...but I intend to post here a lot, and I'm determined to get it right.


Is this thing on?

I can't use html in a post, right?<br/><br/>And if I try to put two returns in, that doesn't work either.
And I sincerely doubt I'm supposed to use \n.\n
So, how do I get two line breaks in a post?

Now that Senator Obama has  come out in favor of the FISA "compromise", there seems to be a major effort underway to convince us that the bill isn't really that bad, after all -- or at least that it's not very important, and not worth pestering the poor candidate about.  To compare this effort to the American communist  embrace of Hitler after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would be bombastic excess, and would risk the invocation of Godwin's law; so I won't do that.  Nor will I spend a lot of time arguing that the bill really is that bad.  It is, and I think we all know it is; but those arguments are already out there, and there's no reason to repeat them.  Instead, I'm going to assert that it doesn't really matter how bad this specific bill is:  what matters is that the "compromise" is part of an eight-year effort to implement a governing philosophy that assumes we, the American people, are frightened children, and that people like Dick Cheney should to be given all the power they need to protect us, and that what we have to do is shut up, get out of the way, and let them get on with it.  This philosophy -- call it the Cheney doctrine --is the central issue in this election, because it's the root of all the other issues we're debating.  The Cheney doctrine gave us the Iraq debacle.  It gave us unprecedented domestic spying, and the politicization of the Justice department, the corporate control of government, the rejection of science, and the mishandling of hurricane Katrina.  This -- this world we're living in, right here -- is an example of what happens when our government decides that we are subjects, rather than citizens.  And we -- the Democratic party, the only viable opposition we have -- cannot capitulate to the Cheney doctrine, and then expect to fix all the problems that come with it after we've won.
Since the beginning of this campaign, what's impressed me most about Senator Obama has been his determination to talk to the American people as if they were actual, functioning adults.  When the Reverend Wright's intemperate remarks began circulating, it was assumed that the Senator would call a presser, announce that he was shocked to find that his minister was a bad, bad man, and be done with it.  Instead, he took the opportunity to give a speech which did something almost unprecedented in modern presidential politics:  instead of patting us on the back for being such lovely, wonderful, generous people, he actually talked to us like grownups, and asked us to think about our assumptions.  Likewise, when gas prices started to hurt, he refused to join Senators Clinton and McCain in the ritual distribution of lollipops.  Throughout the primary season, he's assumed a certain level of intelligence in his listeners.  I liked that, and I'm sorry to see that he's now being advised that he can't win without pandering.  It's wrong, yes -- but I also think it's politically unwise.  It's giving in to the Cheney doctrine; and the voters already have a candidate who support the Cheney doctrine.  
All that said, I fully support Senator Obama, and will continue to give him money and time, as well as my vote in November.  He's still our only hope of undoing the damage of the last eight years.  Like Carthage,  the Republican Party delenda est.   I'd like to see us, however, do it without adopting the weapons of the enemy.

Barring the traditional live man or dead woman, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.  It is now incalculably important that we invite Hillary Clinton and her supporters to join us in defeating John McCain, and putting the country on a course to undo the damage of the last eight years.<br>Incalculably important.  Really.

Nothing really new, here:  I'd just like to emphasize something we all already know.  Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, in the matter of the proposed "Gas Tax Holiday", are deliberately lying to us because they think that we're stupid, and are more likely to vote for them if they tell us this particular lie.  They're doing this pretty much right out in the open, without any cover at all; neither of them has been able to round up a single creditable economist to support the plan, and neither has bothered to give us a coherent reason why they're right and all the economists in the world are wrong.  
This is the sort of behavior we've come to expect from Republicans; and it's the kind of thing that's soured so many of us on Senator Clinton.  Hillary might just as well come right out and say "If you vote for me, magical fairies will sprout from my forehead, and we will use their urine to power our machines."  It would show just as much respect for our intelligence as her current proposal.
Paul Krugman, an economist who supports Senator Clinton, admits that her proposal is farcical.  He claims it doesn't matter, though, because she doesn't really believe it and has no intention of keeping her promise.  That's... really sort of sad, isn't it?

In spite of the pointless, inane intra-party squabbling which has consumed the irreplaceable first months of this year, until this morning I was convinced that even the Democratic party was incapable of kicking away THIS election.  Even we, with our legendary pedalian marksmanship, should be able to beat a GOP saddled with the least popular president in US history, a disastrous war, and a looming economic disaster.  Shouldn't we?  Sure we should.
Then I read the latest whiny rant to make the front page at TPM, and it started to sink in:  there are plenty of Democrats -- lots and lots of Democrats, on both sides of the great divide -- who really, really don't understand what's going on in this election.
The 2008 Presidential election is NOT about whether Hillary's widdle feelings are hurt because the country seems to be rejecting her kind offer to serve as president.  It's NOT about whether Hillary has been mean to Barack.  It's not about the bad, bad things Barack's preacher said in July, or about where Hillary was on Stained Blue Dress day.  It's not even about Change, or Experience, or Leadership, or any other focus-group word you can think of.  This election is entirely about whether we can elect a President who is capable of undoing the fundamental, critical damage George W. Bush has done to the Republic.  That's all it's about.
John McCain can't do it, no matter how fine a fellow he might be.  It might have been possible to treat the problem from within the Republican party, in a Nixon-goes-to-China sort of way; but McCain has sold too much of whatever reformist instinct he might have had in order to make himself marginally acceptable to the base.  Once in the Oval Office, he'll be in thrall to the people who got us where we are now.  Any solution to the civic crisis we find ourselves in requires, God help us, a Democratic president.
I have my own opinion about which Democratic candidate is more likely to reign in our pretensions to empire, disolve the unitary executive and restore the rule of law; but the fact is that either remaining candidate MIGHT do it, and COULD be pressured to do it by the people who elect him or her.  If they don't get the chance, eight more years of Republican rule  will hard-bake the changes we've suffered into our system of government.  And that, folks, will be that.
Undoing the damage will be difficult; but the first step, electing a Democratic president, should have been easy.  It seems, though, that we remain the Peter Pan Party of American politics, refusing to grow up even when faced with disaster.  A few months ago, we seemed as united as it was possible to be and remain Democrats; and the Republicans seemed to be filling the take-my-ball-and-go-home role.  We've regressed horribly; faster than I would have though possible.  We can stop, take a deep breath, and set ourselves right, or we can let this opportunity pass.  If we do the latter, our grandchildren will be able to look back at our petulant, ridiculous blog posts -- assuming they can still afford computers -- and wonder what the hell we were thinking.