home

Will Obama Filibuster FISA Bill If Telecom Immunity Is Not Removed?

As I posted below, Barack Obama said:

I will work in the Senate to remove this [telecom immunity] provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses...

"Work" MUST include leading a filibuster of the Steny Surrender bill. I am saying that a vow to remove this provision includes a vow to filibuster the Steny Surrender bill. He made that very vow in April. I am holding him to it.

If he breaks that vow, it will be more evidence that Obama is not a man of his word. Most pols are not. But I will certainly rip him if he backs down on protecting the Constitution. Let's see what he does.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Vows to Fight to Remove Telco Immunity | First Amendment Meets Large Stick >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Now come on... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM EST
    you are kidding, right?  He'll probably not show for the vote.  Harry Reid will forget to tell him.

    Well, he might be there but (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by derridog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:22:54 PM EST
    "accidentally" push the wrong button.

    Parent
    Well, in october (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by votermom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:09:06 PM EST
    he vowed to filibuster any TelCo immunity. it's not like he's broken any of his early primary vows ...
    /snark

    Short answer: No. (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:09:16 PM EST


    The tone of the statement and the (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:09:53 PM EST
    attitude toward the "compromise" therein make me think that this is exceedingly unlikely. Perhaps we could talk him into it--I would like to try that--but I doubt we can.

    I will try that (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:11:08 PM EST
    Not Likely He Will (5.00 / 5) (#185)
    by talex on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:24:38 PM EST
    listen to any blogger. In case you forget he:

    A. Doesn't read blogs

    B. Runs from the left

    C. Hasn't listened to a thing the Left has said.

    D. Who is BTD?

    Parent

    Any indication he or his campaign or (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:29:55 PM EST
    staff is listening/reading?

    Parent
    Senate office would be the (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:41:10 PM EST
    best place to call, I would think. Does he ever show up for work anymore?

    Parent
    Why should he....still milking that FREE PASS (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:48:57 PM EST
    EXPRESS....obama has been "calling it in" for years...guessing all the way back to the Harvard
    Review days where he didn't even bother to get published in it.  I have little doubt about his flip-flopping abilities on this issue too.

    Parent
    All the phone calls today and yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:16:54 PM EST
    sure didn't seem to impress upon him . . .

    just sayin'. Although, we warned we were gonna have to work if he became elected. Somethings should be a no brainer for him though . . .

    Parent

    I know from experience that phone calls matter (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    But the question is whether we can stop this from being a done deal.

    Parent
    I agree they matter (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    not so sure with him . . .

    Parent
    this (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:24:54 PM EST
    is a done deal.

    however I would love to be wrong.

    Parent

    You'll rip him... (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:10:01 PM EST
    ...but you will still support him. Right? He knows that. He knows that his supporter's will not stay home or vote for McCain over this. They will get over their dismay and vote for Obama because they hate McCain. The moderates who worry about national security will be slightly more likely to vote for him. It's cold and calculating and very old politics, but I don't think you expected anything else.

    Any moderate who pays attention (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    has been noticing right along that his word basically means nothing.  Zip, nada, nothing.  

    I was listening to a commentator on TV and I didn't catch everything he said but, from what I heard of it, he thought Obama was pretty clever.  It's like we can now elect our own nutty dictator like the guy in North Korea...  We can get our own loopy nut in the White House who says one thing and does whatever he feels like.  That'll really throw those little countries off because he can say he won't bomb North Korea and then he can bomb North Korea.  It was really funny.  

    Parent

    it's fascinating how far he's been given a pass (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:28:19 PM EST
    by the press to unterly contradict himself in a way that obviously NO OTHER POL ALIVE could get away with.  (cept Bush)

    Parent
    You FOrget (3.00 / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:42:31 PM EST
    McSame. He is at least as teflon coated as Obama. POW, old and er, um,  quaint,  must be some of the reasons he gets a total pass.

    Parent
    McCame, McSaw McConquered. (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:04:36 PM EST
    Obama's statement isn't even up yet on (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:31:06 PM EST
    NYT or Los Angeles Times websites.  The "great" seal is though.

    Parent
    at least he didn't score and own goal with this (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    Dei caritas meum est scutum, eius verba meus sunt gladius.

    heh hehe hehe he said Scutum.

    Parent

    Considering it is you, Salo, the king of (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:38:21 PM EST
    Roman history, I'm pretty sure your Latin is accurate.  But, must I use Babelfish to translate?

    Parent
    I've decided it says: (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:40:59 PM EST
    I am king of the spineless jellyfish people, king of the spineless jellyfish people am I.

    or something like that.

    But my latin may be rusty ... or non-existent

    Parent

    GCSE Latin. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:42:13 PM EST
    Unreliable at best.

    Parent
    The anti war crowd can't win can they? (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:25:38 PM EST
    Even if they do pick the guy with the Prophetic Speech  (cough cough) he'll be a centrist cold warrior by the time he's in office.

    Parent
    At least Obama is showing that he disregards the (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:44:20 PM EST
    libs/left before he even gets elected.

    And that he believes he has enough followers who swallow anything the says that he doesn't have to worry about the Reality-Based Community.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Much like his approach to blacks... (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by citizen53 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    when he criticized black men for acting like "boys," as shown by the Black Agenda Report:

    Obama goes race-specific-negative on Black people whenever it is useful in attracting white electoral support. Otherwise, he is studiously "race neutral" - a cynical device he deploys to avoid recognizing the pervasiveness of racial wrongs against African Americans. The candidate periodically offers loud and specific criticisms of Blacks, but prescribes no programs - not one - to address specific Black grievances. He feels quite secure with this cruel and crooked campaign posture, confident that no significant complaint will emanate from African American quarters - they are loyal, no matter what. And for that reason, they need not be respected.

    The Black burden is even heavier than that. African Americans are expected to circle the wagons at the merest hint of racist threats to the candidate. Any slight to Obama, real or imagined, must be met with massive Black response, while Obama's disregard of Black priorities and sensibilities is endlessly forgivable. At the commonsensical level, the entire Obama-Black folks relationship is so bizarre as to seem insane. The candidate has been imposed on the African American polity by corporate forces in the Democratic Party, of which he is a loyal, Harvard-vetted operative. He constantly swears fealty to the white American civic religions of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny, both rooted in race supremacy. He has proven his devotion to this ghastly Euro-American mythology and worldview, through public denunciation of liberation theology and ritual separation from one of its major institutions. He bows to imperial power and its endless expansion, fully aware that, as Dr. Martin Luther King phrased it 40 years ago, the military will "draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube," draining all hope for creation of a just society.

    It's not as if there is a choice anymore.

    Parent

    Kind of reminds me how (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by abfabdem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    the Republicans treat the evangelicals!!

    Parent
    Or Democrats treat women (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    They know we'll vote Dem because we care about choice and the right is anti-choice. Well...they think they know that. I think they'll find out that women will not be manipulated with false promises about the security of our reproductive choices indefinitely.

    Parent
    Yup-that thought hit me today, esp'ly since Bush (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:47:19 PM EST
    and Obama share quite a few traits, experience levels, and total belief in themselves.

    Parent
    Yup (4.50 / 2) (#63)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:35:56 PM EST
    Obama is now free to attack blacks and liberals with impunity. Where else are we going to go, Ralph Nader? Cynthia McKinney? I don't think so.

    Parent
    wrong (5.00 / 9) (#70)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:38:56 PM EST
    I'll stay on my couch or go shopping or play a fierce game of tug-of-war with my dogs or have brunch with friends or ...

    there are a lot of things to do other than vote for someone who believes me and my vote are both "in the bag" or expendable

    Parent

    I hear knitting is a good hobby n/t (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:43:46 PM EST
    the way things are going (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:48:26 PM EST
    I may take up drinking.

    Can one knit while drinking?

    :-)

    Parent

    Absolutely! (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:49:34 PM EST
    You just may not be able to wear what you've knitted, though.

    Parent
    I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    I get the feeling every walk in the park for my pups would be yet another Walk of Shame if I decided to Knit While Drinking.

    Best I just stick to clutching the bottle and yelling inanities at the TV.  Grate some Parmesan cheese in my hair and put my undies over my pants and I'll be quite the colorful character for the neighborhood kids.

    Thanks, Barack and the DNC!

    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:50:23 PM EST
    you may knit sweaters with 4 arms, but you'll laugh about it, which is all that matters.

    Parent
    gulp, pearl, knit! (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    Took up drinking again (5.00 / 7) (#101)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    shortly after Sen Clinton endorsed.  Starting slow to give my liver a fighting chance to get to November though.


    Parent
    I'm enjoying it... (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:52:24 PM EST
    Am most of the way through my first sweater.

    Parent
    ah, but if you're drinking (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:02:38 PM EST
    that'd be pronounced "schweater" (hiccup!)

    Parent
    Me, too (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:09:53 PM EST
    It's great for soothing nerves, and productive.  Doesn't mix well with wine, but I did learn how to fix mistakes.  8^)

    Parent
    Gardening (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:34:15 PM EST
    I have created a victory garden.  As the mediocres continue to run the country, I will be a survivalist in my own garden.  No tv, no news and everyone who comes to my  house is not allowed to mention the election.  Glad to see though that all our doom and gloom came true.  

    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:31:43 PM EST
    I'm hawking back to the days of inflation gardens. Now, only if I could get the kids to give up the playset in the backyard and lemme have it! to practice my square foot gardening.

    I've also forbidden all discussion of the election. I really don't even want to talk about it. One friend was constantly sending me emails and we got into a HUGE fight. I saw on a personal level how extremely divisive Obama is. My standard response is "none of the above".

    I still watch the news sometimes but not much.

    Parent

    Glenn Ford the executive editor (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:05:03 PM EST
    of Black Agenda Report and author of the article cited above stated that he plans to vote for McKinney.

    Providing information only and not a recommendation.

    Parent

    Frankly (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:26:52 PM EST
    who else is left to throw under the bus? All the hillarycrats have already been dumped. I guess the only people he won't toss is Republicans.

    Parent
    I think Obama's done himself far more damage (5.00 / 9) (#57)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:33:59 PM EST
    then he realizes.

    To the extent many Hillary supporters were looking for a reason to vote for Obama, his failure to take a real stand on telco immunity may have put the nail in the coffin. And besides, the majority of Americans oppose telco immunity. So where does that leave Obama? Beholden to the Pelosi wing for his coronation in August, and hanging in the wind for votes.

    Parent

    I think most of them knew the truth (5.00 / 10) (#90)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    Obama fans think that Clinton supporter's voted for her either because they wanted to support a woman or because they are racists. I think that they underestimate the nearly 50% of Dems who voted for Clinton. A lot of us voted for her because we knew male bovine fecal material when we saw it and objected to Obama for various non-race/gender related reasons. I think that most Clinton supporter's either have settled in the "Well, he's better than McCain, anyway" camp or have decided on principle not to vote for Obama. Clinton supporter's are pragmatists, not idealists.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    about 40% of Hillary's voters already had his number. We'll just have to wait and see if there's more after this.

    Parent
    yup. Us typical low info voters (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:38:30 PM EST
    had him pegged  ;)

    Parent
    As I heard someone on some show (none / 0) (#68)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:37:06 PM EST
    today say, Obama is a leader..we know polls are not always accurate. Obama leads!

    Parent
    a friend of mine (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:43:26 PM EST
    said the Seal is a bit like a middle-aged man buying a Ferrari in order to compensate for ... well, whatever.

    People of confidence and true strength don't window-dress historic candidacies with easy-to-parody, pathetically ridiculous Seals.

    Every day I see new signs that the Obama Campaign is not as confident as they want us to think they are.

    Parent

    My husband doesn't find it offensive (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:52:52 PM EST
    And he is NOT an Obama fan. He thinks it's just more camapaign tactics and a trivial issue. I hope he's right. Of course, he is probably one of the only people I know who is more cynical than I am (well, we trade off). I can only hope that this won't be the "mission accomplished" moment of the campaign. The right is going ot have a field day with this. They already have a "socialist" version up on free republic, and it has only been a few hours.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:05:10 PM EST
    it mirrors the kind of marketing they've done with Bush (the presidential seal on his biking socks, foe example.  Mission accomplished, another).

    Quite horrifying, actually.

    Parent

    Authoritarianism Meets Infantilism (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:38:54 PM EST
    GWB was like a stompy kid writing his name all over the White House.

    Well there's a new Infant Presumptive on the horizon, ready to put HIS seal on the imperial sippy cup so nyah.

    Obama must have doodled the design while he was bored during his non-service as a Senator, where he promised to serve a term before running for the WH.

    Parent

    Remember (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    Bush's Mission Accomplished banner. That's come back to bite him for years now. The seal may have the same effect. The Republican's are going to really rail against the "phoney" seal for a Phoney President.

    Parent
    What seal? Di you have a link? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    See (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by tree on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    Don't stay home (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:25:10 PM EST
    There are still Congressional and local elections where your vote is needed.
    You could write someone in, leave the top blank, vote 3rd party - whatever to send a message that democrats don't like the nominee we were given,

    Parent
    The Best Rips (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by talex on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:27:58 PM EST
    on Obama come from the comment section.

    Parent
    And if he doesn't live up to his word, (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:10:25 PM EST
    what will you do, not support him anymore? Words, words, words, I'm so sick of words!!

    BTD said he will "rip" him... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:15:34 PM EST
    if the Big BO doesn't live up to his word on this.

    Hey, BTD...get ready to rip!!

    Parent

    Yeah. Well, "ripping" is a little (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by derridog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:04:18 PM EST
    vague for me.  I'm just not voting for him.  

    Parent
    "I get words all day through... (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by otherlisa on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:02:38 PM EST
    First from him, now from you...is that all you blighters can DOOOO???"

    Sorry. I had a "My Fair Lady" moment. The Julie Andrews version, of course.

    Parent

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    "Never do I ever want to hear another word. There isn't one I haven't heard.....Show me!!!!!"

    Parent
    sick of words? (none / 0) (#42)
    by gorby on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:29:41 PM EST
    from political writers and bloggers?

    um, what do you propose?

    Parent

    Obama said words are very (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:30:55 PM EST
    important...he even used other people's words (w/o giving them any credit-ho hum)

    Parent
    Scarborough found Obama's Statement on Opting (5.00 / 13) (#76)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:42:08 PM EST
    out of publicly funded campaign finance offensive because it was condescending and assumed American voters are stupid. Scarborough kept asking over and over again whether Obama thinks American voters are stupid because otherwise we would not buy the justification Obama gave for that statement yesterday. I say the same applies to the statement Obama issued on the FISA/telco immunity bill.  If I were teaching a legal writing course, I would hold his statement out as a model of obfuscation, essentially saying nothing.  This statement seems to me to be the political equivalent of an agreement to agree in contract law -- too vague to reflect an enforceable agreement.  

    Parent
    you've got to be kidding (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    you can't think after this he'll actually do anything then. The time was now. This was when it was easy. Now the pressure will be even greater.

    OK, this is just one let down to many after many flip-flops. So I'm afraid I can't hold it back any longer. Neener neener, told you so. And no, that didn't make me feel good at all. Just right.

    O.T.: Vero Possumus? Carpe Pogo! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:12:45 PM EST


    Vero (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:15:08 PM EST
    Possumus

    yes we can!

    Parent

    Sorta ... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    a better translation would be:  "We will truly be able to."

    Parent
    Or (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:45:14 PM EST
    According to
    Latin scholar Matthew Crozier explains that the precise definition of vero possumus is "In truth we are able."

    ABC

    Parent

    That's baloney. (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:00:47 PM EST
    What is truth?

    Truth is a mass media hodgepodge.

    The voters are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    They know they don't like Bush.  But they're not at all sure they like Obama.

    Boy, this is getting interesting.

    Parent

    Si Se Puede was so damn cool (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:09:19 PM EST
    and I met the Huerta lady a month ago. Very nice I thought.

    Parent
    Nice is okay. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:26:35 PM EST
    Qualified is better, and one is.

    Parent
    Latin scholar talking heads. Who (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:01:10 PM EST
    woulda thunk?

    But here is the Peggy Seeger recording going through my mind:

    Raccoon got a ring around his tale
    Possum tale is bare
    Rabbit ain't got any tail at all
    Just a little bitty bunch of hair.

    Parent

    He's got the latin scholar vote (none / 0) (#132)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:17:07 PM EST
    They haven't gotten this much attention since...well, ever.

    Parent
    How out of touch and elitist (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:26:22 PM EST
    do you have to be to not know that "possumus" is going to make you a laughing stock - Leno and Letterman must be dancing in the streets tonight - and 90% of the American public does not know Latin?

    It just floors me how tone deaf it is.

    Parent

    I saw Dana Carvey (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    last night (who is totally in the tank for Obama) saying that Obama reminds him of Alfred E. Newman and Stever Erkel(sp)'s love child.  

    And now this.

    Wow, no wonder the late night comedians were in the tank.

    Parent

    10% know latin? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    It can't be that high. I know a few words, because I have a science degree, and I'm betting lawyers know a few law related phrases, but most people could barely translate "Carpe Diem".

    Parent
    It's not about fish, (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:07:46 PM EST
    that's for sure.

    Parent
    Spanish is the Romance Language Closest (none / 0) (#155)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:38:42 PM EST
    to Latin.  So many Latinos can probably read Latin....

    Parent
    What about Romanze (sp), which (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:46:18 PM EST
    is spoken somewhere around NE Italy, IIRC?
    I can't even remember which country.

    Parent
    I wouldn't be too sure about that... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:44:42 PM EST
    Word placement doesn't even really matter in Latin.  Additionally, there are all sorts of false cognates.  I took three years of college-level French, placed into second year Spanish (without ever taking it) and lasted through one hellish semester of Latin.  I am quite pleased that language is dead.

    Parent
    6 years of latin here (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:20:56 PM EST
    which I guess makes me a horrible elitist. I think I'll snub everyone I see today. :-)

    Parent
    Sine Nobilis? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    Lacking nobility? (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:35:15 PM EST
    Modern Greek (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    up until 5th grade, get false bragging rights with ancient Greek.  

    Oculus, this seal made me really nervous.  How can we erase all our comments, we will be taken away.  

    Parent

    snob (none / 0) (#164)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:52:05 PM EST
    In his closing argument recently, a very (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:34:36 PM EST
    good plaintiff's attorney quoted Cicero and read some Latin off the dollar bill [not E pluribus unum ].  The poor jurors, who patiently listened to everything for two weeks, looked stunned; what, we are supposed to know Latin too!  

    Parent
    Veratas (none / 0) (#103)
    by 1jane on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    Best laugh I've had in some time! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by A little night musing on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:16:24 PM EST
    PUMA? (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by gorby on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    I am a long-time Talk Left admirer, from many years ago. I've been supporting Obama and thus a little discouraged by a lot of the odd arguments here, but I'm not interested in rehashing that. I really enjoy the site again, as its writers are standing up for Constitutional issues - and holding Obama's feet to the fire. He deserves it, this was inexcusable.

    I find it odd, though, that it would be brought up in a PUMA, HRC vs BO debate. I don't expect Obama to fillibuster, but nor do I expect Clinton to. She has not been any more opposed to the FISA bill, and while nobody can say for sure, I am nearly certain her course of action would have been the same as Obama's. So, where's the beef?

    I'm saying so respectfully.

    Parent

    The beef is he seems to back off (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:35:43 PM EST
    anything and everything he has just about ever said. A leader leads, he/she doesn't wait to see what everyone else is going to do, that's a follower imo...

    Parent
    At the risk of going farther off topic ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:39:51 PM EST
    ... it's my sig - not a point I'm raising in current discussion.

    Parent
    oh, i see (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by gorby on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:48:17 PM EST
    my bad. new to the comments here.

    Parent
    The beef is (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:45:31 PM EST
    Clinton didnt go through the entire primary claiming to be any different.  To the extent that one believes her record is progressive take her or leave her.  I believe her record is progressive so I supported her.

    Obama did.  Obama, because he had no record, ran on change.  Real change.  And for the sheer amount of time I spent saying he was full of crap, that he would be no different than Clinton issue wise (so might as well support Clinton on her experience), and with the amount of. .....

    Well looky here.

    Figured out what the beef is yet?

    Parent

    Timing (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:54:13 PM EST
    The timing of the FISA back pedaling came right on the heels of his pulling out of public financing. Less than 2 wks ago it was his pull back on NFTA. And right before that came his reevaluation of Iraq withdrawal. This has all come with in a month. The Republican's must be licking their chops. And I would think it would give independants(the group he's competing with McCain for) cause for concern.

    Parent
    "Yes We Can" (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:58:27 PM EST
    ... might have been a better choice. Latin is not really big among the blue collar workers he is supposedly trying to reach. What Were They Thinking? Was this one of those "a campaign worker did it and we didn't notice" moments? If so, then they are sadly disorganized. Those seals should have been torn down long before Obama sat at that podium. They probably will not use them again, after the mocking reaction they drew, but it's too late - they will be Photoshopped and used throughout the campaign.

    Parent
    I think it was a nod to (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:13:16 PM EST
    the Jesuit scholars at MSNBC

    Parent
    Since when? (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:06:45 PM EST
    the blue collar workers he is supposedly trying to reach

    I thought he'd written them off.

    Parent

    Vero Possumus? (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by Pol C on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:21:01 PM EST
    When I first looked at this, I thought it meant "Truly a Possum." There are implications there, but I haven't sorted them out yet.


    Parent
    Well, he is scuttling back and forth ... (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:32:32 PM EST
    ... across the middle of the road.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    Gladius Dei. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    Feces facere (none / 0) (#54)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    Meum Scutum. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:36:45 PM EST
    Meum tergum! (none / 0) (#82)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    Only if he can display the Great (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    Seal of Obama for America on his Senate desk, in full view of the C-Span cameras.

    [Why am I getting a mental picture of him gesturing with his sceptre as he adjusts his crown?]

    And crowning himself ... (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    ala Napoleon.

    Parent
    That was my thought (none / 0) (#52)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:32:01 PM EST
    too.

    Parent
    Was it Nixon who dressed the (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:36:12 PM EST
    White House honor guard in Student Prince (that's a really old musical) garb?

    Parent
    That was Nixon... (none / 0) (#169)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:58:18 PM EST
    As if this empty logo isn't marketed enough (5.00 / 8) (#65)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    He should float names like the Geico Gecko or the Pillsbury Doughboy for VP and be honest on what he's really all about.

    Parent
    I was thinking (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:56:36 PM EST
    'New Coke' would be a good logo.

    Parent
    The Obama logo is eerily like the Pepsi one (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    And you thought he only had a seal!

    For all the obsessing the Creative Class does about framing and branding, they're not very, um, Creative.

    The New Coke fiasco fits though. Blecch. (I'm not into Coke OR Pepsi, or even coffee chains.)

    Parent

    Not "eerily like" ... (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:28:48 PM EST
    intentionally like!

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:41:38 PM EST
    know why you guys aren't laughing your heads off at that stupid seal. It's the funniest thing I've seen in politics in forever. To me, it's the eagle with a rainbow diaper seal! LOL!

    Parent
    If he leads a filibuster ... (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:13:07 PM EST
    I will give his campaign $100.

    But I think I can safely plan on spending that money elsewhere.

    I pledge the same (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    Me, Too (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by BDB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:26:53 PM EST
    Safe bet.  Glenn just pointed out, they've already scheduled a vote to remove the immunity provision to give Obama and others cover (Reid said it was to allow them to express how they felt).

    Obama said he supports the compromise.  Not only do I think he won't filibuster it (a $100 to his campaign if I'm wrong on that one), but I agree with Glenn, he'll vote yes even with the immunity in the bill.  His statement today essentially said as much.

    One of the reasons for this entire charade is to protect Obama and the party from charges of being soft on terror in November.  That doesn't work if he filibusters it or votes against it.  


    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:31:02 PM EST
    The writing isn't on the wall, it's in the statement.

    This is about as done as a deal gets in Congress.

    Parent

    People Don't Listen (5.00 / 9) (#62)
    by BDB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    If people listened to Obama, they wouldn't be surprised at any of this.  Just as Krugman pointed out Naomi Klein shouldn't be shocked by Obama's rightward move on economics, he ran to the right of Clinton on economics.

    One of the things that most disturbs me about Obama's candidacy is that a lot of people react to him like they did to George Bush - they hear what they want to hear instead of actually listening to what he's saying.  And then they're shocked when he doesn't do what they expect him to.  

    To paraphrase a point Krugman made in discussing Klein on Obama - people want to be deceived and so they are deceived and not just about Bush.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:39:12 PM EST
    I was just reading a comment... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:06:43 PM EST
    ...somewhere, where the person said that they still support Obama wholeheartedly because they don't care if he campaign as a centrist, as long as he moves back to the left when he is President. I have seen no evidence presented anywhere that he ever was anything but a centrist. The right is doing him a favor by trying to convince their people that he is a far leftist. It's convincing the far left that he is safe while he works on being centrist. His real position is ... just to the left of Clinton.

    Parent
    yes. It reminds me of canvassing in 2004. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by derridog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:09:45 PM EST
    There was no talking to the Republican voters. They had made up their minds and were sure their guy was a hero and gloated and rubbed our noses in the fact that he was going to win!  Now they all hate him.

    Somehow, the past is always prologue.

    Parent

    I Can't Believe I Forgot the Snark (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by BDB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    I meant to add:

    What will protect Obama and the Democrats from being soft on Republicans is unclear.

    Parent

    That is really shameless (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:02:38 PM EST
    they've already scheduled a vote to remove the immunity provision to give Obama and others cover (Reid said it was to allow them to express how they felt).

    Is that what they spent all day working out?  So Obama etc can give a stirring speech about accountability, vote No on that one provision, lose, and then go home?

    I'll go along and donate $100 if he leads a filibuster, but I'm confident that money will remain in my vacation fund.

    Parent

    keep your pen capped. it might leak. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:00:31 PM EST
    BTD (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:16:02 PM EST
    Please give it up. Can you see Obama taking a lead, leading a filibuster on something he won't win? That almost 3/4 of the house voted for?

    Fight means he'll make a little speech on the floor and may even vote against it, knowing it will pass with safe margins.
    The end of his statement actually looked like he would make his little speech, immunity would stay in the bill, so he'd have to vote for it because other than that it's a nawsome bill, like Pelosi said.

    This deal is done. The democratic party is all DINO all the time, and the nominee they picked is the same.

    He has absolute control of this outcome. (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by clbrune on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:16:48 PM EST
    This is his to lose.  If the presumptive nominee--a fundraising record-breaker, a GOTV dream candidate, and a putative force of "change from politics as usual"--tells his party to dump immunity, they will.  That is, if Obama has all the touted leadership skills his followers assign to him.

    If he chooses not to take a forceful stand, then he is just another politico (without any real experience).

    And if he makes only a token stand and follows it with lame excuses, then I'd say we have the makings of a crappy president.

    If Obama leads a fillibuster (5.00 / 10) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    I will donate $2300 to his campaign and walk up and down the streets of my very Republican town wearing a full body replica of the new Obama Presidential Possum seal.

    And BTW, is that Possum statement a subliminal message of reality?  As in blind and in a tunnel?

    I liked Stewart's Old Glory/ Blue Star of David (none / 0) (#29)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:22:53 PM EST
    suit personally.  that was some snazzy Hugo Boss wear.

    Parent
    I now have that vision (none / 0) (#56)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    of you wandering around in the Possum Seal.

    Parent
    Playing possum (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:39:04 PM EST
    now that's just one scary vision!

    Parent
    It's not all about Immunity (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:21:36 PM EST
    Jack Balkin has an excellent piece on this subject.

    Why Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill

    "People aren't paying as much attention to [Part I] But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade."

    This article sounds like voting (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    "present" all over again...

    Parent
    Here is what I find to be key language (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:48:41 PM EST
    in that post:

    Most Americans don't realize that the FISA compromise comes in two parts. The first part greatly alters FISA by expanding the executive's ability to wiretap and engage in much broader searches of communications than were permissible under the law before. It essentially gives congressional blessing to some but not all of what the executive was doing under President Bush. President Obama will like having Congress authorize these new powers. He'll like it just fine. People aren't paying as much attention to this part of the bill. But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade.

    Part II, by contrast, is the part that everyone has gotten up in arms about. It creates effective immunity for telecom companies. It makes perfect sense for Obama to criticize this part of the bill. That's because he doesn't need it as much as he needs the first part, and his base really really dislikes it.

    Thanks for the link

    Parent

    The blowback on this is as tremendous (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:04:20 PM EST
    ... as the short term greed is enormous. It strikes me as more about Telcom corporate spyware to use against individuals without their knowledge or having any avenue for recourse/redress.

    I don't use MacCrap for that reason and don't care if the smug, self-congratulating hottie in the commercial says it's more Creative Class than the geeky John Hodgeman-ish PC.

    I'd rather have Hodgeman (sp?) over for dinner anyday, or any guy who can be witty AND tweak my turbo.  

    Parent

    fat dude is cooler. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:06:31 PM EST
    Although Mac is a nice format.

    Parent
    I don't want their crap on my tunes or my system (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:16:20 PM EST
    It's really invasive and cramping, like having to ask permission every time you want to use something you bought.

    If you use different players, you shouldn't have to get the equivalent of digital corporate cavity searches to play your music (the cavities here being the ears.)

    Happily Mac-Free 4ever.

    Parent

    I have a Sandisk Sansa player (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:33:25 PM EST
    it's basically a flash drive with a little bit of extra programming to play music.

    I can drag and drop songs out of Windows Explorer and they play.

    Itunes free forever!

    Parent

    Good blog post (none / 0) (#41)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:29:13 PM EST
    I found that piece very illuminating. Thanks

    Parent
    He will have other priorities (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by otherlisa on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    LIke attending fundraisers since he opted out of publicly financing his campaign.

    I just got another "send me money" (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:29:45 PM EST
    email. Funny, it's titled "Declaring our independence". Heh, if he only knew how many of us already have, lol!~

    Parent
    I'm going to take an aspirin and go to bed (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by miriam on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:22:32 PM EST
    Forever!  The reason he's approving this godawful FISA abomination is so he can find out (overhear)which ones of us are refusing to have Vero Possumus branded on our foreheads.

     

    You really are the straw that stirs the drink! (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:23:53 PM EST
    Let's hope your fellow blogren pay attention to see how it's done.

    (I'm not sure what the precise timing was, but the statement seemed like late Friday afternoon dumpage to me. Guess Club O didn't want wake the dormant Rethug rotweilers until he was done pandering to the right.)

    If this bill is a "win" for GWB, (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:26:47 PM EST
    and Obama doesn't oppose it on the terms he set out, how can he call a McCain presidency Bush III?

    Parent
    McCain could oppose the bill. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:30:06 PM EST
    what's his statement?

    Parent
    would be hilarious :-) (none / 0) (#126)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:12:23 PM EST
    Actually... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:34:00 PM EST
    ...there was a time when Senator McCain was cool to telecom immunity.  His shifting stance is recorded here.

    Parent
    Won't happen (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:28:04 PM EST
    They're all yippee-skipee'ing over the new MSNBO/Newsweek poll.  

    Parent
    Is that the Newsweek that employs Marcos? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:22:37 PM EST
    The fauxgressives really are eating their own faces and feet on this: setting up their little wannabee Fox-like wurlitzer.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:34:58 PM EST
    Markos, Jonathan Alter and Richard Wolffe.  All that remains is Keith Olbermann and they'll have the tetrafecta!

    Parent
    Obama can do whatever he wants (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    After all, he doesn't need to filibuster when he can be out raising huge sums of cash.  Plus if anyone says anything, his supporters will simply scream "BUSH!" and "SUPREME COURT!"  at you.  

    I wouldn't hold my breath looking for leadership from him, just saying.  Or accountability.  

    If he doesn't... (5.00 / 10) (#64)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:36:33 PM EST
    then that will be the last kick of my genitals from the "Unity Pony."  I'll put Bork on the Court personally.  What the H*ll does it matter?  The people can always set things right in very harsh, direct ways against a Facistic government, I'm sick of relying on the tender mercies of SCOTUS judges anyway.

    I've long thought that Obama, while a brilliant and hardnosed politician, was somewhat naive about his ability to transform the System.  Now, with this doublespeak and betrayal along with his bizzare, Orwellian "Divine Seal", I believe the man is an Authoritarian every bit as dangerous and deluded as our current one is, and that is an unacceptable choice for me, I don't care what the stakes are.

    My God, what has this Party wrought?

    Jackson

    Obama may be many things, (5.00 / 9) (#134)
    by derridog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:20:18 PM EST
    but he's not naive. He is following the Republican  and Chicago thug playbook.  Fight dirty while you pretend to be above the fray, lie to get elected and then sell out your followers on the issues.  Use high sounding rhetoric that some speechwriter puts in front of you and contradict that with the next audience if they don't want to hear it.  Also, don't forget to go along to get along with your corrupt corporate masters and keep your hand out for the cash.

    If people would take the trouble to research  Obama's early political career and watch what he actually does instead of projecting your fantasies on him, the country would be better off.

    Parent

    The Bush family (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by abfabdem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:55:27 PM EST
    got two Presidencies with this exact same behavior!

    Parent
    Maybe Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by agave on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:41:23 PM EST
    could filibuster.

    LOL!!!!!!

    Maybe you need (none / 0) (#95)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:54:50 PM EST
    something for your CDS.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Gabriel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:13:29 PM EST
    Hillary won't filibuster?

    Parent
    Man of his Word???!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:43:18 PM EST
    pols are pols.

    they are also smart. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:09:01 PM EST
    i have a small baby possum that i try and hide the food from. i leave it out for an abandoned cat. the little thing finds it everytime. in fact it started coming in the morning before the cat could get there. now i leave out two bowls.

    Possums are nocturnal. (none / 0) (#207)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:59:45 PM EST
    And their only defense against predators appears to be climbing trees.

    They are NOT smart.  I had my Dog barking Trespasser Alert(very loud & aggressive) at the possum who was eating his food on the deck.  The possum didn't move until Dog grabbed him by the neck.  One shake later and it was all over.  Well, except for Dog tossing the body around the yard in celebration.

    Parent

    Obama will be O'Same if he doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    filibuster.

    Obama is just playin' possum with you, (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:14:17 PM EST
    BTD. Don't worry---yes we can!

    Rep. Mike Capuana(of Mass) email to me (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:18:30 PM EST
    today on FISA:

    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
    YEA  293
    NAY  129

    MASSACHUSETTS DELEGATION
    YEAa 0
    NAY 10

    Actually... (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    ...even if he supported a filibuster, would it really be wise for him to lead it? I would love that, of course, but politically that one seems to be a no-brainer.  It would expose the presidential candidate too much, and I am skeptical about how closely most Americans are following the immunity debate...now, before it becomes a contested campaign issue that McCain uses to scare up national security concerns.

     Additionally, it is questionable whether Obama could even strong arm a filibuster, at this point.  He did not receive the support of Bayh, Feinstein, Inouye, Lincoln, Mikulski, Nelson, Pryor, or Stabenow, as of April.  Each of those 8 senators were opposed to stripping the immunity provision.  Assuming they are not inclined to support a filibuster, whether Obama wants it or not, that leaves little room for error.  

     Quite depressing.

    The telecom immunity isn't the important part. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Jake Left on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:24:35 PM EST
    I want them in jail too, but the most egregious parts of the bill allow for the president and his men to be let off the hook, because it makes what they did legal and it lets unwarranted spying on any citizen a part of government policy. It eviscerates the fourth amendment. Those are the things that have to be changed.

    In our anger at the big corporations, we can't let ourselves be placated with a promise to sue AT&T. Hell, you can give them immunity. No corporate exec is ever going to jail on this. All that will happen is we will have a six year trial and spend a trillion dollars, after which nothing will happen.

    Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. The ball being the culpability of bush and a group of right leaning Democrats. The ball being the fourth amendment.

    heck jake (none / 0) (#147)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:31:24 PM EST
    I don't want execs in jail. I just don't want to pay my left over phone bill, after I switched to qwest

    Parent
    Maybe the FISA bill will clear your view (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Prabhata on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:41:54 PM EST
    of Obama.  He'll play ball with Pelosi because she owns him.

    Let Sen. Obama know what you think about telcom im (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by piniella on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:48:47 PM EST
    Big Tent writes ""Work" MUST include leading a filibuster of the Steny Surrender bill."

    I agree and you can contact Sen. Obama through his website by going here:

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

    You are great BTD (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:15:12 PM EST
    but with all due respect and I really mean with all due respect, what do you mean when you say you are going to hold Obama to this?  Or what?  I don't understand what the threat is.  

    I'm in the Minority (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:27:22 PM EST
    I'm sure I'm in the minority here but I don't care at all about the telecom immunity portion. In fact I would give them immunity just to testify against the government heads that pushed it as legal.

    Do I care? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    I made the point about the bloke months ago.  

    Once we have the lock on three branches the Congressional lefties will start revolting like you wouldn't believe.

    The cats in teh House will be unherdable.

    you think? the repubs herded just fine. (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:03:37 PM EST
    money, funds for elections, plum committee assignments. i could go on. i hope you are right.

    Parent
    republicans organize (none / 0) (#183)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    vertical hierarchy.  

    dems organize horizontal hierarchy.

    guess which is more difficult to herd?

    Parent

    Tacky Is Good, No? (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    Isn't that the opposite of elitist?

    I think you can be both (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:59:28 PM EST
    usually, unintentionally.

    Parent
    Only in the minds of elitists. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by tree on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    Elitists don't think they could possibly be tacky. Doesn't mean they aren't.

    I doubt that Obama thinks the seal is tacky. He wouldn't have approved it if he did. Doesn't mean it isn't.

    Parent

    Tacky is the opposite (none / 0) (#129)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:13:48 PM EST
    of elitist?

    What's up with your thesaurus? Mine suggests "egalitarian" as an antonym.

    Parent

    Well My Logic (2.00 / 2) (#158)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    Is that tacky is synonymous with kitsch which is the opposite of the kind of taste the elite have. Low class loves tacky, elitists are associated with upper class in America and are seen as out of touch. Most of the voters are lower class and like tacky, that is why the elitist tag has been successfully used as a smear by the GOP.

    Although I think all in all Obama will escape the elitist smear because he is not an upperclass stiff white suit who is uncomfortable in his own body.

    He is seen more as cool, partially because he is black and young, and that is why the GOP elitist smear, which we know is coming, will surely backfire.

    Parent

    That's weird... (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:53:42 PM EST
    He is an upper class stiff in a suit when he goes around trying to explain people from PA/OH and elsewhere as bitter and clinging to religion and guns.

    At that point, he was certainly looking down his nose at groups of voters as he explained them in stereotypes.

    And his hip coolness isn't enough to run the country.

    I want someone who is capable of doing the job...I could care less how hip the guy is. Nor am I interested in "having a beer" with him.

    Parent

    Whatever You Say (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:03:11 PM EST
    The media will not let the elitist tag stick, however much you hate the guy and want to lay that particular GOP smear on him. It is hilarious that the haters at once show their good taste (elitists) and call him tacky, and then turn around and call him elitist, indicating that he going to lose because he is upper class and out of touch.

    It is just the hate finding a way out, I get it, details do not matter.

    Parent

    Hate him? Give me a break... (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:09:12 PM EST
    That requires that I actually care, which I don't.

    But the fact is that he grew up in an upper middle class situation with nice schools and great colleges.

    When he looks down his nose at voters...those people he needs to vote for him, that's a problem. You don't get folks to vote for you by being snide about them.

    And regardless of whether the media lets it stick...do not rely on the media being "in love" with him for too much longer.

    Depending on the media darling status is dangerous...

    Parent

    Seems To Me (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    That if you did not care, you would be able to see that all the Democratic nominees were almost identical in the positions they held, and the votes that they cast.

    I guess you place a lot of weight on style.

    Parent

    Gee...y'know what? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:38:55 PM EST
    I pointed that out a very very long time ago.

    But that minor detail seemed to get lost in the "candidate love."

    That's pretty much why every straw poll I voted it had me voting NFC.

    Parent

    One of the strong differences (none / 0) (#201)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:41:49 PM EST
    fell in the category of experience. And with the most experienced of the candidates knocked out early on...

    Meh...

    Parent

    BTW... (none / 0) (#168)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:57:29 PM EST
    I know plenty of lower income folks who have more class and better taste than some upper income/"upper class" people I know.

    And yeah...your own use of stereotyping is incredibly problematic given the fact that the Dem Party is supposed to be the party of the people.

    Parent

    My Own Use Of Stereotypes? (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    Hey you are the one calling him an elitist on one hand and tacky on the other. I am just trying to understand what is a liability and what is an asset for the democratic party to win in November.

    One of the reasons Bush won was that he adopted tacky aka poor taste as a conceit, even though he was a Connecticut well bred upper class WASP.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:11:12 PM EST
    I called him tacky? Where?

    I pointed out that the opposite of elitist is egalitarian...

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    I got lost in ruminations about his new latin plaque and kitsch. Somehow I thought you thought it was tacky too. My bad, I guess you think it is elitist.

    Parent
    actually... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:32:50 PM EST
    I just think it's stupid.

    Parent
    Actually that wasn't really elitism... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:11:54 PM EST
    ...or looking down on lower income and rural voters.  It reflected a fairly common Democratic attitude towards wedge issue voters.  I happen to think it is a little off base, but Dean made statements in the last campaign that were very similar.  

     Actually, I've never understood why the "cling to religion" part of that statement was that controversial.  Isn't faith what gets you through hard times?

     Regardless, I don't think Obama is any more (or less) of an elitist than every other politician out there.  George W.'s "everyman" theme was as elitist as they come.  It revealed a pretty deep contempt for many of his supporters. I'd bet money he can turn that accent on and off at will.

    Parent

    Bush's everyman thing... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:13:52 PM EST
    was a cynical use of a metaphor.

    Parent
    Not About Wealth (none / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:23:02 PM EST
    But breeding and taste. Taste is rarer than tacky, so is wealth, More often than not they overlap, but are not mutually exclusive.
    Tacky is waaaaaay more popular than tasteful ergo by definition more voters are tacky than tasteful.

    It does get tricky because tacky can be tasteful, that is if you are not tacky.

    Parent

    The answer to your question (none / 0) (#96)
    by jcsf on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:54:51 PM EST
    Is "no".

    What happened to Hillary she' still in the senate! (none / 0) (#172)
    by uncledad on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:05:54 PM EST
    Hey Big Tent why don't you demand that Hillary fillibuster the FISA bill?

    This point has been discussed elsewhere (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:26:07 PM EST
    But my answer to your question to BTD, even though you didn't ask me, would be:

    1. BTD is asking for leadership from our party leader and (presumptive) nominee.
    2. Hillary doesn't really matter to BTD as much, because Obama has won the primary and is BTD's candidate.
    3. BTD gets to pick the topic, and he has chosen to talk about Obama's response and his future action on this bill.

    Why is asking Senator Obama to take a stand here such a difficult thing for you? What is the point of changing the subject, as if this distracted comparison to Clinton somehow lets Obama off the hook?


    Parent
    No, Obama is personally responsible (1.00 / 1) (#182)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    for everything the Senate does now.  

    Parent
    Are you saying Obama's (none / 0) (#181)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    No different than Clinton on issues?

    I've been trying to say that for two years now.


    Parent

    We should demand it... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:34:04 PM EST
    ...of every Democratic senator, and no senator, Democratic or Republican, should be supporting immunity.

     But alas, it is more fun to lay all the blame at the feet of Obama.  Because we know how successful Democratic nominees have been at controlling the party in the past...

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:54:23 PM EST
    is the nominee. None of the others are. He's the leader of the party. If the leader of the party can't lead what then? He's just another version of Pelosi in the end.

    BTW, I'm not letting the others off the hook either.

    Parent

    No, he won't (none / 0) (#204)
    by joanneleon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:51:39 PM EST
    as evidenced by his longer statement released by email.

    Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head, as usual.

    He won't and he shouldn't (none / 0) (#209)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:24:55 PM EST
    A presidential candidate doesn't lead a filibuster. You work on winning the election. And neither would any other Senator that was the presumptive nominee of their party...especially when the new Newsweek poll has him up 51-36 in the GE

    I (none / 0) (#210)
    by tek on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:32:42 PM EST
    really don't see how Obama could fillibuster against the very people who handed him the nomination.  Don't hold your breath on this one.  I read that Hagel has announced he would accept the VP slot on Obama's ticket.  I sincerely hope that materializes.  It would open the door for Hillary to be McCain's running mate, a much more competent ticket.

    derridog (none / 0) (#211)
    by tek on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:37:57 PM EST
    you are so right about people projecting their fantasies on Obama.  Just watched Bill Moyers.  I could hardly stomach the pandering and propaganda.  Moyers and his two black ivy league guests are sure Obama is going to CHANGE all of American society and solve all problems of racism.  Moyers is so pleased with himself (guy from TX) for supporting a black man he can hardly contain his smugness.  It's not a good look for him.