home

Holding Democrats To Account

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:33:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Writing about the Steny Hoyer-led Democratic capitulation on FISA, Glenn Greenwald makes an important point:

This is about whether the Democrats who control the Congress are even minimally accountable in how they exercise that control, whether they'll be permitted to trample upon the most basic principles in order cravenly to preserve their own power. Right now, [Democrats] perceive that the only political cost comes from opposing the Far Right on matters of constitutional protections and civil liberties. Thus, they're willing -- eager -- to trample on those protections and liberties in order to protect their own power. That dynamic needs to be reversed. They need to know that there is a bigger price to pay when they betray the promises they repeatedly make, the principles they continuously espouse, and the duties that they have to preserve basic precepts of equality under the law and core constitutional protections.

This is true about EVERY issue, especially on Iraq. But I will say what Glenn will not - it starts with holding BARACK OBAMA to account. His silence about this proposed capitulation is deafening. Want to be the leader of the Party? Of the Nation? Senator Obama, the time is now. And let's start with a denunciation of this cowardly capitulation by the House Democratic leadership on FISA.

Speaking for me only

< Obama v. McCain (and Giuliani) on Guantanamo | Michelle Obama's Makeover Begins Today >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Holding Democrats To Account | 201 comments (201 topical)
    Bravo! n/t (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Coral on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:36:03 PM EST


    Feingold and Dodd (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM EST
    are on it (PDF). If there's so much as a mumble out of Obama, I will be surprised.  

    O/T But isn't Dodd in a bit of trouble (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:19:06 PM EST
    having to do with Countrywide Mortgage?

    [ Parent ]
    So? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:26:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I assume the point of bringing that up (4.50 / 2) (#70)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:37:01 PM EST
    was that it's hard to be taken seriously on an issue if you're doing a perp walk. Or if not that extreme, at least in an embarrassing situation like he may be in. Of course thats not fair and is completely unrelated, but that's politics.

    [ Parent ]
    As noted below....was curious about it... (none / 0) (#91)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:46:49 PM EST
    I was surprised when I heard there might be some
    impropriety, because Dodd doesn't strike me as that type.

    [ Parent ]
    No, I don't think so. (4.75 / 4) (#77)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:39:07 PM EST
    I heard him speaking to reporters today who asked a bazillion questions about this.  Essentially, he already had mortgages with Countrywide - one on a house in CT he had owned for 27 years and one on a house he and Wife #2 bought in DC.  In 2003, rates were dropping, so they looked into refinancing.  Shopped it around - got quotes from WaMu, Wachovia, Lending Tree, etc, and decided to stick with Countrywide.

    Apparently, Countrywide put them in their VIP program, but Dodd says he just assumed it was because they were already customers, and there wasn't any benefit that he could see to being in that "program."

    Swears that he does not do business with people who want to give him deals because he is a Senator, says he doesn't know Angelo Mozilo - although he would not rule out having shaken his hand at some event or another.

    Doesn't look like there is any "there" there on this.

    [ Parent ]

    Just curious....didn't get the entire story, (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:45:22 PM EST
    missed part of it and knew I could get an answer from someone....thanks Anne.

    [ Parent ]
    We should also thank those who are standing up (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:40:10 PM EST
    Harry Reid, specifically, today reaffirmed his opposition to amnesty.

    Reid's personal opposition (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:42:23 PM EST
    has never stopped him from allowing various things to happen.

    Let him use his customary control of the Senate calendar to prevent  retroactive immunity. Heck, let Pelosi do that in the House.

    [ Parent ]

    If He Were Really Against It (5.00 / 13) (#11)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:57:27 PM EST
    there wouldn't be a vote.  Same thing for Pelosi.  She can vote against it, but if she wanted to stop it she could.  

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    It's a game they've played repeatedly with Iraq war funding.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly! (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:59:58 PM EST
    I used to say "why aren't they fighting this!?" (regarding whichever thing they weren't fighting).

    The answer is, because they want it too!  It really is as simple as that.  They pretend to be about certain issues to get themselves elected. They are not about those issues.  And that is why I don't have to feel the least bit guilty or "loyal" in regards to how I vote.

    [ Parent ]

    I remember all the Kos and the other FP (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:05:38 AM EST
    diaries that said you had to help get the Dems the majority because no matter how much you disagreed with an individual candidates position once the Dems got the majority legislation like this would never get on the floor for a vote.

    Yah, sure.

    [ Parent ]

    I wrote to... (5.00 / 10) (#75)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:38:32 PM EST
    I was so utterly annoyed at the Dems in Congress over telecom immunity last night that I wrote a rather pointed letter to Kerry, telling him that if Barack Obama wants the votes of former Hillary supporters like myself, it may be possible to get them, but he needs to show us what he stands for by taking action amounting to leadership, with case in point being the vote on telecom immunity. Will he stand up for no immunity or just pay lip service to changing the politics as usual in D.C.?  I sent a copy of the e-mail to Al Gore in response to 1 of 2 e-mails he sent (within 12 hours of each other) asking for $ for the Presidential campaign.  I got a polite response from Kerry's office indicating they wanted to review my letter before responding & -0- from Al.
    Tonight I got yet another e-mail from Howard Dean, this one asking for support of the DNC's filing a complaint against McCain with the FEC. My response:  The Dems' priorities should be to begin at home -- end talk of telecom immunity.


    [ Parent ]
    give us your money and then be quiet (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:09:55 AM EST
    is what it sounds like to me. or pelosi's now famous comment about we need to understand they are the leaders. yeah right over the cliff, nancy.

    [ Parent ]
    I took my name off of the Democratic fundraising (4.83 / 6) (#109)
    by hairspray on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:00:58 PM EST
    machines.  The DNC asked me why I was leaving so I told them.  I'm now registering as an independent.  Let them get their loose change from the Obama ATM machine.

    [ Parent ]
    nicely done (4.50 / 2) (#89)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:45:40 PM EST
    Thanks from all of us for those (from what I read here). I think I may do the same. Sure seems an open and shut issue to me.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:50:12 PM EST
    Senator Obama, the time is now.

    don't hold your breathe.

    and as a bonus, win over Hillary supporters (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST
    too. It's a twofer. Being a leader can be very rewarding. I for one hope he'll give it a try some day.

    Honestly, I'd like to hear Hillary say something (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:00:01 PM EST
    about this too.

    [ Parent ]
    although... (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:09:58 PM EST
    although I doubt that she would take a leadership role if she could, its pretty obvious that Team Obama has told her that "unity" means "low visibility" for her...

    [ Parent ]
    Since when does she have to listen to him? (3.00 / 5) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:11:45 PM EST
    If she cared to say something about this, she could. It's obvious that she doesn't especially care about this issue. Unless, that is, she bothers to lead on the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh c'mon (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    Really.  If Hillary dared say anything about anything Obama hasn't already taken a strong stand on, she'd be jumped all over for trying to 'outshine' him or continue to fight the primary or whatever other kind of crap folks are making up out of their butts this week.

    This is Obama's fight now.  It's been Pelosi's and Reid's and rest of their fight for a while.  They wanted a Fightin' Dem and they got one (or many).  The problem is they decided to fight with their own team.  And forgot to fight with the other side.

    [ Parent ]

    Last I checked, Hillary is still the junior (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:44:11 PM EST
    Senator from New York and speaking up, taking positions, is part and parcel of that job, and she has every right to do that job, even if some will characterize it as trying to outshine Obama.

    Obama can fix all that, simply by also doing his job as the junior Senator from Illinois, and by extension, showing something that resembles presidential-type leadership.

    [ Parent ]

    So what? (3.50 / 4) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    If she cares more about being "jumped all over" than the issue, then she deserves our scorn.

    [ Parent ]
    She deserves a rest (4.85 / 7) (#72)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:37:53 PM EST
    Don't you think???

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (5.00 / 12) (#98)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:49:28 PM EST
    And so does the rest of the Senate, according to this article.

    She is on vacation for a month. She has voted often and correctly on the FISA issue.

    Let Obama take the lead. If he doesn't, can we please, pretty please, not resort to blaming Hillary?

    Just once?

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't that the truth. ITA. (5.00 / 7) (#148)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:14:10 AM EST
     Here we are only two weeks after the last  election and people are blaming Hillary already  for the stuff Obama may not want to do or doesn't care about or whatever, for heavens sake. Isn't that the stuff we expect from the Obama supporters or Clinton haters? Besides, why would anyone listen to Hillary now? As IF. The Olbermanns would seethe should she give her two cents about anything considered Obama business. She gave a speech strongly supporting Obama and even that wasn't enough for the haters ...

    Now The Dems got their nominee, the one they picked right from the start - and they deserve anything they get and do not get from now on ... not that I, one of the little people, had anything to do with it. I did my very best to  work for a different outcome.

    I am very happy to hear Hillary and Bill are taking a vacation together. Finally they  enjoy a much deserved rest. Lets not forget Hillary had to work at least twice or thrice as hard as Obama who enjoyed the love of the media folks thruout and he could do no wrong as hard as he tried whereas ...

    I can only imagine how Hillary and her family must be feeling after all the nonsense they had to endure during this long campaign. Glad they are away from it all. Its the very best thing they could have done for themselves. I have been doing the exact same thing btw. No TV news, no newspapers, no blogs.

    It is all up to Obama now.

       

    [ Parent ]

    She didn't even show up in Feb. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:55:08 AM EST
    It was more important to her to personally thank Alegre.

    (Lest this be interpreted as Obama partisanshikp, I'd posted here, and elsewhere, that if Obama diudn't make the vote before flying to Madison for his rally I'd be outside picketing. I still have the sign, unused, "Playing hookey on the FISA vote?")

    [ Parent ]

    You're wrong on this. (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:41:22 AM EST
    She did show up  but left for campaign commitments   before the Dodd/Feingold amendment to the bill was voted on. Obama showed up and voted on the Dodd/Feingold amendment but LEFT for later campaign commitments BEFORE the vote on the FISA bill itself. Clinton missed two votes, Obama missed one, the one on passage of the FISA bill WITH telecom immunity.

    You apparently forgot that Obama missed that vote. You left a comment in the thread that I linked to above, where Jeralyn mentioned that Obama missed that final vote, so you were aware of it at the time. Maybe you weren't aware before the rally  that he hadn't voted on the final bill, and that's why your sign went unused. Most of the usual suspect blogs made a big deal about Clinton missing the votes, but little about Obama missing the final vote. Such was the biased coverage back then.

    [ Parent ]

    And of course (none / 0) (#196)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:45:50 AM EST
    neither of their votes would have made a difference in the results on either the amendment to the bill or the bill itself. So the high dudgeon at the time was  the usual kabuki used to trash Clinton while exalting Obama. Silly.

    [ Parent ]
    HRC deserves the Presidency. (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:18:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think that's a little insulting to her (2.50 / 2) (#79)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:40:54 PM EST
    Or are you saying that she isn't capable of doing her job?

    [ Parent ]
    Stop putting words in other people's mouths (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:46:40 PM EST
    or keyboards.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that it's more... (none / 0) (#204)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:51:55 AM EST
    That sometimes people just need a spate of downtime to recharge.

    Normally, we'd call it a vacation. I always take 2 weeks after the Spring semester before starting in on the freelancing.

    Me? I almost fell asleep at pool last night. And it was 11:00.

    [ Parent ]

    Let it go (3.66 / 3) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:22:13 PM EST
    She's not running anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    i don't think (4.75 / 4) (#73)
    by boredmpa on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:38:25 PM EST
    he's even a hillary supporter(?), or that it even matters.

    it certainly didn't matter for edwards to continue to advocate.

    regardless, silencing criticism by claiming to know other's real "motives" is unacceptable.  It's frank rich territory.

    [ Parent ]

    I should frame your response (4.40 / 5) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:24:24 PM EST
    "How we excuse our leaders"

    This desire we have to protect politicians we like from all criticism makes me feel ill, honestly.

    [ Parent ]

    That really isn't fair (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by hairspray on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:42:43 PM EST
    I don't see how she can come out now when all the leaders are gathering around throwing roses and shouting "see we are united", for her to try to say something that might be seen as upstaging. I feel really certain about these dynamics.

    [ Parent ]
    hillary has lead and spoken to those who (none / 0) (#188)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:23:00 AM EST
    were listening. thanks

    [ Parent ]
    It's Sexist and Misogynistic (none / 0) (#209)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    To think that HRC would knuckle under to the Obama campaign and hold her tounge on an issue so fundamental to our civil liberties.  That is, I guess, if the Obama campaign actually told her to keep quiet about it, for which there is no evidence.

    I'm calling out this sexism right now.  I won't "be shut up about it."

    [ Parent ]

    last time I checked (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:12:24 PM EST
    she's not running for president. Well, unless something really politically wild happens before Denver, which I'm sure won't. Anyway, I think she will certainly help where Obama wants her to help, but I don't think she will make any unsolicited remarks that effect the campaign. After all, we wouldn't want KO and Tweedy and others to rabidly focus on her again would we. OK, a bit snarky. But seriously, if she jumps into the dialog on her own, there will be much screaming and gnashing of teeth from the OFBs. And that would be a distraction. She and Bill should just have some fun at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsensical (4.33 / 3) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:15:32 PM EST
    She's a duly elected member of the most exclusive and--arguably--most powerful body in the world. There is no excuse for not leading on this issue if she thinks it's important.

    Just because we pressure Obama, and we should, does not mean that we ignore other power brokers.

    [ Parent ]

    good point, but (4.00 / 1) (#48)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:23:10 PM EST
    because of the close primary and because of all the feelings out and about, I think the Obama team would very much like it if she kept a low profile. Of course I think for fear she would out lead him as she did for the last four months of the primaries. But anyway, if that's what they'd like, I think she will do that to help.

    But generally, yes, she's a senator and they always should lead when they have an opinion and/or the guts to say what it is.


    [ Parent ]

    I think it's hilarious (4.33 / 3) (#51)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:25:18 PM EST
    that you are suddenly so concerned with what camp Obama wants.

    [ Parent ]
    oh, I'm not (4.66 / 3) (#61)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:31:04 PM EST
    I could give a rats ... I'm just saying what I think may be going on. I do think Hillary cares what the Obama campaign wants and will go along with it because she's a good party player no matter what.

    Me, I'm more interested in actual policies and issues and the secondarily the players and what gangs they're in. I tend to like the blue gang better than the red gang, but neither is loyal to me, so I'm not really that loyal to them.

    [ Parent ]

    Let it rest. (3.00 / 2) (#171)
    by margph on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:59:28 AM EST
    Curious, Andgarten, how the point BTD was making had to do with Obama.  You have tried again and again and again to make it about Clinton.  Too transparent for me.  When is that approach going to be discarded.  You got the nominee you wanted, so let it rest.

    [ Parent ]
    yawn! hillary hate is so yesterday! (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:27:05 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Echoing cpinva... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    Don't hold your breath!

    [ Parent ]
    Get real (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by makana44 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:07:09 AM EST
    Obama is not a leader. He's a front and a power broker. He's not passionate about anything except gaining power. He's not a compassionate anything, or been a leader on any issue. Expertise in political expediency, coldness,  and ruthlessness are his strongest traits, ones for which he is widely admired by his followers.

    He wrote position papers (or had them written for him), but he wasn't even deeply familiar with what they contained. It's disheartening that the Democrats picked an empty suit who lacks integrity, leadership, compassion, or any real caring interest in improving life for average Americans, or making this world a better place for all. Just politics. No heart. And no leadership.

    The Democrats picked money, ruthlessness, and hunger for power...talking BIG money. The reason why Hillary quit at the end was the vast differential in their respective bank accounts. She couldn't compete...why would they choose a candidate in debt versus one sitting on a pile of gold? That was the real issue all along. The big money was behind Obama. Wonder why?

    BTD and jeralyn can defend the Democratic party choice all they want, but the only reason he's a Democrat is because that presented the most direct path to the White House. No principles involved here. If he wins we're looking at 8 years of  frustration, seething, disappointment, and permanent damage to the party that once represented something hopeful and real to its faithful.

    Rest assured that plenty of the self professed creative classers stand to cash in and have plenty of fun with the trappings of power and will willingly have their strings pulled, along with those of the main puppet standing behind the podium.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is a lurker not a leader... (4.93 / 15) (#38)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:16:47 PM EST
    ...always in the picture, but never out front, never leading the charge.  Even his "famous" speech resulted in not a single attempt by BO to end the war once he got into the Senate.  But then, he was so busy on day one running for his next promotion he forgot that little issue, didn't he?

    I remember reading about him running into
    committee members on their way to a press conference about something they had just accomplished.  He said, "What's up" and they told him and he said, "Can I come along"?  They said sure - they wanted people on the podium for pictures and then he had the audacity (whoops!) to take the mic and speak as if he had been personally involved in the accomplishment.  Staffers were pissed as hell at what he did.

    He lurked in CT in 2006 (never really coming out and supporting Ned Lamont).  He lurks on pro-choice (using weasel words and voting present).  He lurks on race (demanding a dialog and now saying we should all move on - pun intended!).  Condemning the Gas Tax Holiday proposal when he supported other such proposals three times.  

    Where in the world does he really stand on things?  I don't know.  And I'm not willing to take a chance.

    If we elect a lurker then Repugs will rule the day anyway because he lurks right as much as he lurks left.

    NOT what we must have for this country if we are expected to move forward.

    IMHO


    [ Parent ]

    Just wondering, (none / 0) (#17)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:00:33 PM EST
    what makes you think that making clear his opposition to amnesty would win over Hillary supporters?
    After all, Hillary was absent for the vote on the bill and its amendments.

    [ Parent ]
    you win them over (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:06:19 PM EST
    not by being just like Hillary, you win them over by being a great leader and being clear on your positions, and by coming out with policy details. That is, imagine it's a national campaign and every vote you want you actually have to earn. And when the position is a tricky one, you just have to be brilliant at explaining it.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG! (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:18:16 AM EST
    That sounds like real work!

    Earning votes sounds almost as hard as earning a paycheck!  

    [ Parent ]

    the thing is... (4.87 / 8) (#36)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:14:47 PM EST
    that opposition to telecom immunity isn't hard to explain....AND has popular support.

    I mean, this would be an overall plus for Obama...

    then I remember that Jello Jay was one of Obama's first big Super-Delegate "gets"...

    [ Parent ]

    are you implying he's (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:27:15 PM EST
    yet another slimy politician. Say it ain't so. Snark. Yep, that and many positions would be very easy to come forward with and lead on. And it would be great to see a politician do the right thing on those issues. Funny how they don't.

    [ Parent ]
    One more time (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:19:34 AM EST
    We are/were Hillary supporters not because we think Hillary is the be-all and end-all, but because we came to dislike Obama intensely and found Hillary much more to our liking. (Speaking I think for most of us, but not all.)

    She is not the alpha and omega, OK?

    If Obama is to have any hope at all of getting the votes of the profoundly disaffected -- like me -- he has to stand up and show some real leadership on issues of major concern.  So far, I have almost nothing to put in his corner.  Actually leading on the FISA bill would be one thing.  Not enough by itself, but a start.

    I do not expect him to lead on the FISA bill.  I expect he will simply confirm my opinion of him.

    [ Parent ]

    but, but hillary hate is more fun and (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:38:38 AM EST
    it is a way to divert the comments away from "what in the heck is going on in the obama campaign as in where is the leadership and what are they going to do about this country's problems".

    [ Parent ]
    It isn't merely (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    to pacify Hilary supporters. Immunity has been a major rallying point for the entire progressive community. He should do it because it's the right thing to do. Every poll I've read shows the public is against immunity. What good is a progressive leader that doesn't support the progressive agenda. Would you accept this from any other candidate?

    [ Parent ]
    Who are the experts who advise him (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:51:19 PM EST
    on how to duck tough political issues? Their services are required now.

    He doesn't need any help, (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:08:02 PM EST
    he is very good at it on his own. Look at all the "present" votes in IL senate and how he manages to have very high absenteeism in the Senate, and that was even before the campaign. He had 41% as many votes as Hillary did in the same term. So he has had lots of practice in avoiding issues. Taking a stand on something isn't what Obama seems to be very good at.

    [ Parent ]
    How ironic (1.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:25:56 PM EST
    that you bring up absenteeism when we're talking about FISA.
    Obama voted for Dodd's and Feingold's amendments to FISA. Hillary was absent.

    [ Parent ]
    goodness me (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by boredmpa on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:00:18 PM EST
    Please don't spread BS that I actually have to look up because it's a rehash of a talking point from the dark ages.

    Clinton may not have been a leader on the issue, and isn't leading now, but she was a sponsor of that bill and simply wasn't there to vote on an issue that was obviously not going to carry.  And yes that's a valid rebuttal to your post because all you're doing is changing the topic from Obama's leadership to hillary's vote record.

    And for the record, obama didn't vote against the final amendment.  Whether he was voting present or was actually absent, I don't know.  It doesn't really matter, cause I'm not running old talking points.

    [ Parent ]

    He was actually absent.. (none / 0) (#144)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST
    She missed two votes. He missed one. Neither one's votes could have made a difference. She was heading out to Wisconsin for last minute campaigning as I recall and Obama was still in DC campaigning that same evening. He had less excuse to miss the vote than she did. But, as I said, they both missed the final vote, and it wouldn't have mattered to the final outcome if they had voted.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by boredmpa on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:13:24 AM EST
    and that's why i think strong, vocal support or work over a period of years is so important.

    Whether it's Dodd filibustering, or creating and advocating for a universal health care plan, or meeting night-after night on immigration issues...

    those items tend to show leadership and actual positions because they show how a person spends their own most valuable resources--time and heart.

    votes themselves can be difficult to analyze because they're known ahead of time, they can be killed in conference, they can be for and against, and on and on.

    [ Parent ]

    Link for the FISA vote: (none / 0) (#162)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:06:45 AM EST
    From Glenn Greenwald

    UPDATE: The Dodd/Feingold amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill just failed by a whopping vote of 31-67 -- 20 votes shy of the 50 needed for a passage. A total of 18 Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for immunity: Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Obama voted against immunity, and Hillary Clinton was the only Senator not voting.

    later:

    UPDATE V: Final passage in the Senate of the Cheney/Rockefeller bill was 68-29. 19 Democrats joined all Republicans to vote in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty: Conrad, Rockefeller, Baucus, Webb, Kohl, Whitehouse, Bayh, Johnson, Bill Nelson, Mikulski, McCaskill, Lincoln, Casey, Salazar, Inouye, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Carper, and Landrieu. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted on final passage.


    [ Parent ]
    According to Alegre's kos diary that day (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:59:43 AM EST
    she was 12 miles away thanking volunteers at one of her MD Hqs.

    [ Parent ]
    excuse me where was obama (none / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:41:26 AM EST
    when his committee was meeting on europe? oh that's right, he never ever had one. he was too busy.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary, Hillary, Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:26:50 AM EST
    My goodness, what are you people going to keep your minds occupied with once the general really gets going?

    Get. Over. It.

    [ Parent ]

    Awwww .... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:39:18 AM EST
    ... you're no fun at all.

    But you're right. Barack Obama is the only Dem left standing, and the more his 'bots continue to harp on Hillary, the smaller and pettier he'll be perceived as being.

    I'm not voting for McCain or any other Republican. But Obama thus far has shown only enough courage to shoot the wounded at long range from the safety of his bunker. If he wants to be the leader of the free world, fine -- then he needs to act like one, and stop looking like the proverbial deer in the headlights whenever a controversial issue comes up.

    Standing against FISA / telecom immunity would be a very good place to start.

    [ Parent ]

    In a nutshell (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Coldblue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:53:19 PM EST
    it's about holding on to power/gaining power.

    There is so much to do, and I'm getting too old to go along with the power struggle.

    You Can Not IMO Hold Dems To Account (5.00 / 17) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:53:47 PM EST
    and at the same time hold your nose and vote for them regardless of what they do because they are the not quite as bad as the Republicans. Corporations and high rollers are willing to shell out the bucks. Politicians don't really care how many phone calls you make, letters you write or threats you make as long as they know in the end you will vote for them anyway.

     

    Don't buy into 'they have nowhere to go' argument (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:32:56 PM EST
    I shrugged off considerable frustration by declaring Independence from the Dems. Now they HAVE to talk to me.

    I'll still support worthy individuals and reward good behavior but AFTER I see it -- not before, like I used to and wait forever for the party as a whole to do as it promised.

    I'll withhold my support for Obama unless I see tangible leadership besides nice speeches, questionable judgment and no-shows on issues which allegedly matter to him. I don't care what he's considering, or whether he plans at some point to have a good long think on it.

    Independence won't suit everyone and I wouldn't advocate that for, eg, longtime insiders wanting to restore the health and future of the party by activism within it. I applaud that. (I wouldn't abuse the TL space for wrangling support for my issues either, but they dovetail so I'm not working against TL's mandate.)

    I'm issues oriented more than politics oriented anyway and will go to the mat for human rights and franchise and constitutional integrity.

    For a D or an R not so much.

    [ Parent ]

    Your post is kind of funny to me (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:31:50 AM EST
    I've always been a Democrat, but I've voted for plenty of Republicans in my time.  Why?  Because they were doing a good job.  

    I've never believed that you vote for someone simply because they are a Democrat.

    Of course, I voted for more Republicans when I lived in a rural area and you knew more about what each politician was doing.  Once I moved to the city, well, it's a lot harder to find out what they are doing.  Big newspapers like the LA Times and the NY Times don't report on local politicians much, unless they screw up bigtime.  (Then the Internet came along and you check up on them, but for years, we didn't have that luxury.)  

    Another reason to NOT replace a politician who is doing a good job?  Because the public pays for politicians' pensions, and that money adds up!  If you can keep the same Congressman for 30 years, that's ONE pension versus 15 Congressmen who serve two years each and get FIFTEEN pensions.  If you can't get someone better, you might as well keep the old one.  

    Anyway, this election has pointed out to me, more than ever, that this country needs another party.  A big party.  A third party.  Our politicians are NOT doing a good job for us and we deserve BETTER!!      

    [ Parent ]

    This is why I am getting (4.80 / 5) (#14)
    by Coral on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:59:57 PM EST
    more and more attracted to third parties. I just wish they had the staying power and clout to hammer some accountability into the Democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    3rd parties are irrelevant. Full stop. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:00:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    On Some Important Issue So Are The (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:04:03 PM EST
    Democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    on the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:06:11 PM EST
    Dems, by virtue of their ability to be elected and influence/control the process, are always relevant.

    [ Parent ]
    But (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:22:28 PM EST
    by virtue of their ability to be elected and influence/control the process

    They never do.

    What good is having the power if they never use it? What good is control? What good is voting to give them the power if they don't use it the way they promise they will?

    I'm getting more and more attracted to the idea of being a non-democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    That's what the Whigs used to say (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:29:38 PM EST
    :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Study the health care congressional debate 1993-94 (none / 0) (#143)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:01:59 AM EST
    Sure they control the process. Yeah, right.

    [ Parent ]
    They have been so far, Andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:28:46 AM EST
    Doesn't mean they always will be.  I don't see one in this election, but there really is the makings of one right now, if somebody would come along to lead it.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#166)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:27:46 AM EST
    The Time is Now.

    I always amazes me. Such a huge country. So few great leaders ready to step up ... and inspire and do the right thing for the people. It only takes one right person. One.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, not really (none / 0) (#87)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:44:11 PM EST
    Florida, Nader.

    [ Parent ]
    But (none / 0) (#147)
    by Claw on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:13:05 AM EST
    Gore still won.  And most people didn't realize what a disaster Bush would be.  I fear some may be falling into the same trap with McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Or Obama n/t (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:53:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    not necessarily (none / 0) (#165)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:23:40 AM EST
    Perot had 20 per cent of the vote and he didn't even try hard and ran his whole campaign from Larry King's show ... then he lost interest and the Reform Party meant nothing anymore and evaporated.

    It only takes the right person, a real leader who has the ability to inspire the voters who right now are pretty unsatisfied with the choices they have. The time is right after seven years GOP. That's why Obama was sold to the voters as some kind of inspiration although faux but it did the job. Obama could never make it as 3rd party leader  - he was picked and supported by the Big Dems from the start so his "movement" is nothing but a word.

    We need another Bill! That would do it.

    Third parties are not relevant in the US because they have no representation in congress unless they win the majority. In European countries a party needs about 6% of the vote in order to make it - and it makes a big difference in government because their voices are heard. I wish the US party laws and regulations would be changed but this is not in the interest of the Dems and Reps so it will ever happen. But it should  be IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    and so are the republicans and (none / 0) (#195)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:43:54 AM EST
    democrats when they don't do their jobs. so far i'd say the democrats have done a lousy job since o6. the public agrees if you bother to look at their poll numbers. take it up with reid and pelosi. they are supposed to be accountable. and as the new head of the party, the buck now stops with obama.

    [ Parent ]
    One step at a time....will take awhile... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:02:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Our congress is completely accountable! (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:57:10 PM EST
    And if you ask, "to whom?" the answer can be found in the list of corporate sponsors (loophole climbers) who sponsor the DNC/RNC conventions!

    Our politicians will bow, ring kiss and answer to those folks anytime. The silly little voters on the other hand?  Not so much.

    And about Obama, he won a primary by not exercising any leadership in the senate.  Worked for him then, why change course?

    I got troll-swarmed here for posting Obama's ... (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:08:25 PM EST
    ... rhetorical position vs. senate vote on the (allegedly) deeply important issue to him of detainee treatment / torture.

    The facts weren't disputed or refuted by the oPods. Merely criticizing Obama on delivering a lofty opposition to torture despite his senatorial no show now qualifies as "trolling".

    [ Parent ]

    That's ok (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by sociallybanned on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:30:30 PM EST
    I got troll rated by Tchris because I read his whole article (last night) and posted the more important information. IMO, He was baiting to the Hillary supporters for McCain about how McCain attacked Chelsea. I guess to point out it might be hypocrisy if we cry sexism when McCain was quoted years ago.

    I just posted the following paragraph to debunk what he had quoted.  Troll rating doesn't do nothing for me.  I don't understand why so many get upset.  No offense dear!  

    The rating triggered the blog titled below.
    The New Democratic Party: You're Either With Us 100% or Against US
    blog at http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/

    [ Parent ]

    in an ideal world we would having (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:00:33 AM EST
    a discussion about the important issues. we would hold both candidates feet to the fire for either their leadership or lack thereof. for those who seek even higher leadership, more is expected and cannot be ignored at their own peril. our country has become so partisan and so pc that real discussion is shouted down or shut down. names are called and the issues ignored. where is obama on this and when does he plan to show leadership. he is now the leader of the party. where are reid and pelosi? hold them accountable and demand that they rally their congress critters. if they don't even before the convention, that should tell you a great deal about your future.

    [ Parent ]
    hey ellie (2.00 / 4) (#76)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:38:46 PM EST
    wanna have some fun? Try criticizing Hillary!
    Ever so gently. See what happens.

    [ Parent ]
    I actually have -- I was dubious about both (5.00 / 10) (#83)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST
    And remained neutral until she earned my vote. I became critical of Obama based on his actions during the campaign.

    BTW, troll-swarming isn't an individual pursuit. You have no idea of what you're pontificating about regarding me or the daily pester squadrons.

    [ Parent ]

    On FISA and new politics (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Yotin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:58:05 PM EST
    Obama talks about new politics. He can prove it right here. Where does he stand?

    Ugh. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Coral on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:02:01 PM EST
    I am committed to voting for Obama, but it keeps getting more and more difficult. He is a huge disappointment. Why can't he stand up for a couple of things I think are important.

    [ Parent ]
    This small problem (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:50:46 AM EST
    (figuring out exactly where he stands on any issue) is why some of us don't want to vote for him.

    His voting record in the Illinois State Senate is not outstanding.  

    He was never an activist for anything.  

    He's been a Senator for about 1/3 of a term before he starting campaigning for President and his record there is nothing to talk about.  

    He does give wonderful speeches.

    He's campaigned 7 times for office, so he should be considered a professional at campaigning.

    I've been unable to find any evidence of him every taking a tough stance on ANY issue or ANY person.  Seriously.  He even threw Reverend Wright who was a friend for 20 years away like it was nothing but a hinderance to him to stand up for the man a second time.  (To me, the Reverend Wright issue was a test, a test to see what kind of mettle he had.  He failed bad.)        

    Hillary had testicular fortitude.  I think that is something Obama is lacking.  

    [ Parent ]

    obama usually stands on a pedestal (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:05:44 PM EST
    in front of his adoring fans, many of whom know nothing about what he stands for, unfortunately.
    He has not shown much in the way of leadership on anything so far.

    [ Parent ]
    Look at his voting record. (none / 0) (#23)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:04:43 PM EST
    (Hint: he voted with Finegold)

    [ Parent ]
    Are you sure? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:36:00 PM EST
    Maybe on some things but I think Obama voted for the Patriot Act and Cheney's energy bill and I don't think Feingold did.

    [ Parent ]
    Is Obama like Coke Zero? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:02:23 PM EST


    Nope....Coke Zero is better (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:17:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    50 State Strategy (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:06:53 PM EST
    Reading a summary of the 50 State Strategy the other day (no jokes, please), I was struck by how encouraging it sounded.  Yes, get Dems in at every level, local, state, federal, etc etc.  End years of Republican hold over the country.  Great.  Fabulous!  Sounds like a great idea.

    But the flaw is that it doesn't matter one whit who holds power where if the name of all that consolidation of power game is Capitulation.  They forgot the part of the plan that comes after winning seats.

    I note Greenwald's full link has the text of a letter from Pelosi et al objecting to a pardon of Libby on similar grounds -- violation of the public trust -- to what Greenwald argues capitulation on FISA would be.  Does that woman do anything besides sending sternly worded letters?

    I just don't see any way to fight Congressional cowardice short of voting them out, or not voting for the most egregious individuals.

    Geez, great minds.... (5.00 / 12) (#28)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:07:01 PM EST
    I was working on a post on this very subject for Corrente and Confluence, and by the time I finished it Lambert had posted his own take on Corrente, and someone had just posted something else (entirely different) on Confluence...
    (So I just threw the thing into the comments section at Corrente under Lamberts post)

    and now you post THIS!

    My non-post took a somewhat different tack -- how people like Kos, and Greenwald, and the FDL crew have all be screaming bloody murder about Hoyer and Jello Jay....but somehow never bothered to mention that the ONE person who was enabling this to happen by his silence was Mr. Unity Pony.

    It so great to see that BTD consistently maintains his integrity!  

    Can he claim that he's following (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:11:55 PM EST
    Hillary's lead? That worked in the primaries.

    what she said (snark) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:17:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Where's the media? (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    I would expect the media to be focused on this issue. I also would expect all the progressive blogs and even Olberman to be on this now. This was a passionate issue to all progressives. If Obama is their candidate then let him show it. Stand up against amnesty or tell us why you think the telecoms should get it. He shouldn't be allowed to escape this vital issue.

    There's more important stories for them to cover (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:14:12 AM EST
    ...like whether Cindy McCain plaigarizes recipes.

    I think BTD hits the nail on the head when he asks after Obama's leadership. Where's his leadership when it comes to any important issue for which the party can (and should) stand strong?

    Where's the speech pushing the national dialog on funding the war? Where's the speech pushing the true healthcare reform we need? The media and his fans fall all over tripe like his telling parents to turn off their TVs and read to their kids--a noble effort, but I don't want Mr. Rogers for president, I want someone who can lead on the issues affecting most Americans.

    [ Parent ]

    There is no evidence that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:06:04 AM EST
    has ever been a leader.  Seriously.  

    I can't think of one thing ever that he has been a leader on EXCEPT for the Harvard Law Review and it's been noted that that represented one of the worst years for the Harvard Law Review (in terms of getting citations, etc.)

    Aside from that -- anything?  

    [ Parent ]

    I just posted on the issue of leadership (5.00 / 12) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:27:42 PM EST
    at the bottom of the McCain thread, and it seems very relevant to this discussion.

    What Obama ought to be doing, where the conversation needs to be directed, is drawing a line for the American people that connects what is being allowed with respect to so-called terrorist communications, to what that makes it possible - or at least easier - to do to the Average Joe who thinks he's just minding his business, living his