"Republicans have frustrated Reid by launching dozens of filibusters to slow Senate business... As Election Day nears, however, it has become clear that Democratic leaders have little desire to keep their members away from the campaign trail during what some analysts predict could be a windfall election for their party."

(I also read where Cochrane of OK has put a hold on over 100 bills in the Senate).

So the Republican's can block the Democrat's but the Democrat's haven't figured out how to block the Republican's?

The AUMF vote.

This was a day when Clinton should have been congratulated for doing the right thing.

I believe an artificial dynamic was created by which one considered sins balanced out.  Clinton failed on the AUMF.  Obama on FISA.  Now they're even.

Well.  First of all, if one does agree with Karl Rove that Democrats are responsible for the war, then one would have to conclude that Clinton's failure far outweighs Obama's just in terms of practical impact to the country, but no matter.  I don't agree with Karl Rove on this.  I think George W. Bush and his cronies are responsible for the war.

I think they are both votes that give too much authority to a president.  The authority to wage war.  The authority to spy on citizens.  Etc.

It can be argued that both votes decidedly go against every discernible intent of the constitution.  Even though it has been considered a precedent for congress to cede authority to a president to conduct war, there is still a very principled argument to be made saying that precedent should have never happened, and should be rescinded.

That is Feingold's view, actually.  On both counts.

But what this dynamic did is it gave Obama credit not only for making a speech, but for actually voting 'No' on the AUMF.  And he never did that.

On that count, we should not play the What If game.  No blame for voting 'yes.'  But no credit either for voting 'no.'  

But yes, some credit for a speech.  But in my view not much more than that because I feel I have a pretty good impression of how events played out and I simply don't remember the 2002 anti-Iraq war activist Barack Obama.  Do you?  I don't even remember the 2004 anti-Iraq war activist Barack Obama.  Do you?  What I remember is a speech suddenly surfacing AFTER the war was deemed a failure and Obama decided to run for president.  If anyone remembers that differently, do let me know.

I want to give him credit for that speech.  He clearly articulated all the ways it would go wrong.  A lot of these things were also articulated by folks who warned against them, but still voted to give Bush authority.  So if one wants to play a What If game, one could just as easily say Obama would make the same 'yes' vote with the same kinds of warnings.

But What If games are a waste of time.

No blame for voting 'yes.'

BUT..... no credit for voting 'no.'

What I will add to this discussion is that, unless someone in NY can say otherwise, I don't believe Clinton ran a Senate Campaign in New York promising to stop war.  I don't believe she made a promise to make sure we never go to war with Iraq.  Now if you lived in New York and that's what you wanted from a candidate, a promise to vote against an Iraq war, then you'd have a right to look elsewhere for a candidate.  Instead of making promises they knew they wouldn't keep, both Bill and Hillary refused to court a voting block that turned into the netroots because of this.

Now in contrast, we do know that Obama mis-represented himself in the primary.  We now have proof of that.  He courted that group of voters.  And now he has taken a crap on them.

In the end, is there any difference between a candidate who deals with people directly and doesn't give false expectations BUT doesn't make the promises you want, is there any real difference in the end between that and and politician who gives you the impression he's listening, makes certain promises and then goes back on that promise?

In the end, it might not make a difference.

But Obama said something interesting a day or so ago.  He requested that his supporters, and any others inclined to do so, please refrain from ascribing a political motivation to his PRINCIPLED SUPPORT OF FISA.

I think we should do that.  Not that he believes it was a principled compromised.  But that he believes that spying on Americans is a legitimate way to stop a terrorist attack.

NYT:  Jesse Jackson Apologizes for Remarks on Obama

Why isn't he under the bus with the rest of us?  Isn't that discrimination?  

Mr. Jackson's comments apparently were a reaction to a speech Mr. Obama delivered on Father's Day, when he told a Chicago church congregation that "we need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn't just end at conception." Mr. Obama often tells his audiences that absentee fathers are, in part, to blame for some of the problems afflicting black Americans.

That message prompted Mr. Jackson to accuse Mr. Obama of "talking down to black people." Mr. Jackson said other issues should be highlighted, including unemployment, the mortgage crisis and the number of blacks in prison.

Bill Clinton goes under the bus for "fairy tale" yet Jesse Jackson gets to remain away from the bus with "talking down to black people"?  I really don't get it.  

Millions of us have been thrown under the bus for suggesting far less than "Obama is talking down to black people."  

Jul. 8, 2008 04:52 PM
Associated Press

MEXICO CITY - Apple Inc.'s next generation iPhone lands this week in Mexico as part of its global debut, selling in Latin America's second-largest market for less than half its planned U.S. price.

America Movil will sell the 8-gigabyte 3G iPhone for as little as 773 pesos (US$75) in Mexico for buyers who agree to a two-year, 799-peso (US$77) monthly plan that includes 400 minutes of calls and 200 text messages.

Its 16-gigabyte version, with double the memory, will sell for 1,877 pesos ($US182), according to an announcement by America Movil, Latin America's largest mobile phone service provider, which is owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim.

The price of the phone rises with cheaper monthly plans.

In contrast, AT&T plans to sell the 8-gigabyte model in the U.S. for US$199 and the 16-gigabyte model for US$299. Its cheapest monthly plan will cost US$70 per month, including 450 minutes of calls and unlimited e-mail and Web browsing.

The new iPhone - which has a faster 3G, or third-generation, Internet connection and GPS navigation options - was unveiled by Apple in June and debuts Friday in 22 countries, including the U.S. and Mexico, where Apple has never before officially sold the phone.

"Every way you look at this you lose"