It doesn't matter how carefully laws are tailored to preserve a balance between the interests of national security and the privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment when those laws are ignored (as they have been in the Bush administration) or when those tasked with releasing private information to the government inadvertently go too far. National attention has focused on the former threat to privacy, but the NY Times reminds us that the latter threat is just as real.

A technical glitch gave the F.B.I. access to the e-mail messages from an entire computer network — perhaps hundreds of accounts or more — instead of simply the lone e-mail address that was approved by a secret intelligence court as part of a national security investigation, according to an internal report of the 2006 episode. ...

The episode is an unusual example of what has become a regular if little-noticed occurrence, as American officials have expanded their technological tools: government officials, or the private companies they rely on for surveillance operations, sometimes foul up their instructions about what they can and cannot collect. The problem has received no discussion as part of the fierce debate in Congress about whether to expand the government’s wiretapping authorities and give legal immunity to private telecommunications companies that have helped in those operations.

How often do the distributors of private information screw up? [more..]

Photo by ABC News)

They hugged as Obama left John Edwards' home after their sit-down today. Elizabeth was at the meeting too.

More tea-leaf reading anyone? Will Edwards wait until after March 4 and Ohio and Texas to announce his endorsement or will he give a much needed boost to Obama in those states? Or, could he be considering endorsing Hillary?

Update: While Obama used the downtime from the weather to fly to N.C. to meet John Edwards and ask for his endorsement, Hillary "pressed the flesh" at local eateries and grocery stores in Wisconsin.

How important is Edwards' endorsement? Poll below.

By Big Tent Democrat

As well as this campaign has gone for Barack Obama, the one field of play where his team has been consistently outmaneuvered by the Clinton team has been on playing the expectations game. Todd Beeton shows Axelrod taking it on the chin from Howard Wolfson this morning on Face The Nation:

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Matt Yglesias, Spencer Ackerman reports how successful Bush has been at exporting our "values" in Iraq:

Then at the end, as people are milling about and chatting on their way out the door, one of the [American Provincial Reconstruction Team] officials tells [an Iraqi] judge how important it is to stand up against terrorism and promote equality and fairness before an impartial system of law. The judge nods at the platitude. "Tell me," he says through a translator, "is it true that in America, Bush can fire prosecutors he doesn't like?"

By Big Tent Democrat

My response - is the Pope Catholic? Via Taylor Marsh, I see Eugene Robinson has, an, um, more nuanced view:

The theme of press bias, however, is woven through the Clinton campaign's narrative of the story thus far. There are two basic allegations: that journalists look at Obama uncritically while subjecting Hillary Clinton to microscopic scrutiny; and that we react with hair-trigger reflexes when attacks on Obama have the slightest whiff of racism but don't seem to notice, or care, when Clinton is subjected to rank sexism.

The first charge is just bogus, in my view.

Whatever you say Gene. How's that NBC gig working out for you? More . . .

Lots of snow in Wisconsin today, so much so that both candidates had to cancel events until tomorrow.

Tea-leaf reading anyone? Who does this hurt the most?

I'm heading out for the afternoon, this is an open thread, all topics welcome. Be nice.

By Big Tent Democrat

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

Matt Stoller writes about a news story that argues Obama is gaining among women. Matt likes that line and allows the important underlying story to be overshadowed. Matt writes:

More significantly, her lead among women has slipped to just 10 points in state.

But what does that mean? It means that, as in MD, VA, and DC, CALIFORNIA and almost EVERY STATE, Obama is winning African American women 4-1. This is not the issue for Obama in terms of a General election. Among women, Obama needs to win white women in a general election.

More . . .

Here's some early morning news items:

• A new Alabama poll shows McCain would sweep the state in November by double digits, and it might happen throughout the deep south.

Alabama has voted for the Republican nominee every year since 1980.

McCain's double-digit lead emerged even though poll respondents' biggest concern was the economy, an area not considered one of his strengths. The poll results also offered evidence that despite President Bush's slumping approval ratings, the GOP retains a tight grip on the region, at least in national races.

"My expectation is that Alabama and Georgia and maybe all of the Deep South is going to end up in the Republican column, regardless of who the players are," University of Georgia political scientist Charles Bullock said. "If they don't, it's going to be a massive Democratic blowout."

....McCain is well-known for his appeal to independents, about two-thirds of whom would support him over either Democrat, according to the Press-Register/USA poll.

• Hillary and Obama both spoke at the Founder's Gala dinner in Wisconsin last night. Here's where they differ:

(Update: Comments at 200 and now closed on this thread.)

The Times constrasts "the cult of personality" with charisma. It's a long article. Here are the quotes I took from it:

I'll give the first round to the challenger, Barack Obama:

From the day Mr. Obama announced his candidacy, he has billed it as a movement, and himself as the agent of generational change. He has mocked his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for accusing him of raising “false hopes.” “We don’t need leaders who are telling us what we cannot do,” he said in New Hampshire. “We need a president who can tell us what we can do! What we can accomplish! Where we can take this country!”

Next round goes to Sean Willnetz, a Princeton Historian and friend of Hillary's, who says:

“What is troubling about the campaign is that it’s gone beyond hope and change to redemption,” said Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton (and a longtime friend of the Clintons). “It’s posing as a figure who is the one person who will redeem our politics. And what I fear is, that ends up promising more from politics than politics can deliver.”

Next round goes to Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, whom I've never had the pleasure of meeting, but nonetheless, when she's on teevee, I am mesmerized by her stories. In this case, its: [More...]

Title: Here's One for the Girls.

A good way to end a blog day filled with debate over sexism.

Not surprisingly, here, there and everywhere.

He believes (as do I) that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms. But, he supports reasonable regulations on those rights. So where does reasonable regulation end and infringement on an individual's rights begin?

Obama is actually straddling the issue somewhat like the Bush Administration did when it filed a brief in the [D.C. gun] case last month. He does support individual rights, but says—and this is the qualifier--the government can impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. And he then suggests that pretty much any existing laws are reasonable.

Here's Obama's position and the video of his remarks. Shorter version: He straddles.

More...

By Big Tent Democrat

A very well written letter from a group of feminist intellectuals who support Hillary Clinton was e-mailed to me, also at HuffPo. I reprint it on the flip:

NOTE: Comments are now closed