Further, while there is no way to control the actions of every supporter a candidate might have, it's really disappointing that I continue to hear so many defenses of this breach from Obama supporters. It was wrong, period. Sure there are legitimate tangential issues, such as whether Palin was conducting state business outside of the approved state communication channels.

However, just as we have a system that discourages vigilantism, empowers one institution to police us and another to judge transgressions, requires instruments like warrants and the reading of rights, there is a system of oversight to look into the appearance of impropriety by elected officials. Anyone with evidence that Palin was violating her state's information control procedures should have filed a complaint, which would have been investigated. Instead unethical tactics were used in service of a partisan political agenda – find a smoking gun on Sarah Palin. Support for this kind of thing just encourages an escalation in the sort of venomous campaign we have now, where every shameful dirty attack becomes justified by the dirty attack just commited on the other side. In the end, it's a distraction from the substance of the issues and serves virtually no one well.

Isn't that interesting? John Ashcroft and President Bush did the same thing to me. And you. “Intentionally and without authorization” snooped on ALL our emails, phone calls, Instant messages, browsing habits, video rentals, etc. Obviously this law is no longer in effect.

I noticed that many who were involved in Abramoff and Cunningham and some other corruption cases chose not to run for re-election. It will be interesting to see if that is enough to get them off the hook.

Of course, that is not so in the cases of Sen Stevens and Rep Dollar Bill Jefferson. Not even indictment and wide-spread scandal has kept them from running for re-election! They know no shame at all for their corrupt behavior.

But what you say is true in general, I think. Realistically, I would imagine many attorneys loathe to delve deeply into such cases, as they can be career enders. After all, one may take down corrupt pols . . . only to have their friends with long memories remember you. I imagine Fitzgerald, who is now going after the Ill Gov. and Chicago pols in the Rezko business, as he did the BushCo pols in the Palme business, has pissed off an astonishing number of people. He is fortunate to have a high enough profile that his enemies cannot take vengeance for the moment.

Perhaps this is a cynical perspective on my part. But you have a point about how these things grind on very very slowly.

But legally that argument doesn't carry much weight. By analogy, if one leaves one's door unlocked . . . and someone walks in and steals one's stereo . . . then that is not theft and the police, by your argument, have no responsiblity to investigate or press charges?

The kid did some research, and got in. Presumably, Sen. Obama has a more complicated passwd. But then a better hacker could do more research, get some brute force passwd cracking warez, and get into Obama's acct. I don't think the law cares about how complicated it was to achieve an illegal objective.

I gather the indictment focuses in particular on the fact that the kid posted Palin's passwd on another site, inviting people to repeat/aggravate his actions.

Again, I think the DOJ moved fast because this is Palin. Were it Rudi or Kritt, they would be yawning. I think they would have done the same had it been a better hacker who used a brute force method to get Obama's passwd.

One cannot have hackers messing with impunity with potential leaders of the most powerful country on earth. Sends a bad message.

You may be right about the DOJ-in the Kernell case– but I refuse to believe that the wheels have not been slowed in the government's corruption cases against those involved with Abramoff and Duke Cunningham. There was evidence that Abramoff had extensive contact with the WH– but that has been suppressed. There has been extensive turnover in the prosecutions of both cases– and as we had Gonzales at the helm of the DOJ, the length of these investigations gives cause for suspicion. For example— the higher ups in Tom DeLay's office who ended up working for Abramoff were indicted early- yet DeLay himself has been under “investigation” for more than 3 years???

Palin is making an example out of a 20-year old kid goofing around in the internet and letting people access her boring email account, meanwhile Palin herself is presiding over rallys where death threats are being whipped up against Obama?

*Jots in notebook*

The cases you cite are standard govt. corruption…complicated cases, in which wheels grind slowly.

In the Kernell case, he targetted a candidate for one of the highest offices in the United States. I think they are coming down fast and hard to make an example of him so that similarly inclined hackers or scrip kiddies will think twice before trying to hack Obama's or Biden's or McCain's net presence.

Thus, while this kid clearly had a political agenda…I would argue the DOJ's response is appropriately apolitical.

Its amazing how quickly the wheels of justice turn when the target is one that can make Democrats look bad before an election. Now how long have the Abramoff and Duke Cunningham investigations been dragging on?

Re: Kernell . . . They are making an example of him.

I gather there is some doubt whether the indictment can be made to stick. Regardless, he and his family are facing hefty legal fees for his alleged hack.

If Palin actually did become VP, the kid would be a martyr . . . and he could easily pay the fees off with sales of “Free Kevin” T-shirts, to be worn by politically aware stars like Scarlett Johansson on the Tonight Show.

But…according to the polls…this is unlikely. Thus, the kid is being made an example not to mess with America's leaders. (Fortunate for Bush that he doesn't use a computer.

(Mitnick made an interesting point. I wonder if people HAVE tried to hack Obama's/McCain's sites or email in this cycle, and this has not been publicized?)