Hope you all can be part of the call tonight.  We've got some great tips and advice from Amy Pritchard and Democratic GAIN.  This training will be helpful really for anyone in any field, but particularly for anyone looking for a job on a political campaign.

Looking forward to it Matt, I updated my RSVP from maybe to yes.  btw, there are 2 fast finger oops in the second to last paragraph (trainings and contribute)

Speaking of DFA Trainings ~ they rock!  They are intensive and packed with valuable information.

Did you know the week-end long DFA Campaign Academy is being featured at the 5th Annual DemocracyFest August 16-17 in Dulles VA.  All trainings, speakers, entertainment, and some meals are included in the price of the ticket!  Imagine ~ tons of fun, intensive training, our own Subway Serenade, Jim Dean... and Saturday night's speaker is the one and only Howard Dean! (speech free and open to the public)

... well, you could always reply to them in an Adam Sandler framing way -- Don't Mess With the Barack :

http://colestryker.tumblr.com/post/37845326

Not that I think the paralyzed Democrats would consider it--but by lying through his ugly teeth in his dissent on the Boumedienne decision is an impeachable offense--you could look it up

is hanging tough on FISA.

Those Democratic senators (including Obama) who seem dead set on getting Bush and the Telecoms off the hook for crimes against the constitution are in for a hot summer. An example from Firedoglake:

"The Founders of this nation put their lives and their liberty on the line to ensure the freedom and rights of Americans were safeguarded by the rule of law. Why should we expect so much less from elected officials today? Tell your Representatives and your Senators to stand up for the rule of law."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/index.html

The excuse that Obama's support for this bill is politically shrewd is -- even if accurate -- neither a defense of what he did nor a reason to refrain from loudly criticizing him for it. Actually, it's the opposite. It's precisely because Obama is calculating that he can -- without real consequence -- trample upon the political values of those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that it's necessary to do what one can to change that calculus. Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion -- neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it -- and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. That's precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it's shifted to a new Leader.

What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it. What's more, as a Constitutional Law Professor, he knows full well what a radical perversion of our Constitution this bill is, and yet he's supporting it anyway. Anyone who sugarcoats or justifies that is doing a real disservice to their claimed political values and to the truth.

The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he's elected, it will transform into: "It's vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms," after which it will be: "It's vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012," at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s20.sitemeter.com/js/counter.js?site=s20unclaimed"></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://images.salon.com/lib/util.js"></script> <!-- #greenwald h1 a { color: #612E00 !important; text-decoration: none; } //-->

Join Michelle Obama and Gov. Jeanne Shaheen at a discussion in Manchester on Thursday, June 26th.

A Discussion with NH Women, Michelle Obama and Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
The Armory
Radisson Hotel
700 Elm Street
Manchester, NH

Thursday, June 26th, 2008
Doors Open: 12:30 p.m.
Program Begins: 1:15 p.m.

The event is free and open to the public; however, space is limited. Tickets are NOT required but are recommended. Free tickets are available at the location listed and will also be available at the door, prior to the event. Seating is available on a first-come, first-served basis.

For security reasons, do not bring bags and limit personal items. No signs or banners are permitted.

Thankful was having some trouble getting to Rick Taylor's website (Help Keep PA Blue, BFA, 24 Jun). There is a litigation going on with the PA Dem committee's webhosting contractor. In the meantime they have shut off all the candidate websites. The worst part is the contractor owns all the domain names (i.e., taylorforpa.com) so the candidates can't even source their own webhost with out registering a new domain name and reprinting all their lit and swag.

If anyone is still interested in supporting Rick, go to:
http://www.actblue.com/page/montcodfa_rick_taylor

Thanks!

Kevin Shaw
MontcoDFA

that the house FISA bill is a "compromise". As Russ Feingold has pointed out so eloquently, it's not a compromise, it's a capitulation.

That's why I was so shocked and appalled when Obama announced he was supporting the Bill, whether or not he was successful in his fig-leaf effort to strip out immunity. He had been so strong, and consistent in his aggressive assertion that we must work within the constitution in the face of all of the Republican "Soft on Terrorism" smears.

With his Kerry-like back down from that principled position, he's leaving a trail of blood in the water for the Republican sharks to follow.

To quote Glenn Greenwald once more:

"Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion -- neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it -- and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. "

There is a call to the floor for the FISA bill now.   Rockefeller just finished singing it's praises as the most important piece of legislation for the year, and Oh yes, he proclaimed Steny Hoyer a Saint.   Oops, that was only a near Saint. he missed again. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/25/feingold-makes-case-again_n_109197.html

This legislation has been billed as a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. We are asked to support it because it is a supposedly reasonable accommodation of opposing views. Let me respond as clearly as possible: This bill is not a compromise. It is a capitulation. This bill will effectively and unjustifiably grant immunity to companies that allegedly participated in an illegal wiretapping program - a program that more than 70 members of this body still know virtually nothing about. And this bill will grant the Bush Administration - the same administration that developed and operated this illegal program for more than five years - expansive new authorities to spy on Americans' international communications . . . There is simply no question that Democrats who had previously stood strong against immunity and in support of civil liberties were on the losing end of this backroom deal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/time-for-a-grand-inquest_b_109021.html

One of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first acts upon taking the gavel was to rule impeachment off the table. She wanted Democrats to focus on challenging the president on the war and on kitchen table concerns -- from energy to education to health care. With Democrats now enjoying an increasing margin in generic polls and looking towards gaining seats in both the House and the Senate, the strategy certainly hasn't hurt politically.

But the constitutional implications are far more disturbing. This was dramatized as the Congress debated the FISA reform legislation that will provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies for warrantless interception of the conversations of Americans -- and by implication, retroactive acceptance of the president's authority to order such wiretaps.

We have witnessed a staggering abuse of power by this president. Even former Bush Justice Department officials now charge President Bush with trampling the Constitution. Bush has claimed the prerogative to declare an endless war without congressional approval, to designate someone an enemy without cause, to proceed to wiretap them without warrant, arrest or kidnap them at will, jail them without a hearing, hold them indefinitely, interrogate them intensively (read torture), bring them to trial outside the US court system. He claims that executive privilege exempts his aides -- even the aides of his aides and his vice president's aides -- from congressional investigation. He claims the right to amend or negate congressional laws with a statement upon signing them. And much more.

When a president egregiously abuses his power -- particularly in areas relating to the rights of American citizens -- remedies are often difficult. The Supreme Court is reluctant to arbitrate a power struggle between two co-equal branches. That is why the Constitution prescribes the specific remedy of impeachment for crimes and abuses of power -- High Crimes and Misdemeanors -- and empowers the House and Senate to sit in judgment whether the actions are to be accepted or condemned.