Eric Lichtblau of NYT fame has a lovely anonymously sourced scare piece on the horrors that will befall the US intelligence capbility to combat terrorism if the Democrats do not cave on FISA.

It quotes Kit Bond on how we'll start losing intelligence capabilities after August.

Of course, certain unnamed civil libretarians think that a return to the old system would be a welcome check on the abuses of power of the Administration. But Lichtblau implies that that's all just hogwash...

UPDATE: Greenwald reacted pretty strongly to Lichtblau's piece here.

The Baltimore sun is reporting circumstances that give rise to the inference that while Obama was in the Illinois legislature he was involved in what appears to be a quid pro quo with a chicago entrepreneur -- Robert Blackwell Jr.  

Link here,

The gist of the story is that Blackwell put Obama on retainer for one company "Electronic Knowedge Interchange" -- paying him $112,000.  And shiortly after Obama received the last payment, sent a request on State Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant for another Blackwell Company, Killerspin,

According to the Sun, the day after Obama wrote the letter, his Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.

The Sun story has a lot more detail, and information about the situation from Axelrod, Gibbs.  And it appears that the relationship between Obama and EKI was disclosed.

But this will certainly get some raised eyebrows.  And, for the record, I voted for and continue to support Obama for the nomination,

Ok.  I'll freely admit that Adam Nagourney's crap journalism pisses me off.  Almost as much as Maureen Dowd's "opinions."  But this hit piece is the worst I've seen from Nagourney since the halcyon years of burying a hatchet in Al Gore's back, or John Kerry's face.

Nagourney's calling his piece For Democrats, Questions Over Race and Electability

But Nagourney's "journalism" consists of little more than rehashing "conventional" wisdom and anti-Obama memes.  

I'm going to throw this one out there because I'll bet someone on herer knows the back story to this, but, apparently Philadelphia Gay News published white space on its front page because it didn't have an interview with Barack Obama to publish.  It did have an interview with Clinton.  

See here and here.

The publisher of the PGN, Mark Segal, says that he tried to get an interview with Obama but was, in essence, given the run around ("scheduling problems").  

I'd like to know if there is another side to this, because this is starting to feel very, very familiar.  And although I strongly believe that Obama is the best Democratic candidate this year, this really undercuts my enthusiasm.    

Every now and again I get the breath knocked out of me.  Today it was by an editorial in the New York Times decrying how much Michael Mukasey seems like his predecessaor Alberto Gonzalez.  What happened?  Mukasey's Department of Justice has allowed the U. S. Attorney’s public corruption office in Los Angeles to be disbanded, and it's 17 attorneys will be transferred to other units.  

This, of course, stops in it's tracks the corruption investigation into Representative Jerry Lewis (Republican, of course).  

And guess who is crying foul?  Dianne Feinstein.

Ben Affleck.

And all of Hollywood is celebrating their video love story -- Don Cheadle, Brad Pitt, Cameron Diaz, Lance Bass...

Which of, course raises the question:  Who's funnier?

And why?  (I tend to think Sarah is funnier.... but then she reminds me of my little sister).

Link here.

Media matters has just posted the following press release

NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:

On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.

Link here.

Well. I'm pleased and sad -- in short:  I'm ambivalent about this. On the one hand it's good that there are consequences for outrageous conduct by media figures.  But on the other hand, it just seems to confirm the Bush paradigm that if you threaten the media enough, they will cave.  

UPDATE: I mean, what about:  We, the Network, disagree with his comment, but stand behind his right to say it because we here in the USA have a free press?

I'll keep this short.  

McCain will probably be the Repub. nominee.  Hillary excites the Repub base.  Obama has a better potential than HRC for getting cross-over votes.

The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are minor.  I think Clinton would govern more ably at first, but I think she has less of a chance of ulimately beating McCain.

Since the most important thing is to get a Dem in the White House, this is not a difficult choice -- even though I'm not personally enthusiastic about Obama (or Clinton for that matter). Oviously, the McClurkin incident did not endear him to me.

Either of them could beat Mitt, I think.

I'm serious.  And this will be a very short diary.  Basically I have the sense that the text has or will shortly be leaked to a number of media outlets.

The question is, does anyone here have a copy? And would you be willing to share?

If so, I'll rec you to the stars and we can start a discussion about what Bush says.  

I'll also be able to guage how much vodka I'll need for my SOTU drinking game:  Everytime Bush mangles a word, I take a drink...

I think a moment of levity would be warranted today.  I mean, the economy is in full on melt-down and the fed can't do a thing about it (link), the two leading deomcratic contenders for the nomination both look like they would lose to McCain in a head to head (link and link.). And like clockwork, Maureen Dowd has penned a screed against Bill Clinton.  It's almost like the old days when she couldn't stop slavering over his tryst with Monica. Link to DoDo.

I have my theories about what makes MoDo tick.  They tend to revolve around the idea that she has an unhealthy obsession with Bill Clinton's sex life. But let's hear yours.

I came across this story linked through TPM:  link.

It suggests that someone named Tony Rezko helped Barack Obama purchase a house in Chicago that he otherwise could not afford.  

The Sun Times reported in 2006:

Rezko was indicted in October for allegedly trying to collect nearly $6 million in kickbacks from government deals and trying to shake down a Hollywood producer for $1.5 million in campaign contributions to Gov. Blagojevich.

Obama and Rezko have been friends since 1990, and the Wilmette businessman has raised as much as $60,000 in campaign contributions for him.

After Rezko’s indictment, Obama donated $11,500 to charity  — the amount Rezko contributed to the senator’s federal campaign fund.

Link.

There has been so much fixation on who the winners of the Iowa caucuses will be. The situation reminds me of a physics thought experiment. Schroedinger's cat, who is alive and dead at the same time.

I'll be brief.  Talkingpointsmemo has an interesting interview with the New York Times' Paul Krugman about Obama's campaign and policies here.  

It can't hurt to know more about how and why Krugman's views on Obama evolved.  

On healthcare:

Health care is make or break for whether we're going to have a real liberal turn in policy or not. Health care is the gaping hole in the welfare state. We all agree that the system is deeply flawed. And health care has political spillover. If Democrats get major health care reform, then it kind of re-legitimizes the idea of activist government policies. Even conservatives say that.

Yet on health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.

On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these thing through a kind of outbreak of good feeling.

Of all of the accounts of what happened yesterday in the Senate's consideration of the Intelligence Committee's FISA bill, the most interesting tidbit appears to be this:  Diane Feinstein (yes, that DiFi) signaled that she might not vote for the retroactive immunity bill unless it was amended to allow the FISA Court to review the authorizations the telecoms received, to see if they were legal before any immunity took effect. That is fascinating. Just fascinating.  Perhaps, even Diane Feinstein may have had enough...

Marcy Wheeler at Empty Wheel speculates that this may mean that the Senate is fractured into three blocs, with the moderate to conservative dems refusing to back absolute immunity unless there is some provision for getting judicial review of the legality of the wiretapping program itself.  

If that is so, Reid may not have the majority needed to pass the bill he wants even with the Administration's support.

UPDATE: Wheeler updates her earlier post with much more detail here.

You have to ask why would Obama throw Krugman under a bus?  Why? Obama seems to be serious about policy.  He is progressive on many issues.  Presumably, too, a lot of his voters read Krugman and share his views.  

And it's the Democratic primary.  Obama's not going to get primary voters to switch from Edwards or Clinton by knifing Krugman.  It didn't help rally the liberal blogosphere.

So what did it do? Who was the audience for the bizarre display of trying to stomp a progressive icon for making a reasoned policy critique of the candidate's plan?

Perhaps it was the Washington establishment?  The MSM establishment?  Both?  After all, Krugman is hated in the MSM.  Just hated.  He's joked about it here.  And the National Review confirmed it here.

Perhaps, just perhaps, was Obama signalling to the powers that be that he is one of them?  And that they can safely embrace him.  That he's electable. Was this his Sister Souljah moment?

Why do you think he did it?

Less than a week after hearing argument on whether Guantanamo detainees have constitutional rights, the Supreme Court took two more cases involving the rights persons detained by the US government abroad.

The cases are:

Omar v. Harvey, 479 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Tatel, J.)
Munaf v. Geren, 482 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Sentelle, J.)

In the Omar case, the DC Circuit held that Omar, an American citizen, could seek habeas relief after being captured by the US and multinational forces in Iraq and being threatened with imminent transfer to Iraqi custody.  

In the Munaf case, the DC Circuit held almost the opposite -- that Munaf, an American citizen could not seek habeas relief while being held in US custody in Iraq after being sentenced to death by an Iraqi court.  

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument on perhaps the most important case of our generation, Boumediene v. Bush, which asked the Court to say whether the GTMO detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus to challenge their detention and, by extension, whether the Executive can detain people indefinitely in the GWOT?  

Habeas corpus is a fundamental (perhaps the most fundamental) safeguard against abuse of power. It allows a person who has been imprisoned to challenge the the imprisonment by asking a court or a judge to order that he or she be removed from imprisonment and brought to court.  

If the detainees have no constitutional right to habeas, then -- essentially -- the Supreme Court will have decided that our Constitution ends at the water's edge;  once you step beyond the shores of the US, our government is unrestrained by the Constitution.  If you believe that the powers and legitimacy of our government, by contrast, are derived from the consent of the governed and all our government's powers flow from the Constitution, such an idea is absurd:  How can the government act at all, if not in conformity with the fundamental law -- the Constitution -- that created it?

Is Obama -- whether he has "experience" "judgment" -- going to lead us to the promised land of a new kind of politics?  Is Hillary Clinton the last gasp of machine "politics as usual" -- careful, triangulating?  

If you're not a raging candidate supporter, then you probably haven't been able to avoid the increasingly harsh and vitriolic candidate smears.  And you may have been struck by how extraordinary they are -- especially here.  

Step back for a moment.  The problems facing our country are structural problems.  You can list them in any order you want and you can describe them in innumerable ways, but other than the Iraq war, perhaps, they were not created by a single person or a single administration.  

So why are so many people here fixated on a single candidate, one or another, as a solution?