Vitally important fashion update:  Party members will all wear American flag pins (which will be too much trouble to remove), and we will have our hands permanently attached above our hearts.  The ball's in your court now, Hillary and John.

Today, Hillary Rodham Clinton and the pundits who share her revenue stream have inspired, well more like encouraged, well more like unconsciously demonstrated to me that now could possibly be the time for me to grab, or at least loosely hold, the torch of history.  We stand now at a crossroads, or at least squat at a small intersection of little consequence.  In short, I am running for office.

So long as you are largely disinterested and expect little, you are welcome to hear more of my fateless story below the fold.

I have now encountered several examples of Democrats claiming that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination.  Some have even said they would vote for John McCain while most have said they would vote for a third party or refrain from voting on the presidential ticket.  Every time I have encountered this I have felt an apprehensive tightening in my gut.  I can't even bear to imagine the suffering which will result if a Democrat, any Democrat, is not elected over John McCain this November.  

This diary is an invitation to re-consider this stance.  It is a glance at some of the psychological and spiritual currents which may profoundly affect the moral shape of our world for the next four years.

Since this is the time of more show and less substance, I am hereby allowing my excitement to bubble over into an indulgent diary with little substance but a lot of emotion.  At a time when it looked as though missing emails and flaunted subpoenas would matter, I was obsessively reading dKos.  Then Ms. Pelosi's celebrated subpoena power fizzled and the petty backbiting of primary season began.  This drove me away for several months.  But today I am back, excited and hopeful for the first time in months.  Thank you Barack Obama and thank you to the thousands of volunteers who were savvy enough or naive enough to keep the faith and dedicate yourselves to the machinery of our terribly sullied American election process.

Today, I can bear to participate in our political dialog for the first time in over half a year.  Today I realize just how deep my despair had run.  Today I am willing to be excited by an easy slogan--Yes I am--and a candidate who is unproven but charismatic.

Thank you Senator Feingold.  With outrage, clarity, and sharp rebuke, you reminded the American people that more young Americans have died every month this year than in the same month the year before.  You did not take time to call every name, but you asked for our attention long enough to name the months:  January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, and according to your sources, 32 so far in September.  How many have died since that hearing?  What of the two brave soldiers who spoke out from the pages of the Times.  Did they die before or after the hearing?  And why did they sacrifice their lives in Iraq while we are losing the "GWOT" in the countries where something like it may actually be demanding attention?  

Despite numerous cogent diaries on the subject, impeachment discussions here seem to suffer from misconceptions as to what constitutes proper grounds for impeachment. Specifically,

1. the Constitution places a positive burden on the President "to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  By extension, this burden is placed on civil officers.  Criminal behavior does not necessarily constitute grounds for impeachment. Failing "to take care" does.

2. Unlike criminal proceedings, which function to punish miscreants and to protect individuals, impeachment proceedings serve the sole function of protecting the integrity of government or the Constitution itself.

3.  The House is not required, nor should it be expected, to prove anything before impeaching.

4.  Just as OJ Simpson is now "not guilty" of murder, a conviction by the Senate would mean that Alberto Gonzales could no longer serve as Attorney General.  There is no appeal process and no independent basis for judging whether the decision is proper.  No need to invoke the jury in the sky.

I won't be rude to Senator Feingold, promise.  I love and respect the guy, and I appreciate his respect for us.  I just couldn't resist staying with today's thrilling new trend.

I'm here to ask a simple question which has puzzled me since the overwhelming support of such republic-threatening legislation as the AUMF, the "Patriot" Act, and the Military Commissions Act.  This question seems pivotal to me, so I hope it stands the test of enough meat for a diary.

What precisely is the difference of opinion between those of us who think impeachment is imperative and the many Congresspeople who oppose impeachment?  Do Senator Feingold and his colleagues see the Bush administration as decidedly less threatening to the constitution and our future as a republic?  Are do we merely differ as to which tactics will be most effective?

I have been receiving Republican fund-raising letters for some years now.  I enjoy this primarily because it costs them money--it's my negative contribution to the GOP--and also because it continually expands the boundary of how out-of-touch people can be without being declared psychotic.

The third paragraph of the letter I received yesterday begins

We have a great opportunity to win back control of the U.S. House of Representatives...

 This delusional logic apparently arises from the belief that 1) Nancy Pelosi is scary, 2) terrorism is scary, 3) taxes are scary, 4) people have been paying absolutely no attention for the last six years, and 5) people have no clue as to where their self-interest lies.

For your serious consideration, I include the survey below.  For your Friday enjoyment, I have added some clarifying remarks.

In a cowardly indictment of our brave forces overseas, Republican Senator Lugar finds "no convincing evidence" that the fighting men and women of America are getting the job done.  He even calls for a return to "political and economic normalcy," apparently referring to re-installation of a mortified Saddam Hussein.  Confusingly, the Senator wants our patriotic military to "reduce violence," rather than to defend America.

Responded Senator Reid,

If peacenik Lugar thinks that when we "employ American troops" we are somehow "damaging our military strength", then he needs to resign his position from the Foreign Relations Committee.  Americans know "course change" means inviting al qaeda suicide bombers into our living rooms.  Instead of surrender, we need an strong re-deployment along the lines of the tough-minded, kickass Murtha plan.

WH spokeswoman Bunny Perino stated

I'm not going to opine on the destructibility of US forces.  It is more complicated than people realize.  But I will tell you, the President is doing everything in his power to protect Americans from seeing coffins.

My ex-wife, Doris Tennant-Moore, just returned from her second visit to Guantanamo, where she is representing Abdul Aziz Naji.  To all appearances, he is one of the unluckiest of the unlucky, in contrast to his characterization by our government.  It seems he was arbitrarily captured on the basis either of association with the wrong people or of being turned in for bounty.  He claims never to have committed any kind of violence against any US citizen.  I am writing this diary to inform, but also in hopes of attracting some emotional and financial support for Doris’ principled commitment to do all she can to represent one detainee and to fight our country's illegal and immoral conduct at Guantanamo.

We won't have to run military equipment drives to send over to the troops stranded in Iraq when the money runs out.  For all you free market nuts out there, you have to admit that some things are better done by the government.

Bill O'Reilly will devote an entire show to how well the Democrats are supporting the troops.  Rush Limbaugh will invite Barack onto the show, and not play the magic song!  We'll carry Utah in a landslide in 2008.

Now news as reported by the MSM will be accurate when they refer to Democrats as "confused and spineless."  Everything else will still be distorted, but it is a starting point.

We'll get to be right again in September when the Republicans renew the Friedman Window.  Between now and then, I'll be embroidering an "I told you so" sampler for the occasion.  That's going to be awesome.

We won't need to have an intervention with the President at least until September.  This will give us all a chance to clear out a block of time for when he bottoms out.  Folks, we're going to all need to pitch in, because tantrums are so much worse when the US armed forces are involved.

We will be able to continue paying for the war with Iraqi oil revenues.

This week the rightwing echo chamber turned on the man who thinks the last election obligated him to hijack the entire executive apparatus so as to promote the agenda of the minority of Americans who voted for him.  I speak, naturally, of the President.  His sin was the Immigration Bill.

I think this development is an attempt by the extreme right to sidestep responsibility for its disastrous ideology, and thus continue to hold the swing voters of America in its delusional thrall.

Yesterday I wrote a diary critiquing unfounded criticism of Congress in the media.  Most of the responders disagreed with what they thought the diary was saying, on the grounds basically that we need to keep screaming at Congress until they impeach.  The discussion was characterized by implacable impatience with Congress and, it seemed to me, a disinclination to grapple with detail.  I spent yesterday in a funk, feeling alienated from the community I hope will help rescue America from those who are attempting to take over our government.

I wanted to take my marbles and go home (I know I have a killer GBCW diary in me), but as I digested the debate I became increasingly concerned over its implications.  So, I have come back, unlike Richard Nixon, to be kicked around some more.

Is there a point in here somewhere?  Please read below where I write about more than my bitter, wounded heart.

It took a day for his team to figure it out, but Keith Olberman has now caught up with the astute observers at dKos in his presentation of the Comey testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The coverage was fairly complete, but the editorializing included a surprising detail.  Along with criticism of the President and the Attorney General, we are told by Jonathan Turley of George Washington University that

the problem comes down to the failure of Congress.

More on this, and why it matters, below:

Yet another recent aspect of the Bush Theater of the Absurd has given me the creeps.  It began when I saw Bush speaking to the press alongside General Petraeus.  He was "explaining" why the Congress was completely wrong and would eventually have to do exactly what he told them.  It suddenly occurred to me that the scene and mood would not be at all out of place in a South American country run by a military junta.  Since that day, I have noticed that every time I pull out this particular lens, certain events come into clear focus.

Is the junta, I mean administration, trying to blur the traditional lines between state policy and military strategy, between the civilian and the military leadership?  To take things to the extreme (one of my specialties), is this cabal of war criminals having wet dreams about preempting Congress in the name of the military?

The diary below seeks less to prove a point than to seek the impressions of others.  I am willing to see these things as more metaphor and less threat to our democracy.  Or perhaps Bush is delivering a subliminal message which needs to be acknowledged and defined, so as to be resisted.  Or perhaps we will grow accustomed to the idea that Bush's policies are enforced by the military, both abroad and at home.

Last night Mote Dai posted a welcome diary documenting the YearlyKos benefit in DC with photos.  While taking vicarious pleasure in seeing people I trust team up with politicians who represent the people, I was stirred to consider a piece of business.  Mote Dai passed on this news:

I must also add that Russ Feingold has so much charisma.

Senator Feingold asked specifically for our help to dispel the myth that  the Congress is trying to "defund" the current troops in Iraq.  He said that even some Democratic Senators/Representatives have been saying this, and we must hold them accountable and call them on it.  He said, "We are not going to a soldier in Iraq, take his helmet and his gun, and then say, 'but you stay here.'" We will not endanger the troops.

I include the first sentence of that quote simply because it is fun to read.

The Senator's request reminded me that for at least the third time in two weeks, the proposed response to an absurd Republican accusation falls short of what could be said clearly and directly.

If you like the notion of turning defense into offense, please read on.

WH spokesperson Dana "Longnose" Perino announced today that 12 of the 5 million or so lost emails have been recovered utilizing techniques first outlined on the blogsite Daily Kos.  "Graduates of Pat Robertson Technical College have been working hard, and I want to emphasize the word "working," to recover certain emails."  The project involved cooperation with several interns from Regent University and one typewriter-certified monkey on loan from the Shakespeare experiment.  As expected, the emails seem to exonerate the President and Karl Rove from any wrongdoing.  Intoning in a rhythm familiar to many White House observers, Ms Perino concluded, "Ha ha ha ha ha."

Here are some samples from the emails recovered so far:

Our country is facing a constitutional crisis as serious as any in our history.  The current administration has stacked the judiciary and corrupted the executive.  A 30-year campaign has turned the MSM into little more than an apologist for the conservative agenda.  The only thing now standing between the executive and its desire for unchecked power is the Congress.  In fact, I like to think The People elected our current Congress for the specific purpose of placing limits on this President.  In trying to exert their constitutional oversight, Congress is being met with intransigence.  I'm asking us to begin preparing the American people for the sight of administrative officials being jailed by Congress.  Others more politically savvy than I can come up with ways to do this, but it seems to me that it is crucial that we acquaint Americans with the notion that we are in a constitutional crisis.

Please stay with me in my first diary: