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.

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.

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.

Attaturk and Sam Boyd at TAPPED have misunderstood what the problem was with Obama's "nuke" gaffe and what was right wth Hillary Clinton's response. Attaturk writes:

But isn't it rather indicative of sanity to say you "won't nuke" a city in Pakistan "JUST" to kill Osama?

But that is not how Obama said it, and thus Attaturk ignores the problem with Obama's statement. Let's review again what Obama said:

Q: In Afghanistan or Pakistan, is there any circumstance where you would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden[?]"

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance." "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

(Emphasis supplied.) "Scratch that." Why did Obama say "scratch that" you think? Because he remembered, in the middle of his answer, that it is a bedrock doctrine of nuclear deterrence that you do not discuss how and when you would use nuclear weapons. It may be rational and wise to discuss it as Obama initially did, but in a political campaign, such a departure from doctrine should not come in an off the cuff answer to what was a ridiculous question. Thus, Obama's "scratch that." Discussing it was the gaffe. Policywise I think it is obvious that no one will use nukes in that secenario or, indeed, in any first strike scenario. But the politics demanded something better from Obama. More.

Bumped

Here's the audio

In his confrontational interview with Senator Chris Dodd (my guy in the Presidential race), Bill O'Reilly got one right:

O'Reilly ended the interview abruptly by saying that Dodd "was no Joe Lieberman."

Darn straight! And hooray for that! Way to go Senator Dodd.

The entire issue of nuclear weapon use doctrine is now pretty much a foreign policy backwater as a result of the end of the Cold War. When I was in college in the 80s, discussions of MAD, first strike capability, the impact of the MX missile, the INF treaty and the like were very much a centerpiece of foreign policy discussion. And Presidential candidates had their pat answers at the ready.

Today Barack Obama was asked a question about use of nuclear weapons and his fumbling answer demonstrated that he was not prepared for it. I think he has committed a serious political gaffe.

The exchange:

Barack Obama is speaking today at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. ABC reports in an attempt to "seem more muscular" on foreign policy, he is suggesting we withdraw troops from Iraq but redeploy forces into Afghanistan and Pakistan to hunt down terrorists. From speech excerpts:

There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

What's this all about?

[It seems to be] an attempt by Obama to ramp up his campaign to the next phase, where he hopes to seem not only a youthful idealist, but a president who would pursue a muscular foreign policy and protect the United States from terrorist attack.

....In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush.

It could be just me, but I'm not in favor of sending our troops in Iraq anywhere but home to the U.S.

More from Obama's speech:

The New York Times today features Joe Trippi, senior campaign advisor to John Edwards, discussing the importance of the internet for Edwards' campaign.

His role has been to help Mr. Edwards find ways to connect his message to the party’s liberal base in a campaign in which the traditional media channels have been clogged with news about Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, his two main Democratic rivals.

“The Internet is the principal way we are communicating with voters right now,” Mrs. Edwards said in an interview.

I think it's the right way to go for Edwards. I read all his campaign e-mails and really appreciate the way he's moved left of center since the Kerry campaign.

Why this race isn't between Hillary and Edwards as opposed to Hillary and Obama has me stumped. I think Obama needs a lot more seasoning and experience before becoming presidential material.

Which leads me to conclude it's still a three-way race and Edwards is very much in it.

Blogometer's Conn Carroll writes:

[T]here was a clear opening for Barack Obama to embrace the netroots and tap into their enthusiasm for a more progressive Dem party. . . . Obama could have joined forces with Sen. Russ Feingold (D) to end the war through de-funding and cemented his anti-war credentials.

Instead he chose a more measured path on the war (timelines, some residual forces, etc.) and did not pro-actively engage the netroots community. Now, as more and more are noting that his numbers have flatlined, Obama may be changing course.

Using his dictator-meeting exchange with HRC as launching point, Obama has launched a major netroots banner ad buy featuring a 'Judgment Matters' message that touts his pre-Senate opposition of the war and his eagerness to talk to 'our adversaries.'

It has always been my view that Obama's biggest campaign mistake was his failure to differentiate himself on Iraq. It amazed me that not only had John Edwards seemed to have outflanked him on the issue but that Hillary Clinton had neutralized it. More.

There's a six page feature article on Judith Giuliani in the new Vanity Fair which will be on the newstands this week. You can read it online now.

By the middle of the first page, you know it's going to be a train wreck for Judi. By the end of the article, there are no survivors, least of all Judi and Rudy.

Some of the juicier tidbits, like her ex-husband's allegation contained in court papers that she shouted anti-semitic insults at him and the intricate details about how, as an employee of U.S. Surgical, a company that performed live demonstrations of its surgical devices for doctors, she would have had to participate in the cruel killing of dogs, are going to seriously raise the blood pressure of Rudy's campaign staff. Others, like how her Louis Vuitton purse is so large it gets it own seat on their private plane and is nicknamed "Baby Louis" are amusing.

Mostly, she comes across as a phony, money grubbing, power-seeking wannabe.

Towards the end, there is speculation that Rudy's wandering eye is back.

The position of "Mrs. Giuliani" has not historically been a secure post. Although the candidate has lately been warned by advisers to avoid any hint of scandal, there is a sense that perhaps he is not listening. "Does a leopard change its spots?" says one close friend.

A source described as a friend of Rudy's says:

"Rudy has no willpower when it comes to relationships. This is why it's such an issue," says a Giuliani friend.

In all, it's a hatchet job but one you just can't stop reading.

Update: Wonkette's recap had me laughing out loud.

Last July, Sen. Barack Obama, speaking about Democrats and faith, said:

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

This false caricature of Democrats was bad political rhetoric. Obama improved here. And in this e-mail interview with a Christian Broadcasting Network reporter, improves again, but fails to improve in other respects: