I just caught a Richard Cohen column today in The Washington Post which picks up on a theme that I raised several days ago on this blog: why is Hillary Clinton supporting a piece of legislation to criminalize flag-burning?

Here are the two paragraphs that stand out from Cohen's piece:

"In this and other examples, political observers discern political posturing. Maybe they are right. Whatever the case, though, the flag bill along with other examples of Clinton's willingness to court political reactionaries raises disturbing questions about who, exactly, she is. Consistency is not always to be admired in a politician, but when a supposed liberal is one of only two senators to sponsor a bill to restrict freedom of speech, then we are talking about something basic. If this is a pander, it is in the worst possible taste."

So, imagine it's 2008 and you are going to the polls in the national presidential election. As you go to the polls, you are watched over by heavily armed troops, who have invaded your country. Would you think you were living in a democracy?

That's the reality in Iraq today. Phyllis Bennis and Erik Leaver have a good analysis on the Iraq elections. Here are two summary points:

President Bush had one thing right when he said in March 2005: “All [foreign] military forces and intelligence personnel must withdraw before the … elections for those elections to be free and fair.” He was talking about Syrian troops in Lebanon; the same claim should be made about U.S. troops in Iraq. Elections are often important indices and instruments of democracy, but elections held under conditions of military occupation are not legitimate.

We had a great meeting last night in Boiceville where people came from all around the Hudson Valley to talk about our campaign. I wanted to say thank you to the whole group, who were welcoming, respectfully challenging and asked great questions.

I think it's fair to say that the group as a whole (about 50, I'd say), believes Hillary Clinton does not deserve another term in the U.S. Senate. And a dozen of those gathered have already decided to put their feelings into action: volunteering for our campaign and working to set up a campaign chapter in the Hudson Valley.

That's what our campaign is about: our victory will be measured, first and foremost, by the strides we make in mobilizing grassroots activists and leaving, at the end of the campaign (no matter what electoral numbers we run up) a more powerful network throughout the state.

A particular thank you to Karen Charman who organized the event. Turns out that not only are Karen and I fellow union members, we also went to college at the same place and same time (but we didn't know each other back then).

So, I'd urge more people to get involved. Volunteer at the site. We're going to have a lot of fun in this campaign as we do the serious business of reaching out to voters with our new vision for the state.

One of the troubling aspects of the whole "war on terror" is the extent to which our basic civil liberties are being undermined. Our government has used Orwellian terms such as the Patriot Act to erode basic freedoms such as freedom of speech and assembly.

In fact, the Patriot Act is up for reauthorization. Russ Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin, has announced that he will lead a filibuster against the reauthorizing legislation. Yesterday, the ACLU announced it opposed the bill because, as The Washington Post reports, the ACLU argues, "the changes would open the door to even tighter security restrictions at major events and would subject protesters to harassment from federal law enforcement officers."

If I was in the U.S. Senate, I would support Feingold's attempt and try to play a public role in defeating the Patriot Act reauthorization.

Where is the incumbent senator when it comes to protecting civil liberties? Silent on the Patriot Act reauthorization so we can only surmise from my opponent's only recent stance on civil liberties: she announced she was supporting an amendment to criminalize flag-burning--a piece of legislation that would undermine your First Amendment rights.

So, there is a piece in the Washington Post today about my opponent's position on the war, which includes this sentence: “Clinton's support for the war has prompted a challenge from Jonathan Tasini, an antiwar Democrat, in next year's Senate primary in New York. She remains overwhelmingly popular among Democrats in New York, so the challenge may be more an irritant that a real threat. But it could be a harbinger of a more significant challenge from the left to Clinton in 2008, if she decides to seek her party's presidential nomination.”

So, the national press (as well as the alternative press and blogs) continues to report on the campaign. A week ago, we didn't exist. Today, in the Washington Post's world, we're an irritant. Tomorrow?

That's up to every person at the grassroots level--if people continue to volunteer their ideas, time and energy, we're going to surprise the pundits and the mainstream press. And if we can also develop a huge contingent of small donors, we'll have the money it takes to mobilize a grassroots army.

Are you up for it?