home

Obama Vows to Fight to Remove Telco Immunity

Via mcjoan:
..."Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses....

Entire statement below the fold.

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people."

For those wondering, I find the statement quite bad. But, I am less interested IN THIS POST in ripping Obama and instead am focused on a point of pressure to use. I want Obama to vow to filibuster the bill if telecom immunity is not removed. This weekend will be about that for me.

Speaking for me only

< Obama AWOL On FISA | Will Obama Filibuster FISA Bill If Telecom Immunity Is Not Removed? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    That's one way to read it, sure. . . (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    I disagree: he's capitulating.

    I agree... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    he has no intention of fighting hard to remove anything. He's going to vote for it either way, which signals others to do the same. That last paragraph is a doozy.

    I wonder what Hillary will say now when it gets to the senate floor?

    Parent

    She'll vote for it too, I suspect. (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    If she votes against it and Obama votes for it (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:25:07 PM EST
    she won't get any credit.

    It would be portrayed by out friends at the majority of left blogs as a dig at Obama.


    Parent

    I've been reading (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:36:34 PM EST
    comments by O supporters saying Hillary would have said the same thing if she were the nominee.

    It has about as much credibility as their insistence that Obama would not have voted for the AUMF.

    :)

    Parent

    If she does (none / 0) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:23:37 PM EST
    it will simply be because of the unity schtick.

    Parent
    Nah, she'll follow the back (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:25:37 PM EST
    Though I'll be delighted if she fights Obama on this.

    Parent
    I agree...she'll follow his lead (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    But it would be amazing and inspiring if she fought him on it. I do expect her to say something on the floor in regards to the immunity though.

    Parent
    Well, she has nothing to lose now, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:41:28 PM EST
    in terms of November.

    Parent
    She has to campaign (none / 0) (#175)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:37:21 PM EST
    with him.  There is no way she would be getting her financial backers together with his team, B Clinton appearing with mayors, H Clinton appearing on his behalf with Latinos on Th and appearing with Obama on Friday to then make a stand.  

    If he is actually making a stand it would be because he knows he has the votes or he knows Dodd etc will be filibustering.  He won't move if the outcome is unknown.  I don't believe he has the support with what happened today.

    Parent

    Why will people want to vote (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM EST
    for dems if they sound like republicans and look like losers?

    This makes no sense to me.

    "Trust me" won't work, btw.

    Parent

    I live in blue CA (none / 0) (#199)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:58:06 PM EST
    I don't want to vote Dem.  If they implode like the Repub party, I imagine I won't be very disappointed.  I get to vote Repub for the first time in my life.  It won't make a difference, but I will be imagining I am kicking someone in the @ss while I'm doing it.

    Parent
    She won't fight publicly (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:46:35 PM EST
    I don't think she ever worked that way. But she has a reputation in Congress as a hard worker, which means that there is a lot going on under the surface. She may try to wheel a deal a bit. I doubt she'll come out publicly, though. In the first place, it isn't her style. And, more importantly, it would be perceived as either pandering to or critical of Obama, and she can't afford either perception right now.

    Parent
    If she does, (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:54:11 PM EST
    then we'll have yet more confirmation that there will be no unity ticket.  But I say so what.  Senator Clinton needs to get back to being Senator Clinton, the impressive junior senator from New York.  She needs to start flexing those 18 million vote muscles she's built up this year on the floor in order to forward her agenda.  That's what the country really needs.  Progressive leadership that isn't afraid of November.  Someone to shout down FISA.  Someone to never give up on UHC.  Someone to stand up every day and say proudly and loudly that women count.  Obama and the rest of the party can suck it.  That's what I'd like to see of course.  I'm not counting on it though.  I think there is sadly too much good soldier in her.


    Parent
    Oh NO not another Colen Powell - NEVER (none / 0) (#159)
    by mogal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    I won't. (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:49:16 PM EST
    Let her get some rest, and let Pelosi et al. show their true colors.  They want her to spend political capital and themselves to get another opportunity to trash Hillary. Yeah, another three-prong Hillary bashing, from left, right, and media.

    She should stay put.  

    Parent

    Yep, let Reid do his job (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:19:22 PM EST
    as he is the majority leader, after all -- not Clinton.  Of course, we know she would be a better one.  Let Reid think about that, too.

    Parent
    It has nothing to do with unity. They are weak. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by claudius on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:27:31 PM EST
    Neither Senators Clinton or Obama have seemed to care about this issue in the past.  At least not enough to take a strong public stance on it.

    Parent
    Sherrod Brown (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    The Progressive's progressive from Ohio voted for one of these "spy" bills while in the House....

    I guess Obama's no longer the most liberal member of the Senate now.

    Parent

    Yes, but he is putting his reputation (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:22:06 PM EST
    on the line. If the Senate fails to remove immunity now, then there will be one more big reason not to care who wins in Nov.

    Parent
    yeah - I think Vow is a bit strong (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:35:02 PM EST
    to describe what he said - one line in the whole wordfog statement.

    Parent
    He just won't get out of that wheelbarrow ... (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:17:07 PM EST
    ... that's been pushing him forward all this time.

    As for working in the Senate, he was too bored to complete his term, show up for important votes, introduce measures on his own or even hold hearings with the committee he was designated to lead.

    I don't see where he has the cred to "vow" anything, in the Senate OR the White House. I wouldn't give him a bag of chips on credit with this cred, forget entrusting him with people's constitutional protections.

    Parent

    So, obama didn't "vow" to participate (4.33 / 9) (#59)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    in public finance?  His flip-flopping is becoming legendary.

    Parent
    Total Capitulation (5.00 / 20) (#85)
    by BDB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:51:20 PM EST
    And classic Obama.  Start out saying what your audience wants to hear and then gut it as you go on.

    Here's the key graph:

    "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

    Translation:  I'm not going to stop this, but don't worry I'll use these powers awesomely if elected President.  

    Notice there is no promise to undo any of it and his focus on doing more to protect lives, that's not less spying.

    I do not trust any person with this kind of power.  Not George Bush.  Not John McCain.  Not Barack Obama.  Not My Own Mother.

    It's unconstitutional, anti-American, anti-Democratic and wrong.  I don't care who the President is.


    Parent

    "Just words" that Bush could say (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM EST
    quite easily.  Read it as if Bush were saying it.  No difference -- and this is from a Constitutional law "prof."

    What does that tell us about the next eight years?  No difference on these most significant issues at the core of our Constitution and country?  Yikes.

    Parent

    Be scared. Be very very scared. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST
    No difference (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    well
    at least he is not considering picking some dino like Sam Nunn for vp.  oh, wait . . .

    Parent
    The bottom line (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    Words of "I promise" in this context do not amount to the infamous "hill of beans."  While I understand the dilemma Obama faced on the bill, the purpose of his campaign--stated so often and in so many ways--might require a different outcome for his vote than what is announced to day. Within less than two days, we have witnessed the "reform" candidate rationalize significant shifts in what he had earlier appeared to promise. Public financing for campaigns and the FISA authorization.  When I change my mind, I sometimes offer all sorts of reasons (and even pretty words) as well. But then, I'm not running for President on a hope-change-reform pledge.  The nearterm future of this campaign should prove most interesting; it may cause us all to examine what we really believe.

    Parent
    ...appeared to promise.... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    Exactly. He's never vowed or promised anything. You can read all his policy papers stolen from other campaigns but then he contradicts himself. He has IMO been very careful to appear to promise all kinds of things.
    And then when you look at his history: he has also never delivered anything.

    What have we wrought? I figured any number of people could be better than him (not just Hillary - she was the last left standing) but I guess I was counting on a Democratic Congress to help.

    I won't vote for the rethugs but you gotta admit - the more we see of Obama, the better McCain looks.

    Parent

    The government probably spies on what ever it (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:40:52 PM EST
    likes to spy on.  What would be the point of the DIA and CIA NSA GCHQ without evesdropping on everything?

    /krans

    Parent

    I agree- Lets hope BTD is right (none / 0) (#82)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    but it isn't a rousing call to arms, is it?

    Parent
    Aren't you getting a teensy weensy (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    bit suspicious Obama is a fake through and through?

    Parent
    All pols are fakes until proven otherwise (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    But I don't think Obama is a Republican in Democratic clothing, and given the choices,  I will vote (with a sigh) Democratic.

    Parent
    Ha! on this issue, (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by sancho on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    the whole democratic leadership team are republicans in dem clothing. and they are also the ones supporting obama. b. clinton lost the congress in '94 in part b/c he could not make democrats stand up to republicans. this time the dem. leadership is making sure no one asks them to stand up to republicans by keeping the next clinton out.

    Parent
    "I support the compromise" n/t (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:19:58 PM EST


    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:24:03 PM EST
    I'm disappointed in you. I thought you wanted Obama to stand up. This sounds to me like another cave in from Obama. And as far as the retroactive immunity, he'll give it a half a**ed effort and them blame someone else for it not happening.

    He'll simply say (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    they lacked the votes to remove it whn by this statement he signaled that he will vote for it anyway, so why should anyone even bother to fight?

    Parent
    Obama folds like a cheap camera (5.00 / 14) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:25:38 PM EST
    "I support this craptastic legislation, but if you elect me, I give it another look."

    That's what he's saying.

    Worse than I was expecting.

    Obama supporters (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by abfabdem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:36:05 PM EST
    who are expecting him to do ANYTHING as President are going to be soooooo disappointed!

    Parent
    Ugh. (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:25:54 PM EST
    and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

    Here we go again.  Repulsive.

    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    Does that sound like someone who will review it? Hardly, it sounds like someone who will use it and possibly add to it more encrouchments on our freedoms...

    If he deems it necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

    Parent

    Yep. (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:30:07 PM EST
    /bangs head on desk

    Wrong direction.  We're going in the effing wrong direction!!!!!!

    Parent

    He's saying he'll make it broader (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by votermom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    & more sweeping under his presidency, right?

    Parent
    Seems that way to me. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:39:17 PM EST
    Translation (5.00 / 12) (#36)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:32:25 PM EST
    "John McCain will not be able to call me a terrorist appeaser."

    Parent
    Classic Obama moderation (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by david mizner on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    Remember, immunity is not the only bad part of this "compromise."

    Compare this statement to Feingold's:

    The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President's illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Feingold_Wiretap_deal_no_compromise_its_0619.html

    Despite valiant efforts by some at dkos (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    and elsewhere to make us think so, Obama is not a rock star version of Russ Feingold, alas.

    Parent
    Yes, but Feingold (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    has a spine, so it's not a fair comparison  :-)

    This is a major reason I wanted Feingold to run for president, among others.

    Parent

    Obama may not have (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by mikeyleigh on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    a spine, but he's got a really neat shiny new seal for his campaign based on the presidential seal.  (What the heck does a presidential campaign need a seal for, anyway?) Looks almost like the real thing.  I wonder what comes next: maybe decoder rings so we can figure out just where he stands on issues like FISA (sounds to me like he intends to vote for it) and on being a strong supporter of public financing of presidential campaigns.

    Parent
    Link to the pretty new seal (none / 0) (#108)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:01:40 PM EST
    The last line of the linked blurb is priceless (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:05:04 PM EST
    I needed that.

    Parent
    Whoa, way too much (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Redshoes on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    hubris, manipulation.  Although it has the virtue of being just too funny.  What genius thougth a mock POTUS seal was a good idea? (for another pretend POTUS?)

    Agree the last sentence sums up it up (is that the NYT's version of snark?)

    "Just above the eagle's head are the words "Vero Possumus," roughly translated "Yes we can." Not exactly E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), the motto on the presidential seal and the dollar bill. Then again, Mr. Obama is not the president."

    Parent

    I love the "Possumus" line (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    in Latin yet.  From now on, I will not be able to look at Obama without seeing a possum. . . .

    Btw, CNN just discussed this silly seal, and Blitzer seemed rather astonished, as did another commenter, that any candidate would so crassly use the presidential seal this way.  Prima Donna Brazile thought, of course, that it was reeeeeally cool of Obama to do so.

    Parent

    Me, too (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST
    I swear, I glanced at that line and thought it read, "Verily, possums."  What that had to do with the Presidential Seal I couldn't imagine.

    Parent
    I guess possum is appropos....obama plays (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    dead until it suits him to finally get up and take action....after the danger has past, usually.

    Parent
    OMFG, that's hilarious and kind of pathetic (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:22:30 PM EST
    Amazing what the campaign focus has been on. I can't wait to see what the scepter, crown jewels and imperial mantle look like.

    Oh please let the ermine be faux, for eco-sakes.

    Parent

    Please tell me this is a joke. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:28:24 PM EST
    It's a joke (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:32:04 PM EST
    Well, no, not really.  But you probably felt better for a second there, didn't you?

    Parent
    No joke (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    CNN is even covering it now. Wolf seemed horrified.

    Parent
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    was most pleased with it. She said it reflected on him quite well. Gag. Does anyone else thing she may be Howard Dean's replacement?

    Parent
    Dukakis in a tank, anyone? (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:01:39 PM EST
    And people (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:08:13 PM EST
    wonder why some of us call him "the presumptuous nominee"

    Parent
    Honestly, you'd think (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by suki on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:15:07 PM EST
    someone would have had the good sense to find this embarrassing and put a stop to it. I just can't believe they did this.
    They will be ridiculed and deservedly so.

    Parent
    Far too pathetic for a joke :-) (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:03:22 PM EST
    Jokes should be nearly believable and this doesn't make that mark.

    Parent
    Vero (none / 0) (#214)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    Funny!! It reminds me of (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:37:47 PM EST
    a place I once worked. At the unexpected death of a co-worker, when we cleaned out his desk we found the business cards he had made up naming him the President of the company. He obviously thought he was next in line.


    Parent
    Why Is It That With Obama (5.00 / 4) (#211)
    by BDB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    I always feel like I'm being sold New Coke.

    If you take away the branding is there any there there?

    Parent

    To quote (4.20 / 5) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    the GOS: I'd rather lose with Feingold than with with Obama. Afterall, at least Feingold stands for something. A milquetoast candidate who will probably lose does exactly what for the party?

    Parent
    EXACTLY. We KNOW where he stands on (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by allimom99 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    any givien issue and is willing to stand on principle - now there's a Democrat I could vote for - Obama, not so much. If he can't come out stronger on a constitutional issue like the wiretap program, how can we wxpect him to stand up, say to the insurance companies over universal health care; or maybe Republicans over the war or environment? sorry, haven't seen that he's got it, just goin' along to get along...

    Parent
    Do you honestly believe (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:28:37 PM EST
    that they don't already possess everything they need?!

    I'm sick and tired of the security, terrorism bullsh!t.  

    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:38:29 PM EST
    I don't think our intelligence community really has full range of motion with this administration, to be honest.

    I believe the intelligence community does whatever it wants and with the blessings of the Bush administration.

    Those that aren't on board have been purged, silenced, or left of their own accord.

    Valerie Plame is one example.

    Parent

    that has very little to do with (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    giving the telcoms retroactive immunity.

    Parent
    But that's a separate question from (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:36:23 PM EST
    whether our intelligence community needs more leeway to spy on American citizens, right?


    Parent
    There is no freakin' way that, once (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:29:18 PM EST
    granted, retroactive immunity is ever going to be withdrawn.  No. freakin'. way.

    And what is this business about "I will work in the Senate to remove this provision..." - does he mean he will work with the Senate?  Because there is no way he is going to be working in the Senate for anything between now and November.

    How pathetic is it that he seems to be taking orders from the Pelosi-Hoyer wing of the party?

    I am just disgusted.

    i'm sure he means "in the senate" (none / 0) (#140)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:19:04 PM EST
    as the final bill will have to be voted on by the full Senate at some point. He'll probably lobby those on the conference committee and cast a vote against the bill if immunity isn't taken out. Still, poor leadership and an inauspicious start to the campaign.

    Parent
    No way will he vote (none / 0) (#142)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    against the bill. He was signaling that today.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#164)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:31:21 PM EST
    I think he's given himself enough cover to say "nay" over immunity, which might placate the base a bit. We should expect more than nay, though.

    Parent
    I don't get it. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    Are you kidding?

    Can anybody provide an example... (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    ...of a time that Congress granted immunity and then took it away again later? I have to admit that I'm surprised. I didn't think he'd actually flatly come out in defense of the bill. Kossacks must be bleeding out of their ears.

    Yes, crying (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    with a klinex in one hand and a bottle of kool-aid in another.

    Parent
    of course he supports the compromise (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:33:22 PM EST
    Pelosi and Hoyer and the Democratic leadership probably crafted the whole thing with an eye on polls. They wouldn't do anything to hurt Obama in November, including having a showdown over an issue that the Republicans could spin as evidence that Obama is weak on protecting us from terrorism. The Dems are still scarred from the number Bush/Cheney/Rove did on Kerry in 04.

    So the compromise was probably crafted to keep Obama comfy. He can damn it with faint praise, as he did here. But he didn't leave an opening for McCain to pound him on national security. Yeah, the liberals and civil libertarians in the base are upset, but they still love him and will console themselves with the notion that "he doesn't really mean it."

    So nothing cataclysmic happens and we move on. The few howling in protest (soon to be as forgotten as the howls yesterday over Obama's opting out of public financing for the first time in a generation) will be drowned out by the sounds of millions of happy marching Democratic feet bound for landslide glory in November. So say Poblano and Kos, so say they all.

    Principles? Bah! Only the unelectable have 'em.

     

    If they (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    are scarred from '04 then they learned the wrong lesson.

    Parent
    Plus (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    he thinks he's going to win.  In about 7 months, he's expecting to have this power to use himself.  I've seen no sign that he's above doing so.

    Parent
    We had someone (5.00 / 8) (#93)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:55:23 PM EST
    who had more experience on national security issues and many other issues, and the dem "leadership" went with the neophyte.

    Do you think I trust their judgment after all that's happened?

    Pathetic.

    Parent

    I think the vote is now for Obama's sake (4.75 / 12) (#61)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:39:27 PM EST
    because I think you have it correct -- that this is to make Obama look good on terrorism to Republicans.

    I do not think it recommends him as the Constitutional law "prof" from whom to take a course on the topic.  Alumni ought to ask for refunds on tuition.  

    Parent

    Yep, I agree, Cream City (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    Adam B : What a con job. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    I think you are being too generous (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by ajain on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:33:59 PM EST
    He is simply trying to protect himself from attacks from the right that he soft on terror.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    how is being precieved as weak going to help w/r/t the terrorism issue? I mean Obama looks absolutely milquetoast with this statement.

    Parent
    he should have thought of that (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:39:48 PM EST
    before he was given the nomination.

    Parent
    he will not remove immunity, ever (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:35:57 PM EST
    if he was against it, he would fight against this bill. He could easily stop it given his new position. He's just making this spineless statement for all of the orangeheads out there to not make them too angry.

    It just struck me (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by votermom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    that this is the cheeto moment of "who else are you going to vote for, suckers?".
    Ah, schaudenfraude is so tasty.

    Parent
    Schaudenfraude with a Bitter chaser (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    Because my 'ha ha' moment is followed by the realization that he's still the nominee.

    Parent
    what's the jargon here? (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:22:19 PM EST
    a "cheeto moment" ?? AM Joe used a cheetos reference this morning.

    Help, please.

    Parent

    I've been calling dKos Cheetoh HQ (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    ... (yictp) or other Cheetoh related snark in ref. to the Orange Place, if that's Whiny Joe's context.

    I don't seek royalties or redress but perhaps one of the legal wizards here can find a way to use that to make Joe go away.

    Parent

    I didn't know you originated it (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by votermom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    but I think it's very clever (which is why I copied it).

    Parent
    Oh, no cred sought -- be my guest (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:05:50 PM EST
    After all, we live in times when Obama can shamelessly steal from MLK, Gandhi, X and even Sammy Davis Jr (autobiography titled Yes I Can) and not get slammed for it.

    As long as you throw me a can of sody pop should we ever meet offline someday, my Cheetohs are your Cheetohs.

    Parent

    wow (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:58:46 PM EST
    He must have a very low opinion of orangehead native intelligence, if he thinks this wank makes them happy.

    Then again....

    Parent

    Orangeland isn't happy (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    Only the Obama dead-enders are supporting it.  Lots of anger and disappointment.


    Parent
    My heart (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    bleeds for them.  Poor poor little lambs.

    Parent
    You can almost hear a ... (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:43:51 PM EST
    collective:  "Oops!"

    We told them.  They didn't listen.

    Parent

    How many times can Obama fail to (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    fight after he says he is going to before people get that he is only interested in talk, and much of that will only ever come too late to actually accomplish anything?

    If Hillary is smart, she will align herself with Dodd and Feingold and Leahy in opposition to this travesty; Obama's not going to offer her the dirty chewing gum off the bottom of his shoe, so why should she give him any support for weaseling out on yet another tough issue?

    Reported elsewhere as ... (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    ... "Obama Backs FISA Compromise"

    4th of July is a couple weeks off, but I expect we'll be treated to the spectacle of big orange heads exploding.

    They'll find a way to spin this. (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:51:51 PM EST
    The Big Orange is in the bag for Obama, for the long haul.

    Parent
    The Fourth Amendment is under the bus (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    Hello Fourth Amendment.  What took you so long?

    A list (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:40:44 PM EST
    worth keeping for the next 2.5 years. The YEA's need to be watched and replaced. If not this election, by the next one, for sure.

    Parent
    I've already checked mine (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:01:03 PM EST
    and the from the new district in another state where I'll be residing in 2010.

    and they think we'll just forget . . . .

    Parent

    Oh, nice touch here (5.00 / 9) (#70)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:44:30 PM EST
    "By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act."

    You did it grassroots!!  Who-hoo!!!

    LOL. The chutzpah. (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:46:42 PM EST
    He promises 'to work with the Congress' but ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    ... will he "aggressively pursue an agreement" with said Congress?


    Did you see this?? (none / 0) (#110)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    Someone just posted this a little down the thread.

    Parent
    Oh, no. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:09:56 PM EST
    Shades of Bush.

    What's next  Monogrammed socks?

    I can't do this again.  Please.

    Parent

    Still shaking my head (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    THIS picture did me in...now I can't stop laughing.

    Parent
    Honestly (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    When I went to the link you gave, the first paragraph seemed right out of Animal Farm.  

    I thought it was Satire.

    Is The Onion out of business yet??

    Parent

    It just got better (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Redshoes on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:29:58 PM EST
    Who'd have thunk that not even a month after the last primary, before even nominated that this ridiculous campaign would start playing president!!!

    Turtle on a post indeed!

    Parent

    is that "seal" (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    a joke?  sorry wrong question.
    is it MEANT to be a joke?


    Parent
    Vero Possumus! (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:34:45 PM EST
    Activate!

    Since we are not supposed to call people Obamabots around here, can we call them possums instead?!

    I'm sorry but I just can't stop laughing over this.  It's been 30 minutes, and I'm still going.  Haven't even had the Friday afternoon cocktail yet.

    Parent

    Possumus is good to go (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    I'm sure possums will not be ok (my encounter with an opossum? nasty spitting coward), but just as the creative class defined themselves as 'creative class' Obama has deemed his campaign... 'possumus'  

    PS.... I've already had a beer, so I'm ahead of you and LOMAO.

    Parent

    Seems we've moved from the (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:17:16 PM EST
    imperial presidency to the imperial candidacy.  I hear he's adding a crack team of bagpipers to his entourage.

    Parent
    oh really? (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM EST
    a crack team of bagpipers?  I thought I heard it was a team of bagpipers on crack.

    Perhaps I should pay more attention next time.

    Parent

    Do you think (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:19:00 PM EST
    he's got a special rug picked out for the Oval Office?

    Parent
    Well Bob Graham's been touted (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM EST
    ... and Chuck Hagel, but I think the latter is "au naturel".

    Parent
    It'll probably be a replica of (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:46:31 PM EST
    his face on the $100 bill. It's a pretty safe bet these things are in the design phase.

    Parent
    That is certainly Change we can believe in. n/t (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    I imagine (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by livesinashoe on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:54:56 PM EST

    Michelle has already ordered new china emblazoned with the seal.

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO! (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:39:57 PM EST
    It looks like an eagle with a rainbow diaper on. Who in the world did that? It's worse that I could have imagined.

    Parent
    I went away, surfed, came back and (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by Redshoes on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    I'm still laughing!!!  Somebody thought it would be a good idea -- maybe to distract us from FISA?

    Parent
    Good lord... (5.00 / 8) (#77)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    on the same day he does this?!?!?

    I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

    Oh, for the love of God. (5.00 / 8) (#88)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    This guy is hubris to the nth degree - no one with that much love of his own importance should hold the office of president.

    See: Bush, George W.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:57:30 PM EST
    I was stunned, by not surprised, to see something was created like this for him to sit/stand behind. Getting a little ahead of himself isn't he?

    Why doesn't he just declare himself ruler of the universe and get it overwith.

    Lord...the amount of hubris is breathtaking.

    Parent

    WOW! (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:01:22 PM EST
    I am speechless!

    Parent
    Speechless? (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:05:08 PM EST
    No speech?  Obama can help you with that.  ;)

    Parent
    right (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:39:07 PM EST
    he'll just call Deval Patrick for the speech!

    Parent
    Oh, good grief. They didn't (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:05:03 PM EST
    They need a dictionary. Look up the words "Pretentious" and "presumptuous". And, while they are at it, "elitist". Making up a mock Presidential Seal for Obama's campaign has got to be a defining moment along the lines of "Mission Accomplished".

    My first thought was that this was one of those fake parody sites - they look like and link to major news sites, but they contain fake news. But I checked. The links from the main NYT site work. This is real.

    Parent

    Halperin (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:07:57 PM EST
    has a pic of Obama actually sitting behind the seal talking to Janet Napilitano.

    Parent
    We'll be seeing a lot of this (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:48:11 PM EST
    Right wingers love Photoshop. Let the games begin.

    Parent
    That was pretty amusing (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    and they already have a possum one, lol!~

    Parent
    I saw it on a CNN clip. (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    Don't remember what he was saying because I was too busy looking at the graphic. Oy.

    Parent
    Fake it 'till you make it (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:17:08 PM EST
    This has all been a show for us little (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:48:24 PM EST
    people.  Hope you all enjoyed it.  Was it worth the price of admission?  The compromise was to ensure Dem's, and Obama, didn't have to see this issue in November.  Also, the Dem's want to give immunity to the telecom's, so now they have.

    Friday afternoon "vows" (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:48:42 PM EST
    are a little like "I'll love you in the morning" statements.

    Atrios is right (for once in three months)

    Wanker of the Day:  Barack Obama

    And the fact that we have to "rush this through" is false.  FALSE.

    Pitiable whingeing is different (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    from making rational arguments. Please take note.

    Again, charming. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:53:40 PM EST


    tben....there you go again....assuming....you (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:56:04 PM EST
    know what they say about being one to assume...
    let's be serious, you are so far in the tank for obama, you don't want any criticism and you want everyone else to roll over and vote for him.  HE HAS NOT GIVEN US VALID REASONS TO VOTE FOR HIM...

    addendum....in many of our opinions (none / 0) (#96)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:56:58 PM EST
    And now...stay tuned for another edition (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    of "What Obama Really Meant," to be broadcast without end all weekend and into next week.

    I understand (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    Obama wanted to project strength. Fine but there are more ways to do this than saber rattling and fear mongering. I think strength of principles should count somewhere. Integrity to stand up shows strength. This episode just shows "take the easy road rather than the high road".

    Ha. (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:01:35 PM EST
    Principles and integrity are so, like, yesterday for democrats. Pols are just pols, you know. And the ends justify the means if we want to elect more democrats.

    Parent
    Another Month (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by msobel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    As a Hillary supporter my email signature is

    Hey, don't push, I've gotten all the way to depression
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model#Stages

    I was intending to start donating to the Precious after he showed strong leadership on FISA and stopped the capitulation in its tracks.

    I even called his office as told them it was an opportunity for him to demonstrate leadership and principles.

    Okay, another month to recover.

    That's a pretty funny sig.... (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by jerry on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    Sorry, but I have to continue being (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    boring and predictable and troll rate this comment.

    Aside from the inadequacy... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:09:07 PM EST
    he's a day late and a dollar short - the leadership is completely underwhelming me...actually its completely missing.

    This ain't too far from the LIEberman yes on cloture, no on confirmation play book. Just take a good whiff and smell the acrid stank of another two-faced pol that assumes his constituents are dumb as a stump.

    Obama has made a few other public (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:11:22 PM EST
    positions, then backed off for convenience.

    Here's one of his positions

    Support Campaign Finance Reform:  Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests...

    How did that work out?

    How do you know that he's pulling a fast one on you?  So far, it's when he opens his mouth.

    This is a pattern with him: (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    Say one thing, then do the opposite when it comes up.  

    I wish I could say "It's the Right Wing Smear Machine that is just saying this" or "He had good reasons to change his mind" or "He doesn't do it very often" -- but he does it all the frickin' time!

    How can anyone trust anything he says?  Or writes?  Or gives a major speech about?  He'll reverse himself in a heartbeat if he feels like it because he's shown us over and over again that he can!!      

     

    Parent

    Its really hard to support anything (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:14:26 PM EST
    he has said or done, because there is so little of it. And don't point me to his website.  That was all the made up stuff after the "big boys" put him up to take down Hillary.

    I'm beginning to think BTDs headline (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:16:40 PM EST
    was snarky.  I'm a little slow in detecting it after a week of being told with no snark at all that Tim Russert asked "the tough questions".

    not by BTD (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:17:57 PM EST
    she hastened to clarify

    Parent
    he did ask tough questions (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:35:25 PM EST
    or rather, he asked them toughly.
    when he got one of his little snits going he always reminded me of single mindedness my dog.
    no matter what you say or do he is always going to come back to whatever ignorant irrelevant pointless thing he absolutley had to have an answer for.


    Parent
    sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    he would even put his paws up.

    Parent
    Huff Post headline: (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:51:24 PM EST
    Obama Backs Bill Giving Immunity To Telecoms



    Parent
    Didn't Kos say anyone who supported this (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    would be primaried...so?

    Lame (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    Just totally lame.  I guess this is designed for all the Obama supporters who like to go "we can't afford to fight on this now... but after the election, just you watch!"

    Prolly. I've had Obama supporters tell me (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    he opposes universal health care because as President he secretly wants to usher in single payer.  You just wait!

    Parent
    Agreed. A dim viewer re this site (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    so he just must want to fill up TL bandwidth, without ever contributing to discussion.

    Fighting against it will (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    slap Pelosi and his strongest House supporters in the face. You honestly believe he will do that?

    Yawn. Obama fighting for this? I'll believe it (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:25:34 PM EST
    when I see it.

    "When have youever praised anything . . . (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    . . . he ever said or did?"

    I defended him for talking about social security.
    does that count?
    wasnt very popular for it either I might add.
    doesnt mean I want to hear "arguments for Obama" though, sorry.

    Next on the Obama Agenda: (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    "Well of course, as you know, no one has done more for women's rights than I have. Therefore, I have decided that Roe V Wade was indeed the incorrect decision and will appoint judges to reflect that belief. I vow to give women the right to chose by providing them subsidized tickets to Mexico for their proceedures. "

    /snark

    Shorter Obama: (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:55:40 PM EST
    Make me President, and I'll find my courage to do the right thing. Trust me!

    Lefty Blogs today (5.00 / 5) (#202)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    TPM feels betrayed.
    Emptywheel says Obama replied f**k you to her plea.
    Atrios called him a wanker.
    dailykos - 890 comments. They are unhappy learning he is not progressive.
    Americablog - Unhappy

    What's a lefty blogger to do. They anointed their candidate, they added to the echo chamber to get their guy the nomination, and now they're starting to realize he's not one of them at all.

    Looks (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by tek on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:04:59 PM EST
    like what we can expect from an Obama admin.  Following instead of leading.  Anyone who didn't see that trend during the primaries wasn't paying attention.  Just baffling to me that anyone is enthused about this candidate.  I guess if people are looking for someone who can be led around by the nose, he's your guy.

    The Seal (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by tek on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:07:39 PM EST
     is truly disgusting.  Bush all over again, but with even more arrogance.

    I'm sitting here thoroughly stunned by (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by miriam on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    The Great Seal Of Obama.

    Is this some sort of alternate universe we've found ourselves in?  This guy is totally delusionary.  After today's approval of the FISA debacle, how can anyone in his/her right mind not see what's coming?  An Imperial Persona complete with His Seal that we'll probably all be required to have stamped on our foreheads to show loyalty.

    I pray they find running water on Mars very soon.

    He's going to cave. (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by AX10 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:44:37 PM EST
    Read the last paragraph.

    I wonder if Kos will want to primary Obama out now?

    I doubt it.

    Obama (4.56 / 9) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    doesn't fight. At all. He's been shown time and again to run and duck when the arrows are flung.

    BREAKING NEWS! (3.66 / 3) (#13)
    by This from a broad on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    Senator Obama to get spine implant!

    just another tool (3.66 / 3) (#33)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:30:54 PM EST


    perhaps the proverbial (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:45:47 PM EST
    "not the sharpest knife in the drawer?"

    Parent
    Sister Souljah (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    Disappointing result.

    Obama could fix this as President.

    With so many Democrats voting in favor now? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    I doubt it.

    Parent
    He won't (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    Read that last paragraph again.

    Parent
    Not Teleco immunity (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    That's over--and even though I opposed immunity, I never thought the Telcoms would ever face the music....

    Going forward is the greater concern....for me at least.....

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:26:25 PM EST
    Obama won't fix it as President. He'll be too afraid that it might make the GOP mad.

    Parent
    He doesn't say he'll fix it ... (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    just that he'll "carefully monitor" it.

    Very weak.

    That's like a politician saying he will "appoint a blue ribbon panel to examine the issue."

    Parent

    Kerry's advice to obama....repeat after me.... (4.42 / 7) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    "I will carefully monitor it, before I won't"

    My gawd...this nominee is nothing more than a sock puppet, or a buffoon...pick one.

    Parent

    Thanks tben for the troll rating....I knew it (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    wouldn't belong before you had to trollrate me for telling the truth!!  You go boy/girl/whatever...

    Parent
    We don't have to pick (4.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:37:11 PM EST
    One day he'll be a sock puppet, then next a buffoon.

    The best of both worlds.

    ;)

    Parent

    hes a multitasker (4.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:43:55 PM EST
    he can be both at the same time.

    Parent
    He could fix it now (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:38:39 PM EST
    But he won't.  He will start running for re-election the minute he takes office.  He won't fix it then either.

    This is as bold as he is ever going to be, folks.

    Parent

    He can't fix it now (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:54:02 PM EST
    All he could do is stand up and oppose it, in the process declaring himself independent from the majority in Congress. The last time he did that was a small meeting in Illinois when he stood up against the war in Iraq. He has not done so since he got into Congress. I'm actually a bit afraid of an Obama Presidency. What will he do? If we have another terrorist attack, will he overreact just to prove that he's tough? He has not, as far as I can tell, ever stood up to authority. But whose authority will he follow? This is surreal. We have a man who has never led anything running for the most important leadership role in the nation.

    Parent
    Perceptive (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:15:28 PM EST
    Good point, Dianem. The real question is--or will probably soon be: What kind of spin are we willing to accept from a presumed Democratic candidate in the name of winning? When does "the end justify the means" in 2008 and when does it not?

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#213)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:10:27 PM EST
    If he's like Kennedy he'll sign off on Bush's outstanding plans and then starve the troops of airsupport.  then the opponents will go:   "he's an easy mark" and push humanity to the brink of something nasty.

    tehn he'll do something covert in Africa and make an aggreement that doesn't stick in Asia.

    And become an historical enigma.

    Parent

    could fix this as President (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    look out your window and see if you see any pork flying by.

    Parent
    I see flying pigs.....lol (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:53:25 PM EST
    with or without the lipstick? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    a whole lotta lipstick (think Pete Puma) (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    Sorta (none / 0) (#10)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    Obama promised to try to remove retroactive immunity from the bill.  But he also supports the bill, which means that if there aren't votes to remove it (there surely aren't, as the senate already passed such a provision), he will vote for it anyway.  There will be no filibuster.

    I'm definitely disappointed.  The immunity provision is dumb and unfair, although maybe not as huge an injustice as some bloggers (Greenwald) or posters (Obamaphobes here) seem to think.  The damage, let's remember, was already done.  The argument at hand is just over retribution.  I'll give up the retribution step as long as we have transparency, and of that there is still some hope.

    Yeah, you're right... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by mrmobi on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    I'll give up the retribution step as long as we have transparency, and of that there is still some hope.

    Unlike many here, I'm actually willing to see what Obama does in the Senate when he actually gets a chance to vote. Unlike some of you, I can't read his mind.

    It has been suggested that House Dems are covering their own involvement with telecoms with this vote, and that's probably true. People are correctly upset with these Vichy Dems, and it shows the party still has a long way to go.

    Obama has a good record in support of transparency in government, so I'm willing to give him some room on this one.

    The reason we have this problem with illegal surveillance is Bush & Co., not Barack Obama. Even if we got a bill that the ACLU gave its' seal of approval to, Bush would just append a signing statement which said, "thank you, but we're doing whatever the hell we want."

    This is, apparently, a crappy bill, but it won't mean the end of the republic, or the end of freedom. The nation will survive the passage of this bill.

    As an Obama supporter, I do have to say what's up with that seal? Really, do they have that many graphic designers with time on their hands in the campaign? Dumb.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by otherlisa on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:02:49 PM EST
    since he has only been in the US Senate two years and has a terrible attendance record and will be too busy running for President to show up for votes...

    You may be waiting a while.

    Parent

    Can dismissed lawsuits be refiled later? (none / 0) (#116)
    by jerry on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:06:54 PM EST
    If the law goes through and gives them retroactive immunity for acts they stopped years ago, then if the law is later revoked, can that retroactive immunity be stripped and the lawsuits be refiled?

    I'm not a lawyer... (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM EST
    ...but I'm pretty sure that immunity is permanent. It would defeat the purpose of granting immunity if they just said "my bad, we're taking it back" a few months/years later.

    Parent
    Bye (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:09:02 PM EST


    I disassociate myself from this comment n/t (none / 0) (#149)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:23:19 PM EST


    was in reply to a now-deleted anti-Obama slur n/t (none / 0) (#183)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:43:39 PM EST
    If he votes no or abstains.... (none / 0) (#218)
    by Veracitor on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    ....he will satisfy reasonable expectations.

      Whatever else, he should not do anything that would jeapordize his chance to secure enough political power to roll back the Bush policies when he's safely ensconced in the Oval Office.

    Email from Rep. Capuana Mass (none / 0) (#220)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

    As you may know, I have opposed all attempts by this President to limit our civil liberties or to circumvent our judicial system.  Because of these strong beliefs, I was one of only 66 Members who voted against the original so-called PATRIOT Act.

    Over many months, I have written to you regarding the ongoing effort in Congress to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Today, the House voted on a new bill that represents a "compromise" between congressional negotiators and the White House. I believe that today was a sad day in American history. Supporters argue that this bill succeeds in balancing protection for civil liberties with measures needed for our security, but I could not disagree more strongly. I believe that adherence to the Constitution and its Fourth amendment is the only way to ensure our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the other freedoms safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.  This legislation utterly fails to meet that test. On the issue of retroactive immunity for telecom providers, the bill compels the dismissal of cases as long as companies were told by the government that the surveillance was legal, making the court review virtually meaningless.

    I have always regarded the preservation of our cherished liberties as one of my most solemn obligations. I am deeply saddened at today's vote.

    I voted NO and the entire vote is recorded below:
    Democrats
    YEA  105
    NAY 128

    REPUBLICAN
    YEA   188
     NAY    1

    TOTAL 293
     129
     0
     13

    MASSACHUSETTS 0
     10
     0
     0

    FISA (none / 0) (#222)
    by Sarah in TX on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:22:03 PM EST
    I'm new here and have been lurking for sometime.  This site has allowed me to maintain my sanity over the past several weeks.

    On the one hand, I'm disgusted by the FISA bill and Obama's wishy-washy, spineless response to it and laughing uncontrollably (sp?) about the "seal".

    Must be the new "bling"... sorry could not resist.