The Leader isn't protecting us and keeping us safe

I could not have put this any better than Glenn Greenwald. 1) The President refuses to sign an extension to FISA because he doesn't get EVERYTHING he wants, i.e., retroactive immunity for his pals at the telecoms who likely illegally collected information on you and me; 2) He lets it expire... holding his breath until he turns blue... but saying it's "our fault" or "the Democrats" fault; and 3) FURTHER... he instructs the Republican house members to vote against extension of the FISA Act !!!!

It's no one's fault if we're less safe than this President's. And it's HIS administration (no one else's) where planes were flown into buildings even WITH advance warning from our nation's security people... he continued to read a book to an elementary class while it was all happening; he let Bin Laden escape and continues to let him live in the hills of Pakistan. YET he tells us Armageddon is coming. Perhaps if he could make one correct decision based on the ACCURATE information he was given ahead of time.

I hope the House Democrats have the fortitude to hold their ground, unlike some of the House Democrats.(Keystone)

Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com
Saturday February 16, 2008 11:45 EST

(updated below - Update II - Update III)
According to the President and his followers, we will be -- as of the stroke of midnight tonight -- no longer safe, no longer protected, no longer snug and secure in the strong and loving arms of our Federal Government. That's because the Protect America Act -- a law which has only existed for six months yet is now indispensable to America's ability to survive and avoid being slaughtered by the Terrorists -- expires tonight.

The President himself this morning dramatically intoned: "At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gravely pointed out: "What will happen at midnight tonight is much more significant than stump speeches, steroids or superdelegates. On Sunday, the terrorist tracking program . . . no longer will be fully operational." National Review warrior and all-around tough guy Andy McCarthy fretted: "When the Clock Strikes Midnight, We Will Be Significantly Less Safe."

This is one of the most bizarre propaganda dramas ever, even when weighed against other Bush Terrorism propaganda dramas of the past. There is one reason, and one reason only, that the Protect America Act expired. Its name is "George W. Bush." That is who refused to agree to the Democrats' offer to extend the law by 21 days (or longer), then repeatedly threatened to veto any such extension ("US President George W. Bush on Wednesday vowed to veto another temporary extension of a domestic spying law"), then directed the always-obedient House Republicans to vote unanimously against the extension, which they (needless to say) did. This vital-to-our-safety piece of legislation expired only because George W. Bush repeatedly blocked its extension.

It's just that simple.

All of the right-wing war cheerleaders who will be rendered sleepless as of midnight tonight, petrified that the Muslims who normally lurk menacingly on their corners will now be free to spring attacks since we now live under FISA (1978-8/2007) rather than the PAA (8/2007-2/2008), have only the Warrior-Protector Commander-in-Chief to blame for making us all so very "unprotected and unsafe." And George W. Bush's (absurd) claim this morning that, as of midnight tonight, "it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attacks" amounts to a confession that he has deliberately chosen to make us all Unsafe because he is the one who single-handedly ensured the death of this Vital Intelligence Tool. This is an extremely straightforward, clear and indisputable fact which even our national press corps ought to have no trouble conveying.

Mr. Penn, pot and kettle called

Salon.Com, The War Room― Vincent Rossmeier
Friday, Feb. 15, 2008 14:17 EST

It seems Mark Penn, the highest-ranking strategic advisor on Hillary Clinton's campaign team, has a little explaining to do.

After an article appeared in the New York Times on Feb. 3 that suggested Barack Obama had shied away from punishing Exelon Corp. for failing to acknowledge radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear power plants because of Obama's close financial ties with the company, Penn denounced the Illinois senator in a memo released to the press.

In the memo, Penn declared that Obama's claims of strong leadership are frequently disproved by the media "when they dig into the facts." Obama originally supported mandatory regulations for nuclear power companies to prevent future leaks. However, according to the original New York Times story, Obama softened his position over time, incorporating "changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators.

The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks."

Well yesterday, in a story first reported on Huffington Post, Sam Stein revealed that Penn's huge consulting agency, Burson Marsteller, had received more than $230,000 from Exelon to facilitate the renewal of a nuclear energy license in New Jersey. According to Craig Nesbit, vice president of communications for Exelon Generation, a subsidiary of Exelon Corp., Burson Marsteller's work with Exelon had occurred between June and November. However, as a result of Exelon's billing process, Burson Marsteller received payment for the contract only nine days after the New York Times story on Obama's Exelon connections and Penn's subsequent memo.

One more twist to the whole situation that Penn's memo failed to cover: the legislation Obama wrote that pertained to Exelon's leaks was cosponsored by Clinton.

"Present" Perfect, NY Times Op Ed On Obama's Illinois Legislature votes

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues.

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.

In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.

In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.

I recall voting “present” on many bills when I was in the Illinois Legislature. In the 1960s, for instance, I voted “present” on the annual highway appropriations bill. Like many of my fellow senators, I thought some of the money being allocated should have gone to public transportation. Still, I didn’t want to vote no, because I did not want to stand against the basic principle of maintaining our public roads. So I voted “present.”

It never occurred to me or to any of my critics that I was ducking responsibility for a making a decision. Mr. Obama was an outspoken member of the Illinois Senate, and not someone known for dodging questions, whether they were on ethics, police responsibility, women’s choice or any other hot-button issue.

Even if Senator Clinton does not remember the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois, one of her advisers might have explained it to her. When I was White House counsel, President Clinton frequently reminded me that he had taught constitutional law before he ran for public office. I would hope that he would assume that another constitutional scholar — Barack Obama — would be aware of his voting responsibilities as a state legislator.

Abner J. Mikva has been an Illinois state legislator, a United States congressman, a federal judge and, from 1994 to 1995, White House counsel. He now directs the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School.

The House Strikes Back

(From Greetings: FINALLY! And God Bless, Silvestre Reyes for defending the rights of Americans... again... finally. Below, from Dan Froomkin's washintonpost.com blog)

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.comFriday, February 15, 2008; 2:02 PM

After years of going belly-up before President Bush, particularly on matters of national security, Democrats in one chamber of Congress yesterday apparently decided they'd had about enough.

Defiantly rejecting what they called Bush's fear mongering, House Democrats refused to vote on a broad surveillance law their Senate colleagues had sent them the day before.

And, for good measure, they voted to hold Bush's chief of staff and former counsel in contempt.Several Democrats said yesterday that many in their party wish to take a more measured approach to terrorism issues, and they refused to be stampeded by Bush. 'We have seen what happens when the president uses fearmongering to stampede Congress into making bad decisions,' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). 'That's why we went to war in Iraq.'

"White House officials and their allies were angry that the Democrats did not 'blink,' as one outside adviser said."

The back and forth between the Hill and the White House yesterday was bitter.

Here, for instance, is a letter to Bush from Silvestre Reyes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: "Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program. . . .

"If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations -- including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. . . .

"I, for one, do not intend to back down -- not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

"We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won."

Superdelegates: Donna Brazille weighs in

This was heartening to hear. And as it should be. I hope the rest of the superdelegates follow suit. (Keystone)

According to Democracy for America: "Even some super-delegates are listening. Here's what Hillary Clinton supporter and super-delegate Donna Brazille said on CNN:
"Our role is to help build the party not to decide elections... as a super delegate, I believe (my) vote belongs to the American people. Therefore I will withhold committing to either candidate until the voters decide." "

Rendell's race problem -- and ours

(From Greetings: Tony Norman answers questions that arose from the national media frenzy, and questions stated here (not that he reads this blog), about his column on Governor Rendell's comments about whether or not some white voters in our state would vote for a black candidate. In general, I won't editorialize. I'll let his column say it. However, it SHOULD be noted that Senator Rendell was asked the question about the Presidential primary. He didn't "drop it like a bomb"... both of which I wanted to know. So I have to acknowledge that he was asked to answer on the subject. What do I wish he would have answered? Or any Pennsylvanian or any American? Well, my answer would be, "I HOPE that ALL Americans will vote for the best candidate in the race." He did choose to think about it aloud with the staff. I'd like him to have more hope and a higher opinion of the rest of the voters in our state. Maybe his experiences have told him otherwise.)

By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
Friday, February 15, 2008

Nobody feels sorrier for Gov. Ed Rendell than I do.

Thanks to an item in my column on Tuesday, Mr. Rendell has had to deal with a tsunami of unwanted and unflattering national attention. The column, headlined "Rendell Interjects Race Into Pa. Race," was picked up by political Web sites and quickly metastasized.

If the hundreds of e-mails and dozens of calls I've received since Tuesday are any indication, the governor is being unfairly pilloried as a crypto-racist provocateur for suggesting that there are whites in this state who
aren't ready to vote for a black candidate -- i.e., Barack Obama.

Those of us who live in this state are painfully aware that there are many parts of Pennsylvania that will never be confused with a racial Shangri-la.

What little diversity there is in Pennsylvania is concentrated in Harrisburg and the two big cities that anchor both ends of the state. We should probably throw Erie into the mix for good measure while we're at it.

When Democratic campaign svengali James Carville famously described our peculiar political landscape -- it's Philadelphia on the east, Pittsburgh on the west and Alabama in the middle -- it resonated in our bones. It's one of the reasons I riffed on Alabama in that column.

It wasn't my impression that Mr. Rendell was advocating a bigoted electorate as an acceptable status quo or a healthy attitude for Pennsylvania. He didn't rub his hands together and cackle like Simon Barsinister when he made the observation, either.

If anything, he appeared passive, but not indifferent to or malicious about our state's backwardness.

In the context of an on-the-record conversation with the Post-Gazette's editorial board on Feb. 6, reducing the state's electorate to a cohort of "conservative whites" who can't imagine voting for black candidates seemed a tad pessimistic given Sen. Barack Obama's impressive performance on Super Tuesday the previous day. It was also beside the point.

Mr. Rendell, a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, was asked to handicap the April 22 Pennsylvania primary match-up between Barack Obama and his candidate -- not the general election.

I was surprised that our governor believed a voting majority of white Democrats would go tribal by voting the color of a candidate's skin instead of something more substantive like his or her positions on a myriad of issues. I also believe he's dead wrong.

When he said it, I wondered why a white female would necessarily do better than a black male candidate if such political and racial essentialism is at work in the commonwealth.

Did the governor believe Democrats in Pennsylvania were incapable of giving Mr. Obama the same serious consideration that voters in Super Tuesday states did?

Mr. Rendell acknowledged that a woman would have problems in the state, too, but it seemed a nonsensical point since one of them will obviously win the Pennsylvania primary despite the voting clout of racist and sexist Democrats. We weren't talking about the general election.

I thought it was a sad commentary on our state that the governor believed a segment of white voters here are such irredeemable bigots. It didn't seem right that I would give white Democrats, even those in the middle of the state, more credit for being open-minded in 2008 than he does.

Still, there are several myths about that editorial board meeting with Mr. Rendell that I'd like to dispel:
• Regardless of speculation on the blogs and in the MSM, Mr. Rendell didn't "dump" or "strategically plant" his opinion about race in our paper on behalf of the Clinton campaign. We asked him for his opinion and he gave it without equivocating.
• Mr. Rendell made his comments on Feb. 6. The weekend and Potomac primaries had not yet occurred, so he wasn't aware of Mr. Obama's increased viability as a candidate. The Obama of this week is far more powerful than the Obama of last week.
• I wasn't "outraged" by what Mr. Rendell said, but I was depressed by it. I wrote about it in a snarky way because I needed an interesting first item in a column on several topics. It didn't merit a whole column -- or all of this controversy -- in my opinion.
• The governor wasn't being racially insensitive or intolerant. He wasn't trying to "exploit" race. He was being honest about complex racial dynamics in this state that should embarrass us all if he's correct. It's a subject worth serious discussion.

Mainstream coverage of this kerfuffle has been exasperating to watch, especially on cable news. Mr. Rendell really took his lumps on MSNBC, which is disappointing because it is my favorite news network.

Still, the sarcastic tone of my column got the ball rolling, so it's not all Chris Matthews' fault. Do I wish I had devoted a little more nuance, space and context to the issue? -- you betcha. Unlike many who suspect an organized conspiracy, I don't consider Mr. Rendell's words part of the pattern established by other Clinton supporters busted for using race as a weapon.

On Wednesday's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Larry Wilmore said that Mr. Obama is "beating" Mrs. Clinton because he's getting a big bump from Black History Month. The show's "Senior Black Correspondent" then cautioned a sensible return to cynicism:

"After America gets the chance to vote for a black man for president," Mr. Wilmore quipped, "they will decide that about as much change as they want will be a 73-year-old white Republican."

I believe Mr. Obama has a reasonable shot at winning the Pennsylvania primary and beating Sen. John McCain in the general election. Am I living in a dream world -- or is this simply more proof of the audacity of a dope?

Tony Norman can be reached at tnorman@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1631.

Two Questions for Senator Clinton (and one for the Post-Gazette... or MSNBC)

I don't usually state my preferred candidates, but I will say mine dropped out of the running a while back. So at this point, I am concerned with democracy, truthfulness, and fair and honest campaigning.

I'm against superdelegates deciding the winner of the Democratic nomination, IF it goes against the popular vote.

However, since Senator Clinton has put me on her mailing list to ask for donations (daily), I would like SOME reporter, perhaps from MSNBC, to ask her two questions on which I have written to her(every time I get a donation request), but on which I have gotten no response. Ever.

1) When the Senate voted on whether or not to grant "retroactive immunity" to the telecoms, Obama and many other Democrats were there to oppose it. Unfortunately, some Democrats went along with the President, while still calling him a "bully". Poor babies. Not a lot of strength there, I'm sorry to say.

But where, also, is the strength in Hillary Clinton NOT showing up to vote against it? (Or for it if she feels that way.) I'd finally like to hear HER opinion on this issue. She's one of the Senators running for President. McCain and Obama are on the record. She's avoided answering it at every point.

2) While I'm at it, I'd like to hear her disavow Governor Rendell's comments on whether or not whites would vote for a black candidate in Pennsylvania. He's her campaign leader here and a pre-declared Hillary superdelegate - before the popular vote. It wasn't a comment that was asked for by the Post-Gazette reporters, they've said.

MSNBC had Governor Rendell on, but not any of the reporters present in the room... especially Tony Norman who wrote the follow up column 3 days later, calling attention to it (and also the only African-American in the room at the time.)

It was volunteered by Gov. Rendell, according to them, before he gave his state budget speech, which was his given reason for meeting with the P-G staff. He would have had to have known it would be reported. Or perhaps someone should ask the P-G staff if it was a question posed to him before his State budget speech, in which case, it's an opinion.

I would like to know whether it was a pre-determined "time bomb" to be dropped, or a question he was replying to.

In either case, I'd like to see Sen. Clinton disavow it as quickly as she called MSNBC to disavow similarly questionable comments by one of its reporters.

Gov. Rendell questions whether a white voter in PA will vote for a black candidate, MSNBC says it COULD have been taken out of context

I had read Gov. Rendell's comments in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last Friday and was wondering when the outrage would come... or as they say... when "things" would hit the fan. A number of people I came across in town had said the same thing. However, on Monday, Tony Norman's was the first column to address the lunacy of the statement. Just by his saying it, it became a racial issue.

Governor Rendell never said "I don't think the middle of the state will vote for a woman," unless I wasn't privy to some unreported comments. No, it was "I don't think some of the whites in this state will vote for a black candidate" - to paraphrase. (The actual quote is in a separate section of this blog.) He could have said (and in retrospect maybe should have said) nothing, rather than that. However, he is also one of Hillary Clinton's superdelegates - declared before the popular election has even taken place.

I noticed it came up last night on MSNBC election coverage... at first by Chris Matthews in terms of what a shocking comment it seemed to be. However... after about an hour Chris was trying to tone down Rendell's remarks as off the cuff and not so bad. It felt like the time various well-known sports figures were trying to stick up for "Jimmy the Greek" . Sorry, Chris, I often agree with you, but not here.

Congratulations to Tony Norman (who happened to be the only African-American reporter present at the meeting) of the P-G on bringing it to the forefront and NOT letting those remarks pass as we get nearer our state's election. They were said to reporters and meant to be reported. And I wonder if Chris, who now SEEMS to be defending Governor Rendell's remarks as "probably out of context", would be bold enough to have Tony Norman... or any of the other staff who were present at the meeting and Governor Rendell on together to clear the air. Or perhaps another show might want to do so. It would give both an opportunity to re-state their claims.

It sounded from Mr. Norman's article as though Gov. Rendell made the comment to make it, not as the result of a question. Tony stated it was "dropped" before the start of the actual purpose of the meeting... the state budget.

I would appreciate it if some of the national pundits giving Governor Rendell a pass on the remarks, would have the Governor and Tony or others from the P-G, who were present for those remarks, appear on their shows to define what was said and how. Otherwise, the national pundits are gossiping without the real details. Congratulations to Tony again on bringing it forward.

And perhaps Senator Clinton may want to distance herself from the remarks made by one of her supporters in a run up to that state's election, just as she's asked MSNBC to do with their reporter's "inadvertent" remarks about her daughter.

Fear Rules the Day

(Note from Greetings: A sad day... the Democrats split, Harry Reid folded, and Bush passed his "retroactive amnesty" for the telecoms in what has appeared to be illegal spying on Americans. If it wasn't then why was "retroactive immunity" needed at all?

It should be noted that Senator Obama (and our Democratic Senator Casey) voted against the immunity, while Senator McCain seems to have voted for it, and Senator Clinton was the only Senator "not present" for such an important vote. I can't put it any better than Dan Froomkin's Washingtonpost.com blog, below)

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com Wednesday, February 13, 2008; 12:14 PM

Democrats on the stump like to talk about hope and change, but on the Senate floor yesterday they once again succumbed to fear.

Eric Lichtblau writes in the New York Times: "After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's program of eavesdropping without warrants. . . .

"The outcome in the Senate amounted, in effect, to a broader proxy vote in support of Mr. Bush's wiretapping program. . . .

"Republicans hailed the reworking of the surveillance law as essential to protecting national security, but some Democrats and many liberal advocacy groups saw the outcome as another example of the Democrats' fears of being branded weak on terrorism.

"'Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration,' said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee and who had unsuccessfully pushed a much more restrictive set of surveillance measures. . . .

"[W]ith Democrats splintered, [Sen. Chris] Dodd acknowledged that the national security argument had won the day. 'Unfortunately, those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties to be more secure are apparently prevailing,' he said. 'They're convincing people that we're at risk either politically, or at risk as a nation.'"

Here are the two key votes: 18 Democrats joined with a united Republican voting bloc to reject an amendment that would have stripped the immunity provision from the bill; then 19 Democrats joined the Republicans to pass the bill.

James Rowley writes for Bloomberg about how Bush is heading to another "legislative victory by evoking fears of a new terrorist attack. . . .

"'Holding all the Democrats together on this, we've learned a long time ago, is not something that's doable,' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters."

Paul Kane writes in The Washington Post that the vote was "a key victory" for the White House.

The "Senate Democrats' split on immunity echoes past party divisions over national security issues, including how strongly to confront Bush on the tools the administration uses to target suspected terrorists and their allies."

The bill isn't home-free quite yet.

Kane writes: "The Senate's action, days before a temporary surveillance law expires Friday, sets up a clash with House Democrats, who have previously approved legislation that does not contain immunity for the telecommunications industry. The chambers have been locked in a standoff over the immunity provision since the House vote Nov. 15, with President Bush demanding the protection for the industry. . . .

"House leaders vowed again yesterday to oppose the telecom immunity provision until the White House releases more information about the controversial warrantless surveillance program it initiated shortly after the terrorist attacks."

In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers took a tough line: "Although some of the requested materials have been provided to some Judiciary Committee members, much of the information has not, and it is crucial that this material be produced as promptly as possible so that Congress may fulfill its legislative and oversight responsibilities. Indeed, review and consideration of the documents and briefings provided so far leads me to conclude that there is no basis for the broad telecommunications company amnesty provisions advocated by the Administration and contained in the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill being considered today in the Senate, and that these materials raise more questions than they answer on the issue of amnesty for telecommunications providers.

In order to more fully understand and react to the Administration's request for broad-based and retroactive amnesty for telecommunications firms, who may be in a position to divulge information concerning misconduct by Administration officials, it is imperative that your provide this information to us as promptly as possible, as we have been asking for many months on numerous occasions."

But just how seriously does the Bush White House have to take such a demand from the Democratic Congress? History suggests: Not very seriously.

As Greg Miller writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Senior congressional aides said there was no clear path to a compromise on the issue. But a series of recent defections by moderate Democrats in the House raises prospects that the White House position -- or something close to it -- eventually may prevail."

The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage explains why the immunity provision is so significant. It is "a major step toward closing the last forum in which critics have challenged the operation's legality. . . .

"Although news of the program initially prompted a bipartisan uproar, congressional attempts to investigate it largely petered out. Then, in August 2007, with little prior debate, Congress hastily enacted the Protect America Act, which essentially legalized a form of the warrantless surveillance. . . .

"[P]rivacy advocates and critics of the administration's expansive theories of presidential power . . . have pushed the lawsuits against the telecoms in hope of winning a definitive ruling that the program was illegal, thereby keeping it from becoming a precedent for the future.

"'When an over-reaching executive wants to conduct illegal spying in secret, those companies are the only ones in a position to say "no" and ensure that the law is followed,' said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation. . . .

"'Therefore,' Bankston added, 'it's critical that when they fail to follow the law, they need to be held accountable -- to ensure that next time the government attempts to engage in illegal spying, those companies will say "come back with a warrant."'"

Siobhan Gorman writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "If the White House prevails in the final negotiations, it will hand Republicans a potent weapon for their 2008 campaign arsenal by showing that their party, even in its weakened state, can still beat Democrats on national-security issues."

Bush, not surprisingly, is keeping the pressure on. Yesterday, he released a written statement, praising the Senate for "a strong, bipartisan vote."

This morning came the hard sell, in an Oval Office appearance: "At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country," he said. "Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison. To carry out their plans, they must communicate with each other, they must recruit operatives, and they must share information.

"The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor these communications. Our intelligence professionals must be able to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they're planning."

Rejecting a Democratic proposal for another extension to attempt some reconciliation between the House and the Senate, Bush demanded that the House pass the Senate bill immediately.

And he specifically addressed the immunity issue: "In order to be able to discover enemy -- the enemy's plans, we need the cooperation of telecommunication companies. If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won't participate; they won't help us; they won't help protect America.

Liability protection is critical to securing the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts."

But is Bush really saying that without immunity, telecom companies will reject lawful orders in the future?

That presented with a warrant or certification stating that certain basic legal requirements have been met, they would refuse to "help protect America"? That's either over-the-top rhetoric -- or he holds the telecom companies in pretty low regard.

Reid (whose procedural calls as Senate leader made the passage of the bill nearly inevitable) responded with the following statement: "Today, President Bush continues his bullying. . . .

"Due to months of White House foot-dragging, the relevant House committees have only just gotten important documents related to whether the Bush Administration followed the law and the Constitution. They need some time to review and analyze them. We must not let this critical issue be resolved by White House bullying.

"Congress is prepared to extend current law -- the Protect America Act -- by any length in order for Congress to complete the in-depth analysis and negotiations necessary for a long-term law broadly supported by the American people. If the President chooses to veto a short-term extension -- as he said he would this morning -- the responsibility for any ensuing intelligence collection gap lies on his shoulders and his alone."

Scott Horton blogs for Harpers: "If things proceed on the course now set by the Bush Administration and its brainless collaborators, and the national surveillance state is achieved in short order, then future generations looking back and tracing the destruction of the grand design of our Constitution may settle on yesterday, February 12, 2008, as the date of the decisive breach. . . .

"On the key vote, the Republicans in the Senate continued to function in lock-step, as they have on almost all significant issues for the last seven years, while the Democrats fragmented. Their vote summed up everything that's wrong with Washington politics today. Fear and hard campaign cash rule the roost, and the Constitution is regarded as a meaningless scrap of parchment, indeed, a nuisance. . . .

"The Constitution was defeated yesterday, and it was defeated by a fateful coalition between brain-numbing fear tactics and money and the resources that money buys."

Gov. 'Blunt Talk' Rendell (and other topics)

A reprint of Tony Norman's column (an always-on-target columnist for the P-G) from today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I had previously read these comments from Gov. Rendell and found them to tread along the line of racism that Tony describes. I wondered when they might be addressed and by whom. (Tony - today) Pennsylvania is not a racist state by any stretch of the imagination, and comments like these have no place in this or any election. I hope the Clinton campaign makes a comment distancing themselves as quickly as they've asked MSNBC to fire David Shuster for comments that are probably not even this bad. Although those were off center, too. I say "Let's let them both keep their jobs, with reprimands from their supporters." (Greetings)

By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Tuesday, February 12, 2008

So many topics, so little space:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly.

Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

What accounts for Mr. Rendell's overweening confidence that, no matter what, he'll always find a way to overcome the odds by at least 17 points even in a racist commonwealth, but that Mr. Obama can't?

If Mr. Rendell, a Clinton backer, is right about Pennsylvania's racial attitudes, maybe we should get a new state slogan. How about: "You've got a friend with a pointy white hood in Pennsylvania"?

What's the Deal with Delegates? from NPR

This'll make your head spin... (Greetings)

The Bryant Park Project, January 31, 2008 · With the race for presidential nominations tight on the Republican and Democratic sides, the delegate tally becomes crucial — if confusing. Mark Oglesby, a high school social studies teacher and former delegate, explains.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18567468

John Edwards official blog site goes down - but the bloggers for Edwards continue

While John Edwards official blog site appears to be shutting down, others are continuing sites for Edwards. And Edwards is still getting votes in the primaries. He's obviously instilled some dedication in his supporters. (Keystone)

2/11/2008 at 7:23 PM ESTannounced last week by Bue Waters Runs Deep.
Many of you have already responded to Blue Waters Run Deep's entry last week "Edwards Democrats, WE NEED YOU! Forming a group - do you want to be in it?" at http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/2 /5/233743/4871.

Now that we have learned the JRE Blog will be going offline tomorrow, this is our last chance to use this great resource to share ideas.

We have been working behind the scenes to create a new blog site. Please let us know what you would like.
If you did not sign up via comments to the earlier post, or by emailing me at healthvotr@yahoo.com, please do so.

Whether you are a Democrat, Green, Independent or Republican, if you like what John said about what we need to do to change this country and how to stand up for regular working people, you are welcome to join us.
We've been working behind the scenes, but we need your help.

Please take a look at these important questions:
What do you want from the new blog?
What issues are most important to you?
What sections or features would you like to see included?
Would you like to volunteer and in what capacity?
What is the best way to band together and take concrete action to advance the core causes and ideals that led us all to the campaign?
We're still searching for the perfect name that will both capture what we intend to do and can be easily found via search engine.
Thank you again for your commitment to move forward,
Blue Waters, Lataet, LMorgan and Patricia W

From the John Edwards Blog.. an intriguing thought... Edwards/Gore '08

Dear Edwards Friends:
Happy Weekend to all of you. Let's see a show of hands (or in this case, postings) for those of you who believe in the UNSTOPPABLE POWER OF AN EDWARDS-GORE '08 TICKET TO THE WHITE HOUSE--AND BEYOND.
Write back. We'd love to hear from you.
Edwards-Gore '08--It's Not Too Late. Tomorrow Begins Today.
http://www.harmonyforlife.com/

A note from Greetings: Despite winning or placing well early on, why did the press carry so LITTLE of John Edwards and his ideas? Many of those ideas are now being espoused by Sens. Clinton and Obama, but were not before John Edwards brought them up. He wanted the troops out as soon as he got in - neither Clinton nor Obama did, but Sen. Clinton does now. He wanted anyone entering a hospital without healthcare to either get a chance to get their own, or sign up for federal coverage if they were unable. Does this sound familiar? Now his ideas get coverage from the candidates still being covered by the press. I'll never forget Chris Matthews pushing for a Hillary/Rudy battle from day one over a year ago. That is not press coverage... that's editorializing.

Superdelegates Who Have Not Voted, Even Though Their States Have Voted

Today's blog will list another group - Superdelegates (elected officials and state party heads only), who have withheld voting, even though their stated have voted. I also list the winner in those states. Some interesting names turn up, including former President Jimmy Carter, where Obama won heavily in Georgia, and former VP Al Gore, where Clinton won in Tennessee. Also, Rahm Emanuel of Illinois where Obama won heavily. Howver, I have to say that, given the number of votes received by Clinton in Obama's home state... and Obama in Clinton's home state(s) of NY, NJ, and Arkansas, I don't have a problem with these people withholding their votes currently. This is because the opposing candidate was given only one superdelegate vote in those states, which was quite unrepresentative.

California and Nevada were also not proportionate in superdelegates awarded versus the popular vote, so perhaps those superdelegates will vote proportionately.

However, I think you'll find the list interesting, in terms of states that Obama won handily (or split states like New Mexico), yet the superdelegates voted more decisively for Clinton including Senators Rep. Jim Clyburn of SC, where Obama won handily, yet received a minority of the superdelegate votes. Time to step up and even things out. Also, Colorado, where it's perhaps time for Gov. Bill Ritter, and Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazaar to step up and give the correct balance; Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut; Senators Joe Biden and Tom Carper of Delaware (which Obama won, yet the Superdelegate majority went to Clinton); Reps. Nancy Boyda and Dennis Moore of KS; Reps. Tom Allen and Michael Michaud of Maine; Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri; Sen. Byron Dorgan of ND; and a number from South Dakota, including Rep. Jim Clyburn. All states where Obama won heavily, yet the superdelegates voted heavily for Clinton. Time to right the democratic process for a party calling itself the Democratic Party.

In terms of delegates whose states voted for Clinton, yet have withheld their votes, even if the states superdelegates went heavily to Obama instead (I will not include states where the majority already went to Clinton), they include: Gov. John Lynch of NH; Gov. Brad Henry and Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma; from Tennessee, former VP Al Gore, Gov. Phil Bredeson, and Reps. Lincoln Davis. Bart Gordon, and John Tanner. In other cases, those are states where Obama did not receive his proportionate share of superdelegates in relation to the popular vote, anyway.

I'm giving Iowa "a wash", as they were split, and their delegates are currently split, as well.

Lastly, I have no horse in ANY of these races. Mine dropped out already (name and party withheld). However, if the Democratic Party wants to remain inclusive, then its "superdelegates" should adhere to the vote of the people, and not overrule them. It may lead to a mass exodus unlike they've seen before.

And I have high hopes for the party, whichever candidate receives the popular vote. Stay Democratic, Superdelegates!

Delegate	State	Office	Winner
Harry Mitchell (AZ)	AZ	Representative	Clinton
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)	AZ	Representative	Clinton
Art Torres - CA Chair	CA	DNC Member	Clinton
Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker - Vice Chair	CA	DNC Member	Clinton
Hon. Christopher Stampolis	CA	DNC Member	Clinton
Nancy Pelosi (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Jerry McNerney (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Pete Stark (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Mike Honda (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Sam Farr (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Jim Costa (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Lois Capps (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Howard Berman (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Henry Waxman (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Bob Filner (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Susan Davis (CA)	CA	Representative	Clinton
Barbara Boxer (CA)	CA	Senator	Clinton
John Walsh - MA Chair	MA	DNC Member	Clinton
Hon. Raymond Jordan	MA	DNC Member	Clinton
Paul Kirk (MA)	MA	DNC Member, Former DNC Chairmen	Clinton
John Olver (MA)	MA	Representative	Clinton
Niki Tsongas (MA)	MA	Representative	Clinton
John Tierney (MA)	MA	Representative	Clinton
Edward Markey (MA)	MA	Representative	Clinton
Raymond Buckley - NH Chair	NH	DNC Member	Clinton
John Lynch (NH)	NH	Governor	Clinton
Rep. Rush Holt (NJ)	NJ	Representative	Clinton
Frank Lautenberg (NJ)	NJ	Senator	Clinton
Jill Derby - NV Chair	NV	DNC Member	Clinton
Sam Lieberman - NV Vice Chair	NV	DNC Member	Clinton
Hon. Yvonne Gates (NV)	NV	DNC Member	Clinton
Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV)	NV	DNC Member, Dem Assoc. of Atty Gen.	Clinton
Harry Reid (NV)	NV	Senator	Clinton
Hon. Herman Farrell Jr.	NY	DNC Member	Clinton
Hon. Robert Ramirez	NY	DNC Member	Clinton
Brad Henry (OK)	OK	Governor	Clinton
Rep. Dan Boren (OK)	OK	Representative	Clinton
Gray Sasser - TN Chair	TN	DNC Member	Clinton
Phil Bredeson (TN)	TN	Governor	Clinton
Lincoln Davis (TN)	TN	Representative	Clinton
Bart Gordon (TN)	TN	Representative	Clinton
John Tanner (TN)	TN	Representative	Clinton
Al Gore (TN)	TN	VP	Clinton
Bud Cramer (AL)	AL	Representative	Obama
Joe Turnham - AL Chair	AL	DNC Member	Obama
Nancy Worley - AL Vice Chair	AL	DNC Member	Obama
Hon. Yvonne Kennedy	AL	DNC Member	Obama
Hon. Randy Kelley	AL	DNC Member	Obama
Blake Johnson - AK Vice Chair	AL	DNC Member	Obama
Hon. John Davies	AL	DNC Member	Obama
Pat Waak - CO Chair	CO	DNC Member	Obama
Roy Romer (CO)	CO	DNC Member, Former DNC Chairmen	Obama
Bill Ritter (CO)	CO	Governor	Obama
Mark Udall (CO)	CO	Representative	Obama
John Salazar (CO)	CO	Representative	Obama
Ken Salazar (CO)	CO	Senator	Obama
Nancy DiNardo - CT Chair	CT	DNC Member	Obama
Joe Courtney (CT)	CT	Representative	Obama
Chris Dodd (CT)	CT	Senator	Obama
John Daniello - DE Chair	DE	DNC Member	Obama
Harriet Smith-Windsor - DE Vice Chair	DE	DNC Member	Obama
Joe Biden (DE)	DE	Senator	Obama
Tom Carper (DE)	DE	Senator	Obama
Jane Kidd - GA Chair	GA	DNC Member	Obama
Jimmy Carter (GA)	GA	President	Obama
Jim Marshall (GA)	GA	Representative	Obama
John Barrow (GA)	GA	Representative	Obama
Keith Roark - Chair	ID	DNC Member	Obama
Jeanne Buell - Vice-chair	ID	DNC Member	Obama
Hon. Carol Ronen	IL	DNC Member	Obama
Hon. Darlena Williams-Burnett	IL	DNC Member	Obama
David Wilhelm (IL)	IL	DNC Member, Former DNC Chairmen	Obama
Hon. Margie Woods (IL)	IL	DNC Member, Nat'l Dem. County Officials	Obama
Dan Lipinski (IL)	IL	Representative	Obama
Rahm Emanuel (IL)	IL	Representative	Obama
Larry Gates - KS Chair	KS	DNC Member	Obama
Nancy Boyda (KS)	KS	Representative	Obama
Dennis Moore (KS)	KS	Representative	Obama
Marianne Stevens - ME Vice Chair	ME	DNC Member	Obama
Tom Allen (ME)	ME	Representative	Obama
Rep. Michael Michaud (ME)	ME	Representative	Obama
Brian Melendez - MN Chair	MN	DNC Member	Obama
Donna Cassutt - MN Vice Chair	MN	DNC Member	Obama
Collin Peterson (MN)	MN	Representative	Obama
Gene Taylor (MS)	MN	Representative	Obama
Amy Klobuchar (MN)	MN	Senator	Obama
John Temporiti - Chair	MO	DNC Member	Obama
Yolanda Wheat - Vice Chair	MO	DNC Member	Obama
Hon. Maria Chappelle-Nadal (MO)	MO	DNC Member	Obama
Hon. Robin Carnahan (MO)	MO	DNC Member, Dem. Assoc. of SoS	Obama
Ike Skelton (MO)	MO	Representative	Obama
David Strauss - ND Chair	ND	DNC Member	Obama
Byron Dorgan (ND)	ND	Senator	Obama
Carol Fowler - SC Chair	SC	DNC Member	Obama
Wilbur Lee Jeffcoat - SC Vice Chair	SC	DNC Member	Obama
Hon. Gilda Cobb-Hunter	SC	DNC Member	Obama
John Spratt (SC)	SC	Representative	Obama
Rep. Jim Clyburn (SC)	SC	Representative	Obama
Jack Billion - SD Chair	SD	DNC Member	Obama
Deb Knecht - SD Vice Chair	SD	DNC Member	Obama
Hon. Nick Nemec	SD	DNC Member	Obama
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)	SD	Representative	Obama
Wayne Holland Jr. - UT Chair	UT	DNC Member	Obama
Jim Matheson (UT)	UT	Representative	Obama
Scott Brennan - IA Chair	IA	DNC Member	Split
Rep. Bruce Braley (IA)	IA	Representative	Split
Tom Harkin (IA)	IA	Senator	Split
Brian Colon - NM Chair	NM	DNC Member	Split
Hon. Raymond Sanchez	NM	DNC Member	Split
Bill Richardson (NM)	NM	Governor	Split
Rep. Tom Udall (NM)	NM	Representative	Split
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (NM)	NM	Senator	Split