Glenn Greenwald interviewed Senator Chris Dodd (my guy in the Presidential sweepstakes) about the FISA Capitualtion:

GG: Can you describe what you think it is that motivated 16 of your colleagues in the Democratic caucus to vote in favor of this bill?

CD: No, I really can't . . . We had caucuses during the day, so everyone knew what was there. You had a vote at 10:00 at night, people say I didn't know what was there, then normally I can understand, but we had a caucus during the day. There was a lot of conversation about it.

GG: So this wasn't a Patriot Act case where people can claim ignorance because there was a rushed vote? There was a careful assessment of what the terms in this statute were?

CD: Absolutely. In fact, even during the vote, Carl Levin was sitting there, and Carl said: "look, I want everyone to read this" . . . . Most people know about the Gonzales references and the 180 days -- there is also a section, as Carl pointed out, that basically says that if they can prove reasonably that you're out of the country -- not that you're not a citizen, just out of the country [then they can eavesdrop on you] . . . .

But I wish I had a better explanation. Normally after that, we would be in session Monday or Tuesday, around today, people would be talking about it. So I'm a little stunned, and grasping for some answer here. So I really don't know. . . .

GG: There is this gap in FISA, which everyone, even Russ Feingold, says needs to be filled, which is that if there is a foreign-to-foreign conversation which happens to be routed through the U.S., it requires a warrant -- so why not just say "OK, we fixed this gap and here's our bill and if you veto it, and there's a terrorist attack, then it's your responsibility"?

CD: Hello? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But part of what this comes down to is that too many people in public life are not secure enough in their own beliefs -- feel vulnerable to attacks by people who will attack you -- and feel unwilling or unable to respond to them with clarity and conviction. And if you lack that clarity and conviction, and if you haven't been through this in the past, then you're likely to be a little weaker in the legs.

Dodd is a "tough guy." Jim Webb is a wimp.

In a almost completely inane editorial, the Washington Post Editorial Board demonstrated how useless it is in this passage:

Meanwhile, Democrats in both chambers chose to spend countless hours mired in a fruitless effort to compel an "end" to the war in Iraq.

Devoting "countless hours" to the most important issue the country faces is worthy of ridicule for the Washington Post Editorial Board. Forget what your view is on the issue, how is it possible that devoting countless hours to it could be a bad thing? Only in the twisted mind of a Fred Hiatt could the efforts spent on Iraq be something to criticize.

Yesterday, I discussed again the problem of Netroots focus and the deterioration into being concerned only with electoral politics and not enough with issues. In the dailykos diaries, Eugene writes a good piece discussing the dilemma. But I was struck by this comment from Daily Kos Contributing Editor Meteor Blades:

I think one aspect of the disconnect is not knowing how to exert whatever clout we have as effectively in the majority as in opposition. And this will, I believe, become more obvious, and perhaps worse if and when a Dem wins the White House. The key, in my view, is for us to act as a perpetual opposition, within the party as well as a scourge against the Republicans.

This is where Markos and I diverge. He has always said ours isn't an ideological fight, but rather an effort to install Democrats who themselves fight. In truth, it is an ideological battle, as the FISA vote and the discussion around Obama's foreign policy speech and statements have proved, just to point out two examples of many.

I have always believed, and will continue to believe, that the ideological fight must run in tandem with the fight to elected the best possible candidates to wield electoral power, while recognizing that those best will be hampered by "establishment values" of the party in which most of them reside - define those values how you will. For me, however, the real fight, the long-term fight, the paradigm-shifting fight, lies outside party politics.

This is a great comment but I disagree with Meteor Blades' conclusion that the fight lies outside party politics. I think it lies in concentrating on the issues but also concentrating on INTRA-party politics and primaries. I'll explain on the flip.

TPM has the moment that is getting the most coverage from the YKos Presidential Forum.

Personally, I am skeptical about how important this issue is. I have been hearing about this stuff forever. But an entertaining exchange.

Update [2007-8-5 1:16:23 by Big Tent Democrat]: I do want to underscore a point I made in the Live Blog of the forum, having Matt Bai moderate was a grievous mistake. As Jane Hamsher states, and as a review of the forum and the coverage indicates, Bai's ego overran the forum and he clearly decided it would be the Matt Bai Forum, not the YKos Forum. The forum was pedestrianly okay, I thought the opening questions by mcjoan were excellent, but it was not a Blogger Presidential Forum imo.

I'm going to bed. What a depressing day.

This is an Open Thread.

House Dem Hall of Shame on the flip.

Update [2007-8-4 22:2:7 by Big Tent Democrat]: It passes. At least 43 Dems voted in favor. The list of shame will be posted here shortly. The capitulation is complete.

On C-Span.

Intelligence Chairman Reyes is giving a pathetic speech to support the bill.

Republican argument? President Bush wants it. And the kicker, the Repoublican argues that EVEN THOUGH the Dems are capitulating today, they still are emboldening the terrorisits because they did not immediately cave in. Dems will never learn. Idiots.

The Capitulation enters its final stage.

Live blogging on the flip. It is only a 30 minute debate. The House adopted a special suspension for this with only a simple majority needed to pass the bill, whereas the Dem bill required 2/3 passage. A complete capitulation.

Jim Webb likes to project "toughness." But when it came to FISA, he cowered before Bush. Here is his "explanation":

Yesterday I supported two measures to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These measures were considered against the backdrop of heightened concerns from our nation's intelligence community abut the threat of international terrorism. The ramifications of the two amendments before us last night were not political. Instead they related to the urgent demands of national security. I chose to heed those warnings. We now have six months to work in earnest to bring full accountability to the process. This distinction and the threats to national security were stated clearly by Admiral McConnell as well as four of the eight Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. These members, Senators Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Bill Nelson, have extensive experience on intelligence matters and are respected champions of civil rights and liberties. They chose to give significant weight and deference to the intelligence community on FISA reform, and so did I.

The Rockefeller bill took care of the problem. What Webb is saying is he voted for the MCConnell bill because Bush threatened to veto the Dem bill. In short, Webb cowered before Bush's veto threat. Some tough guy. Showing the way to capitulation to Bush.

On this weekend of blogospheric celebration, someone has to rain on the parade. And that someone is me. One of our favorites, Avedon, links to LarryE lamenting the state of the anti-war movement:

the real reason that the antiwar movement seems unable to stop the war despite having the support of perhaps two-thirds of the public is that too much of that "movement" to too god damned concerned with its own image. Too god damned concerned with being "respectable," with being seen as "serious," as truly "pro-American." Too god damned concerned with politics over praxis, with positioning over protest. As a result, it has surrendered tactical decisions to the leadership of the Democratic Party and moral leadership to a crew of inside-the-Beltway wannabes both on- and offline who have mocked demonstrations and made Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the arbiters of the acceptable limits of debate. And that has been a horrendous blunder, both tactically and ethically, with disastrous consequences for Americans and even more - far more - for Iraqis.

I think Larry is right about the anti-war Netroots failing miserably in 2007 but I think he is wrong on the why it is failing. I will explain my thinking on the flip.

NYTimes:

They have got us in a vise,” Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said as she left a Saturday afternoon meeting where senior Democrats were debating how to handle the issue in the final hours before recess.

If there is one thing Bush knows how to do well it is how to intimidate the useless Democrats in Congress. I have never ever seen a more pathetic group of negotiators in my life.

Congresswoman Slaughter, have you ever thought of actually just demonstrating some public resolve? Even if you plan to cave in later, do you think you MIGHT act as if you might stand up to Bush? He might give you a concession once in a while. Apparently getting pre-punked, as Sen. Obama was on the Iraq Supplemental (remember the not playing chicken remark?), is the SOP for Dems.

This quote is as pathetic and incompetent a piece of bargaining that I have ever seen.

Let's face it - Congressional Democrats stink at politics and stink at political bargaining. Utterly incompetent.

Final Update: The debate was a big coup for Yearly Kos and the blogosphere. It had buzz and electricity and while the questions were not great and Matt Bai was an odd choice for moderator, it was well worth the time and effort to attend. There was a sense of comraderie and unity in the hall -- an acknowledgment that we are all in this together and working for the same thing, to bring an end to the abuses of the Bush Administration -- that transcended individual candidate preferences.

****

Combining Big Tent's thread and mine. Big Tent said:

Gina Cooper, YKOs Director introduces Matt Bai of the NYTimes who apparently is moderating the forum. Extremely strange to me that a blogger conference has a NYTimes reporter moderating the event. But whatever.

Joan McCarter, Daily Kos Contributing Editor, and good friend of Talk Left will be the lead questioner apparently. Dr. Jeff Feldman, a friend of mine, will be fielding questions from the audience. It is being live streamed here.

(TalkLeft live blogging from the debate hall below)

McJoan: To Bill Richardson: He has said his model Supreme Court Justice would be Justice White. Would he reconsider?

"I screwed up on that." His court would have diversity and legal scholars. He would ask, "Do you believe Roe v. Wade is settled civil rights and privacy law? If yes, he might attend them.

Update: (Big Tent, please chime in) Obama is up now. He is against Bush's tax cuts. Our biggest fiscal problem is Medicare and Medicaid. We are spending too much on the war.

More...

I previously discussed Barack Obama's answer on the use of nukes and this important piece of information comes to us via Kevin Drum, the transcript of the exchange:

AP: Sir, with regard to terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ...

OBAMA: Yeah.

AP: Is there any circumstances where you'd be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden?

OBAMA: No, I'm not, uh, there has been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss.

AP: Not even tactical?

OBAMA: No. I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance. Uh, if involving you know, civilians... Let me scratch all that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table so...

Emphasis supplied to the RIGHT ANSWER from Obama and the exact same answer given by Hillary Clinton. This is exactly what Obama should have said. Unfortunately, he did not stop there. His failure to adhere to his initial statement was his error. I wonder if now people like Matt Yglesias will retract their attacks on Hillary Clinton's response to this. As is apparent, Obama himself realized he made a mistake, "scratch all that." I hope they will "scratch all that" nonsense they wrote in criticism of Clinton on this subject.

I'm in the front row of a very packed room waiting for Hillary Clinton to arrive. She will speak at a breakout session here at noon.

Only problem for live-blogging is my battery is very low, so I won't be able to update until it's over and I get back to an electrical outlet.

If you're watching a streaming version, feel free to use the comments here to keep everyone updated.

Really big buzz in the room, lots of excitement. The entire Yearly Kos event seems to have come alive today.

More later...