Also Also

And So, Mr. Bush, I See the Tables Have Turned

Do you remember the guy who was wanted for murder and pinned under the thumb of the US military in Najaf a couple years ago? He was the hothead cleric we all wanted to avoid, and we were hoping that Sistani could keep him at heel enough to do the sensible thing and get someone like Allawi or maybe even Chalabi in there and running things like our good like patronage bitch. But whatever we did, we certainly didn't want this guy anywhere near the rudders of power in Iraq when we were done with it:

Pressure has been mounting on the Shiites to replace al-Jaafari, whom critics accuse of failing to curb sectarian tension that has soared since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, which triggered a wave of reprisal attacks against Sunnis.

...

The Shiites, however, are maneuvering carefully because they suspect the Sunnis and Kurds want more of a role in the new government than they would be entitled to based on their showing in the December election.

Sumaidaie, a Sunni Arab, told CNN that while "electoral results could not be ignored totally," it may be necessary to allocate positions "to make sure that everybody's on board."

Al-Jaafari won the nomination in a vote last February by Shiite lawmakers due to strong support from radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The mercurial young cleric, who heads the dreaded Mahdi Army militia, has vowed to stand behind the incumbent.

With little progress on the political front, Iraq's slide toward chaos continued. [emph all me, baby]

If I have this right, the primary thing that is keeping our President from backing out of Iraq like a Northside alderman from a Southside hooker's apartment is Moqtada al-Sadr. And where are Allawi and Chalabi? Not involved with anyone who matters for anything, I can tell you that.

The project for Iraq has been run like an Icelandic creole joint.

The Eagles Gouge Each Other's Eyes Out

Homer's had enough:

The City Council in Homer, a tourist and fishing town on Alaska's Kachemak Bay, voted this week to phase out a feeding program that for nearly 30 years has drawn hundreds of eagles to feast each winter on handouts of herring, halibut and salmon. The town acted after Alaska's Board of Game declined to regulate the feeding.

Between free meals in Homer over the years, the U.S. national symbol — which is thriving in Alaska, where there are about 50,000 of them — has become a chronic troublemaker. The birds of prey, as large as 12 pounds with maximum wingspans of 7 feet, electrocute themselves on power lines, gouge each other's eyes out and make themselves sick by snacking at the town dump. They also eat the occasional cat or small dog.

Build your own metaphor.

--TJ

What if There Were a Law AGAINST Domestic Spying?

Nice catch at Kos from the transcripts of the Gonzales domestic surveillance hearings:

BIDEN: The truth is, there is no definition of when we're going to know whether we've won, because Al Qaida, as the president points out, has mutated into many other organizations that are not directly dealing with bin Laden and are free agents themselves.

BIDEN: Is that correct?

GONZALES: It is certainly true that there are a number of terrorist groups who share many of the same objectives of Al Qaida in terms of destroying America.

BIDEN: So as long as any of them are there, I assume you would assert you have this plenary authority.

GONZALES: Well, Senator, obviously if Congress were to take some kind of action, and say the president no longer has the authority to engage in electronic surveillance of the enemy, then I think that would put us into the third part of Justice Jackson's three-part test, and that would present a much harder question as to whether or not the president has the authority. [emph added]

If only, if only! Why oh why has Congress never seen fit to take such action? I bet if they did, it might look like this:

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information ^[2a]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) ^[4] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.^[5]

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court^[6], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. ^[7]

Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. ^[8] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties ^[10a] and civil liabilities. ^[11a]

Man, wouldn't it be great to have had a law like that? Then all this confusion over domestic surveillance being illegal, might have been avoided. Opportunity missed, I guess.

Maybe today Gonzales will explain why terrorist plots involving an overseas call are too important to bother with fundaments of civil liberty and privacy--but plots between two US persons calling each other a block apart  aren't worth bothering with--because people might get upset. Again, I'm glad no one's upset now, and that the administration doesn't want to worry us and get our blood pressure going. Thanks, Al!

--TJ

 

GOP Has Boehner for New Leadership

I just couldn't resist, sorry:

Boehner defeated fellow Republican Rep. Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri, 122-109, after lagging behind his rival in a first, inconclusive vote of GOP House members. The third contender — John Shadegg of Arizona — withdrew after finishing last in the initial round.

Blunt, who had been the front-runner, remains the GOP whip. "Believe me, the world goes on," he said.

"We have a great leadership team," Blunt said. "We're going to work to make the Congress better, more importantly we're going to work to make the country better, and I look forward to working with John Boehner as majority leader to make that happen."

Boehner campaigned as a candidate of reform, and said his experience as chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee had demonstrated his ability to pass major legislation.

While the GOP will surely try to play this as an achievement for reform and new direction within the House caucus, Boehner's fellow Ohioans aren't so sure:

Boehner depicts himself as a reformer despite his recent $5,000 donation to DeLay's legal defense fund. Boehner has also worked extensively with lobbyists to marshal support for legislation and continues to raise money from them, while calling for the end of the Republican Party's "K Street Project" that boosts GOP ties with lobbyists. Blunt's wife and other family members are lobbyists. Shadegg has fewer ties with the lobbying community.

...

Yet a list of supporters that Boehner circulated conspicuously excluded the scandal-tainted [Ohio GOP Rep Bob] Ney.

Boehner spokesman Don Seymour said his boss "would be proud" to have Ney's vote, but didn't ask Ney to take a public stance because he "hasn't wanted to add any further pressure on top of what he's already going through."

Yeah, they were really prioritizing Ney's best interests on that one. :rolleyes:

Meet the new boss!

--TJ

 

Snark on the Half-Shell

from Preemptive Karma, who stole it from Shakespeare's Sister, a zinger too good not to pass on:

--TJ

The President Didn't Mean it Literally

Knight Ridder still knows how to write a lede:

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

Thank goodness it happened during the State of the Union, perhaps the one night that the media pore over and absorb what the President says, and do some fact-checking before coming back with questions. Otherwise, people might have bought that "addicted to oil" stinkola. My God, who the hell is George Bush to tell me I'M the one addicted to oil? I take the fucking bus to work, George--by choice. How about you? You're more concerned about human-animal hybrids than you are gas-electric. Glad to have the traditional media wipe the shine off that garbage right from the get-go, before letting the White House make it sound like an asset.

My two favorite moments of the SOTU, by the way:

1) The look Senator Clinton gave George, as Bush made a rueful joke about her husband and his Dad. An ailing Jon Stewart nonetheless accurately described it as "the place where boners go to die."

2) When Bush started building to his half-hearted diatribe against the Democrats for killing Social Security, he began by poutily reporting that they had done so. Before he could move on to his firm yet folksy rejoinder, the Democrats got in their most enthusiastic applause of the evening. The President stared somewhat blankly as the applause continued for a few moments. I think I saw some high fives. I'm not sure if I'm more impressed whether it was spontaneous or totally planned.

I liked Tim Kaine's speech, and I thought the set and setting were better than some of the truly lame 'responses' of the past--but he's no Cicero. Physical peccadillos should be irrelevant in serious matters of state, but I have to say that every time his left eyebrow shot up like Exxon stock, I totally lost the riddim of the speechifying, and stared at The Brow. And he had a weird way of moving the tagline, "We can do better," back and forth within sentences--sometimes not even pausing between the last word of the previous sentence.

Six down, two to go.

--TJ

Loaded Orygun Launches

For immediate release...Feb 1, 2006

Loaded Orygun Launches, Puts Sight on State Politics

Willamette Valley, OR--Going off literally half-cocked, on February 1, 2006 a void was declared null and filled. Loaded Orygun , the collaborative effort of two bloggers teaming up again after sharing a web advocacy award, promises to quickly become a fruitful hub for all things Oregon Politick. If Attorney General Myers and his staff should happen to embarrass John Ashcroft in front of the Supreme Court again, we'll cover it. As the races for the state House develop into the key election topic of the fall, we'll be there. And we'll be all over the May ballot questions in Portland, especially voter-owned elections.

Crossing paths in cyberspace, native Oregonians Carla (of Preemptive Karma) and Torrid (Also Also) ironically met while separately  covering the gubernatorial election challenge in Washington state. Both writers noticed a vacuum in the blogosphere when it came to serious review of case law, administrative policy, and electoral procedure. Fighting repeated attempts to distort the discussion, Preemptive Karma and Also Also published stories debunking charges of mail ballot fraud, military disenfranchisement, electoral fraud and gross malfeasance by King County. In addition, the sites provided contextual coverage such as interviews with local and state officials, and full liveblogging during the trial. For their work, Preemptive Karma and Also Also were co-honored with the David Niewert Award for Best Reporting From Outside of Washington. 

Wanting to avoid a similar rearguard defense of reality as Oregon enters political season, the two writers recognized a gap in strong advocacy-based Oregon reporting and opinion from the left. In a media environment where Willy Week represents the closest example of modern progressive journalism,  Earl Blumenauer is considered a socialist nutbag, and Lars Larson still gets more ink than Thom Hartmann, Loaded Orygun will become a firm voice for change...well, until change isn't needed, in which case it will become a silent voice of, er, satisfied quietude.

Comments, plaudits and email rage to loadedorygun@gmail.com

http://www.loadedorygun.blogspot.com

Carla, of Preemptive Karma--http://preemptivekarma.com
Torrid, of Also Also--http://alsoalso.typepad.com

Hillary Throws Portland a Departing Pander

As readers have no doubt noticed in ever more excited terms, we've been carrying an ad for Hillary Clinton's Portland event. I suppose it's theoretically possible that someone who saw the ad decided to pay $50 minimum to 'nob with the beautiful ones, but I don't generally troll in the high rent district. But we're happy to carry the announcement, and hope everything went smoo...wassat? Wasn't a Bush-quality handpicked crowd?

In her 30-minute speech, Clinton acknowledged the "passions" of those who feel the war is a mistake.   Still, she said it would be a mistake to withdraw American forces while Iraqis are working to form a government.  "If we take precipitous action it could make a bad situation worse," she  said.    

  Clinton was interrupted several times by a dozen or so anti-war protesters who shouted "Bring the troops Home!" and "Hillary supports the war!"  Clinton was undeterred and continued talking through the shouts. She did say the Bush administration needs to give accurate information to the American people and a possible timetable for troop withdrawal. Then she said the United States need to "stay as long as it takes."

You gotta love a town where people will pay 50 bucks to shout down the presumptive nominee of their own party! I certainly understand, and almost completely sympathize--but crazy right wing people don't usually hoot down Olympia Snowe at fundraisers, do they?

Obviously, this whole "continues to support a lame ass war" thing seems to be developing into a problem of sorts for Hillary. Don't let me overstate it--it's two years away and she's already socked away more money than Heidi Fleiss at the Oscar afterparties. But the developing judgement on Clinton from the left seems to be "meh." Here's the problem: so far it's looking like 2 of every 5 voters are going to pull against her from the start. She's got another 2 of 5 viewing her favorably, but not all of them plan on voting for her necessarily. So she's already got a hole in her base.

Clearly she's not stupid; she knows she does not have an appealing position on Iraq to a wide swath of the Democratic faithful--and, it should be noted, a big chunk of independents and even Republicans. But she's stuck with it now, and there's an investment being built in by the DLC establishment that locks the top of the party into this Bushesque policy for Iraq. Why some Democrats plan to run for President suggesting that their Iraq plan is to pretty much do what Bush is now, I cannot fathom. Large majorities are not satisfied with the Bush plan, and to offer yourself as an alternative without changing anything but the nametag is so politically tone-deaf I can't stand it.

Today (Sunday) Hillary's people have changed her ad message. "Thank you, Portland" perhaps? "Suck my left one, you ungrateful bastards?" "Here's 5 grand, now quit crying?" "Bill always told me he never found good tail here, so chew on that?" Nope. And now I've missed it, because it's after midnight. Bollocks! But I can tell you what the headline was: Hillary Clinton -- No on Alito

Well then! I don't know when the Senator got into town, but seemingly the first chance she got to talk to somebody, she made known her vote not just on Alito but on cloture tomorrow morning: No. Joining Dianne Feinstein of California as filibusterers, Clinton seemed to give a boost to netroots activists, reenergizing their flurry of calls and faxes to newly wavering Senators. Which made me wonder: was she trying to soften up the evening's crowd? It's certainly not a play-it-moderate move, and not something she's been high profile about. I'll accept it as sincere for now (and frankly I don't care whether it's completely craven or not at this point; if there are 41 Democrats who oppose Alito there should be 41 voting against cloture.)

If she was trying to soothe the savage breast of the Stumptown Radicalia, I guess it didn't work. With $5,000 of shut-up money to the state party, Hillary was back on the Preordained Tour and Oregonians were left to scratch their mullets and ponder what they'd been fed.

--TJ

Kaine for 'Response'--and Why Do I Care, Again?

I read a little while ago that Tim Kaine had been given the bittersweet honor of presenting the "Democratic Response" to the State of the Union on Tuesday. I immediately thought hey, decent choice--show off your big winner from 2005 in an implicit presaging of 2006, give Mark Warner a little secondhand smoke up his dress as Kaine's godfather, and push a little of that "new Democrat" blood that shows up in personalities like Schweitzer of Montana and Barack Obama. And I let it go. I moved on, I found other topics, and although I am quite familiar with Kaine having lived in Richmond while he was mayor, I didn't even bother mentioning it here.

If you aren't familiar with Kaine yourself: he is not particularly dynamic (Obama),  not particularly senior (this is just his second statewide or federal office), not particularly able to showcase one issue and hammer it into the ground (Murtha), and almost entirely unknown (nearly everybody else). But as I said, he's of a newish breed of Democratic politicians who seem at ease with conservatively usurped "values", but also focus on pragmatic issues and approaches--what used to be called "kitchen table politics." Bill Clinton is definitely NOT of this breed, but he perfected the art of taking small steps with programs that gave off visible results, and then selling himself as not a politician but a governor (small g).

Tim Kaine, still basking in the glow of Mark Warner's coalition-building shadow, is a well-schooled member of this new group. As the mayor in a weak-mayor council system and (if I recall right) the only white member of the council in a majority black city, Kaine learned nothing if not how to get along with different constituencies and interests. But as someone who often debated issues from the right on a strongly liberal council, Kaine now seems at home standing to the left of a strongly conservative House of Burgess...er, General Assembly.

Not THAT far left, perhaps, but well enough. For instance, I was surprised that so few progressive Virginians beyond the gay community were giving Kaine the business for agreeing to sign Virginia's truly shameful gay marriage amendment. This disturbing bill goes well beyond being merely redundant to a state DOMA law, but also takes aim at transactions and associations unmarried couples may enter into. I found nothing at Sullivan under "Virginia amendment," although I recall something he wrote about a similar bill that did not pass last year. But this one passed! And Kaine was going to sign it...until recently, when either he a) actually read the thing, or b) picked up the phone and heard angry people saying, "have you read this thing?"

And as Kaine's supporters also note (and this is something you Portlanders will perk your ears at), he's already exercising his will and pushing a strong-government agenda: smart growth. Folks, traffic is that bad in the DC area, and from personal experience it's worst in Virginia. So people are ripe for any kind of solution.

But it should boggle the minds of Northwesterners to hear people in the East say, "hey--OK, maybe it's time to let localities set limits to development in their area." People would be toppling Portlandia if it came down from government that you couldn't stop a Wal-Mart or a seal-clubbing farm or a toxic mold plant in your own backyard. Heck, they'd rattle her pitchfork just for having fewer than 20 public sessions on it. You can literally see the difference that tight planning makes, and it's overwhelmingly positive, even if it's far from perfect. So that will be an achievement for him if it happens.

So like I said, I have a hopeful view of the guy, and he seems like a rational choice for what is ultimately a rough gig. And as I said, I moved on.

In a season of deserving outrage at the stale joke that the Bush administration has become, for the life of Brian I cannot figure out why choosing Tim Kaine represents a calamity or even missed opportunity for the Democrats. And yet as the days rolled by after his selection, that's what I began seeing in the lefty blogs. Arianna complained the loudest, or at least got the most play--but several places I went to took the time from their day to say, "What idiots, those Democrats--picking Tim Kaine! Ha! Dolts!" Heck, even others at Huffington Post said it, too--like it was the biggest mistake EVER.

A couple of days ago I linked to Peter Daou's complaint that the traditional media is helping reinforce stereotypes of Democrats as weak, fractious losers. There are, however, other groups who are helping reinforce them--Democrats. I have to ask: why are supposedly favorably Democratic writers slamming the party so publicly on this? Why are they basically attacking Tim Kaine personally by denigrating the choice? How do they not have to time to exhort their readers to press the principle and do whatever necessary this weekend to keep Alito off the Court, but they've got virtual printer's ink to spare on the choice of the fucking SOTU rebuttal! Who watches that thing? Who is going to have the captive eye for rhetorical disaster long enough to get through Bush's speech...and then sit up attentively for Democrat X?

Cause that's why the dissent here really bothers me. I like being among the critical thinkers rather than the lockstep zombies. I like being in a coalition as opposed to a private club. I like debate within agreeing positions. But on stuff that MATTERS, how about? Run down the party for cowardice and poor choices on any number of issues over the last five years, and I'll back you. But shut up with the Kaine thing! Who cares?

Bruce Reed at Slate had the same thought, and although he published the day before this came out, I assure you I had all those thoughts he did, a few days before he had them. Here are his:

The Kaine mutiny is troubling not just because a few bloggers are picking on the wrong guy. It's also a disturbing reminder of how much time most of us in the blogosphere—and in politics generally—waste pretending that daily tactical decisions are what matters.

I happen to think Tim Kaine will give a good talk next Tuesday. But if I really thought the Democratic Party's future turned on the Democratic response, I'd pack it in and start looking for a new profession. I've watched the post-State of the Union ritual for 20 years now, and not once has the poor soul giving the response—or his party—come out a winner for it.

Exactly. So why bust his chops on it? He doesn't mention Alito, but the contrast is clear. Confirmation of a balance-shifting member of the Supreme Court is not a tactial decision needing strategy, it's a long-term strategic reality that needs tactics to support the right path. Nobody wants to talk about prepping up to try to move opinion Monday morning before the cloture vote, except to the extent that they bash Kerry for trying something that might actually fail. Don Quixote of the Swiss Alps, if you will. Well Christ, liberals--wasn't that what you wanted? So
why
bust
his
chops
in
public
over
it??

If the DLC types win the battle for the soul of the party, it may end up being so because the progressive left became impossible to please, and the party figured there was no point in trying to accomodate them. I hope it doesn't come to that.

--TJ

On the Precipice of a Coup

There's always something worth talking about going on in the world, but lately it feels like these are momentous times. There's a sense that American political society is balancing on a ledge, looking either to regain its former posture, or topple completely. Broad themes of democracy and authority and formal tension between the branches are at issue, with what seem like lasting effects at stake.

And so we have the two major parties in America: one in full control, albeit under suspicious terms and continuous allegations of scandal; and one that has been, for much of the last five years, unsure of whether it should open its mouth. It was awfully funny that Bush asked Condi for a bathroom pass, but the sad reality is that Democrats have spent much of their minority status discussing between themselves how firmly to ask for the key to the john. Hell, for all I know the Republicans have commandeered all the ground level bathrooms in the House and make the Democrats use the 3rd floor, and so they literally have to ask. They run the building with that kind of hand.

So now we sit at the juncture of several large questions:

• Can the President do essentially whatever he wants in the name of "fighting terror?"
• Are we going to do anything about the corruptive culture surrounding fundraising and lobbying?
• Was there a conspiracy to leak Valerie Plame's name, and is the White House guilty of crimes?
• Is the leadership of the Republican Party in both houses going to fall to ethics breaches?
• And is a guy quite reasonably expected to give Bush a pass on most of this stuff, going to get a lifetime E Ride ticket on the SupremeCourtterhorn?

In this tabeau sits the minority party, admittedly high-functioning eunuchs at best, but potentially well capable of taking control of these issues and shifting the public debate. There's no doubt the Republicans are staggered a little bit, unable to advance any of the President's pet legislation and the continued cloud of legal developments in ongoing scandals. And so there's a void of momentum, one that is waiting for a movement to seize it.

What's the problem? Peter Daou has an excellent piece that does a nice job trying to exonerate them, but really in its implications it shouts "the Democrats are pussies." Simply put, they can't break through the developed memes from the GOP that are uncritically repeated by the largest traditional media outlets. Which--and as I say, I agree with Daou's thesis about poor journalism being a block to successful message outreach--is a wimpy copout. For goodness sakes! Speak up, but speak up clearly and with one voice. You don't get the benefit of being heard handed to you; you have to say things worth hearing.

The western flanks of the Left have been doing their part to hector the media into playing the game more fairly, stunning establishment stalwarts like the Washington Post and Chris Matthews with blogswarms and boycotts. It helped that they were right, but the effect has been to shock the traditional media into recognizing that they are being watched, and the results are getting noticed and called out.

For weeks nigh on months, the progressive community has been pushing for active declarations of opposition from the opposition party. "Pick your battles, and this isn't one," the DLC kept saying. Heck, even Paul Begala went on the Colbert Report to tell Democrats to wake the frig up. Some new candidates for Congress are getting the message and are using it. Responding to attacks reprinted by Ohio media on Paul Hackett's favorable stance towards gay marriage, Hackett stood and revalidated his position:

“I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it. Equal justice under the law for all regardless of who they are and how they were born is fundamental to our American spirit and our American freedoms. Any person or group that argues that the law should not apply equally to all Americans is, frankly, un-American.”

“The Republican Party has been hijacked by religious fanatics, who are out of touch with mainstream America. Think of the recent comments by Pat Robertson – a religious fanatic by any measure – that the United States should assassinate a democratically elected leader in Venezuela, and that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was divine punishment because Sharon wished to trade land for peace.”

“Since the Republican Party has been utterly unable to stand for something positive, they have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and have pandered to religious fanatics not to vote for something they believe in, but to vote against their fellow Americans with whom they disagree. Those among us who would use religion and politics to divide rather than unite Americans should be ashamed.”

Ouch. And today, finally, there was a sign, a rumbling really, that something might happen. Massachusett's two Senators decided they'd had enough, and if the leadership wasn't going to organize any kind of movement or statement on the lifetime appointment of Samuel Alito, they would:

Yesterday, Senator Ted Kennedy and I told our colleagues that we supported a filibuster of Judge Alito’s nomination for the Supreme Court. And we weren’t alone. But the bottom line is that it takes more than two or three people to filibuster successfully. It’s not “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” If you want to stop Judge Alito from becoming Justice Alito, use your own email list and organize. We can’t just preach to our own choir. We need to prove to everyone – from our friends and neighbors to our fellow Senators – that the American people know Judge Alito will take our country in the wrong direction, and they expect something to be done about it.

Late? Very likely. Politically motivated? Not improbably. A somewhat melodramatic fit of Quixotic politics? Absolutely. But god bless if it wasn't a sign.

I wasn't kidding when I said Quixotic--three have already come out in favor of Alito (West Virginia's Byrd included, on the same day a wealthy challenger entered the race against him), and three more had hinted their opposition to a filibuster besides. Rumors have flown since then at the sites of the usual suspects, including one indicating that Salazar was reconsidering, one that said similar things about Landrieu, that Reid would support but not whip the caucus. However, Dick Durbin has spent the last two nights spreading the word that it's dead, and most recently Daniel Akaka has cited his opposition to filibuster. And in an additional rumor, Barack Obama is apparently strongly urging colleagues not to filibuster on strategic grounds. [cannot vouch for this source...ed]

Mixed messages, to be sure. Which is essentially the same crime the Democrats have committed for 5 years. There is all weekend to see how the temperature changes, and voice mail boxes can fill while constituent buzz builds...but either way, these feel like momentous times.

--TJ