus governing a tricky task for her as President, but would be irrelevant as Senate Majority Leader. Her record as a Senator certainly suggests she would excel in the position. She has done an excellent job of reaching across the aisle to get things done, wooed over thousands of hostile upstate voters (including members of my own family), and learned the ropes from former Majority Leader and anti-war Dem Robert Byrd. Way back in November 2006, Joshua Green wrote in the Atlantic Monthly,

There remains another option--one to which she is unquestionably well suited. As an admiring senator put it to me, "Hillary Clinton is everyone's secret choice for majority leader." It's a line you hear often on Capitol Hill, and it has two possible meanings. For some it's polite code for "Lord, I hope she doesn't run for president." But for others--I'd venture to say the majority--it is a compliment genuinely felt, an acknowledgment that she has satisfied the lions of the Senate and, should she wish to, might one day rank among them.

It's certainly not too early in Clinton's Senate career for the job - she's had just as much time in the chamber as one Lyndon Baines Johnson had when he took the position. But Reid, what has Reid done? Why, virtually nothing, unless you count caving to Bush on telecom immunity as an accomplishment. If I recall correctly, his approval rating in most unscientific Netroots polls is lower than Pelosi's. You may have noticed Nagourney didn't think to include him in the list of potential powerbrokers, perhaps for a lack of credibility. I've always like the boxer from Searchlight, but it would seem that Majority Leader is just not the right spot for him. My own choice for the job would be Chris Dodd or Byron Dorgan, but neither of them is central to party unity. If Reid would be gracious enough to voluntarily step aside for Clinton, he would restore his status as a party elder and perhaps virtually guarantee himself a spot in a Barack Obama administration.

Gore, Dean, and Reid, perhaps joined by Biden and Richardson, might be able to work out such a deal. The roommates Durbin and Schumer, as members of the leadership team and surrogates for opposite campaigns, could facilitate. Given her position, credibility, and even gender, I would add Pelosi to the list, but I accept the fact that she is clearly a closet Obama supporter, and as Jerome said this morning, that does color her role.

Of course, as a vocal Obama supporter, my own "role" is colored as well. I accept that. But please take me seriously when I say I am more interested in avoiding a convention fight than I am in pushing my own candidate, and that this honestly strikes me as the fairest deal I've yet seen for either candidate. Read through the diaries and comments I've made about Obama, Clinton, partisan infighting, and candidate diaries if you don't believe me - my feelings for both campaigns have always been somewhat tepid. Remember that Biden and Dodd were my first and second choices, and I didn't select Obama until the week I voted. I hope that this will dispel any notion of a hidden agenda.

Update 11:54 PM: I want to make it clear, I don't think this proposal should be implemented today. I don't foresee Pennsylvania and the other remaining states breaking the current bitter stalemate, but obviously we should give them a shot. Once all the voters have been given their say, and MI and FL have revoted, THEN the party leaders should step in, assuming the stalemate still exists.

Update 12:12 AM: I should also clear up, by consensus, I mean with the American people, not with Republicans in Congress. Bipartisanship is important, but it's not the same thing as leadership. Hence the phrase "FDR-style."