While she did not outright say whom she supports, Madame Speaker tipped her hand clearly in Barack Obama’s favor during an interview with ABC News.

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Friday that it would be “harmful” to Democrats if superdelegates were to give the party’s presidential nomination to a candidate who is trailing in the delegates awarded in primaries and caucuses.

“If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections,” said Pelosi, “it would be harmful to the Democratic Party.”

Although Pelosi offered her assessment without directly referencing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., her comments lend considerable support to the Illinois Democrat.

Obama leads Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in pledged delegates: 1,396 to 1,241. Because of the proportional system used by the Democratic Party to allocate delegates, Obama is widely expected to remain in front of Clinton in pledged delegates at the conclusion of the primary season.

It’s been rumored that Pelosi has quietly supported Obama for some time and Congressman George Miller’s endorsement was considered to have been an indicator. Now that she is a little more in the open, it will be interesting to see what the remaining Congressional superdelegates do. Stay tuned.

Glenn Greenwald has it on good authority that my Representative, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is planning on letting the Republicans pwn the Constitution: (h/t FDL)

As has been expected for a week now, the House Democratic leadership has prepared and is now currently circulating (while trying very hard to keep it confidential) their so-called "compromise" FISA bill. Their soon-to-be-unveiled bill, unsurprisingly, is designed to give the White House exactly what it has demanded, with only the smallest and most inconsequential changes.

As I said to DiFi earlier this morning, not cool at all.  The Democrats, save Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, have been remarkably mute on this issue.  It is an issue of basic seperation of powers and how much authority the President and his/her administration has. So, here's the president playing the fear card (via tortdeform)—> (flip it for more)  

UPDATE (by Dave): TPM Muckraker has more and the details are quite different from what Greenwald reported.  The compromise bill does not have immunity but there’s still a possibility that they’ll ping-pong the bill back and forth from the House to the Senate to get it back in.  I’d have to look further, but the compromise bill does look to me to be “in the ballpark” of the RESTORE Act, which was a good bill.  We’re not out of the woods on this and all your reps. deserve a call.  But it’s not clear to me that this is a bad development… yet.

Basically, they are using this tired argument of they're going to get us, booogy, boogey, to force immunity through.  And the basic question is should corporations require the government to get a damn warrant or at least have some visible authority. Sure, Mr. Bush is all honest about who he's spying on (uh-huh), but what happens if those rascaly Democrats decide they want to spy on some of the right-wing fringe groups. I mean, next thing you now, they'll want to spy on some of the crazy anti-choice groups, and the deity would surely frown.  So, all this law is really requiring is doing what Qwest did (until they were threatened with a cut-off of their contracts) by demanding a warrant.

And, I'll leave more of this up to Robert and others who have followed this battle more closely, but telecomm immunity isn't about money. It's not the "greedy trial lawyers" who are suing the telecoms, but the EFF, and the ACLU. And by the way, Mr. Bush, trial lawyers protect the rights of American consumers from greedy corporations, that's a hell of a lot more than your administration ever did.

So, Madam Speaker, do not cave on telecom immunity. It's just too important.  Contact Speaker Pelosi (or your own Rep here) and tell them to have a spine on protecting the Constitution, you know the thing they have sworn to uphold.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Phone:  (202) 225-4965, Fax:  202-225-8259

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has added her voice to those who are calling on the superdelegates not to overrule the voters.  She joins MoveOn, Democracy for America and many more in urging the superdelegates not to determine the winner of the Democratic presidential primary by what amounts to a vote in a smokey back room. ChronBlog

Don’t veto the people’s choice.

“I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said, adding quickly, “I don’t think that will happen.”

She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as super delegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party’s voters.

“I do think that they have a respect — it’s not just following the returns, it’s also having a respect for what has been said by the people,” Pelosi said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.”

This is obviously an argument that would appear to most benefit Barack Obama, given that he currently leads in both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote.  Speaker Pelosi’s opinion should wield a great deal of influence on her fellow superdelegates.

Several of those members of the House closest to Pelosi like Rep. George Miller have endorsed Obama.  Miller is on the team of current legislators tasked with swaying superdelegates to endorse Obama.  The Speaker is rumored to be supportive of Obama, but does not want to undermine her own authority by making an endorsement.  I have to assume that there is a two pronged approach from the Obama superdelegate team: if they don’t get the outright endorsement, supporting the “let the people decide” tact is almost as good.

We know that California doesn’t much care for the President, but who does, really? It turns out that we don’t feel much better about Congress either. In the latest Field Poll (PDF), we find out just how poorly we view them. And it’s really bad.  Just 20% of Californians approve of the Congress’s performance.  Interestingly, when you ask about the specific parties those number rise to 23% approval for the GOP and to 30% for the Democrats. As for the Speaker, she’s at 35% approval. If you head on over to Capitol Alert to get the cross-tabs, you find out that 49% of Dems approve, which represents a substantial slippage, while just 16.5% of Reps. approve of Speaker Pelosi’s performance. About 40% of DTSers approve.

Both Senators have slipped substantially since their peaks in March, with DiFi slipping from 61% to 50%, and Boxer slipping from 54% to 45%, however she has held steady at that level of support for a couple of months.

In the end, Congress has not been able to accomplish what people really wanted of them, ending the Iraq War. Whether that’s fair or not, is still an open question, but the results of those expectations are clearly playing out in these polls.

I have asked my Congressman, Jerry McNerney, to sign on as supporting A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology.

Cross posted from The Progressive Connection  

Taking from the “sponsors” web page, the following rationale.

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we, the undersigned, call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy. Science Debate 2008.

So far, 3 university presidents have endorsed this effort (Washington, Princeton, Duke) as well as 13 Nobel Laureates and 8 Congress Critters of both parties.

Unfortunately the only California Congressman to do so has been Sam Farr.

If we are going to have any technological solution to the problems that face us, we need leadership that knows what science is all about, that understands what it can do and, of equal importance, what it can not do.  McNerney has that knowledge if he has the will to use it.  

As for others… it is an open question.  I would not hold Pelosi’s support of a renewable fuel standard in the recent energy bill as being based on science.  It was more than likely based on being able to pick up a few Democratic votes in the traditionally red states.    

Tuesday night in a nationwide phone call organized by Progressive Democrats of America, Dennis Kucinich reportedly announced:

he will go before the U.S. House of Representatives on a point of personal privilege to move the impeachment of Dick Cheney.  Mr. Kucinich stated he will bring the impeachment forward before Thanksgiving.

Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President, Dick Cheney, back in April. H.R. 333 consists of three articles of impeachment, with supporting examples:

1.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests

2.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests

3.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States

Kucinich also provided roughly 50 supporting documents for the articles, on his Congressional website.

Over 80 cities/towns have now passed impeachment resolutions, with 50 more pending, and major polls, such as Zogby, have indicated a majority of Americans support impeachment proceedings. However, the MSM and members of Congress have failed to listen to the American people.

H.R. 333 has picked up 21 cosponsors, far short of what is needed to start proceedings, and House Speaker Pelosi has continually insisted that impeachment is “off the table”.

But, as Kucinich holds nothing higher than his duties to defend the Constitution and represent the people of the United States, Kucinich is making sure that it gets back on. when asked about the Congress’ failures to protect the Constituion, at the San Mateo Presidential Straw Poll, Kucinich replied:

“If Congress did the right thing, they would be talking … about impeachment…

“I introduced House Resolution 333 because I heard from the American people and they said they wanted some response to make Dick Cheney accountable for the statements that he made that took us into a war based on lies. And the statements he made that would take us into a conflict against Iran. Again, more lies.

“The President is now openly invoking the specter of World War III with respect to Iran. He ought to be held accountable also. I’m the only member of Congress who stepped forward on the issue of making Dick Cheney accountable. And now we have 21 members who’ve joined me. That’s a step in the right direction. But I’m going to go beyond that. I’m going to call a privileged resolution, at which point, would force a vote — at least if it’s only on a procedural motion — members are going to have to confront this issue of impeachment. They’re not going to escape it. This is a question of defending our Constitution. It really is.“

Kucinich proves yet again his courage and leadership in Representative Democracy against fear and political calculation. He proves that he will not play party politics if it is against the interests of the United States and American citizens. He proves, again, his credentials for holding our highest office. Support Dennis Kucinich!

Why? Well, for starters because we are approaching 4,000 dead U.S. Soldiers and have wasted over a trillion of the tax payers dollars. If it there’s anything worse than those considerations it’s the outrageous losses in Iraq: estimates of over a million Iraqi deaths and over 3 million displaced refugees.

Why isn’t it George Bush’s War? Because it isn’t even a war any longer, it’s an occupation; an occupation that steals the future wealth of the Iraqi people by privatzing their oil and reconstruction, an occupation that partitions their country and increases volatility, destabalizes the region and inflames American resentment; an occupation that enriches and empowers multinational companies and mercenaries,  undermines America’s international standing and security at home, and acts as strategic position for more aggressive actions in the region.

Why isn’t this George Bush’s War? Because he is our Representative. The crisis in Iraq is mine, yours, his and hers; ours, as Americans and theirs, as Iraqis to Iranians to Israelis to just about anyone who is affected: a long list. Sorry, Mrs. Clinton and frontunners, this involves the whole country and we need to take action now. Sorry, Mrs. Pelosi and too many Congressional members, it’s our problem and we need to reassert Congressional authority where the Constitution has granted it. No more politics. No more games.

Let’s be clear, however. George Bush has a very large share of responsibility. I’m not writing this to vindicate him. He is certainly blameworthy for many decisions leading us here. These were his plans, his deceptions and his corruptions. But, then again, I’m not vindicating Clinton and Edwards either for not reading the NIE, or along with Obama, their consistent funding of the war and subsequent occupation, silence on the Oil Privatization and weak leadership in ending this conflict. On the contrary, I’m talking about responsibility and leadership here.

It’s time to accept responsibility for every death, every bullet, every dollar involved in Iraq as ours. It’s a proposition as weighty and profound as one can imagine, a dark and dreary idea that most don’t seem ready to accept, as many times as I hear “Bush”. Really, I can only imagine someone like Sartre not blushing. But, with this heavy responsibility comes a great power: We will end this disaster in Iraq!

As we finally accept this as our problem (“our” being President, Congress, citizens, etc.) we will no longer depend upon others to provide the solution. We will no longer wait for the President to change course, or the congress to “get enough votes”. We will act now as we are able to. And what is the only way to end this occupation now? No more money. Congress as a representative of the 70% of Americans who want to end this conflict now, will not offer a bill to the President for further action.

The power of the purse is soley the authority of Congress and it is the only way we will end this conflict now, rather than 2013 or later. The Congress does not offer legislation for continuing military action, but will allow appropriation to safely withdraw U.S. troops in a timely fashion, upon consultation and recomendation of the military. It is that simple. No 2/3 majority. No veto. Done. Bush can’d do anything and if Republicans tried to enact legislation, the Democrats (who virtually all say they are against the war but don’t have the votes to overide the veto) fillibuster to block it, for which they only need 41 votes to do and which they surely have. Please read here, here and here.

Needless to say, the Democrats have not been telling us about this, but rather hiding behind the troops or just misleading us about not haveing the votes. However, Dennis Kucinich has been a lone exception throughout the campaign. Just as Kucinich lead the effort to opposing the vote for war originally (actually citing the faulty intelligence), 100% voted against funding it, spoke out alone against the Oil Privatization, as well as aggressive action against Iran, Kucinich has lead here as well. Time and time again he has told us what the others would not: that we can end this war whenever we have the will.

After cutting off funding, Kucinich’s plan for ending the occupation, H.R. 1234, incorporates a plan for a safe withdraw of U.S. troops, who are then replaced with an international peacekeeping force to stabalize the region. The national Oil and reconstruction contracts will be given back to Iraqis, as the U.S. engages in multilateral regional negotiations for long term solutions. It is the most reasonable and most practical plan. After all, what is inflaming the violent insurgency, but the occupation?

Kucinich has taken up the leadership here as he has on other issues. He is offering an active plan and immediate steps toward a solution. Kucinich is claiming his responsibility. We need to do the same.