Tipping points are precarious things.  Sometimes you know you are in one, but aren't sure just how "tippy" the point is: How big of an impact is it? How long-lasting?  

I am not here to argue that this week's primaries were a tipping point, though they no doubt were in that they tipped "inevitability" decidedly in Obama's favor. Rather, I refer to a more fundamental tipping point that occurred a while back and that has shaped democratic party politics ever since, and that explains why Hillary has lost the nomination. The top reason cited by Time for "Why Hillary Lost" is this:

1. She misjudged the mood

Like many of you, I am utterly livid about today's vote in the Senate condemning Move On's "Betray Us" ad.  In a matter of a week, the slumberous Senate managed rouse itself to condemn Move On's exercize of free speech rights via a bought and paid for advertisement in a newspaper. Yet, in six years, the Senate has yet to lift so much as a legislative finger to condemn, much less stop, the blatantly illegal acts of this administration. Rather, they've been endorsing and encouraging those violations with Military Commission Acts and FISA amendments.

I dare say that there hasn't been as blatant and direct an interference with the rights of the American people by a legislative body since Terri Schiavo. And this time, the trespass is on the Democrat's watch.

After the psychological devastation wrought by today's Iraq war vote, the entire process leading up to this point is cast for me in a different light. And, while I hate to inform you, but it appears that our mendacious President Bush may actually have spoken the truth:

"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq." --President Bush, March 23, 2007

But now, in the face of today's Capitulation Bill it looks as though the theatre was for us, the Democratic base and the American people. Ultimately, Bush knew he'd get what he wanted. He told us so:

This is a diary ranting about and criticizing the Democrats in Congress. If you don't like such things, then continue reading at your own risk.

No, I'm not talking about "Surrender" in the Republican-Talking-Point sense. Rather, word on the street is that the Democrats in Congress, after getting no concessions from Bush on Iraq funding, are getting ready to surrender to Mr. 28%. And by "surrender" I mean "a new blank check for Mr. Bush's war". Yes, that means that the Democratic Congress will now be responsible for enabling and endorsing Mr. Bush's fiasco of a war for yet another year. Another year of death, destruction with blood and money draining into the quicksands of Iraq.

Apparently, the Democrats have determined that the "safe" option is to maintain the status quo, that to truly challenge/confront this administration on the war is just too risky.  Just as in 2002, voting for the Iraq War Resolution was the "safe" option and opposing this godforsaken plan from the start was "too risky". Now, they have all fallen over themselves to repudiate that vote. Yet, here they are again, following the same logic. But this time, they don't get off so easy.

As a rule, I tend toward the big picture view and try to divine the larger implications of things. There are a bunch of smaller issues raised, of course, but this incident also raises two very large (and very relevant) issues for a man running for President.

Let me be upfront with my view on this. If you paint a painting, even if that painting is of Barack Obama, YOU OWN THAT PAINTING because it is your work and your creation. In a very basic sense, you have a rightful claim over that work, regardless of whether you did it "for free" during  your own volunteer time. In this situation, Mr. Anthony began creating a "painting" that at least 160,000 people have since said they like. And now Obama's campaign, in part in response to those 160,000 people) has used MySpace authorities to "seize" and appropriate that work without compensating the "artist" who made it (simply on the basis that it portrays an image of Obama). This is, at a very basic level, WRONG!

"I will not defer. I have come before you to resolve this attack on our sovereignty now. I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion [of our rights] in committee. If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a Vote of No Confidence in [Chancellor Kenan's] leadership." - Queen Amidala, Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace [slight paraphrasing mine]

Matt Stoller's recent post at MyDD.com, brings up a poignant question:  Where is our leadership in the face of today's Supreme Court decision upholding an abortion ban? AWOL, that's where. Today's decision is only the bearing of fruit for their past labors and actions (or in this case, inaction and non-labors) and only serves to highlight their past failures on Alito, on Roberts, on "Partial Birth Abortion", on "fetal pain" bills, in forwarding the movement in general, etc. Firedoglake has catalogued the failures of the pro-choice movement, NARAL and Nancy Kenan, in particular, here and here.

This diary is directed at the "big picture" strategic outlook on our ability to bring about an end of the war, given our current congressional majorities.

Everything you need to know about stopping a war, you already learned from a fit of conservative pique by Newt Gingrich. And that lesson is this: Congress doesn't have to fund anything, including (and even especially) a war.

From Wikipedia:

Speaker Gingrich and the new Republican majority wanted deep cuts to government spending, which Clinton flatly rejected. Without enough votes to override President Clinton's veto, Gingrich led the Republicans not to submit a revised budget, allowing the previously approved appropriations to expire on schedule, and causing parts of the Federal government to shut down for lack of funds.

While the issues are different, the political situation is the same: a new Congressional majority faced with a presidential veto on a funding bill. Ending the war means replaying Newt's game, except this time Congress has to win because in this case "winning" means ending the war while losing means letting it continue.

I can't believe I haven't seen this yet on Daily Kos (I searched...), but Digby found an important snippet from this week's New Yorker article on Joe Lieberman, which implies that Lieberman could very well caucus with the Republicans and take control of the Senate with him if the Democrats try to cut off funding or try to do anything, you know, substantive about the war. Could this explain just why, exactly, the Senate is taking such a weak Levin/Warner stance on the war and ultimately not debating the issue at all? Could the Senate actually shift in control if the Democrats try to pass anything stronger or more substantial? Or, if you just wish to further ponder just how much Lieberman has the Senate Democrats by the balls on the issue of the war (and the attendant and requisite Ned Lamont "I Told You Sos" that go along with that), then consider this latest humdinger from Holy Joe himself:

Over...

In April 2006, you tried to start an ongoing dialog with this netroots community, the start of a relationship that was admittedly quite rocky at the time. Although you had posted here before, beginning in 2005, your April posts are probably the most memorable, and, unfortunately, also among your last. As the comments in that first April post demonstrate, our trust in your leadership, in particular your willingness to take the fight to the Republicans, and even your ability to lead our party to a win in November was something many of us here had some doubts about. We had (and no doubt still have) a lot of bones to pick with Democratic leaders, and you were, at the time, probably among the most unpopular of our highest party leaders to post here. The stars were certainly not aligned for the most amicable of meetings at the time.

Yet, despite all that, you seemed willing to forge ahead with this new dialogue, and even promised to continue that dialog in your post of April 6, saying:

If you are ready for a progressive counter to Faux News, a channel whose reporters will always ask the toughest questions from a progressive standpoint/perspective, a news channel that will NOT indulge in critiques of what Nancy Pelosi is wearing today or the latest missing white woman or that shy away from speaking words of candid truth, like "lied" and "civil war" and "broke the law", that doesn't engage in "he said/she said" faux "balance," then read on.

If there is anything we've learned here on Daily Kos or in the progressive community, it is that we cannot depend on others to make real change. We must take responsibility for doing that ourselves. It was true for the Howard Dean campaign, it is true in our efforts to remake the Democratic Party by joining it and taking action to move the party machinery towards our goals, or by helping to get progressive candidates elected as we did in this last election. We shouldn't be surprised that no one has stepped into the breach to help build a progressive media infrastructure, but as Dr. Dean taught us, we, collectively, have the power. More below the fold.

Did you think we were out of the woods yet?  That Mark Foley had all but cemented a Democratic victory? Well, tell, me this then. Are we (and our candidates) ready to talk gay marriage in this election?  Because, as is now seeping out into the collective lefty-consciousness, there is a high probability of a new "Gay Marriage Shitstorm" occurring in, yes, THIS election. And, it starts tomorrow, with the issuance of the NJ supreme court's decision in the case of Lewis v. Harris, aka. the New Jersey Gay Marriage Case. And, while the decision has not yet come down, expectations are that as of tomorrow, gay marriage may very well be legal in New Jersey. As in the aftermath of gay marriage in Massachusetts and (for a time) San Francisco, cue conservatives throwing a shitstorm of a fit over it.

I devote this diary to the discussion of our strategy in handling this issue. My own thoughts below the fold.

Many of us feel the same dispiritedness Carnacki expresses, but many of us also grudgingly admit the point that Kos condescendingly makes in his front page post that this debate is clear evidence that we must continue our mission of taking back the party. He may be right in a way, but goes too far deriding us as "whiners," "bitchers" and "complainers" simply for daring to actually be shocked--SHOCKED--that the Democratic party can't rouse itself to oppose something as clear-cut evil as torture. I admit to having low expectations for the Party, but this certainly takes the cake. As a result, I feel a very deep need, almost a bloodlust of sorts, to make our pro-torture party members pay for this outrage. And pay Dearly. Proverbial heads should roll.

For a proposed statement of principles and collective netroots action that I think may focus our attention, coordinate our actions, and generally help bridge any divide between us on this matter (as well having the added benefit of forcing our leaders to think twice--and Really Damn Hard--before voting for torture), please click below the fold:  

Sen. Barack Obama has clearly absorbed more from his mentorship in the Senate by Joe Lieberman than he should have. Despite my own personal high hopes for Senator Obama, he has once again demostrated a lack of understanding about democratic values. You know, those things he's supposed to be up there fighting for with that great charisma of his. From his latest book, we get THIS Revealing Little Doosey of a passage, that demonstrates in just a few sentences what is wrong with much of our Democratic Leadership:

"We Democrats are just, well, confused," Obama writes. He goes on. "Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill-conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action."

"In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning."

Ahem. Let's just take this piece by piece, shall we?

Yesterday, we, the Netroots accomplished our mission: Joe Lieberman has now been stripped of the "D" after his name. Perhaps it doesn't seem like much, but consider the ramifications. Now, even if Joe-mentum wins as an Indie in November, it will be a very hollow, even pyrrhic, victory. Let's assume that Joe wins his independent bid in the Fall, not because I think he will but rather as an exercise in shadenfreude that details just how much of a sucky hell such a win will be for him, even under the best of circumstances. Perhaps if he is made to realize this new reality that awaits him, he will decide that dropping out might be ultimately the better decision for himself and his career (what's left of it, anyway).

Follow me below the fold and help me count the ways that we have already achieved several larger goals with this primary election REGARDLESS of the outcome this November:

In the 1960s, we saw "sit-ins" by black people who sought to challenge their oppression. These events were 1) creative, 2) directly challenged the power structure that oppressed them, 3) shut down selected discriminatory businesses being protested by the sit-in, 4) seized the moral highground, and 5) captured the attention of the media and the focus and imagination of the American public on the injustice these groups of activists were fighting against. I believe that an update to this tactic may be necessary in order to capture the media's attention in a way that mass "parade-down-the-street" protests no longer accomplish. After the lack of attention paid to the anti-war protest in September, I began trying to think of ways to do just that.

Other than the example of the 60s sit-ins, I was inspired by two sources:

1. The experience of being stuck in traffic during the evacuation from hurricanes (including Katrina) on the Gulf Coast

2. Internet-organized Flash Mobs

Put them together and what do you get? Perhaps a new form of political protest for the new millennium: The "Drive-In" Flash Mob. More in extended...

What the hell is up with Daily Kos lately? Is it just me, or has this site been updated much less frequently than it used to be? Now we sometimes go hours on end without new postings. Sure its not a presidential election year, but it IS an election year. So, don't tell me that there aren't things for Kos and Frontpagers to write about.

A case in point: The Patriot Act.  That's going on right now. Russ Feingold wants to keep fighting. But, where is the focus on this? Where are the diaries detailing waffling Senators to call, diaries that hash out our position and talking points on the issue?

More rant, and an idea for improving this overall situation after the fold.

So, I got to thinking recently about the Guilded Age of American History... But not the part of it that Bush and Rove seem determined to restore. Rather, I was thinking about an idea that first appeared during that era.

In 1893, a now famous American named Frederick Jackson Turner wrote a very famous paper titled "The Significance of the Frontier in American History". In it, he discussed the impact of the frontier on the development of America, and viewed the frontier as a region that created freedom by "breaking the bonds of custom, offering new experiences, [and] calling out new institutions and activities."  And, I thought, "Could one not say the same thing about the new virtual frontier created by the Internet?"

Follow me below the fold to find out what a 113-year-old thesis eulogizing the death of the American Frontier has to tell us about ourselves, now living at the birth of a new one.

Kos has given us his reality check, so now let me give you mine:  

Roman law forbade any general from crossing the Rubicon River and entering Italy proper with a standing army. To do so was treason. The crossing of the Rubicon by Julius Caesar demonstrated one clear point: the Roman Senate was unable to enforce the law and defend the Republic from the advancement and susequent forcible domination of Rome by Caesar and his army. Similarly, the confirmation of Alito will have proven that the Democrats are completely unable to defend our rights and liberties from further encroachment by the radical Right and the imperialist Presidency that, like Caesar, has publicly admitted with his warrantless wiretaps and signing statements that he will not be bound by the constraints of the law. The rule of law and the adherence to it is, ultimately, the greatest defense a legislature (and the republic it institutionally represents) has from the rule of brute force.