For those disappointed by Obama - it's 1965 all over again.

Cyrus Roberts Vance, Lieutenant, United States Navy & Public Official

This, in a nutshell, was the unself-conscious voice of the establishment - the one that Jimmy Carter ran against so vigorously that his campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan, once said: "If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vanceas secretary of state and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of national security, then I would say we failed. And I'd quit.''

Mr. Vance was Mr. Carter's first appointee, followed soon after by Mr. Brzezinski. Mr. Jordan did not quit.

I remember that. I learned a big and important lesson about American politics.

If you didn't figure out then that the "outsider" and "independent" candidates are set up, or you weren't born yet, figure it out now. Obama was never the revolutionary (much less the Marxist or Muslim terrorist) the Republican party tried to portray him as.

You can get some change in the system. You can't overthrow the system. Nor should you. Few people really won when the Western Roman Empire fell. Not even most of the barbarians.

You get a choice of two candidates, and some protest votes, in most US elections. You have to choose the lesser evil. Obama was the lesser evil last time, not the second coming. And not the anti-Christ.

If you want to get angry about something, get angry about having your choice revoked.

McCain proffered an insurance mandate with no public option. That's the bogus plan they got in Massachusetts that they are rebelling against.

Obama offered a public option with no mandate.

So what are we about to get if we don't get active? What we voted against.

Anyone else remember 1964? We voted for a candidate who promised not to bomb North Vietnam over a candidate who promised to bomb.

What did we get? Carpet bombing, and a massive antiwar movement, and massive disgust with the government that lasted decades, from the credibility gap to Watergate to today's anti-government militants.

Don't let them take the public option away!! It's too important, not just for itself, but for democracy.

Legislation, smegislation! We need a Constitutional Amendment!

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision.

We need a Constitutional Amendment that says corporations are not "persons" in terms of the Constitution, before one decides it's over 35 and runs for president.

When another corporatist Supreme Court invalidated the income tax, people didn't wring their hands and passed legislation. They passed and ratified the 16th Amendment.

What is wrong with Congress that they don't get this? Everyone else seems to.

Finally, the US is really going after the enemy

Exclusive: Another Taliban Leader Captured in Pakistan - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

Another leader of the Afghan Taliban has been captured by authorities in Pakistan working in partnership with U.S. intelligence officials. Taliban sources in the region and a counterterrorism officials in Washington have identified the detained insurgent leader as Mullah Abdul Salam, described as the Taliban movement's "shadow governor" of Afghanistan's Kunduz province.

Harry Shearer: Wait a Minute -- If It's a War, Aren't You Supposed to Kill Them?

Harry Shearer: Wait a Minute -- If It's a War, Aren't You Supposed to Kill Them?

Last time I looked, if it's a war and you find an enemy on the battlefield, you kill him. That's pretty much the definition of what war is. You detain those who choose to surrender. Opting in the first instance to detain and interrogate someone, on the other hand, is what you're doing if you're running a criminal investigation. Oops.

Isn't it about time we forgot about this false dichotomy? The opposite of war is peace, not law enforcement. The opposite of law enforcement is crime, not war. There are even hybrid categories, like "war crime" and "illegal war" that would be especially appropriate in this instance.

In the struggle against al-Qa'ida there is a place for war and a place for law enforcement. There is even a place to combine them. War crimes should be prosecuted on both sides impartially. If you want to detain someone indefinitely just declare them a PoW. If you want to convict someone and put them in prison, get the evidence and bring them to court. If you want to try them in a military tribunal, declare them a war criminal. In this case we have a choice.

Lawrence O'Donnell Rages On Bush Speechwriter Marc Thiessen: 'Your Administration Invited The First Attack' (VIDEO)

Anyone else remember "Bin Ladin determined to attack inside the US"? The Bush administration was warned about al-Qa'ida and ignored all warnings. The Republican line was "Wag the Dog", that this was just a phony scare used by the Democrats to distract the nation from the all-important Monica Lewinsky "zippergate" scandal that was so important to them. Now they pretend that torture works.

You know what? The guy that tortured Sayyid Qutb thought he prevented a plot to flood the Nile Delta and kill millions of people.

They guys who tortured Muslim Brothers after the attempted assassination of Nasser thought they prevented plots to kill every Arab leader in the world.

Have these Republicans no sense of shame? Are they really stupid enough to believe their propaganda? Or are they just convinced Americans are that stupid?

Lawrence O'Donnell Rages On Bush Speechwriter Marc Thiessen: 'Your Administration Invited The First Attack' (VIDEO)

How to tell if your Senator reads your letter

Here's an actual letter, with my actual name, but the Senator's deleted:

Dear Dr. Ph.D.:

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your views with me. Your comments will help me continue to represent you and other Californians to the best of my ability. Be assured that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers legislation on this or similar issues.

If you would like additional information about my work in the U.S. Senate, I invite you to visit my website, http://[deleted].senate.gov. From this site, you can send a message to me about current events or pending legislation, access my statements and press releases, request copies of legislation and government reports, and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for my constituents. You may also wish to visit http://thomas.loc.gov to track current and past federal legislation.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate hearing from you.