Unfortunately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee's bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that -- Limbaugh is salivating -- would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid.

I may have made a mistake in my column this week about the FISA legislation passed by the House, although it’s difficult to tell for sure given the technical nature of the bill’s language and fierce disagreements between even moderate Republicans and Democrats on the Committee about what the bill actually does contain.
Democrats say that I was wrong to report that the bill includes a FISA court review of individual foreign terrorist targets who might communicate with U.S. persons, although it does include an annual “basket” review of procedures used by U.S. intelligence agencies to target foreign suspects. The Republican Committee staff disagrees and says my reporting is correct.

I have to side with the Democrats. I reported as fact a provision of the bill that seems to be disputable, to say the least. Clearly, I didn’t do sufficient vetting of the facts.

In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets. Republicans believe the bill can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't.

Democrats believe that Rick Stengel (richard_stengel@timemagazine.com) and Mickey Kaus have regular threesomes with a goat, while Republicans believe Mickey has a strictly monogamous relationship with his goat.

I’ve spent all morning on the phone trying to figure out who the editor at Time Magazine was on Joe Klein’s FISA column (the one Klein has now written about five times, fully admitting he never read the original bill). I finally confirmed that the editor was Priscilla Painton, and called her and identified myself. I asked her what the editing process was, and how a piece with so many errors made it into print.

"That assumes that there are errors," she said. And hung up on me.

Time Warner:
Revenues—$44 billion
Profit—$6.53 billion
CEO Richard Parsons’ 2006 pay: $12. 95 million. Five-year pay haul: $45.36 million. Stock options value: $14.2 million (at April 2007 prices)

Disney:
Revenues—$35 billion
Profit—$4.34 billion
CEO Robert Iger’s 2006 pay: $29.93 million plus $8.8 million stock options

News Corp.:
Revenues--$26.74 billion
Profit—$3.34 billion
Boss Rupert Murdoch’s 2006 pay: $25.91 million. Five-year pay haul: $86.42 million. Stock: since he owns the company, his stock is worth $8.7 billion

CBS:
Revenues—$14.32 billion
Profit—$1.66 billion
CEO Leslie Moonves 2006 pay: $24.86 million. Five-year pay haul: $63.43 million. Stock options: $30 million.

No End in Sight is a documentary film that concentrates on alleged mistakes made by the Bush administration in the two-to-three-month period following the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The film portrays these errors as the cause of ensuing problems in Iraq, such as the rise of the insurgency, a lack of security and basic utilities for many Iraqis, sectarian violence and the risk of complete civil war.

To a large extent the film consists of interviews with the people who were involved in the initial Iraqi occupation authority and the ORHA (the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, later replaced by the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority). 35 people are interviewed, many of them former Bush loyalists who have since become disillusioned by what they experienced at the time. In particular, many of those interviewed claim that the inexperience of the core members of the Bush administration—and their refusal to seek, acknowledge or accept input from more experienced outsiders—was at the root of the disastrous occupation effort.

• When Den Beste thought that the stripper really liked him

  Now I have no illusions about her motivation: it was mostly mercenary (though that doesn't completely explain that last big hug).



• How he felt the need to keep mention how loaded he is:

  (Understand that this represented a minor expense for me; because I am very well off financially.)



• When he laments that if only that nice latina in his office didn't get fired, he totally would be banging some of her hot latina friends right now:

  Unfortunately, two months later she was laid off, and as an upper class professional Anglo, I no longer have a way to make contact with that culture, where I'm sure I could have found what I'm looking for. Had she remained employed there, I suspect I'd be married by now.



• And Finally, for the creepiest moment, when he describes what a gentlemen he is when he gets lap dances (for which he pays handsomely, because he's loaded after all). I'm not going to quote any of that, for obvious reasons.

The Drexel University College Democrats would like to express our sincere gratitude to Drexel University for the tremendous honor and opportunity afforded all of us by hosting the Democratic presidential debate here at Drexel. I think I speak for all of our members, and the student body at large, when I say that this was a unique and exciting opportunity for students to see the machinery of American democracy in action. I was personally moved being so close to such an historic event.

But now that the satellite trucks have driven off, the celebrities have gone, and the crowds have disbanded, the only question everyone is asking is “Who won the debate?” It’s actually a question I hate answering, because I feel it so oversimplifies the issues at hand that it trivializes the process to ask it. That being said, it’s really just shorthand for “What changed?”

It may be too soon to know whether the race for the Democratic nomination has changed, but we knew going in that the hype was of Sen. Obama “drawing distinctions” between himself and Sen. Clinton. Sen. Obama had generated a lot of hype about going after Sen. Clinton, and he certainly landed a few solid blows. Sen. Clinton saw most of them coming though, and was able to parry with red-meat rhetoric about George Bush and Rudy Giuliani. To paraphrase Chris Bowers, it can be difficult to punch someone in the face after telling them for a week that you’re going to punch them in the face.

Despite Sen. Clinton’s best efforts though, some of the criticisms seemed to stick. Sen. Obama’s strongest asset, in my view, is the fact that he was outspokenly critical of the Iraq war before we invaded, when it was politically dangerous to do so. I think it demonstrates superior judgment than some other candidates, and Sen. Obama was quite forceful in his criticism of Sen. Clinton for lacking that judgment when it would have mattered. It certainly wasn’t the first time the point has been made, but Sen. Obama was awfully direct this time.

Many of the candidates criticized Sen. Clinton for her “Yay” vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment regarding Iran. Sen. Dodd was correct, in my opinion, in pointing out that the logic that caused Sen. Clinton to vote for the authorization of force in Iraq was the same that caused her to vote for Kyl-Lieberman, and that it was a wrong decision in at critical moment.

Sen. Clinton’s weakest moment was in the discussion about providing drivers licenses for illegal aliens in New York State. Like any issue, the intricacies of policy are ill-suited to 30 second answers, and Sen. Clinton talked herself right into a corner. She appeared, perhaps unfairly, to both support and oppose a measure, and it was particularly damaging because it reeked of political calculation, not principled policy. It was exactly the kind of thing that Senators Edwards and Obama had been accusing her of.

Despite these slips however, Sen. Clinton continued to demonstrate why she is leading in the polls. She is a brilliant woman and a seasoned politician, and her Republican opponents underestimate her ability at their own peril.

Sen. Biden isn’t generally considered a front-runner, but I think he comes across very strongly in these debates, including the Drexel Debate. He received positive reactions to both his attacks on Giuliani and to when he provided a refreshing perspective to the Iran debate. Speaking to students in Mandell Theater, Sen. Biden literally silenced hundreds of rowdy students with an eloquent exposition on the opportunities squandered by President Bush, and how the world would be different if he hadn’t.

Sen. Obama also had some good lines, like at the end when he redirected the question about alien life in the universe by saying that life on earth would be his first priority. Judging from the crowd reaction, both in the main auditorium and in the Mandell Theater watch party, Sen. Obama was the crowd favorite.

Finally, no discussion of the debate would be complete without praise for Sen. Dodd’s courageous positions. He eloquently explained the common sense reality that the war on drugs isn’t working, and that we need to decriminalize aspects of our drug policy. Not discussed at the debate, unfortunately, was Sen. Dodd’s promise to defend the constitution and filibuster any attempts by the congress to provide retroactive immunity to telecom companies for illegal wiretapping activities. It would have been a valuable discussion to have with so many powerful senators in one place.

My overall impression from the debate was that Obama helped himself, and was helped by the other candidates as well. Sen. Clinton was knocked down a peg, but it remains to be seen whether it will fundamentally change the dynamics of this race. That’s up to all of us.

The bottom line, however, is that all of the candidates on stage offered positive visions for the future of this nation and the world, standing in stark contrast to their Republican counterparts.