Probable end result: McCain victory in November, regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination.

Rationale: I think Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, "Jello" Jay, and the rest of their little band of Chamberlain wanna-bes would've preferred "Dalek" Clinton on the ticket in November in the first place. That's why they held off so long on supporting Obama: they were hoping that Clinton could deliver a knock-out punch. From now until the convention, when he becomes the party's nominee fo' realz, Obama's in a very delicate position. He's got a lot of theoretical weight, but if he leans on the wrong people at the wrong time, the superdelegates that he's depending on for his victory evaporate.

This is, I think, why Obama's been pandering to the party establishment - doing his dance with AIPAC, backing down on FISA, sponsoring Bush Dogs, etc. He knows they don't want him and they're still half-hoping to knife him in the back like they did Dean in 2004. And the establishment knows that he's treading a fine line - if he gives them an excuse, they can off him. But if he cooperates with them too much, he'll lose his grassroots support. Thus they're pushing him, trying to force him to edge rightwards.

The netroots are up against a wall here - the earliest we'll be able to apply our power and retaliate is 2010, and we absolutely cannot afford a McCain victory. On the other hand, look at Pelosi's little gang of entrenched Reagan Democrats. Do you really think that band of lunatics would actually mind four years of McCain? They'd probably celebrate, and spend four years trying to wrangle an invitation to one of his infamous BBQs.

Of course, it's possible that Obama's really a DLC Dem in disguise, and is going to be trending solidly right from now until he leaves office. But I don't think the evidence supports that. If he was, there'd be no reason for his erstwhile allies to drop a millstone like this around his neck.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

Let's get real here. Even before Bush 2, it was common sense not to say anything that the government might find highly objectionable over the telephone, over what, in the movies, was called "an open line". And when it comes to email, if you want privacy, it is possible to encrypt so that it is not worth the government's effort to figure out what it is you wrote.

So even though the issue turns around the Fourth Amendment, it's not as if we are talking about the US government literally braking into our homes without a warrant or reasonable cause, the way it routinely does in occupied Iraq. There is a world of difference between the evil of the telecom companies and Republican private security/oil firms like Halliburton. Rather than making such an issue over immunity for the telecoms, I would like the Democrats to go after all the privatized military firms that have been set up under Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Which is not to say that the telecoms intruding upon our privacy by conspiring with the Bush administration is not a serious problem. But I do think that that is less of a problem than the expansion of the military industrial complex that has occurred under Bush 2 with Democratic collaboration.

Republicans are like fetuses: both are incapable of thought. That's why Republicans are against abortion.

Surely he can't be planning to do that?

Philip Henslowe: Mr. Fennyman, allow me to explain about the theatre business. The natural condition is one of insurmountable obstacles on the road to imminent disaster.

Hugh Fennyman: So what do we do?

Philip Henslowe: Nothing. Strangely enough, it all turns out well.

Hugh Fennyman: How?

Philip Henslowe: I don't know. It's a mystery.