There's not much to add to what Phil writes here on the shameful, catastrophic, un-American bill that passed the House today, the one that gives telecom companies legal immunity for spying on American citizens and retroactively legalizes the Bush administration's orders to do so.

The House today overwhelmingly approved a sweeping new surveillance law that effectively would shield telecommunications companies from privacy lawsuits for cooperating with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Ending a year-long battle with President Bush, the House approved, 293 to 129, a re-write of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that extends the government's ability to eavesdrop on espionage and terrorism suspects while providing a legal escape hatch for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecommunication firms. The companies face more than 40 lawsuits that allege they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Warrantless" - such a benign expression, isn't it? The better word for it is "in violation of the Fourth Amendment", but that would be too, well, in-your-face for the stewards of our public welfare to contemplate.

The ten Democratic representatives who voted for this monstrosity in our state, and who should be primaried as the barest tolerable retribution for this offense against the Constitution and your rights as a citizen, are:

Ackerman (NY-5) - Contact
Arcuri (NY-24) - Contact
Bishop (NY-1) - Contact
Crowley (NY-7) - Contact
Engel (NY-17) - Contact
Gillibrand (NY-20) - Contact
Higgins (NY-27) - Contact
Lowey (NY-18) - Contact
McCarthy (NY-4) - Contact
Meeks (NY-6) - Contact

Or, if you prefer, the Capitol switchboard is at (202) 224-3121.

They need to hear from you. Ask them why they think the Fourth Amendment (and that quaint rule-of-law stuff that was so important in the matter of one Monica Lewinsky) ceased to have any real meaning, and which other fundamental freedom of this Republic they're going to offer up next to Mr. 28%.

[Update: The Squadron campaign emails over their endorsement by the Communications Workers of America (CWA, Local 1), and I now have my own tag with the New York Observer.]

This has already been discussed here and here, but I'd like to chime in along with Messrs. Anderson and Harding on some recent developments in the Progressive Movement.

First, on DFNYC's primary endorsements: I'm not sure I get it. That organization, the local chapter of Democracy for America, adds to its list of incomprehensible endorsements - Tasini over Clinton comes to mind, because that was such a winnable fight, or DFNYC's phase as the committee to elect Norman Siegel - with their newest round, in which they decided to back Powell over Towns in the Tenth CD, Henry over Newell and Silver in the Sixty-Fourth AD, and took a pass on the Twenty-fifth SD, featuring Connor versus Squadron. I'm going to reserve judgment on the Tenth, given that neither of the Democrats running is really all that much to write home about; Towns has been co-opted by a Washington culture of the moneyed interest and regularly votes against the interest of his constituents, and Powell has a history that is marred by some episodes best not discussed. In the Sixty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth, however, the choices are clear: Luke Henry is a very pleasant guy, no question, but there's a discernible gravitas gap, organizational gap, stature gap, money gap, and any number of related gaps between Henry and Paul Newell, the Blue to Bluer netroots candidate. Maybe the good people at DFNYC see something I don't, but what is clear is that their Henry endorsement splits the Progressive community on the arguably most important race in this state. I fail to see how this helps in the larger strategic effort, frankly.

As to the Squadron-Connor race, there's a strategic imperative as well, and it runs like this: Connor is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the worst of Albany's incumbents. But the Albany incumbency as a whole could use some shaking up, insulated as it is from the concerns of the citizenry. We need, as a state, to infuse fresh blood into both chambers of the legislature; Dan Squadron's campaign could be the first ripple of a wave of new fresh faces who are suddenly considering public service. With the Senate about to flip, membership in that body will become very attractive to some smart younger people who could transform it into a bastion of Progressive leadership. First up to the bat is Dan Squadron. There's a reason the Working Families Party is practically entranced by that race, and this is it.

In Daniel Millstone's excellent piece on the Iraq War positions of NY-13 Democratic primary contender Michael McMahon, the latter, a sitting member of the City Council, is quoted as saying this:

With regard to various city council resolutions on the War, I do not believe that the City Council, which has some very difficult issues to face, is best prepared to spend its time working on these issues. In my time in the Council, I have worked very hard on issues that affect the working men and women of my district and the City.

Now, one might argue that the Iraq War does indeed directly affect a district with 45,046 civilian veterans in the last census. One might further argue that the cost of the Iraq War in the Thirteenth District, $1.8B to date, with $462.7M online for FY 2008 and FY 2009 also coming from the district, is indeed a matter of interest.

Of course, as McMahon implies, resolutions by the City Council, even if passed by the bushel, do not in and of themselves carry much weight in the national legislature except as a debatably effective tool of persuasion. That would be an entirely fair point to make. However, a quick review of McMahon's record reveals that he has indeed sponsored and voted for such appellative resolutions, including some that should make Democrats cringe.

This can't be good news for Democratic candidate Steve Harrison, running in NY-13 to replace disgraced republican Vito Fossella. From The Hill:

Rep. Charles Rangel and other New York House Democrats endorsed City Councilor Mike McMahon on Wednesday in the race to replace outgoing Rep. Vito Fossella (R).

“This year, we have an historic opportunity to turn the last Republican congressional district in New York City Democratic,” Rangel and 11 other House Democrats from New York City said in a statement obtained by The Hill.

The DCCC is taking sides as well.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the chairman of the Democrats’ House campaign effort, will appear with McMahon at City Hall in Lower Manhattan on Saturday, according to a Democratic source.

To name some names:

Charlie Rangel has an op-ed in today's Daily News well worth your time. Go read it now.

The spirited and inspiring Democratic presidential nominating campaign that excited tens of millions of Americans is over - 16 months, 36 million votes and 54 primaries and caucuses later. From that contest sprang two extraordinary leaders who have become the stars of our party. There may be some residual bitterness among supporters on both sides, but there's no question the wounds will heal, and the Democratic Party will enter this election season stronger than it has been in recent years.

I am so proud of Hillary Clinton. She has shown a toughness and tenacity that won over even her harshest critics. She worked hard and diligently for every single vote, speaking masterfully to the economic, educational and health care concerns of working-class America.

Barack Obama, too, inspired a movement, bringing legions of new, youthful and previously disillusioned voters into the process and generating excitement unlike anything seen before in American politics. He has the winds of history in his sails, and as an African-American, I am thrilled to call him our nominee.

There's much more, of course. You can even discuss the editorial with the good Congressman himself, this Friday.

The Democratic National Convention list of credentialed blogs was released. Perhaps based on the squeaky-wheel effect, both Liza's Culturekitchen and The Albany Project have been included. The full list is here . Hat-tip to Talk Left (also on the list).

It's been pointed out that the invitations to Culturekitchen and The Albany Project are lower-status "national" blog seats without the right to stay with the state delegation. As I see it, from a distance, however, its a whole lot better than nothing -- which is what I'd normally expect from party leaders.

There's a primary brewing the 26th Congressional District that Democrats should avoid.

The contenders are Jon Powers, an Iraq War veteran and teacher, and Jack Davis, a local businessman who ran for this seat in 2006, narrowly losing to republican incumbent Tom Reynolds. Some background on the race is sketched out by Robert Harding of The Albany Project, here.

The reason this primary should be avoided is this: it would take away resources better used elsewhere, would damage the Democratic brand, and might result in an outcome, a Davis victory, that would likely lead to defeat in November.

Why, over the fold.

One of Hillary Clinton's arguments that she should be the party's nominee is that she is winning all (or almost all) of the "big states." Fortunately, this argument is falling flat, because it is a sure recipe for continued Democratic failure.

Those small states that Barack Obama is winning are exactly those states Democrats have ignored for decades, to the party's detriment. Many of us enthusiastically support Howard Dean's "50-state strategy" for gaining and maintaining a long-term Democratic majority. We believe that the answer to "you fight the fights you can win" is "you can only win the fights you fight."

Democrats have made significant gains in the mountain states, and now have five governors (out of nine states), and a few state legislatures. Both U.S. Senators from theoretically "red" states like Montana and North Dakota are Democrats, and Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico could soon join that club.

If you look up the word “mulligan” in the dictionary, you would find that it is a re-taken golf shot; or better still: a shot that- against the rules- a golfer allows an opponent to take again. Bill Clinton is known to take many mulligans when playing friendly games of golf; his wife (Hillary Rodham Clinton) seems to have learned this bad habit quite well. It is all about changing the rules in mid game, especially when things aren’t going their way. It’s about refining techniques that give them an unfair advantage in any competitive event. It is cheap, low and crass.

If Billary were to go to any toy store to purchase a device for their pleasure, what they would find is that in near all devices sold: “batteries are not included”. So after Tuesday’s primaries (Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont), all rational Democrats need to emphatically make the case- to both Bill and Hillary Clinton- that mulligans (just like batteries) are not included in the rules of this year’s primary elections.

I must admit that I have been having big fun during this election cycle. I have been amused when watching the many “Clintonistas”, running around the talk shows, spinning deluded tales of audacious hopes for best case scenarios, while seemingly oblivious to the harsher reality: Billary’s candidacy is dead; long live the dead.

So yeah, like I said, people aren't happy about the developing primary in the Third Senatorial District between Democrat Dahroug and republican Bodkin. At least one person was unhappy enough to sit down and go through Newsday's archives, apparently.

Which is where one can find this letter to the editor, penned on the passing of Richard Nixon, by one Christopher D. Bodkin of Islip, published on May 1st, 1994 (Nixon died on April 22nd, 1994):

I met Richard Nixon three times. Each time he was sitting behind the Mets dugout at Shea Stadium. My seats were always close by, and between innings small groups of people would go over to him to ask if he would autograph their programs or to just shake his hand and say hello. He always wore a jacket and tie, no matter how hot it was, and he was always gracious and friendly and only too happy to chat, mostly about baseball.

While I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, there was never a time when his name was not a household word.

To me, he was a man who appeared to be unexciting, yet he kept doing exciting, even extraordinary things. Nixon the politician was much like Hamlet the prince. Unexplainable character flaws created an atmosphere, an environment, that led to the tragic, needless and mysterious felony that was called Watergate. It was his undoing.

Yet, all of us are much more than the total of our mistakes. I believe that, in the fullness of time, Richard Nixon will be seen as the great man he was. In the meantime, it will be hard to think of political life in this country without him.

More immediately, it will be hard for me to go to Shea Stadium and look over to the Mets dugout and know that he will never be there again. I will miss him. [Emph. added]

Because nothing says "more and better Democrats" like paeans to Richard freaking Nixon, I suppose.