Score one for Paul.

“Barack Obama of 2007 would be right down here with me.“ Kentucky Senator Rand Paul delivers an old-school, 13-hour filibuster against Obama’s drone policies, and — with the exception of Ron Wyden — the Senate Democrats go almost completely AWOL. “Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also took to the floor twice, but mostly to defend the U.S. government’s authority to target American citizens in ‘extraordinary circumstances.'”

Wrong answer. The policy FAIL here is obvious and egregious — Why would anyone of a lefty bent support giving a president unitary and unchecked authority to kill anyone he or she wants, without even a semblance of due process? Would they be this sanguine about it if Dick Cheney was holding the kill button? But even notwithstanding that, Democrats are making a terrible political mistake by letting Senator Paul, along with opportunistic slimebags like Mitch MConnell and far-right asshats like budding McCarthyite Ted Cruz, get to the left of them on this issue.

I get that some senators had procedural issues with the filibuster of a Cabinet nominee. But, at a certain point, this just looks like typical Dem spinelessness and situational ethics — Is preserving proper Senate procedure really more important than preserving constitutional due process? And if Rand Paul is the only person who’s going to stand up and call shenanigans on the administration for this chilling executive overreach, then thank you, Rand Paul.

A Chicago Bull.

“I’m excited to be heading home to Chicago, which as you know very well, Mr. President, is the greatest city in the greatest country in the world. I’m energized by the prospect of new challenges and eager to see what I can do to make our home town even greater.“

To no one’s surprise, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel leaves the White House for Chicago, several weeks before the coming midterms, to likely run for Mayor. As of this morning, he has been replaced by ex-Daschle aide Pete Rouse, a guy considered almost 180 degrees in temperament from Emanuel, and more in the “No Drama Obama” mold people might’ve expected after the 2008 campaign. (By all (perhaps beat-sweetened) reports, Rouse, a consummate political insider, is quiet, unassuming, not a screamer or a showboater, and, according to the word on the street, highly competent.)

As for Emanuel, well I’m already on record of how I feel about the guy — this clip sorta sums it up — so I can’t say I find this parting terrible news. But, since this is farewell for now, I’ll only say best of luck in Chicago…and let folks like Greg Craig, Dick Durbin, and David Axelrod handle the shovels instead.

No More Torturing Words.

“Waterboarding is torture.” True story. In his confirmation hearings before the Senate, Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, states the obvious. Then again, it’s been several years since the obvious had a seat anywhere near the table at OAG, so this is cause for rejoicing. As Sen. Dick Durbin put it, ““In three words, the world changed.“

Mr. President, there’s a “Mr. Kettle” on the phone…

“‘This is what happens any time anyone tries to question a statement or a position of Senator Obama,’ Clinton says in an interview now airing on Sirius satellite radio. “The response is, ‘You’re attacking me personally,’ and that relieves him of the obligation to address the substance.” Bill Clinton spins himself deeper. When has Sen. Obama said anything of the sort? The closest I could find was this, from Dec. 21, after several weeks of Sen. Clinton’s “Now comes the fun part” attack strategy: “‘So far, I think, attempts to go negative in a way that’s not policy-based have backfired on the people who have gone in that direction,’ Obama said during a brief interview…’I would distinguish between ads that I would say maybe mischaracterize my positions but had to do with policy, versus personal attacks or attempts to go at my character or those things. In which case, I will answer them swiftly and truthfully if they’re false and trust in the voters.’” So Obama hasn’t said anything of the kind. Clinton instead appears to be projecting his own tried-and-tested strategy upon the Senator from Illinois.

President Clinton’s clarifying of his sad “fairy tale” moment is as follows: “Clinton told Sharpton the ‘fairy tale’ remark was only intended to describe Obama’s claim to have exercised better judgment about the war, and was not intended as a sign of ‘personal disrespect.’” Clinton has then continued to press this “flip-flopper on Iraq” attack: “And in fifteen debates, no one ever once bothered to ask Senator Obama, ‘How can you say you were always against the war, and your judgment is better than theirs, and they were wrong to vote for that resolution which authorized force, when two years after you gave the anti-war speech in 2004, you, Senator Obama said you didn’t know how you would have voted on that anti-war resolution, number one, then two days later, you said there was no difference between you and President Bush on the war?’”

For what it’s worth, Tim Grieve posted on this on “fairy tale” day, as did I, and an exhausted-seeming Obama responded to ABC then too. (Note, in Obama’s response to Clinton, that he says nothing akin to what Clinton is claiming about personal attacks.) So I’m repeating myself now, but then again so are the Clintons.

As Americans can remember all too well, former President Clinton has a practiced affinity for the lawyerly half-truth. (“That depends on what your definition of the word “is” is,” ad absurdum.) With regard to this continued smear, the key word is “debates.” This exact question may not have come up during a Democratic debate, sure. But it was one of the centerpieces of Obama’s appearance on Meet the Press on November 11 — see page 2 of the transcript — and it’s been asked and answered. (See also this incomplete clip of CNN’s Candy Crowley covering the same ground with Obama.) Worse, Clinton keeps leaving out the parts of Obama’s quotes that prove his charges are baseless. I’ve reposted Grieve’s summation below:

“Yes, Obama said in 2004 [at the Democratic convention, as we were nominating two war-voting Senators] that he did not know how he would have voted on the war if he’d been in the Senate at the time. But he suggested in the same interview that his uncertainty stemmed from the fact that he wasn’t ‘privy to the Senate intelligence reports” that sitting senators saw,’ and he added: ‘What I know is that, from my vantage point, the case was not made.‘” [My emphasis.]

“Did Obama really say in 2004 that there was ‘no difference’ between his views and George W. Bush’s on the war? Not exactly. As the Washington Post has explained previously, what Obama actually said in the interview to which Clinton was referring was that while he would have voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, he was not in favor of ‘pulling out now.’ Thus, when Obama said that there’s ‘not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage,’ he was plainly referring to the question of whether to stay in Iraq, not the decision to invade in the first place.“

Clinton kept repeating this “fairy-tale” accusation in his string of so-called apologies today, but he has yet to give the full story about Obama’s remarks. He’s contrived a negative attack out of a deceptive half-truth, and he’s clearly just trying to confuse people. When it comes to the substance of Clinton’s smear, there’s no there there.

In short, President Clinton is obfuscating here about Senator Obama’s view of the war. Use a stronger word if you’d like.

Update: “‘I’m really troubled by his questioning the sincerity of Barack Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq,’ Durbin said. ‘I really think it is unfortunate to question Barack’s sincerity on the war. He has been there from the start, opposing this war.’” Obama supporter Sen. Richard Durbin responds — and responds hard. I love this: “If President Clinton had opposed that war as strongly as Barack Obama at the time, it would have helped a lot of us who had voted against authorizing an invasion.” Touche.

Veto-Powered | Benchmarks the Benchmark.

“‘Setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure.'” As expected, Dubya vetoed the recent Iraq spending bill passed in Congress, only the second time he’s exercised his veto power (the first being stem cells.) And, with few options at their disposal and a veto-override failing in the House 222-203, the Dems have already dropped their troop-withdrawal timetable, and now look to fashion a compromise using the language of benchmarks. “‘I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks,’ said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin…White House officials are also looking to benchmarks as an area of compromise, but they want them to be tied to rewards for achievement, not penalties for failure.” Um, what achievements would those be, and how would we evaluate them? It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations all over again. Four years after “Mission Accomplished, I don’t see how we can feasibly expect this administration to offer anything other than the same rose-scented lies about the chaos in Baghdad. They have no other setting.

The Ghost of J. Edgar.

“‘We concluded that many of the problems we identified constituted serious misuse of the FBI’s national security letter authorities,’ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said in the report.” A Justice Department audit finds the FBI has been systematically misusing NSA letters to procure personal information without a court order, prompting a mea culpa from director Robert Mueller and the prospect of possible hearings into the matter. “‘It appears that the administration has used these powers without even the most basic regard for privacy of innocent Americans,’ [Sen. Dick] Durbin said in a statement.“

Iraq is a Hard Place.

“Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” I’m still furiously playing catch-up, so I’m obviously a day or two behind on blogging this…Then again, Dubya’s just as obviously three or four years behind in announcing it, so I’ll call it a wash. Nonetheless, after finally admitting that his administration has seriously screwed up in Iraq, Bush — sidestepping the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton commission — calls for sending 21,500 more troops to the region, in what’s being billed as a “surge.” (Re: “escalation.”) When you get right down to it, Dubya’s basic argument in his televised address on Wednesday was this: “Through wishful thinking and outright incompetence, I’ve dug two nations into a huge hole. Please, please, please let me keep digging…“

Here’s the thing — A massive troop increase would’ve made a good deal of sense in 2003, during those crucial days just after the fall of the Hussein regime. A show of power then — and a quicker restoration of order and basic services — would have paid huge dividends down the road. But, now, all these years later, after so much infrastructure has been destroyed and so many sectarian schisms have been allowed to fester? 21,500 troops — many of them not fresh recruits but wearied soldiers returning to the region or having their tours extended — isn’t going to make a dent in the Whack-a-Mole game we’ve been playing against insurgents since 2003. At best, this escalation is a show of good faith to the al-Maliki government, which seems to be not much more than a brittle political arm of Shiite extremists (Exhibit A: the manner of Saddam’s hanging; Exhibit B: the refusal to do anything — until now — to rein in Al Sadr’s Mahdi Army.) Yes, folks, throwing more troops at a losing situation, backing a shaky government that can’t handle its own security issues, rattling the saber at Cambodia/Iran…who says Dubya isn’t a student of history?

Fortunately, for the first time since the beginning of the war, Congress isn’t having it, with even some Republicans joining Dems in rallying against the proposed troop increase and today venting their wrath at Condi Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No doubt the poll numbers against Dubya’s plan is helping to stiffen some GOP spines.) Still, Dubya has some allies in this fight — While the Dems are universally opposed to the escalation gamble [Dem Response by Durbin | Biden | Clinton | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Obama | Pelosi] and a not-insubstantial number of Republicans are balking, some key GOP pols are still supporting Dubya’s move (most notably John McCain, who’s been calling for a troop increase since day one, and Rudy Giuliani, likely trying to right the 2008 ship after his recent devastating document dump.)

Spineless Specter, Redux.

“‘You have given up the store,’ complained Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., in denouncing the move. ‘You’re just walking away.‘” Playing true to form, Arlen Specter folds yet again and reverses his earlier promise to make phone companies testify about their role in the NSA’s recent data-mining. “The senator from Pennsylvania acknowledged his reversal was forced upon him by his Republican colleagues in a private session prior to the afternoon hearing.”

Topic of Cancer.

“‘We know the president broke the law,’ Leahy said. ‘Now we need to know why.'” With the Dems — except for Feingold and Leahy — AWOL yet again, the Senate Judiciary Committee debates Feingold’s censure resolution and hears testimony from former Nixon counsel John Dean, who is back before Congress for the first time since Watergate. Said Feingold at one point: “If you want the words ‘bad faith’ in [the censure resolution], let’s put them right in, because that’s exactly what we have here…The lawbreaking is shocking in itself, but the defiant way that the president has persisted in defending his actions with specious legal arguments and misleading statements is part of what led me to conclude that censure is a necessary step.” Said the rest of the committee Dems (Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin): Nothing.

Hail to the Chief.

“When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for this Committee and the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the United States in my lifetime.”

By a vote of 13-5, John Roberts is approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee — with Dems Patrick Leahy, Herb Kohl, and Russ Feingold joining the Republican majority — and will no doubt become the Court’s next Chief Justice. The Dems — and particularly Sen. Feingold — are already getting flak for their Yes votes from People for the American Way and other liberal groups. (For their part, Hillary and Joe Biden have decided to keep the 2008 primary voters happy.) Well, just as I think Feingold was right to vote yes on Ashcroft in 2001, I think he made the correct decision here, both in terms of principle and politics.

In terms of principle, I think Feingold’s statement above is exactly correct. We could go through 1000 nominees, and Dubya would never pick anyone who comes remotely close to being a progressive — Sadly, the conservative tinge of the Supreme Court was decided last November, with Dubya’s re-election. The question before the Senate was whether Roberts was (a) competent enough to fill the position of Chief and (b) whether he adhered to the broad mainstream (albeit conservative mainstream) of American legal thought. I watched almost all of the Roberts hearings and, although he dodged and weaved past way too many important questions, he was clearly (a) hyper-competent and (b) more respectful of existing legal precedent than many other conservative freakshows Dubya could have appointed (and might still.) Roberts said a number of times that he believed in a constitutional right to privacy, that Griswold was good and settled law, and that (although most agree on this anyway, Janice Rogers Brown notwithstanding) the Lochner Court was not an appropriate or worthwhile historical role model for today’s judiciary. Perhaps he’s lying, but it’s no small business to lie before the Senate. I think Feingold was right to take his word at face value and vote yes, with reservations.

Voting for or against a 50-year-old Chief Justice is not a decision to be taken lightly, and I’m sure Dems on both sides of the vote chose their stance on principle. But, to be base for a moment and consider the politics of the situation, the Yes voters allowed themselves wiggle-room on the next nominee that most Dems have basically wasted on a sure thing. Roberts is replacing Rehnquist, a conservative for a conservative. The real battle lies ahead, when Dubya appoints a justice to take O’Connor’s swing-vote position. Where are the Dems who voted no on Roberts going to go? Chances are the next candidate for justice will be less competent and more conservative, in the scary-fundy sense, than Roberts, but the no-voting Dems have lost all pull by not keeping their powder dry. Had the Dems acceded to Roberts’ nomination, they would have easier recourse to a possible filibuster in Round 2, particularly with the fair-play-minded Gang of 14. Now, not so much.

At any rate, I’ll admit to being already something of a Feingold groupie — More than any other Dem, except perhaps the late Paul Wellstone, I view him as my Senator in Congress, the closest thing to a true progressive out there. (For what it’s worth, I also thought he did a better job than any other Dem in his questioning of Roberts, with the possible exception of Dick Durbin.) Still, I think he made the right decision in this vote, and I hope very much that groups on the left who disagreed with his choice here keep an eye on the big picture and don’t start calling for his head.

And Roberts? Well, I’m never going to agree with the guy on a lot of issues, that’s for sure. But, in the hearings, I thought he came across as conservative in the old and best sense of the term — cautious, restrained, not inclined to break tradition — and not as a frothing, fundamentalist reactionary like any number of judges Dubya has appointed to the bench. Let’s hope, for all our sakes, that this turns out to be the case.