Democracy Corps:

It is important to note that this progress [for Obama] has been accompanied by some diminished enthusiasm and few gains among independent voters. . . . Obama’s campaign has only just begun to engage with the big issues before the country and to define the choice boldly in a way that engages voters, fully consolidates Democrats and wins over independents – though he clearly has the opportunity to do all three. . . . The Obama campaign clearly understands that it will have to be seen as leading the change in this change election.

. . . Not surprising is the drop in intense positives among liberals, liberal Democrats and white young voters, as we can see in the graph below. More worrisome is the broader drop in intense responses on key attributes –“on your side” (describes “very well” dropped from 27 to 21 percent), “strong leader” (dropped from 31 to 26 percent), and “will bring the right kind of change” (dropped from 28 to 24 percent). Overall, only 51 percent say Obama is “on your side” (down 4 points) and only 52 percent say he will “will bring the right kind of change” (unchanged). Obama seems to have lost some definition in this transition, and he has only just begun to articulate the change in ways that engage voters.

(Emphasis supplied.) [More...]

Dahlia Lithwick and Doug Kendall at Slate ask a good question:

Obama veers to the right, but did he have to take the Constitution with him?

They note:

It's not an overstatement to say that in the past month Obama has tugged the First, Second, Fourth, and Eighth amendments to the center. Not a day goes by, it seems, without a constitutional wink to the right on guns (he thinks there is an individual right to own one), the wall of separation between church and state (he thinks it can be lowered), the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless wiretapping (he's changed his position on FISA), and on the death penalty for noncapital child rape cases (he thinks it's constitutional) as well as a possible shift this week on the right to abortion (which could further limit the reach of Roe v. Wade).

The point: [More...]

State legislators, always searching for a new punishment to show how tough they are on crime, find all kinds of reasons to suspend driver's licenses.

The folks I see [in traffic court] are cited because they neglected to pay a ticket, and were suspended. The folks I see are cited because they neglected to show up in court, and were suspended. The reasons for these scofflaws' non-appearance? They have no money. They are unemployed, poor, broke, foreclosed.

In Wisconsin, licenses are suspended for underage drinking. Legislators are quite certain that college kids won't drink until they turn 21 if they fear the loss of a driver's license for attending a house party. And that works ... not at all. Unfortunately, a policy's failure rarely motivates a legislature to rethink the policy. [more ...]

As an unusually long editorial in The New York Times expresses,

it was distressing — and depressing — to watch Congress wrench Americans’ civil liberties back to where they were in the days before Watergate, when the United States government listened to our phone calls whenever it wanted.

From Republicans (all of whom voted for the FISA bill except McCain who was too busy trying to be noticed to show up at the one place he might have been noticed today) this is what we expect:

Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there was nothing to fear in the bill “unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.”

From Democrats we expect more. For Senators Baucus, Bayh, Carper, Casey, Conrad, Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, both Nelsons, Obama, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Webb, and Whitehouse, and for the United States Constitution, this is a dark day indeed.

And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson....

....Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.
Going to the candidate's debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.

This is an open thread. [Hat tip to jawbone in the FISA comments]

Update: Here is the DA's official letter of apology to John Ramsey.(pdf)

The Boulder County District Attorney today issued a press release officially clearing John and Patsy Ramsey and their son Burke of involvement in their daughter's death.

DNA and genetic material found in JonBenet's underwear and longjohns was subjected to a new method of testing not previously available.

The method is "touch DNA." [More...]

At least the Senate did one thing right today. It passed the bill to restore Medicare funding that the House passed in June. And, it's veto-proof.

The vote was 69-30 -- "a veto-proof margin," said Paul Precht, spokesman for the nonprofit Medicare Rights Center. Pres. Bush had threatened to veto the bill if passed.

The cuts went into effect July 1. They included an $1,800 cap on outpatient physical, occupational and speech therapy.

I know about this because this weekend I got a letter from the TL mom's nursing home saying that her therapy would end July 1 unless she agrees to pay 100% of the cost due to the Senate not getting its act together before the recess to pass the House bill that would extend the deadline for the cuts to take effect. It failed to pass the bill then by one vote. The cuts were passed in 2005 but every year Congress has voted to extend the date the cuts take effect.

Other aspects of the bill: [More...]

Maybe Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate after all.

Democrat Barack Obama and his former rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, flew to New York on Wednesday along with his vice presidential searcher Caroline Kennedy.

The flight came on a day in which Obama touched off new speculation about his choice of a running mate by making an unannounced morning stop at the downtown building where another member of his vice presidential search team, Eric Holder, works.

..."I'm not going to tell you," the smiling likely Democratic nominee told reporters when asked who he met and what they discussed as he exited the office building that houses Holder's law firm some two hours and 20 minutes after entering. He had two top aides — campaign manager David Plouffe and chief strategist David Axelrod — at his side.

While I've never been one of those pushing a joint ticket, it seems to me now Hillary on the ticket would vastly improve Obama's chances in the general election. It certainly would get me more enthused about the election.

Matt Yglesias makes the argument all Obama fans should avoid:

I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently [on the FISA Capitulation bill].

The argument made against Barack Obama's opposition to the Iraq Debacle was that he was not in the Senate and would have voted differently if he was. I always battled Clinton supporters on this claim. All we know is what he did do and he vigorously opposed the Iraq Debacle. It is ridiculous to argue about "swapped roles." Here, Clinton did the right thing and Obama did the wrong thing. On Iraq, Obama did the right thing and Clinton did the wrong thing. It is crazy for Obama fans to argue that Obama's changed his FISA Capitulation position because of the politcal race he is in (I say it, but I am no Obama fanboy). One could then argue that had Obama been in the Senate in 2002, he would have voted for the IWR. Why open that can of worms? I say give him credit for his good positions and rip him for his bad ones.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Hillary's statement on FISA:

One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today's vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.

More...

Update: Hillary voted against the motion to invoke cloture and the bill, Obama voted for both. It passed 72 to 26. The cloture roll call vote is here. The votes on the final bill will be available here shortly. All votes this session are here.

Via the ACLU (no link yet but check here soon):

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved by a vote of 69-28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.

On the bill:

[T]he Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance.

“Once again, Congress blinked and succumbed to the president’s fear-mongering. With today’s vote, the government has been given a green light to expand its power to spy on Americans and run roughshod over the Constitution,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant. This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.”

More...

You may see London, you may see France, but in Flint, Michigan, you won't see underpants.

Police are cracking down, sending out notice that they will begin making arrests for those wearing saggy pants.

Pants pulled completely below the buttocks with underwear showing is disorderly conduct; saggy pants with skin of the buttocks showing is indecent exposure, and saggy pants, not completely below the buttocks, with underwear exposed results in a warning.

Here's the chart of offenses with pictures of what constitutes disorderly conduct or indecent exposure that will land you between 93 days to a year in jail. Also, the police warn that if they stop you for saggy pants, they have the right to search you for evidence of other crimes, such as weapon and drug possession. [More...]