Thank you, Democrats, for listening to me. :-)

What an honest, forthright, absolutely amazing speech under very difficult circumstances.  No easy outs here, nothing politically "safe" about Obama's response to this issue. Barack discusses the issue of race in a way rarely seen in the public sphere, and his message of unity continues to resonate. As a YouTube commenter points out, "He is the first 21st century politician. It feels like fate has sent us this man to balance out the folly of the last 8 years..."

Can this speech help reverse Obama's recent slid in the polls and help him become our next President?

It damn well ought to.  It certainly elevates him above the natty critics who snipe at him with a 'guilt-by-association' theme regarding some of his pastor's unfortunate public comments.

There is no doubt that we need to elect a man like this to help heal this nation. The real question this nation must answer is... do we deserve him?

Link: Obama's Speech 'A More Perfect Union'

Link: YouTube

Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn’t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn’t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what’s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.

But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

By George, I think he's got it!

See also: Who can beat the GOP, Barack or Hillary?

We're thankful for our country's troops.

We're thankful the minimum wage has been increased for the first time in a decade.

We're thankful MC Rove has more free time to work on his dance moves.

We're thankful Congress has "wasted time" trying to end the war in Iraq. 

We're thankful radio stations don't play "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

We're thankful for journalists like Molly Ivins, who was never afraid to "raise hell."

We're (not) thankful for wide stances.

We're thankful to Michael Moore, whose documentary SiCKO started a national discussion on health care reform.

We're thankful people don't call us Buzzy, Cookie, Brownie, or Scooter.

We're thankful we can now call Al Gore the "Oscar-winning, Emmy-winning, Nobel Prize laureate" former vice president of the United States.

We're thankful Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales won't visit our bedside if we're sick in the hospital.

We're thankful not all Dick Cheney's cousins think like he does.

We're thankful to be considered one of the "ten most dangerous organizations in America."

We're thankful that visiting the Mall of America isn't really like visiting Iraq.

We're thankful President Bush isn't giving out any more back rubs.

We're thankful for 12-year olds who can take down Rush Limbaugh in a fight.

We're thankful our Halloween costumes aren't very "original."

We're thankful no one (except the birds) gets hurt when Dick Cheney goes hunting now.

We're thankful for "phony soldiers" who have the courage to speak out about the war in Iraq.

We're thankful the "Commander Guy" has only 425 days left in office.

Link: The American Progress.

P.S. In case you're wondering, I'm being sarcastic about RayRay.

I don't doubt that he and his message is what this country needs in 2008. I don't agree with him on every issue, but I believe we need something and someone new... someone who can bridge the great divide and call us together to accomplish great things.

Listen to him speak; he's genuine and you know he believes in what he says. Try not to feel inspired about shedding our broken politics and getting back to fulfilling the promise of America and living up to the ideals we once espoused.

What I don't know is, whether he can get the nomination from his own party. 

I had to watch in frustration in 2004 as the Dems followed the Dean meltdown by inexplicably choosing flawed Kerry over a real leader, Wes Clark... am I now doomed to watch our party roll forward with flawed Hillary over inspiring Obama?

Must we once again choose the best "politician," rather than the best leader?

P.S. Ok, so you're not a big fan of political speeches... maybe you're willing to watch Barack on this week's Saturday Night Live instead?  Humor can really ring true sometimes...

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Action Alert: Push Congress Back Into the Wiretapping Fight to Restore your Rights

Last week, Congress passed horrible legislation that broadly expands the National Security Agency's authority to spy on Americans without warrants. Now Congress needs to undo the damage as soon as possible, and to make it do that, it needs to hear from you:
http://action.eff.org/fisa

By capitulating to the President's demands for sweeping new surveillance powers, Congress not only trampled on your Constitutional rights but also disregarded its own Constitutional duties. The law permits warrantless surveillance of "persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States," even when they are U.S. citizens or are communicating with U.S. citizens, with no prior court approval and only minimal court oversight.

Rather than setting meaningful boundaries on the Executive, Congress essentially handed him a blank check to invade Americans' privacy.

The most important check on government surveillance still remains though. It's you. Tell your representatives to repeal this legislation and restore your rights now:
http://action.eff.org/fisa

Congress' actions are particularly disgraceful given how the Administration has concealed the truth about its illegal spying. The President only revealed the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" when press reports forced his hand in December 2005, and, after the Administration deliberately evaded numerous Congressional inquiries, it took the threat of possible perjury charges for the Attorney General to concede last week that the program was broader than first admitted. In its haste to pass legislation, Congress was essentially flying blind, yet it caved in to the Administration's fear-mongering anyway.

This is a knockdown -- but far from a knockout -- in the battle to stop the government's warrantless domestic surveillance. The fight is not over, and, if you push them hard enough, Congress still has a chance to set things right. 

For our part, EFF's case continues forward against AT&T for illegally collaborating with the government, with a hearing before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals next Wednesday.

We'll keep battling in the courts to uphold the Constitution and restore your rights.

We will also be taking the fight back to Congress, and for that we need your help. It's up to you to hold your representatives accountable for either allowing this egregious change or supporting it outright. Don't let them think for a second that this went unnoticed: send them a letter, call them to voice your opposition, and visit their home offices in your district during the August recess.
Spread the word to your friends and family about what Congress has done and urge them to take action, too.

Fortunately, the law has a sunset date, and, more importantly, Congressional leaders are already signaling that they want to revise the law before then. Restoring protections for your fundamental rights shouldn't wait even a day. Neither should our efforts to make sure that happens
-- take action now:
http://action.eff.org/fisa

Read the Center for National Security Studies analysis of the bill:
http://www.cnss.org/CNSS%20Views%20on%20S1927.htm

For EFF's case against AT&T:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att

For EFF's page on the NSA's Warrantless Domestic Surveillance:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/

See EFF's earlier article, "Administration Concedes Open Secret: NSA Spying Broader Than Previously Admitted":
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005386.php

For this post:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005395.php

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that Congress might soon take action on a bill that could rubberstamp the NSA's spying program. The Bush Administration is trying to sell its latest proposal as a serious compromise, but don't be fooled -- it represents an unprecedented power grab that endangers the checks and balances that define our democracy. Please call your representatives now before it's too late.

Contrary to the Administration's characterizations, its "FISA Modernization" bill is not simply about "updating" the law and allowing surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications. Instead, it could radically expand the government's ability to spy on Americans without a warrant.

It's highly irresponsible for Congress to even consider this proposal before uncovering the truth about the still-shadowy spying program. In recent weeks, Congress has made strides towards more vigorous oversight and authorized subpoenas for key information, but the proposed bill would short-circuit such scrutiny.

Tell your representatives to stand strong against the Administration and stop the abuse of surveillance powers.

Link: Call Congress Now! - EFF.org

Link: Obama Leads All Republicans in General Election Head to Head Contests - Zogby International

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey on Tuesday provided dramatic new details of an internal Justice Department rebellion against the White House's warrantless surveillance program in 2004 and told Congress that the White House had briefly reauthorized the program over the objections of the government's top legal officials.

In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey told senators of an extraordinary White House effort to circumvent him in seeking reauthorization for the secret eavesdropping program while Comey was serving as acting attorney general. At that time, in March 2004, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was in intensive care while being treated for gallstone pancreatitis and had temporarily relinquished his powers to Comey.

Comey, who was Justice's No. 2 official from December 2003 to August 2005, came to testify before the panel about his views on the controversial firings of at least eight U.S. Attorneys last year, but instead spoke at surprising length about the White House's effort to bypass him on the secret program. Comey avoided naming the specific program during the hearing, though senators of both parties made clear they understood Comey to be referring to the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program.

Comey explained that, in Ashcroft's absence, he had refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the National Security Agency's program, citing unspecified concerns about its legality raised by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

In response, Comey testified, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card Jr. paid a visit to Ashcroft's bed in the intensive care unit at George Washington University hospital in Washington, D.C., and attempted to get a still-groggy Ashcroft to overrule Comey. Comey, who testified that he had "raced" to the hospital with his security detail to arrive at Ashcroft's bedside before Gonzales and Card, said that Ashcroft refused Gonzales' request to overrule Comey and that Ashcroft indicated that only Comey could provide such authorization.

"I was very upset. I was angry," Comey testified in response to questioning from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "I thought I'd just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general."

Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller were so concerned that the White House was trying to circumvent the Justice Department that, before Gonzales and Card's arrival at the hospital, Mueller instructed FBI agents not to allow Comey to be removed from Ashcroft's bedside "under any circumstances," Comey said.

There's no way around it... this is an absolute disgrace. Who knew things would get so bad that John Ashcroft would turn out to be one of the good guys in comparison to who remains in the Bush Administration.

It is my considered opinion that the Attorney General should resign or be removed from office.  And any President who keeps a man like this on for no good reason other than to save his own hide from possible prosecution has violated his oath of office and his solemn constitutional duty to see "that the laws be faithfully executed."

It occurs to me lately that the worst consequence to come out of Bill Clinton's impeachment is not the turmoil the country was put through and not the distraction it created that may have contributed to, among other things, this country's failure to neutralize the threat of al Qaeda before 9/11. 

The worst consequence is the fact that after going through that painful episode over a relatively minor offense by Clinton, our country is now willing to jump backward through hoops of fire to ignore the multitude of real and unmistakable crimes, breaches of duty and other impeachable offenses that have come out of this shameless and cynical Administration.

And remember, none of this would be coming to light had the Democrats not regained control of Congress in the last election.

Link: Former Deputy AG Details Justice Department Rebellion over Surveillance Program - Law.com
Link: Shocking Lawlessness - The Progress Report
Link: President Intervened in Dispute over Eavesdropping - The New York Times

...and how disappointing that The Donald is one of the few with the cojones to tell it...

Link: Donald Trump on Bush:  It's all a big lie

GRAVE CONSEQUENCES: "The Justice Department and its officials traditionally have been held to a standard of independence and non-partisanship not expected at other federal agencies." So said Theodore Olson, President Bush's lead counsel in Bush v. Gore and former Solicitor General, in 2000. "Whenever that barrier has been breached in the past, whenever politics has permeated the decision-making or the atmosphere at the Department of Justice, as occurred in Watergate, the consequences for the nation have been grave." The breaches of the Bush administration in this regard are perhaps unparalleled. Among the revelations just this week: that a former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may have broken the law by using "political affiliation in deciding who to hire as entry-level prosecutors"; that the Justice Department's hiring process was politicized beyond the attorneys to non-civil-service employees; and that members of Congress are so concerned about partisan prosecutions they have requested that the DOJ's inspector general provide details about public corruption investigations organized "by the party affiliation of their targets." Testifying before Congress yesterday, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey lamented this unprecedented politicization. "I don't know how you would put that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we were hiring...for political reasons."

ONLY LOYAL BUSHIES NEED APPLY: On Wednesday, the Justice Department announced that it had launched an internal investigation into whether Monica Goodling -- former counsel to Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House -- "tried to fill vacancies for career prosecutors at the agency with Republicans loyal to the Bush administration." If Goodling did seek to determine the political affiliations of job applicants before they were hired as prosecutors, that is "potentially a violation of civil service laws and a break with a tradition of nonpartisanship in the career ranks at the Justice Department." The accusations against Goodling are "the most serious thing I have heard come up in this entire controversy," Comey said during yesterday's hearing. “If that was going on, that strikes at the core of what the Department of Justice is. You just cannot do that. ... It deprives the department of its lifeblood, which is the ability to stand up and have juries of all stripes believe what you say and have sheriffs and judges and jailers — the people we deal with — trust the Department of Justice."

Link: For more on this scandal, see The Progress Report.

Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner. He was hailed by media stars as a "breathtaking" example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won. MSNBC's Chris Matthews declared, "We're all neo-cons now;" NPR's Bob Edwards said, "The war in Iraq is essentially over;" and Fortune magazine's Jeff Birnbaum said, "It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context."

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? "What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President - no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored," says Moyers. "How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?"

In "Buying the War" Bill Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration's case for war. "Many of the things that were said about Iraq didn't make sense," says Walcott. "And that really prompts you to ask, 'Wait a minute. Is this true? Does everyone agree that this is true? Does anyone think this is not true?'"

Link: Complete video and transcript at trouthout.av truthout.av.

"Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the President's management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right. The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place...

Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued... [H]e lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies....

We cannot 'win' a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did."

--Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, 4/28/07

General Odom said President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq beginning October 1st. He generally doesn't favor congressional involvement in the execution of foreign and military policy, but argued that "Iraq is different" because Bush had been derelict in his responsibilities.

Odom, neither a Republican or a Democrat, served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. He says he's never been a Democrat or a Republican.

In other news, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling wrote a scathing essay in the latest Armed Forces Journal entitled "A Failure in Generalship" asserting that generals had failed to prepare the military for counter-insurgency warfare, kept silent when the country went to war with too few troops, and botched the post-invasion occupation.

"In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war," Yingling wrote. "These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps," he wrote.

The deputy commander of the army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Yingling has served two combat tours in Iraq, and before that tours in Bosnia and the 1991 Gulf War.

Links: General Odom's statement and another Odom article making the case for withdrawal, and Colonel Yingling's article from AFJ.