I agree with mcjoan that this wasn't the best compromise Democrats could get.  At the same time, the FISA compromise wasn't worth a quixiotic fight, either.  At the end of the day, below the fold is what this election is about:

John McCain has been accusing Barack Obama of flip-flopping on gun control.  Well, Johnny, I hate to tell you this, but so have you.

I know many of you scorn at this idea, but let's remember it's in our own self-interest to help Hillary pay off her campaign debt.  For one, it adds to the good-will between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

More important, Hillary Clinton remains a prodigious fundraiser for Democrats.  The sooner she pays off her campaign debt, which is an incredibly difficult thing for a losing campaign to do (see:  Glenn, John), the sooner she can raise money for Barack Obama and other Democrats.  We don't want Hillary Clinton using all her time scrounging around for someone to contribute to a campaign that lost.

I'm really getting upset over all the uproar and outrage over Barack Obama's relationship with his pastor.

This one is about a potential Florida and Michigan revote on June 3.

As many here know, the DNC refuses to accept in any form the January results of the Florida and Michigan primaries.  I strongly believe the DNC was right to do so, and have written accordingly.  The Republican primary proved that the 50% penalty Florida and Michigan amounted to a slap on the wrist.  Those two jurisdictions still had infinitely more say than Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, and the many other jurisdictions that abided by the rules.  What's to say in the next Presidential election that jurisdictions wouldn't be willing to accept an x% penalty for more influence?

Here's a question that nobody has asked:  If there is a June 3 revote in Florida and Michigan, why shouldn't Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon and the other remaining jurisdictions suddenly be allowed to move their primaries to June 4 or some other date after June 3 in order to be the "tie-breaker?"  Why should these scofflaw states serve as the "tie-breaker"?  Can anyone here answer that question?

Via TPM:

The state Senate has adjourned without taking up a presidential primary bill, essentially ending Michigan's chances of holding a June 3 do-over Democratic election.

While there still is a possibility a last-minute deal can be reached, lawmakers' lack of enthusiasm for a second election paid for by private donors means that's unlikely.

2008 does not mark the first time Michigan challenged the Democratic Party's primary schedule.  The Wolverine State challenged the Democratic Party's primary schedule four years ago.  Reads syndicated columnist Mark Shields's blog:

Four years earlier [2004], Michigan threatened — in the words of the state’s respected, but highly exercised, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin — to go "outside the primary window."

The Democratic national chairman, in a very heated exchange in Levin’s office, told the senator, "If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses, we will have chaos."

An unconvinced Levin challenged the chairman, "You won’t deny us seats at the convention." To which the Democratic chairman fired back: "Carl, take it to the bank. They will not get a credential. The closest they’ll get to Boston (the convention city) will be watching it on television."

I still don't know who I will vote for today in the Massachusetts primary.  I happen to like both Democrats very much, and am so excited that our great Democratic party will be the first party to have either a woman or an African-American as the party's nominee.  This nomination truly is historic.

The is one thing when I vote I know is clear:  when Americans vote for a candidate for President, they aren't voting for a checklist of policy positions; they are voting for a person.  That is the way we Americans choose our President, and both Democratic candidates have their strengths and weakness.

I'm an actuary for a life insurance company.  My father is a health economist, and has been working on universal health care for some time.  So I have a little experience on this issue.

I honestly don't know for whom I'm going to vote tomorrow in the Massachusetts primary.  As stephdray wrote, Barack Obama offers the potential for a politically transformative moment in history, and it would great to be there when it happens.  Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, possesses encyclopedic knowledge and extrodinary command of the issues.  She also has experience taking those slings and arrows from Republicans, and sticking it to them when it comes time for policy debates.  We know how mean and vindictive those Republicans can be, and Barack Obama does not have this critical experience of taking on those Republicans.  Mario Cuomo is right:  you campaign in poetry, and you govern in prose.

Okay, so many Kossacks, including me, are rejoicing about Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman last night.

Now it's time to move on.  We Kossacks have bigger fish to fry.  The Lamont battle was a battle between two Democrats.  Now let's concentrate on the biggest problem of all -- the Republicans.

Did you ever think that House Republicans could get any lower than they are right now?  Well, I believe House Republicans managed to do so yesterday.  164 House Republicans [and 3 Democrats -- Reps. Barrow (Ga.), Peterson (Minn.), and Gene Taylor (Miss.)] voted yesterday to eliminate federal funds for Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires States to provide bilingual ballots to voters.  This is truly embarrassing -- even for House Republicans.  Some notable Republicans who voted for this manifest injustice include Minnesota Senate candidate Mark Kennedy (Minn.), endangered incumbents Vito Fossella (Staten Island), Jim Leach (Iowa), Robin Hayes (N.C.), Charlie Taylor (N.C.), Marilyn Musgrave (Colo.), and none other than Katherine Harris.

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) today offered an amendment to the immigration bill requiring a photo identification card in order to vote.  Such a measure is overwhelmingly popular with the public.  But every single Democrat, with all their might, stood against this manifest injustice, and voted to table Sen. McConnell's amendment.  Tragically, the motion to table was defeated, 49-48.  Among those who voted against tabling the McConnell amendment were moderate Republicans such as Sens. Specter (Pa.), Snowe (Maine), and Collins (Maine).

The New York Times reports today that with the political landscape favoring Democrats, many Democrats see the party as having a once in a generation chance of dominating the nation's political thought.  These Democrats stress that the party doesn't need merely a set of positions on issues but a narrative, and that the "common good" is a possible narrative.  This is quite encouraging news.

100 years ago today, one of our greatest and most underappreciated American heroes, William Brennan, Jr. (1906-1997), was born.  Today, we pay tribute to this true American giant.

Facing reelection in 1956, President Eisenhower, wanting to get Catholic Democrats to support his candidacy, appointed then-New Jersey State Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court.  President Eisenhower didn't expect much of his appointee, but Justice Brennan suprised him and many others.  Justice Brennan served on the Supreme Court for 34 years, and served as the "chief strategist for the (Warren) Court's social revolution."

I know some of you fellow Kossacks are bummed about the results of the California 50th district congressional election.  Below the fold is part of former Rep. Brian Bilbray's record in Congress.  The record mostly includes bills fmr. Rep. Bilbray sponsored or co-sponsored.  There is plenty of ammo for Ms. Busby to use against Rep. Bilbray.

Reelections are always about the incumbent.  Any challenger must first convince the voters that the incumbent does not deserve reelection, and then demonstrate to voters that he or she is a credible alternative to the incumbent.  So today I'll focus on possible ways Arizona Democratic Senate candidate Jim Pederson can convice voters that incumbent-Sen. Kyl does not deserve reelection.  All you have to do is look at Jon Kyl's record.  Below the fold are some controversial actions Jon Kyl, one of the most conservative Senators, has taken in his legislative career.

Many of you are probably wondering what my signature is all about.  Well, this past Saturday (I was on travel this weekend, so I didn't have time to publish) marks the 17 year anniversary that the tragic decision in the case I mention in my signature, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, was handed down.  Below the fold, I'll describe the story involved in the case:

By now, we are all used to Pres. Bush giving his overarching State of the Union (SOTU) addresses.  Last year, Social Security was the big item in the SOTU.  In 2004, Iraq was the big in the SOTU.  In 2003, adding a Medicare prescription drug benefit was the big issue.  In 2002, terrorism was the big issue.  In 2001, tax cuts was the big issue.

This year, Pres. Bush's State of the Union address was merely a political document.  Pres. Bush couldn't even get a bill written, let alone passed, on Social Security.  Pres. Bush bagged his tax reform commission.  The best Pres. Bush could do this year was call for a commission addressing entitlements, which we all know will go nowhere since he couldn't even get to first base on Social Security.

(more below the fold)