Rachel Perrone of the ACLU sends this Novemebr 1, 2007 letter from Brandon Mayfield to Sen Russ Feingold on FISA. The highlights:

I have read the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007” which is touted as being a balance by those who support it, but it is anything but balanced. The balance between liberty and security has already been hammered out by an earlier, apparently more enlightened generation of Americans and can be seen in the language of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That perfect balance between criminal investigation and respect for a person’s privacy is known as probable cause. No search or arrest should be made without a warrant, and no warrant should issue without probable cause that a crime has been committed. Further the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person to be seized. . . .

Full text in extended.

Now that Senator Barack Obama has regained his footing in the Presidential race, it is time for him to go for the win - by demonstrating leadership on the issues NOW! Obama has shrewdly allowed John Edwards to take the path of self immolating personal attacks on Clinton (now he won't say he will support Hillary if she is the nominee, he is self destructing), while reaping the political benefits of those attacks. But Obama has a chance to do more now. He has a chance to define the terms of this contest. He can lead now on the issues. Particularly ending the war in Iraq by not funding it.

Matt Yglesias writes an excellent post that implicitly describes Obama's opportunity:

[S]omeone like Webb or Obama or Dean or Clark who can plausibly claim prescient judgment about what's become an extremely unpopular war is just in a much fundamentally stronger position to go up against a candidate (at either the presidential or congressional level) who's be a die-hard war supporter but not someone who was personally involved in the well-known Rumsfeld-era cavalcade of ineptitude.

Certainly, but it will take more than pointing to the 2002 AUMF vote. It will take leadership NOW. Strong leadership from the Senate. Strong leadership that insists the Congress not fund the war without timetables for withdrawal.

I am a Centrist. I believe the Democratic Party is a centrist Party. I wish the Democratic Party would fight for its centrist ideals. Like ending the the war in Iraq. Like not going to war in Iran. Like bringing balance to our tax system by reversing the extreme and radical Bush tax cuts. Like doing something about global warming. Like protecting equal rights for all Americans. Like protecting the right to choose. Like offering health care to all Americans. And so on. These Democratic principles stand in the center of American public opinion, held by a strong majority of Americans.

The Republican Party is an extreme party whose views are completely out of the mainstream of American thought. The views espoused by the GOP must be marginalized and beaten at every turn. It is because of this that I strongly dislike this view articulated by Sen. Hillary Clinton:

During this campaign, you're going to hear me talk a lot about the importance of balance," she began, after acknowledging that the Bush Administration had gone too far toward deregulation in most areas. "You know, our politics can get a little imbalanced sometimes. We move off to the left or off to the right, but eventually we find our way back to the center because Americans are problem solvers. We are not ideologues. Most people are just looking for sensible, commonsense solutions."

I think the views may be correct but it is poor politicking. Clinton needs to espouse her views on issues. Her problem solving views, not give silly buzzwords that implicitly relegate her Party to the extremes. It ignores that there is an extreme political party in the United States. The Republican Party. It ignores that there is a pragmatic, centrist problem solving party, the Democratic Party. This fight is not beyond politics. It is the CENTRAL political fight going on in this country. I wish Democrats, including Hillary Clinton would get that.

I'll be in court and then at the DNC Media Walk-Through at the Pepsi Center. Here's an open thread -- all topics are welcome.

Bob Herbert provides must reading today, especially for Brad DeLong, Andrew Sullivan, Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias, Brendan Nyhan, and of course, David Brooks.

Herbert writes:

Andrew would not survive very long. On June 21, one day after his arrival, he and fellow activists Michael Schwerner and James Chaney disappeared. Their bodies wouldn’t be found until August. All had been murdered, shot to death by whites enraged at the very idea of people trying to secure the rights of African-Americans.

The murders were among the most notorious in American history. They constituted Neshoba County’s primary claim to fame when Reagan won the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1980. The case was still a festering sore at that time. Some of the conspirators were still being protected by the local community. And white supremacy was still the order of the day.

More...

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is holding a hearing today on whether to make the November 1 sentencing guideline reductions for crack cocaine retroactive. (Background here.)

You can read all of the letters submitted to the Commission for today's hearing here. I think the Commission will decide in favor of retroactivity. If so, it will be a huge policy decision.

Such a mass commutation would be unprecedented: No other single rule in the two-decade history of the Sentencing Commission has affected nearly as many inmates. And no single law or act of presidential clemency, such as grants of amnesty to draft resisters and conscientious objectors after World War II and the Vietnam War, has affected so many people at one time.

Retroactivity will be of some help to many of the 19,500 federal inmates currently serving time for crack offenses. The principal opposition is coming from prosecutors and the Justice Department, hardly a surprise.

More...

The DNCC is hosting the first media walk-through for the Democratic National Convention in Denver tomorrow.

Events kick off in an hour with a reception at the Wynkoop Brewery. Tomorrow is the walk-through. I'll miss some of it as I have early court in the morning. But I will be there to hear Howard Dean for lunch.

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean will address members of the media attending the 2008 Democratic National Convention Fall Media Walk-Through during a luncheon at 12:00 p.m. MT on TUESDAY, November 13, 2007, at the Pepsi Center in Denver. The Media Walk-Through is being organized by the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC).

...Governor Dean will address members of the media from international, national, local and online outlets planning their coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

This should be fun. More details when I return.

Update below:

There's no question Barack Obama is to be credited for his role in enacting legislation in Illinois to require mandatory taping of interrogations to reduce wrongful convictions.

But, he is not a death penalty opponent.

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

A Chicago Tribune profile of Obama last spring (May 2, 2007, available on Lexis.com) contained this paragraph:

A critic of the state's broken capital punishment system, Obama spent two years working with Republicans to broker a series of reforms aimed at making it more difficult for the innocent to face execution. Still, Obama found himself on various sides of the death penalty debate. Five months into office, he voted to expand the list of death-eligible crimes to include the brutal murder of a senior citizen or a disabled person. Four years later, he opposed adding murders that were part of "gang activity" to the list, saying the term was a "mechanism to target particular neighborhoods (and) particular individuals."(my emphasis)

More...

Someone else, Ezra, notices how bad Bell Curve Sully has Clinton Derangement Syndrome:

. . . Sullivan is demonstrating . . . that, if Clinton is elected, he will . . . use his platform, his dozens of posts a day, his megaphone into the elite, to bring back the constant psychosexual speculation, the bizarre paranoia about the "true" nature of their marriage, the constant questioning of Hillary's feminist credentials, etc, etc. Phrased another way, Sullivan is saying, "nice press corps you have here. Shame if something should happen to it." That's the deal he, and some others in the media, are offering: Don't vote for Clinton, and we won't descend into hysterical Clinton-hatred again. As he writes at the end of his post, "I just want this on the record, ok?" And so it is.

The man is insane.

Like Booman (who responds to me here without actually addressing my points), many in the Left blogosphere seem oblivious to the Media bias against Democratic candidates. Bob Somerby demonstrates:

. . . According to Matt and Kevin, Russert performs a stale, stupid version of gotcha journalism. But land o’ goshen, people! He does it to everyone! Matt implies that Russert goes after both parties. Following up, Kevin seems to comes right out and say it—though we’ll admit that his language is framed in such a way that he hasn’t actually said this.

. . . At this point, it’s astounding when liberals go out of their way to say that Russert treats Republicans the same way he treats Democrats. If you want to know how Dems lose elections, just gaze on the way these two fine fellows refuse to fight; refuse to observe; refuse to stand up for your side.

Does Russert treat Republicans the way he treats Dems? By now, that case would be exceptionally hard to make. [More]

Ezra discusses a Hillary Clinton quote, via Joe Klein, that describes her views on the relationship between political rhetoric and policy. Like Ezra, I find it persuasive:

Obama has added a fillip of honesty by telling his audiences that [his energy] program might result in higher energy prices. I asked Clinton why she hadn't been similarly honest, and she immediately turned it around: Obama wanted to spend the proceeds of the pollution auction — perhaps as much as $50 billion — on alternative-energy research and development. "I have committed to putting money from that auction into programs to ... cushion the economic impact on working and poor families," she said. And then she added scornfully, "So if you want to go and get some debating point telling people this is going to cost you money, then I don't think you've thought through the policy as carefully as you could ... This is going to be a tough transition. It's got to be done politically. One of the ways to make it politically palatable is to rebut the Republican talking point that ... it's another huge tax increase on Americans. You know what? It isn't."

Politics is more than "straight talk." (I believe it has little to do with straight talk.) It is about presenting your policies in ways that will succeed politically. To govern, you must win. To enact your policies, you must persuade the public.

The strange thing to me is, as I have repeated often, Obama can not only do this, he can probably do it better than anyone. But he chooses not to. It baffles me immensely.

Booman writes:

Which gets straight to the problem with so many Democratic nominees. Was Michael Dukakis a tough guy? Could you believe Bill Clinton? Which Al Gore was going to show up to which debate? Where did John Kerry stand on the war? As Terence Samuel notes, this is not the kind of image that we need in our next nominee. Hillary has worked hard to project an image of toughness, but she hasn't mastered it at all, the art of creating trust. . . . [S]he isn't really all that tough and, more importantly, she isn't trustworthy. She doesn't project trustworthiness. . . .

What nonsense. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is perceived as tough. Indeed, that is one thing the "castrating bitch" GOP meme has accomplished. But she has been attacked as untrustworthy. The funny thing is Booman notes that no Dem GE Presidential candidate seems to have figured out how to be viewed as trustworthy. But he thinks Clinton is the problem. What myopia! Bob Somerby has covered this extensively and it is amazing that Booman does not seem to know about it: