though i don't think that campaign rhetoric necessarily has any bearing on the policy realities of the candidate (should they be nominated and eventually elected into office), the source of the categories a nominee weaves into their rhetoric is nonetheless decisive (just look at edwards' mimicry of bush's faith-based militarism and with its articulate, slightly more diplomatic spin and you'll see what i mean). i think this article rightly points out that there is a difference between a campaign that deploys a rhetoric of hope and one that mobilizes a rhetoric of fear and security. while i wouldn't put my chips down on hope at the end of the day, it definitely doesn't mechanistically cause the bowel-spasms effected by the discourse of national security. hopefully, if obama is elected, that difference consisting of the attitude and cosmopolitanism of hope can be translated into concrete policies. (at least contemporary state politics would lessen its anachronisticity by stepping up to the level of Kant). but for now, i agree with the author here that clinton has already done the worst thing she could do, which is to couch the debate on leadership in terms of national security.

Here's a nice breakdown of the House's changes to the eavesdropping program.

Quoted: For one thing, as TPMmuckraker reported earlier today, under the bill, the primary role for the FISA Court is in issuing generalized surveillance warrants for "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States."

man, it'd be pretty sweet to watch some flics with kim jong-il...

Quoted: It's interesting to note that Kim never found a director who could actualize his vision, and as a result kidnapped South Korean director Shin Sang-ok and forced him to make propaganda films for over eight years...