Last night one of my friends called me to ask about the then-proposed FISA bill. She knows that I read a lot about this stuff, and so she often asks me for my take on things. She was already frustrated when I answered the phone. I didn't record the conversation, so this is a transcript from memory, which, as we all know, is imperfect. I typed it out after the call last night and went to bed.

The conversation discouraged me, and I decided to diary it because I feel her outrage profoundly. I'm outraged, too, and I want to articulate exactly how this FISA "compromise" has damaged the Democratic brand.

"Can you explain this new FISA bill to me?"

"Well, I'm not an expert, but it's pretty much toothless when it comes to examining past crimes. As I understand it, it essentially gives the administration the power to say 'since we approved it, it was legal.'"

"So it's the same as amnesty?"

"In the hands of a sufficiently bold administration, yes."

"You can't tell me that the Bush administration won't use that power."

"I can't tell you that."

"So why are the Democrats allowing this? Aren't they in charge of the House?"

"The Democrats seem to be leading the charge."

"All of them??"

I've read suggestions that Senator Clinton is proposing a gas tax holiday only because it polls well. Robert Reich's suggestion is the one foremost in my mind. But I wondered if this idea is born mainly of an idea that Clinton acts only when and how her pollsters tell her to, and not out of actual evidence from pollsters. In other words, is this just a supposition?

In order to find out for sure, I did some digging, and was surprised by the result.

I've read a lot about loyalty during this primary. There's a lot of discussion about the loyalty of supporters to their candidates, of course, especially in light of how contentious many folks on both sides have become online.

But what stands out to me is the extreme emphasis that Senator Clinton seems to place on loyalty. This cited in a number of contexts.

For example, the New York Times' piece Sniping by Aides Hurt Clinton’s Image as Manager (emphasis added):

Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style, relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign’s woes. Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise.

The Clinton campaign's argument that Obama "can't win," with it's deliberately thinly veiled suggestion that he can't win because he's black, strikes me as odd.

It's in some ways characteristic of Senator Clinton's campaign. There have been other instances where her lieutenants insulted people who she will need in November if she manages to secure the nomination. For example, states that Obama won "don't matter" in November (should we take it then that Democrats in those states shouldn't bother voting in November? what does this say about her persistent argument re: Florida and Michigan that "all votes should be counted?") Governor Richardson is "insignificant" and "a Judas" (you can't have it both ways, folks, it's either insignificant or Judas), so I suppose that he and his supporters shouldn't vote in November, either. And, of course, caucuses favor Obama because they are attended principally by people who drink lattes and who "don't need a President, they need a feeling," according to Bill Clinton; presumably people who are fond of lattes should also not vote for the Democrat candidate come November.