I just read Reaper0bot's diary on the reason Barack Obama is likely supporting the current compromise FISA bill, and there was one comment that jumped out at me: someone said "okay, we'll lose the battle but win the war".  Why?

I know there have been other posts on this today, but it cannot fall by the wayside.

Obama needs to show his caliber of leadership today, and you need to help him.

Today the Congress is set to pass a worse version of FISA than the one which was passed by the senate.  This bill not only shreds the 4th amendment, but it is an afront to the consitution itself.

This bill is no compromise.  Telecomm immunity goes to the heart of what it means to have rights in America.  But this "Compromise" goes further.  It makes it possible for the government to spy on Americans in violation to the already weak FISA laws ( 2 denied in 10000 requests) with only the say so of the executive branch.  

This law allows the executive branch (in a retroactive way) to make the courts dismiss a case against a telecom (or anyone else)with only the secret approval from an executive branch source.  The damage this law does to the fourth amendment is staggering, but what is even worse they can violate the amendment with impunity and the court cannot even comment on who is dismissing the charges.

By agreeing to this law the Democrats in congress have capitulated.

They have given in on the central premise of the constitution that this nation is a nation of laws.

A better description of this Immunity is freedom from any and all prosecution with regards to something (that the telcos and others) may have done, did do, and will continue to do with impunity.

I find it hard to believe that the framers of the Constitution (yeah that old thing) would have intended for the fourth amendment to be violated in this way,

This fight is far to important to stand on the sidelines on.  Right now the majority of this Democratically controlled House is prepared to vote this terrible piece of legislation in to law, and Bush is EAGER to sign it.

Now it is up to us to DO something about this.

"YES WE CAN" is not just a motto.  There is a "WE" in there, as in:

"WE are the change we have been waiting for"

We've all heard this, but today is the day to act.  

If you only make one call today contact Barack Obama (202) 224-2854.  Tell him to oppose this sham compromise on FISA.

But Don't Stop there

Sorry about your privacy, which I took when I listened in on your phone calls, but as the Attorney General stipulated, at the behest of the President, I was hunting terrorists, so... it must've been really awful when your brother drank himself to death.

Yesterday Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Florida addressing several topics.  The aspect of Clinton's speech that has received the most attention from the media is her call for the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated as-is.

In explaining why these delegations should be seated, despite the fact that they violated the rules of the controlling authority, Clinton, invoking the Florida Presidential election in 2000 had this to say:

Now, I've heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules. I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country - that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their votes should be counted.

Now, of course, this argument was offered in transparent bad faith, as Clinton had previously endorsed stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates.  It beggars belief to think that Clinton, an intelligent and knowledgeable woman, has just discovered this "governing rule".

But spin is spin and politicians often say things they don't really mean.  As one who has previously praised Senator Clinton, her intellectual dishonesty on this particular score is not what troubles me about her argument.

What is troubling is that Clinton grossly distorted the governing principle of democracy as she purported to explain it.  Ironically, Clinton spoke at length about American history, but made no mention of the basic principle that underlies democracy everywhere.  As Thomas Jefferson succintly stated, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". (emphasis added)

The flaw in Clinton's argument, then, is that the voters who voted in Florida and Michigan did not consent to have the delegations seated.  At the time those polls were taken, it was widely known that the delegations were not going to be seated. The voters therefore were expressing a Presidential preference, but it cannot be said that they were expressing the desire to elect pledged delegates to be seated, because no informed person would have thought that they were voting for that outcome.  Further, some voters undoubtedly decided not to vote based on the knowledge that the delegations would not be seated, and by their silence consented to not expressing a Presidential preference.  But by no means did that silence imply consent to have delegates seated on the basis of the Presidential preference poll.  Clinton' call therefore is not only not a call for enfranchising voters, but rather an argument that voters should be disenfranchised.

Recognizing the fundamental concept of consent in a democracy makes it clear that Clinton's argument about the intent of the voter is specious.  Assuming, as we must in a democracy based on informed consent, that the voters knew what they were voting for, Florida and Michigan voters intended to express a Presidential preference.  They did not intend to elect delegates to be seated at the convention.  Thus, if we are to take Clinton's "intent of the voter" principle seriously, we should certainly not seat delegates based on a poll where voters did not intend for that to happen.

There was no meaningful informed consent to the consequences that Senator Clinton would now like to follow from the Michigan and Florida polls.  Clinton's call is thus not an expression of a fundamental principle of democracy, but a cynical and transparent twisting of it to further her self-interest.

Spin is spin and politicians change their positions to fit the needs of the day, but Clinton's argument is one that no person who cares and understands the nature of democracy should credit for a moment.  It also renders Clinton's comparison of her personal political campaign to such historical struggles as the suffragists and civil rights movement not just risible but highly offensive.

There is a word for what Clinton would like to do to the voters of Florida and Michigan.  It is not democracy.  It is fraud.

This post is part of the MyDD candidate series. I am not affiliated with the Dodd campaign in any way.

It's been a Chris Dodd week.

The progressive wing of the Democratic party is absolutely ecstatic after a rare victory in the midst of so many disappointments. Chris Dodd, acting with support from only a few key Senators, successfully stared down not only George Bush and the war-on-terror fear machine, but Harry Reid and the centrist conservative wing of the Democratic party. Sure, discussion on FISA and telecom amnesty was only put off for a few weeks, but the victory makes it that much harder for Bush and his Democratic collaborators to win the next round.

The blogosphere immediately picked up on Dodd's leadership, yet a fair amount of the buzz seemed to coalesce around a push for Dodd to replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, not to put Dodd in the White House. Sam Stein at The Huffington Post was calling for it. Kos was calling for it. Todd called for it right here at MyDD. And I don't necessarily disagree with them. I think Chris Dodd would make a fine Majority Leader. But the type of leadership Dodd demonstrated on Monday wasn't the type of leadership Majority Leaders need. It was Presidential leadership that we saw on display.

Senate Majority Leaders bring people together. They work out compromises. They whip up votes and keep members in line. I'm sure Chris Dodd could do all those things. But Dodd's FISA filibuster shows that he is adept at using the bully pulpit, standing up for what's right and not backing down, and using every advantage and ally to greatest effect. This is what the President does, too.

Chris Dodd demonstrated uniquely Presidential leadership when he stood up for the Constitution. Why stick him with a consolation prize before he's had a chance to prove himself with voters in the primary? If you believe Dodd's defense of the Constitution demonstrated he has right stuff for higher office, then just come out and say it: This man should be President.

It seems some out there agree. People have responded in incredible numbers to Dodd's Constitutional argument (which I explained last week and which I believe was central to the success of Dodd's rhetoric on Monday). According to the Dodd campaign, over $200,000 was raised with an average donation size of under $50. 25,000 new people have joined Dodd's email list. 615,000 emails were sent through Dodd's website (not counting those that emailed through other sites). 21,000 comments were left in support (again, not counting comments left on other sites, like Firedoglake and Crooks & Liars). I submitted 4 stories on Dodd to reddit.com on Monday and received over 4,300 votes and 18,000 visitors.

Dodd's strong actions have translated into real, broad based, grassroots support for Dodd's presidential campaign. This movement isn't something that's going to evaporate after the Iowa caucuses. These citizens want to see Democrats protecting the Constitution and fighting for what they believe in. And they want someone who has shown the ability to do those things not as Majority Leader, but as commander and chief in the White House.

(This post is part of the MyDD candidate series. I'm not affiliated with the Dodd campaign in any way.)

There is a powerful argument resonating in America today. It says that America is strong if we follow our laws. More specifically, it says America is at its best when we follow the Constitution, the bedrock of our government.

George Bush has made innumerable mistakes as President. He's gotten us involved in a never ending war in Iraq. He's rolled back environmental protections. He's undercut the economy, let the dollar sink to record lows, and harmed the middle class. But the offenses Bush has committed against the Constitution - signing statements, warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus - provoke the strongest reaction from Americans.

Bush expanded the power of the executive at the expense of the Constitution. In 2008, we need not only a President who will fight for progressive values - healthcare, the middle class, diplomacy-based foreign policy - but one who will actively roll back Bush's excesses. This is easier said than done. John Nichols, a writer for The Nation, examines the issue while arguing for impeachment:

On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any president has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools. They don't give them up. The only way we take tools out of that box is if we sanction George Bush and Dick Cheney now and say the next president cannot govern as these men have.

The only candidate from either party that I would trust to shrink executive power is one who makes the Constitution central to his or her arguments, as returning to the Constitution ensures all areas of Bush's expansion are addressed.

The Constitution lies at the heart of Chris Dodd's appeal. He is most known in this campaign for his work on issues in the Senate such as restoring habeas corpus and fighting against telecom immunity. Both of these issues are rooted in the Constitutional argument, and for this reason, I believe, they have been Dodd's most successful to date.

Dodd has also specifically addressed the Constitution at a couple points in his campaign. He makes the very argument that the Constitution protects the country:

We Americans understand it is not always the example of our force that keeps us safe - but rather the force of our example. We understand that our leaders do not swear to support and defend the Constitution or protect the country - that is a false choice.

Rather, we defend the Constitution--and the values it expresses--precisely to protect the country. America's moral authority isn't incidental to our security - it's the very foundation. Restoring our belief in this most fundamental of American principles is the challenge we face today.

He's made the Constitutional argument in other places as well (like the Republican YouTube debate).

I know Dodd has a huge respect for the Constitution, and I see how he has been making the Constitutional argument implicitly throughout his campaign. I personally trust him to take on Bush's expanded executive powers. I like how his message has evolved thus far, and I hope to see him use the Constitutional argument more explicitly as the campaigns start their final pushes towards the primary.

I want Dodd to use this argument because I feel it would win him support from a diverse set of American voters and because I feel it would make his message stronger. It would distinguish his candidacy from others in a crowded field. Most importantly, making the Constitutional argument explicit would tell voters in no uncertain terms that Chris Dodd will roll back Bush's expansion of executive power, and that is what I most want in a nominee.

Dodd staffers, if you're reading, please consider my request.

Naomi Wolf, cofounder of the American Freedom Pledge program, has now added Barack Obama to the list of candidates who have pledged to restore the Constitution immediately upon being elected President. The pledge includes this statement:

We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President.

That's it...pretty straight forward. A commitment to restore the things that Bush/Cheney have taken away from our country and its citizens.

So far, every Democratic candidate has now signed it or made supportive statements about it (Edwards and Biden) except Hillary Clinton.

Hillary joins the Republican candidates who have not signed or supported the pledge (Ron Paul has signed a similar, conservatives' American Freedom Agenda to restore the Constitution).

Wolf's comment:

We will not be satisfied until we receive a solid commitment from each and every one of the presidential candidates. This is not just another request from an interest group; this is a test of whether our next president will be true to the vision of our Founders. Any candidate who does not express strong support for defending the Constitution does not deserve to be president.

And it appears that she means it.

Under The lobsterScope