Ok follow this logic.

If all a lawbreaker has to do under the newly proposed FISA guidelines is to show some sort of presidential note saying that whatever illegal actions were taken were at the behest of the president that is excused right?

And if as the president asserts, the Justice Department as part of the  executive branch acts as an extension of the presidential power (and presumably other parts of the executive branch as well), Then would the Watergate break in have been ok?  

Would Liddy and the Cubans gotten a pass?

Contractors hired by the executive branch?

Lt Calley?

Blackwater security thugs?

Presumably all US hired torturers would just have to show their note right?

US Attorneys who prosecuted selectively on the basis of party affiliation just need to show that they were directed to do that, correct?

Ok there is some silence happening that I would like explained to me by some of you brighter kossacks.  

First--Where is the Bill Clinton out front endorsement of Obama?  Anyone else puzzled by this?  Hillary has been great in throwing her support behind Obama, but from Bill?

<crickets>

Secondly,

Why is Obama not WAY out front with his opposition to the FISA capitulation?  Given that the capitulating dems are touting meaningless exclusivity language that essentially was already there in the 1978 version, what is there to ponder.  Is this about change or isn't it?  

The Latest Supreme Court decision is a Paradigm Shifter of colossal proportions.  Part of the partisan divide ofer the "war" on terror is a function of the notion of war itself.  Those on the right truly consider this a war.  On the left, people are more inclined to view this through the lens of crimefighting.  It is my assertion that the Supreme Court has now in essence defined 911 as a crime against humanity rather than an act of war.  

Consider an earlier diary on this very subject:

Ok so I am listening to NPR's "Talk of the Nation" yesterday, and I keep hearing former Hillary supporters calling in to express their views.  One thing I keep hearing over and over is "I don't trust Obama--he doesn't have the experience.  I know Hillary has the ability to get things done and I know McCain understands Congress and can get things done but Obama does not and So I am going to Vote for McCain since he is so experienced."

All I can say is WTF?

God bless Hillary Clinton.  Here's the thing--Hillary Clinton learned the lesson of 2000.  You don't give up.  Hillary gets postmodernism.  Look at the way that the popular culture has changed since that time.  Look at tv and film.  Every outlet has explored the idea of what happens when the rules become meaningless.  Look at Heroes, 24, Cloverfield, Memento, Hell--Look at LOST--just because you die on that show, it doesn't mean you are off the show.  American culture has begun to embrace the postmodern--a world where rules no longer apply.  It is a challenge to order and meaning.  Think how many times in the last decade that our our collective culture has had to embrace the idea that everything we know, all our conventions, all our folkways, our entire way of making sense out of the world is now rendered meaningless.  Blank slate.  Nothing you think you know applies anymore.  

I tell you what.  This thing beats anything I have ever seen.  I follow politics quite a bit, and this election season has me befuddled.  

I read with frustration a diary at Mydd.com this morning that once again suggests that Dean is wrong on Florida and Michigan and that those delegates should be seated.  Nothing could be more wrong.  They should not under any circumstances be seated.  NO NO NO NO!!!!  And while I am a staunch Obama supporter, please listen to my reasoning.  There are so many reasons why this is wrongheaded for democrats.

1.  The rules--The rules were agreed to.  Are we not supposed to be the party that rejects the logic of rules changes?  Anyone remember signing statements?

Follow me for more:  

Like many of you I heard Senator Clinton's remarks this morning on Morning Edition.  Many of the comments I have read here in the aftermath address her equivocation regarding her agreement not to campaign or "participate".  But what I want to talk about is her evocation of the word shortsightedness.  It is a theme that resonated with me, but not in a good way.  I have found that virtually every presidential campaign that I have lived through to be largely a choice between Long-view democrats and shortsighted, short term gain, profit-driven republicans.  I like the measured, less-impulsive, strategically superior way that democrats see the world.  This morning I heard Senator Clinton mention that word in regards to whether Florida adn Michigan delegates should be seated.  She said that not to seat them would be short sighted.  

With all due respect, I could not disagree more.

Couple of thoughts here.  First where does anyone get off calling Texas For Hillary, when by my count, taking into account both the Primary and the Caucus, Obama is in the lead at the moment, and looking at the individual district caucus numbers that things seem to be trending heavily Obama.  Who called this thing?  Fox?  Once you clear out the dittoheads in the primary and add in the caucus numbers, not only is it not a decisive win for Hillary, it is looking like it is not a win at all.  

Secondly--About the dream ticket.  I think what matters here is not who tops the ticket, but rather which strategy would be in charge of the campaign.  Will it be Terry and Mark or a 50 state strategy?  

I often like to begin a diary here by stating up front that the main reason I blog here is to explore my thoughts rather than to broadcast them.  Most of my diaries are written before I really have settled on what I think.  I like the process and discussion.  So what follows is an exploration, not a pronouncement.  Let's talk.

Here are my thoughts on the race at this moment.

On Florida:

Some of the people on the left are saying that it is a mistake to disenfranchise voters in Florida by not seating those delegates.  Clinton, not surprisingly, did not rule out going to court to seat them.  I have heard arguments saying that it is a mistake for Obama to claim in any high profile way that this was a 0-0 tie.  The concern is that the democrats(and particularly the Obama Campaign) could face a backlash from Florida voters.  It makes me wonder how that backlash would compare to the backlash from blacks across the country should the national party decide to change the rules mid-stream to the detriment of their candidate.  What happens to a dream deferred indeed.
More after the fold:

Ok I thought it might be fun to do a little internet research to find out truly unbiased polling on the upcoming primaries.  Where would I ever find such you ask?  Rasmussen?  Zogby? USA Today?  Moonie Times?

Nope.  We are talking Bookies.  

Paddypower.com is an international betting site that allows wagering on just about anything you can dream up and is based in Dublin.

So in true American fashion here is the "Line":

Florida Dem Primary

Clinton 1-50
Obama 9-1
Edwards 40-1

Florida Republican Primary:

McCain 8-15
Romney 11-8
9u11ani 25-1
Hucakbee 40-1
Any other candidate 66-1

New Jersey Dems:

Clinton 1-20
Obama 8-1
Edwards 40-1

NJ Repubs:

McCain 1-3
Guiliani 11-4
Romney 11-2
Huckabee 33-1

Now of course the numbers could change drastically between now and post time, so just like absentee ballots, be careful of betting early.

Man, talk about a horserace.

Predictions for final nominees after the fold:

Let me begin by saying that I often write to define what I think.  I am struggling to understand my own feelings about Hillary and the campaign so far.  So expect me to be clumsy and not have this all worked out.

My first thought when I saw her tear up was "She's done--she's Muskie'ed."

But this is new ground.  Apparently If you are Hillary, a tear is humanity, not weakness.  And the voting population is different than it was in 1972.  Look at the difference that women Have made in recent years.  If you lock up the women (not literally) then you win.  Soccer moms, security moms, gold star moms.  Obama won Iowa with women.  Women delivered NH for Clinton.

Follow for more:

Part of the liveblogging phenomenon is that for a time when people are scrambling to transcribe (and God bless them) quotes can be tossed around pretty easily.  I am guilty of this.  I see something in the transcript section of a live blog and immediately react.  I saw reports of Sessions saying some pretty unbelievable things yesterday.  Few of the actual statements that were being discussed and attributed to Sessions were identical, so I did some digging.  Below the fold are Sessions comments from the Library of Congress in context, unchanged, and with a link.  When we call a guy out, I think we should be accurate.

Follow me kids:

Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.

I think it is important not only to fight right wing extremism, but also to attempt to understand it that we might be more effective.  Now I know what I am about to say may be simple and obvious to many of you.  But those of you who fall into this category are just smarter adn wiser than I am in that I am just waking up to the basics of this cultural divide.  

War on terror:

The key here is the word "war."  We rational people look at terrorism as a crime.  We think in terms of crime fighting.  We recognize the need for courts to sort out the guilty from the innocent.  We instinctively want to end injustice.  We insist on Habeas Corpus.  We want evidence and a determination of guilt and innocence.  We want the principal of innocent until proven guilty.

One of my favorite sites on the internets has been tv-links.co.uk (look it up in the internet archive sometime when you get a minute.  Anyway it was a site that linked to various international streaming sites where you could watch television shows.  Now admittedly there is some piracy going on.  However, this seems to be one more case where the protectors of intellectual property are seriously overreaching.  The guy hosted no pirated material.  All he did was link to it.  I am certainly no lawyer, much less a british one, but it seems an odd law that makes it illegal to point at a crime.  If anything, this guy has done those people a favor in doing their research for them.  Now I admit that much of my reaction is whining over the loss of my favorite site.  I mean this thing had practically every show you could imagine and a whole section for movies as well, and documentaries and cartoons.  And if linking to something copywrighted is a crime, who among us is innocent?  Have you done the research on every photo you have linked to or every video clip?  

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/...

Out of the usual mouthpieces of the right I continually hear that it is unprecedented to demand timetables for withdrawal.  I have heard Bush say again and again that is simply defeatism.  I have heard him say that to leave now would dishonor the fallen.  But Bush foreign policy has pushed for these very same timetables and benchmarks in another part of the world.  Follow me  

Today, citing scripture, religious leader Jerry Falwell condemned the surgical separation of conjoined twins.  "This abhorrent practice is in direct violation of the holy scripture.  There it is, plain as day, it says clearly in Matthew 19:6--What therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder.  I don't see how that could be any clearer."  Republican lawmakers lead by Bill Frist scrambled to craft legislation.

Ok so I hear Fred is eyeing a run at the White House.  This is the same Fred Thompson who worked with Howard Baker during Watergate.  This is the guy who famously prompted Baker to ask "What did the president know and when did he know it?"  This is the same Fred Thompson who in questioning Butterfield at the Watergate hearings exposed the secret taping system Nixon had installed. And now he is a Bush Administration apologist?  Now he is calling for the pardon of Scooter Libby?  Now he is Spearheading the Libby defense fund, and god forbid were he elected would surely pardon him? Et tu Freddy?  What happened to you, man?  When you lie down with dogs, expect fleas.  Oh how I wish for someone to ask those kinds of  questions today.  The guy that asked possibly my all time favorite political question is today an unapologetic defender of the most corrupt VP office since Agnew.  In terms of Irony it matches right up there with NPR having Libby Lewis covering the Lewis Libby trial.