The Nation is organizing a nice letter to Barack Obama asking him to be the progressive they believe him to be:

Dear Senator Obama,

We write to congratulate you on the tremendous achievements of your campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades. In your speeches, you have sketched out a vision of a better future--in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe and focuses on diplomacy abroad and greater equality and freedom for its citizens at home--that has thrilled voters across the political spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind you, and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged.

[MORE . . .]

The House Judiciary Committee today voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt for failing to comply with its subpoena. Here's Rep. John Conyers report (pdf) to the Committee. Marcy at Empty Wheel has analysis.

Glenn Greenwald and Ed Kilgore debate the virtues of challenging incumbent Democrats, or as Ed puts it, "settling scores." I think a more basic problem needs to be addressed first, the bizarre penchant of the Netroots to concentrate its resources on electing Dems like Travis Childers and Heath Shuler. Now I have nothing against either of these Dems - they represent the views of their particular districts. My problem is with a so called Progressive Netroots wasting its resources working to elect candidates who basically disagree with their view of what the Democratic Party should be.

I guess, in a way, this puts me in the Kilgore camp, of not being for "score settling" against Dems like Shuler, Childers, Ben Nelson, Gene Taylor and the like. I am for getting "better" Dems in districts that will support better Dems. More . . .

Dennis Kucinich didn't get the impeachment hearing he wanted, but he did get a hearing on "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations." That gave former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson the opportunity to tell Congress that

there's a "compelling case" for the impeachment of President Bush, but that short of that, it should appoint a special commission to investigate egregious abuses of power. Anderson, testifying Friday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing looking at the constitutional limits of the executive branch, detailed a litany of what he said were "heinous" human rights abuses, unprecedented power grabs and denials of due process.

Illness kept John Dean from testifying, but in this article Dean compares President Bush's abuses of power to those of Richard Nixon.

Over at Slate, Emily Bazelon, Kara Hadge, Dahlia Lithwick and Chris Wilson have put together an interactive guide to crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration, from warrantless wiretapping to coercive interrogation to the DOJ U.S. Attorney hiring and firing scandals and more.

Each scandal is represented by a colored circle that encompasses the people who are implicated. As it's easy to see, many of the players here are mixed up in two, three, or more of the alleged crimes.

A text-only version is here. If you get confused, they write:

fall back on this golden rule of wrongdoing in the White House: All roads lead to Gonzales.

MoveOn can be tremendously successful without being effective.

-Chris Hayes describing criticism of Move On

I am a vociferous critic of Move On's tactics of the past few years, believing that it has lost its way as an issue organization and instead largely became solely a Democratic cheerleader with little focus on issues. Chris Hayes, the editor of The Nation has a piece that sees good and bad in Move On:

What started as a simple one-sentence petition hastily posted to the web has evolved into the most readily identifiable group in the vanguard of a revived progressivism, with a membership that exceeds 3 million. Capable of dominating a news cycle with a single ad and raising millions of dollars with a lone e-mail, MoveOn pioneered an entire approach to conducting politics through the Internet that has been replicated and spun off across the country and around the globe, an approach that, as the Obama campaign has dramatically demonstrated, has permanently transformed the landscape of American politics.

More . .

John Edwards was in Denver today, promoting his anti-poverty plan.

The former senator has been traveling the country promoting an anti-poverty campaign called "Half In Ten," meaning the goal is to cut poverty in the U.S. in half within 10 years.

More on his appearance here. Video is here.

According to the National Enquirer, last night he was in Los Angeles where he ran into some sleazoid reporters. I hope the story isn't true, but it's beginning to make the rounds. Curious that the reporters included no photos or video footage. What are they saving it for? Or doesn't it exist?

Here's a more flattering pic of Rielle Hunter.

In any event, if the story becomes national news, at least he's found a way out of being asked to serve as Obama's VP candidate.

Here is her post at Huffington Post (also at Reality Check) on it:

David Brooks predicts the return of big government:

We’re entering an era of epic legislation. There are at least five large problems that will compel the federal government to act in gigantic ways over the next few years.

First, there is the erosion of the social contract. Private sector firms are less likely to provide health benefits, producing a desperate need for health care reform. Second, there is the energy shortage. . . . Third, there is the stagnation in human capital. . . . Fourth, there’s financial market reform. . . . Fifth, there’s infrastructure reform. The U.S. transportation system is in shambles and will require major new projects.

In short, Brooks is saying that Republicanism has failed. And indeed it has. More . .

James Byrne, #2 at the Office of Special Counsel, has resigned, claiming in his letter of resignation that his boss, Scott Bloch, is just carrying water for his political agenda.

James Byrne, second in command at the embattled Office of Special Counsel, resigned his post effective today after leaving his boss, Scott J. Bloch, a stinging letter suggesting that Bloch's "political agendas and personal vendettas" were preventing the agency from fulfilling its mission.

The two-paragraph letter, obtained by The Times, was sent to Bloch last week at a time when the Bush appointee faces a Justice Department inquiry that includes allegations of illegally erasing information on his government computer.

Byrne led the task force investigating the politicization of the Justice Department and other Executive Branch agencies under Bush. With Bloch in control, it's even more unlikely there will be any accountability. [More...]

The House has passed another useful bill for Senate Republicans to filibuster.

The bill, which passed on a voice vote, would block two-thirds of the federal covert operations budget until each member of the congressional intelligence committees is briefed on all secret operations under way. Panel members also would be granted access to any other details necessary to assess the value of intelligence operations.

If this refreshing concept of congressional oversight were somehow to make it past Senate Republicans, the president will make sure to crush it.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill because it says it would go too far and infringe upon the president's right to protect intelligence.

Protect intelligence? From our elected representatives in Congress? Is the president worried that they'll drop the intelligence and break it? Accidentally feed it into the paper shredder? Where in the Constitution does the president find a right to protect the entire executive branch from oversight? [more ...]

This interview excerpt with Jim Webb has been going around:

Josh Nelson: You mentioned the role the blogosphere played in your Senate campaign. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit. And also tell us what type of role you would like to see them play in legislative fights in the future.

Jim Webb: The blogs… the good news and bad news about blogs. First the bad news. The bad news is anybody can say anything about someone and they don’t even have to put their name on it. In fact, the anonymity encourages irresponsibility. And it is pretty frustrating, I’ll be honest with you, that’s why I just stopped reading this stuff a long time ago. . . . [MORE]