In today's Hartford Courant, a woman summed up exactly why people should vote for Senator Lieberman.  See below.

The President has justified the NSA's eavesdropping on the communications of American citizens without court approval by citing his power as Commander in Chief of the military under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  That provision states, in its entirety, as follows:

That's it.  Nothing more to it.  It doesn't say anything about the power to invade the privacy of U.S. citizens.  Nevertheless, the President seems to think that power is implied--that he can do anything he wants in the execution of his duties as Commander in Chief.  Is his power really so broad? (Continued.)

I stumbled across this Military.com article, which originated with the Associated Press.  I'm sure you all remember Republicans justifying the invasion of Iraq by condescendingly asking critics, "What?  Do you think Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein?"  Well, it seems that, at least in one key respect, they may not have been any worse off.

More below (I'll apologize in advance if anyone else posted this information recently; I could not find it).

I was shocked (although I really should not have been) to read that Bush is putting Karl Rove in charge of the hundreds of billions of reconstruction dollars.  As the New York Times reported:

(I know it's been posted elsewhere on Kos.  I post it again only for context.)

So, I called my senator to express my utter dismay.  Who is my senator?  None other than Joe Lieberman.  (More below.)

Below the fold is an article about which I was notified by www.Firehouse.com and apparently was an AP story published in the Philadelphia Enquirer.  Here's the link to the article: Firehouse.com  It's nice to hear from some experts for once.

It looks as though the Connecticut press has finally gotten wind of the anti-Lieberman feelings about which many in the progressive internet community have written and that has been quietly festering among progressives in general in the Constitution State.  Below is an article on the subject by Don Michak from the Journal Inquirer.  (From a personal perspective, I find it presumptuous for State Democratic Party officials to speculate about Paul Newman's intentions--read on.)

It's 3:30 a.m., and I can't sleep.  The plight of the progressive movement is on my mind more than ever before.  On occasion, I have contemplated a small step that progressives could take to further our ideology, but this morning all those steps (and more) are swirling around in my head.  They have coalesced into what I think is a reasonable plan for controlling the political agenda the next two years and hopefully gaining seats in Congress thereafter.  And I wanted to tell someone.  (I feel a little like Jerry Maguire.)  I'd like to know what others think about this plan.  It's a little rough, but keep in mind the time of morning.

A.  A New "Contract with America"
In 1994, Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to victory in House races by proposing his "Contract with America."  Democrats have been repeatedly criticized for not having an agenda, for merely responding to what Republicans are doing.  It's time to create our own contract by which we can govern (and eventually campaign).  The policies Democrats propose need to be those aimed squarely at improving the lives of middle-class and working-class Americans.

(CONTINUED)

If we were all to get together and buy stock in Sinclair could we take over the network?  I don't know that much about business, but is this possible???