Don't have time to read this right now, but why would they bother allowing the defense to file a secret brief if they haven't read the opposing secret brief? I mean, why not just put the response in the public brief since nothing they know at that point could be confidential? Is that a wrong assessment.

Man, I can't wait to file a crazy double super secret brief based on my best guess as to what the other side put in their crazy double super secret brief. This is lawyering with a capital L!

PS - still feeling good about Obama today?

"still feeling good about Obama today?"

Not especially, no. I'll paste in a comment I made at a pro-Hillary blog today:

"I’ve been an Obama defender on this site before, but I’m not going continue to defend all of his moves to the center in the past few weeks. The fact is, every Democratic candidate in my adult lifetime has disappointed (but not surprised) me in one way or the other: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. And I’m certain that if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination, she would be doing the same. (And she has been anyway: she didn’t exactly assume a leadership role against telecom immunity either.)

So where does that leave those of us who are to the left of the mainstream Democratic party? Well, one answer is to vote 3rd party, and I’m completely fine with that. I have voted in only 2 presidential elections in my life, and both times I voted for a 3rd party candidate. Of course, I had the luxury to do so living in Massachusetts. Now I live in Nevada, a swing state, and so I will have to, somewhat reluctantly, support a nearly straight Democratic ticket. Why? Because even though I don’t really like Dina Titus, she’s much better than Porter. Because even though Obama doesn’t agree with me on an assortment of issues, a McCain presidency would be disastrous for the United States.

I supported Obama over Clinton for various reasons that I don’t need to go into again here. But I also did so knowing that whichever candidate get nominated, I would 1) support over McCain; and 2) fight against many of their policies. Take abortion: Obama makes his mental distress statement, which is unfortunate, but I’d rather fight against President Obama over the issue of mental distress than against President McCain over the entire issue of abortion. And while an Obama Supreme court would make decisions I would vehemently disagree with, I think a McCain Supreme court would make 30 times more decisions I vehemently disagree with. So yeah, it really does come down to a “lesser of two evils” thing.

So what’s the solution? One solution is to try to bring the Democratic party more to the left — it’s very possible that we could be more successful in that by getting the Democrats the presidency again. My hope is that with time, the Republican party becomes more like the current Democratic party, which would then allow the Democratic party to align more with my ideals. This is already happening, by the way, albeit too slowly for my liking.

But the real problem here is that our election system is highly flawed, and has been designed to marginalize 3rd parties. We need to move away from first-past-the-post election systems, and to adopt more accurate ranking election systems, like IRV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting), which will allow people like me to vote Green first, Democratic second, and Republican dead last. But our current system encourages strategic voting (like voting Obama just to beat McCain).

The other problem with our system is that it is too personality based. In parliamentary systems, leaders come from a bottom-up process, where the people elect their local representatives, and then the party in charge gets the prime minister. In the US, we have a top-down system, where we have to rely on a single personality to enact the policies we want. This breaks down easily, such as when the personality has to move to the center to get elected, or when the personality has a moral failing, like B. Clinton’s womanizing. I am not espousing direct democracy for political issues, but I do wish our political system was more robust to the failings of individuals.

In the end, we can’t rely on the President to make our country the way we want it. That’s why NGO’s will always thrive no matter who is in power. However, Bush has proven that the President can make our country so incredibly worse as to completely obliterate any influence and greatness our country once had. While the PUMA’s have been commenting breathlessly on Obama’s moves toward the center, they have not been commenting as much on McCain’s moves toward Bush’s policies — but it has been happening. McCain must be defeated at all cost and, due to our broken system, Obama is the only way to get there."

What are we supposed to be upset with him about? FISA? Putting his kids on the cesspool that is Access Hollywood?

As to the original topic, posts like this are why I need an RSS reader that works at the gym. <--high-yuppie statement.

I think we're supposed to be upset that he voted to shield telecoms from lawsuits. It angers me, but was a losing battle. McCain didn't vote.

Lorelei: why doesn't your RSS reader work at the gym?

CM: a well reasoned response. The biggest problem I see out of this is not the vote itself. His vote didn't matter and, realistically, while this issue is annoying, it's not the most critical one we have to deal with. The problem is when Obama starts making moves like this, it tarnishes his change/hope platform by acknowledging the fact that he's going to take some positions for political reality purposes.

Although, I question this, because I don't fully understand what the political upside to this is for him... if he's trying to play up to somebody, who is he playing up to? Does anybody rabidly anti-scary-stuff enough to be pro warrantless wiretaps really represent a potential Obama voter? My gut says no, but maybe this move indicates that I'm wrong? Maybe middle America just needs to think that he's strong enough to beat 'em terrorists and this is the vote that puts him over the top? It's odd, since the only people who seem to be paying attention to this are at the very left of the democratic party and they're the ones he's angering the most. Does the center care about this issue at all? It's not, for example, even on the front page of CNN.

A quibble on personality voting: your critique is one of the reasons why I really like our system. I'm a big fan of voting not for a party and it's nebulous (and boring) platform, but for an individual, who may have individual flaws, but also is going to have individual strengths and doesn't have to be burdened by what his or her party might happen to feel about a particular issue. Our leaders shape our parties, not the other way around. I want to be able to pick my leaders directly with a flat "yes/no" vote, none of this "I support my party, therefore I support whatever leader they might happen to feel is appropriate for me." What do those of us who do not agree with our party, or don't not HAVE a party, stand?

"I think we're supposed to be upset that he voted to shield telecoms from lawsuits."

Actually, he voted against telecom immunity three times. But he ended up voting for the bill anyway after the amendment failures, arguing that the FISA compromise was more important than maintaining immunity.

But actually, the immunity was merely secondary to the bill itself. Read the ACLU's press release on it here:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080709.html

"Does the center care about this issue at all? It's not, for example, even on the front page of CNN."

No, but if Obama had voted against the bill, it's possible McCain could have hammered him on the vote in TV ads, basically influencing the center to care about the issue in retrospect. Something like: "Obama voted against a bill that protects us from terrorism." The thing is that I'm not so sure that tack would even work anymore.

"What do those of us who do not agree with our party, or don't not HAVE a party, stand?"

You get to vote for your local and state politicians, no matter the party. But I get your point. My main problem is in this system, you are putting all of your eggs into one candidate. But what would happen if your chosen candidate gets caught with a prostitute a week before the election? Suddenly, because of a personal issue, all of the time and effort you put into this vessel of your beliefs comes crashing down, and the other side wins. I guess what it comes down to is I think the Presidency has too much power. If the make-up of the Vice Presidency and the Cabinet weren't directly tied to the success of an individual, I might feel better about the whole system. Then again, when a good President gets into office, the selection they have over their entire Cabinet can be a great thing. So I'm rather torn.

So it looks like he shouldn't have voted on the bill, shield or no. At least to hear ACLU tell it.

My RSS reader does not work at the gym because gyms don't provide internet access. (At least not the ones I can afford.) Though I suppose there's nothing stopping me from bringing a laptop and seeing if I can get a signal, aside from my pride.

RD: Do you think that you might have a party if there were more parties? Seems like the systems in Europe end up with three to five big parties and a smattering of little ones that make coalitions.

Anyway, personality voting is not for people who look too deeply into things. You're never gonna agree with someone all the time. I know from looking into it last fall that I disagree with Obama on several issues that are important to me (the need for same-sex marriage, say), but he still beat the other options.

"I disagree with Obama on several issues that are important to me (the need for same-sex marriage, say)"

Then you might be somewhat comforted by this:

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19829156&BRD=2729&PAG=461&de...

How do his words follow from that lede?

Seems rather straightforward to me. What's the dissonance?

Well, he's being careful in his words, but he's congratulating gays on showing their love for each other and getting married. That looks like support for gay marriage to me. Yet the lede says he is not a supporter. Furthermore, one of the classic weasels out of this is to say the states should decide, yet by stating an opinion on whether the CA constitution should be amended he takes himself out of that argument (otherwise he should be indifferent). I of course understand why he's tiptoeing somewhat here, though by attending an Alice B. Toklas club pride breakfast in SF when he's sure to get all but the hillary-or-die gay vote anyway, he does seem to be countering charges of moving to the center.

I just noticed that Hillary voted against the FISA bill. Way to stick to your principles once the election's not on the line, girl!

I commend Clinton for her vote, but I wish she had used her large movement to campaign against the bill more publicly, and then perhaps it would've received more media attention. Instead, she was silent until the day of the vote.

I don't get why people get upset when a politician does the politically savvy thing in order to help himself get elected. Obama needs independents to win the presidency. So he has to vote for things like this in order to do so. Then, when he gets to the white house, he can try to implement what he believes in (though, of course, he will have to compromise himself again to get re-elected).

That is the way our political system works. If Obama can straddle the center, he wins (handily). Would you prefer he just act like Dukakis and say he would not want to kill the man that raped and murdered his wife? Would you prefer that he take view that abortion should be legal no matter what? Hell, why not say that abortion should be legal even into the ninth month.

How would he help himself if he did this? These are minority, very left, views. The left is going to vote for him almost no matter what, so he goes for the center. Big deal. I will vote for him and I will be ecstatic while doing it. Why? Because either he or McCain will be President. That's it. And I believe that Obama should do whatever it takes to win. It's about time Democrats figured out how to do this.

I've been defending my libertarian vote potentially going to Obama on a different blog on the ground that Republicans have given up being conservative on fiscal matters, so maybe it's time I start judging politicians purely on social matters. Stuff like this makes that argument weaker for me.

If he wants to pull me left, he does it with strong stances on social policy. Of course, I don't know how many libertarian swing voters there are, so we probably don't matter. In addition, we're sort of a hard market to sell to, we live at the extreme radical edge of both parties, and no savvy politician really wants to hang out there.

Anthony, your reasoning is exactly why I'm surprised Obama went to that lunch at all. What does he have to gain by telling a bunch of San Francisco gay stoners how great they are? They know they're great and they know he thinks they're great.

Jon May: money.

"These are minority, very left, views."

In 1974, when Richard Nixon was forced to resign because he did exactly what today's FISA bill now allows, the 4th amendment was not a minority, very left view. What Obama did today may not seem such a big deal right now, but 20 years down the road it could be used to justify some really shady, Orwellian shit. I understand moving to the center, but the FISA bill really shouldn't be a "center" issue -- people just don't fully understand what happened today: the government can now wiretap you without a warrant, with very little oversight. It's a done deal. If this had happened 40 years ago, Nixon could have served a full term.

I understand what you are saying. You're right, FISA is not a very left issue. Rather it is an issue that is complicated and thus the vast majority of people could give a crap. If it's not dead babies and jesus it just doesn't have the staying power. Sadly, most people just don't care. They don't even understand it.

As for Obama voting for this bills passage, I think he and his people realized that it
was not worth fighting the issue. If he voted against it, it would have passed anyway and McCain would have used this issue against him. People would glom onto the idea that Obama is making our country less safe and he may have lost votes. Instead, he possibly gains votes from those that now believe he may be pragmatic and not the most liberal senator ever. Plus, McCain can't use it against him. I call that a smart play.

Once he is in the White House I feel like he will do a lot more good than harm. Perhaps I am too much of an optimist.

Ah, yes, the Parliamentary system. Most Canadians find it boring because it means less personalities, pandering to the media, and no need to be personally rich to win. BO-RING. It's much more interesting to stay glued to the American media and poke fun.

I read that SF pride breakfast article. I understood Obama did not attend, but sent a letter expressing his congratulations. Maybe he can pick up some tips from his friend Deval Patrick:
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=758...

It doesn't surprise me Obama's moving center; as Anthony said, he doesn't have a choice in reaction to everything that is thrown his way and we'll hope he'll stick to his principles in the White House. I don't think we'll have a center shift to the left in the states, Marco, but if there's any chance, this would be it in reaction to Bush's regime. We need to start planning parties, retreats, or some celebration for a return to world peace for Bush's last day in office--no joke!

PS Lorelei, you crack me up about the gym...at least they could have USB ports in the machines so you could download an article! That would probably be popular in LA and Cambridge, MA.