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? >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate 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


    [ Parent ]
    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 ]
    I think she just might fight it. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by shannon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:39:43 PM EST
    I have no insider information or even an indepth knowledge of the senate politics on this issue, but she might very well show us that same strength she showed during the campaign. She's got her brand now -- she's a fighter. We'll see.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, she has nothing to lose now, (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 7) (#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


    [ Parent ]
    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 ]
    Oh. My. Gawd. (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:56:38 PM EST
    If we have to depend upon Harry Reid to stand up for principle on this issue, then we're doomed.

    As our prospective presidential nominee, Barack Obama is now also the de facto titular leader of the Democratic Party.

    Well, this is going to be a prime time test of his ability to bring some decisive influence to bear, and have the offending provision on telecom immunity removed, as his statement from earlier today implies he would do.

    Because if he fails, or worse yet thinks he can neatly sidestep the issue with a quick dose of eloquent rhetoric, then Obama's doubtless going to find himself with more than a few unhappy 'Bots on his hands.

    There are a lot of true believing liberals and political rookies who bought into Obama's whole schtick about change they could believe in. They'll be quickly dispelled of that fanciful notion -- and maybe even turn bitter, and perhaps begin to cling to their Bill of Rights -- should they find him either impotent or craven on an important issue that's become a black-and-white matter in the eyes of many grassroots Democrats.

    [ 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


    [ Parent ]
    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 / 3) (#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


    [ Parent ]
    Translation (5.00 / 13) (#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 ]
    Disappointing (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    Although he better d**n well fight against telco immunity with Net Neutrality and anti-trust legislation. I'm all for boosting the intelligence community and giving them the provisions they need, but I'm not for protecting the companies that do it when they do something stupid. The notion that some company can do no wrong when working for the government is preposterous and prosecuting them doesn't hurt crap when it comes to national security. Overall, I'm disappointed by the response, although I suppose it could be much worse.

    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.  

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, no. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    I'm a big counter-terrorism buff, and I DON'T believe our intelligence community is strong enough. It's been neglected as the physical military has gotten benefit after benefit. We have horrible networks in the Middle East, Central and Southern Asia, and in Northern Africa. I don't think our intelligence community really has full range of motion with this administration, to be honest. I'm fine with giving them more funding, but I somehow doubt it will be put to good use.

    [ Parent ]
    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 ]
    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?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (4.60 / 10) (#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.

    [ 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


    [ Parent ]
    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 ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    Adam B : What a con job. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:43:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    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?

    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


    [ Parent ]
    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 ]