WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided on Tuesday over a challenge to a campaign finance law by a conservative group in a case that could open the door to fewer restrictions on political advertising.

The group, Citizens United, released a 90-minute documentary film "Hillary: The Movie" in January 2008 when Hillary Clinton, then a New York senator, was running for president. She now is secretary of state in President Barack Obama's administration.

Citizens United released the movie to theaters and for store sales on DVD. The group also wanted to broadcast the movie on cable television video-on-demand but that was rejected by a federal court.

The court ruled the movie clearly was intended to influence people to vote against Clinton and thus was covered by the campaign finance law's ban on the airing of ads or "electioneering communications" right before an election.

Reuters

But outside of those anonymity-granting blogger/journalists and Democratic apparatchiks, these drooling, worshipful, subservient sentiments are largely confined to the fringes.  With some exceptions, to find this right-wing-replicating blind loyalty to the Leader, one has to search blog comment sections and obscure diarists.  Many -- arguably most -- of the most vocal liberal Bush critics have kept their critical faculties engaged and have been unwilling to sacrifice their political values and principles at the altar of partisan loyalty.

She was diagnosed with very early breast cancer, but then it was discovered she has that cancer gene marker, so had both breasts and her ovaries removed, plus other undescribed surgeries maybe related to breast reconstruction.

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

It's a debate that the Bush administration never seriously had in the seven years following the post-9/11 invasion. Now, by contrast, in the wake of three major strategic reviews, Obama is extending and deepening the discussion of Afghanistan, because the outcome of this debate may set the course of American foreign policy for the remainder of his presidency.

CT (counter terrorism) is Biden's position, which I gather is more of the same out of the BushCo books. Targeting al qaida and bombing from Predator drones, plus military strikes. Essentially treating Afghanis as foreigners in their own land. Cheap easy and macho.

COIN includes more balanced approach which would emphasize winning hearts and minds through giving security and aid to those who are bullied by al Qaida et al. It is more expensive, takes more time, and requires more troops.

My favorite team sports term is "get over it".