home

FISA Update: Waiting For Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:58:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players.

-Barack Obama

That would be a great line to use in a denunciation of the Steny Surrender on FISA.

What Obama has actually said about Steny's Surrender on FISA? This - _______________. We still hear the crickets. Not surprisingly, President Bush (pdf) strongly supports Steny's Surrender. Bush on TV now praising the just passed no strings Iraq War funding bill and the Steny Surrender bill. Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski label this a "humiliating defeat" for the Democrats. They are right.

The House will be debating the Steny Surrender today. C-Span will cover it.

Speaking for me only

< John Edwards, Sam Nunn on Obama's VP List | Hillary To Speak Out On Media Sexism And Misogyny >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FISA Update: Waiting For Obama | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Is this the same as (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:09:07 AM EST
    "Waiting for Godot?"

    Somehow (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:10:36 AM EST
    This seems so familiar.  Waiting for Obama.  I think we will see this pattern reflected in any Obama presidency.  He hasn't decided?  He has no opinion or position on the matter?  He doesn't care?  He's as complicit as Pelosi and Hoyer?  It won't be clear until Obama tells us what he really means.

    He'll come out just before the vote and (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:13:01 AM EST
    too late to change it.

    Bush is on right now pimping the bill.  Bush says it is a good bill - which should be everyone's first clue that it is a bad bill...

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:19:12 AM EST
    The pattern has emerged and is hardening.  I'm sure there is some grumbling among his rank and file, some expressed disappointment.  It's inexplicable.  I can't wait to hear the WORM, and we will.

    Parent
    He is more of a referee than a player (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:35:26 AM EST
    imo.  He likes to talk about how everyone else is playing the game, but it seems he himself rarely actually engages.  It will be interesting to see how our government operates if he wins.  I expect Congress to become more powerful mostly by default and to see the agencies become somewhat more autonomous.  On the agency front, things could get really weird because BushCult has gone deeper than any other administration into their ranks to place little kool-aid drinkers who will continue to push for the right wing ideological agenda regardless of who the president is.  If Obama chooses to referee rather than lead the agencies, I don't think we'll see a lot of that vaunted change he keeps talking about.

    Parent
    I have never (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:41:52 AM EST
    once believed in that "vaunted change he keeps talking about."  A whisper in the wind, ethereal, even other-worldly.

    Parent
    Not A Referee Really (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by talex on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:53:13 AM EST
    He is a guy who consistently goes back on his word. As Wright says he's a politician and says what he has to. There is no 'change' with Obama and I am surprised at so many people buying into that empty rhetoric and especially surprised at those who continue to turn a blind and and buy into it.

    Obama was against immunity before he was apparently for it. From past TPM columns:

    October 18, 2007

    "I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start."

    Here is another from 2007:

    October 24, 2007, 1:18PM

    It's official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:

       

    "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

    Well It's Official - Obama stands for nothing. It appears that political expediency is more important than his past stands against immunity.

    Again this man stands for nothing. He turns on a dime to suit the moment. I only hope if elected that the disgust and failure of him to bring anything meaningful to the future of this country will spark a challenge by by Clinton or somebody in 2012.

    Parent

    Obama is waiting for other senators (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:59:49 AM EST
    to declare their positions.
    He is not a leader.


    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by talex on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:01:05 AM EST
    Out of habit he is waiting to see how Clinton votes!!!

    Parent
    Clinton fairy tale (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by hobackjunction on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    This is an example of the fairy tale that Clinton warned us about.  

    Parent
    The point is that he comments but does (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    not act - he comments on others' actions - his "judgements" regardless of whether they are consistent or not are essentially irrelevant if he fails to act beyond making statements.

    His speech opposing the war and subsequent votes for funding, are a perfect example of his talk v. action "issue"...  His appearance at dkos effectively defending the SCOTUS confirmations by saying that it was a drag, but we had to accept is another example.  Sending Kerry out to the morning shows to tell us all that universal healthcare wasn't going to happen during his administration because the Republicans wouldn't accept it.  "Yes we can't" would probably be a more apt chant for his campaign because all too often he seems to explain not what he will do, but why he can't do something.

    All I know is that he won't be as bad as McCain and he does have a D next to his name - so he still gets my vote - but it is hardly an exciting prospect for me.

    Parent

    Inclusiveheart, the D next to his name... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    doesn't mean that much to me anymore.

    All I know is that he won't be as bad as McCain and he does have a D next to his name - so he still gets my vote - but it is hardly an exciting prospect for me.

    This is the crux of the problem for me! Yes, party unity BUT BUT, won't we all be rallying  around him to destroy the Democratic Paty, what little is left of it?  

    Parent

    Not even a referee (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by sj on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    just a spectator with a penchant for arm-chair analysis.

    Parent
    I was wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:53:53 AM EST
    He didn't even bother to come out just before the vote.  Nothing.

    The bill passed in the House a few minutes ago and is apparently expected to pass in the Senate next week.

    Parent

    You see! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:27:21 PM EST


    Parent
    You mean (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:13:26 AM EST

    What his advisers tell you what he really meant by what he said, not what you heard.  

    Parent
    Charlatan (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by talex on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    That is the word that came to mind the first time I saw Obama interviewed in national TV back in 2005 or 2006. I have never trusted him. He just oozed hustler.

    Parent
    exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:00:59 AM EST
    Hustler is a good description of Obama.


    Parent
    Oh, you HAVE to excuse him..... (none / 0) (#67)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    He's too busy campaigning for President of the United States!
    I guess 143 DAYS in the US Senate, were enough proof for Mr. O, that he was not going to do the same ol'thang to get the same ol'results. WE HAVE TO REALIZE HE'S GOT BIGGER FISH TO FRY! DAH.

    Parent
    New Politics (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:11:19 AM EST

    It doesn't quite feel so new.

    I hope no one is holding his or her (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:11:29 AM EST
    breath waiting for Obama to weigh in...

    When you create a persona for yourself, built on the prescience of being against the war, and speaking out about it (forgetting for the moment that he was not standing on the national stage, and in the context of where and when he gave the speech, it was in no way politically risky, and that he did not otherwise take up fighting against the war), and work that persona as evidence of your leadership skills, remaining silent on an issue of this importance makes it awfully hard for people to believe that you are, in fact, a leader.

    He will do what he normally does: wait to see whether it is safe to speak out, and then act like he's "done more" to fight against bad legislation than anyone ever in the history of the Congress.

    This, ladies and gentlemen, is what you can expect from a President Obama.

    Safe, nonthreatening. (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:20:38 AM EST
    That's what Obama represents to me.  (Also - ineffectual.)

    Bold, ready to take risks and accept the consequences?  Not Obama.  He leads from the rear.

    Parent

    This Is Exactly What (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by The Maven on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:50:43 AM EST
    Obama's whole "post-partisan" schtick was all about:  no leadership, and going along with "compromises" giving away the store to whomever threatened to have a big tantrum.

    As others have noted here, and as I've said before, the Congressional Democratic Establishment came to rally 'round his candidacy because they felt confident that he would cede much control back to the legislative branch and, even more importantly, that the so-called leadership would be able to impose its desires on the White House.

    Parent

    Is this time for everyone to ask "What would (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by carmel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    Hillary Say?" I think this is Obama pushing the "present" button on this issue. Just speaking for myself.

    I've alreay seen (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:25:44 AM EST
    attempts to shift the blame onto Hillary, i.e., where's Hillary on this?  Why isn't she speaking out?  I wonder what they will do without Hillary. I don't think they can ever let her go; they need her.

    Parent
    WE NEED HER... (none / 0) (#72)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:51:58 PM EST
    The good thing about life, is that one can ALWAYS RIGHT A WRONG.

    Parent
    Methinks... (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:16:23 AM EST
    methinks that one big reason that Obama was able to get support from slime like Pelosi and Rockefeller is that he promised congresscritters that he would not interfere in their affairs -- unlike Clinton, who would be demanding support for her agenda and insisting that her legislative proposals be passed with as few changes as possible, Obama will simply hand Congress bare-bones legislation, and let Congress do whatever they want with it.

    In other words, Obama's "new kind of leadership" is really no leadership at all....

    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jb64 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:20:06 AM EST
    he's already bought and paid for

    Parent
    I Agree That A President Obama (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:24:59 AM EST
    will provide the same amount of leadership that he has exhibited to date. He will be the delegator and the blame assigner.

    Parent
    Obama is nothing more than a (5.00 / 11) (#18)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:29:26 AM EST
    reflection of the "leadership" in Congress.  I don't know why we should ever have expected the poor leadership in the House and Senate to have been a good judge of who would make a good leader in the WH.

    I had the misfortune of listening to C-Span in the car this morning, which featured Pete Hoekstra talking about the FISA bill as if it were the greatest thing since sliced bread - I don't know where the flip side was, but I found it interesting that it was a Republican on talking about a bill coming out of a Democratically-led House.

    One of the things Hoekstra harped on was that when the president proposed this surveillance program, he had the full cooperation of Congressional leaders.  I have felt for a long, long time that this immunity bill has more to do with protecting the hides of members of Congress than it does with protecting America.

    People like Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman and Jay Rockefeller are in this up to their eyeballs and while Bush and Cheney and the lot certainly deserve to be booted out, there are a number of Democrats who deserve the same fate.

    If you want to know what kind of leader Obama will be, look no further than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and prepare to be even more disappointed than you thought you were prepared to be.

    Parent

    Anne, I think said you said alot (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Rojas on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:53:12 AM EST
    right there. And I couldn't agree more. There are damn few, in elected positions, who are not complicit on this.

    Parent
    yep (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:42:04 AM EST
    Obama is nothing more than a reflection of the "leadership" in Congress.  I don't know why we should ever have expected the poor leadership in the House and Senate to have been a good judge of who would make a good leader in the WH....

    If you want to know what kind of leader Obama will be, look no further than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and prepare to be even more disappointed than you thought you were prepared to be.

    I love your comments. You don't ever sacrifice substance in the service of brevity.  I'm always just thinking, "yeah, what Anne said"

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:08:57 AM EST
    [blushing]

    Parent
    I wonder if he told (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:36:31 AM EST
    John Edwards that.

    Parent
    I Think Obama's Ego (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    is eventually going to get in the way of that theory.

    Parent
    Did he touch on the 4th Amendment (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:25:33 AM EST
    when he taught constitutional law?  Just wondering....maybe he is digging up some old notes.

    Obama has a press conference today (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:25:54 AM EST
    at the end of the day, so maybe he will have something to say then about this.

    I hope there's also a question about McCain's communications director's reply to her counterpart in the Obama camp who pulled a "stunt" that she called out as "boys' club bullying," "frat house" stuff, and "arrogance" in the extreme.  

    Good for her.  This is what Hillary Clinton couldn't say -- but it has needed to be said for a long time now.  Ditto re Cindy McCain's call-out on attacking family members.  There is much coded language coming out of the McCain camp for Clinton voters. . . .

    Press conference late Friday? (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:29:54 AM EST
    Maybe he's hoping no one will notice what he says. Or maybe they won't be finished polling the issue until then.

    Parent
    Press Conference (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:09:59 AM EST
    He'll probably express his regret that the Republican's forced this vote and how it shows that we need him and more Democrat's to stop this type of legislation. And I'll bet his followers buy it hook line and sinker.

    Parent
    I wish Hazelbaker (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:30:43 AM EST
    were a Dem on Hillary's team. She's good.

    Which makes me wonder - does Obama have any female press spokespeople at all on his staff? I never see them.  I mean at the staff level, not surrogates like McCaskill.

    Parent

    Obama female staff (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:35:08 AM EST
    I read an article a few months ago detailing the staff diversity of Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. Obama had by far fewer senior female staff and were on average lower paid than the other two. I didn't bookmark it and couldn't find it just now.
    Since Hillary left the race, Obama has hired many of her staff, which had a lot of female representation. So maybe he is better now.

    Maybe if he had more interest in equal rights for women he would have more, pay them better, and speak out on issues that concern women. Not an area he has any interest in IMO.

    Parent

    I saw that analysis, too (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    about so few women on Obama's staff, and it was just another piece of evidence . . . as if any more was needed to "periodically" get me down about it all. :-)

    Parent
    Periodically..... (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:57:31 AM EST
    My claws are itching to come out.

    Parent
    Cindy McCain's call-out on attacking (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by independent voter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:38:43 AM EST
    family members???? You mean when she was attacking Michelle Obama? Was that all in the same sentence?

    Parent
    That seems out of context (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:16:43 AM EST
    in your reading, if you read the full interview.

    Parent
    You're waiting for (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by mikeyleigh on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:27:31 AM EST
    a strong, condemning statement from Obama on the FISA bill.  We'll be lucky if he manages to get to the Senate chamber to vote against it.  Much too controversial for him to take a stand on, I fear.

    Defining new politics Obama's way - (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by gabbyone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:54:26 AM EST
    The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players.

    -Barack Obama

    Then why was the entire list of National Security
    Advisors released Wed with one exception all from the Clinton Administration?  Why did you back out on public financing and why did you say in
    an interview yesterday that you don't plan to
    renegotiate NAFTA?  Three strikes you are out and the real game hasn't even started yet.

    A Real Chance For Party Unity On Something (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:05:43 AM EST
    that really matters.

    A statement from Obama stating that he will lead a filibuster of theSteny Surrender FISA bill. Followed shortly by a statement from Hillary saying she stands behind Obama, the leader of the party, and will do everything in her power to support him in this effort.

    Now that is party unity that I would get behind 100%  

    Your comment is giving me and image (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:16:07 AM EST
    of  a smoky, noisy, old-time Western bar, with a rowdy crowd out of control.  

    An arm pushes one of the swinging doors open, and in stride Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, hands poised over their weapons, faces grim.

    A hush falls over the crowd...order ensues.

    [Except I think Hillary could do it all by herself, but I was going with the "I've got your back" theme of your comment!]

    Parent

    Good verbal picture (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    This is an issue that is very, very important to me. In fact, it is one of my top two issues. At this point, my goal is to find the most effective way to stop this insanity from happening.

    Do I think that Obama will lead a filibuster on this? No. Do I think Hillary could take the lead on this issue even if she wanted to do so? No. It would be putting her head on the chopping block and probably wouldn't accomplish the task. I think what I outlined above would be the best way to accomplish the goal and that is the most important thing to me. Wishful thinking on my part, probably though.

    Parent

    MO Blue, is this a snark? (none / 0) (#73)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:42:00 PM EST
    Darn it if she's not supposed to pick up his broken dishes, wash his dirty political laundry, and, iron his shirt! I mean, Hillary is really a mean, old b***h! She's ruining our party, how dare she! snark, snark.

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by blogtopus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    I've only seen ONE person defending Obama on this matter, and the only way they could do it is by blaming Hillary for not coming out before him.

    FAIL.

    One has the ludicrous image of a trojan horse with no legs, and the people of Troy saying to each other 'Why are we accepting that piece of junk for?', with their leaders clapping each other on the backs for being so friendly with the Greeks.

    THE EMPEROR HAS NO LEGS.

    /mixed metaphors

    Go over to dKos if you want to see them (none / 0) (#64)
    by akaEloise on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    I was pleased that there are a few well-written diaries challenging Obama to show leadership on this.   Of course many commentors disagree.  Their reasons include:

    • It isn't that big of a deal, and Bush is going to do whatever he wants anyhow;
    • I know we've been saying for months that Obama is the inevitable landslide winner, but he really isn't and, gosh, it would be dangerous for him to raise his head above the parapets;
    • You can't say anything critical about Obama until after the election; those are the rules, and if you break them you must be a concern troll;
    • As a Senator, he's trying to show respect for the House by not interfering;
    • (my favorite, I think)  It isn't up to Obama to lead because the whole point of the Obama revolution is that each one of us, as individuals, has to be the leader;
    • And of course:  well, Clinton would have not led on the issue worse.


    Parent
    Maybe he will (none / 0) (#1)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:03:06 AM EST
    make a statement after Bush's press conference on FISA this morning.  

    Dear Leader is more dear than leader (none / 0) (#25)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:49:09 AM EST


    didn't obama's camp say this in 2007 (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:50:47 AM EST
    "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."  Or is this so radically different????

    That statement was O.K. in 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    Now that Obama is the leader of the party, a new statement like the one below is warranted.

    I will be on the front lines LEADING a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.

    That would be a statement and a candidate that would get my support.

    Parent

    i could not agree more (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:07:12 AM EST
    and I expect something from Hillary as well.  she is not running anymore so there is no backdraft for her.  His silence is shameful.

    Parent
    Here's the problem... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    She comes out with a statement before he does, and there are any number of folks who'll come out and scream that she's trying to re-take control and the stage.

    Right now? Feingold's looking more and more presidential on this than the nominee.

    Parent

    IMO because of the party dynamics, (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:25:11 AM EST
    Obama needs to speak out against this first and then have Hillary come behind him in support. That would be the best way to do this because it would put Obama in the lead position and would avoid any backlash against Hillary as to her trying to upstage Obama.  Lets be honest if Hillary comes out first on this, the Hillary is evil folks will find some way to paint this as a devious plot to undermine Obama.

    Parent
    traditionally in ge election lead ups (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    other members of the party step up and take charge to deflect criticism from the other party in the ge.  Let's not kid ourselves here.  That said, the fact that no one is stepping up tells me that demos either agree with the legislation, Obama has no muscle to flex or they have a rabbit up their sleeve that is going to save us.  From the looks of things, there damn well better be the easter bunny up someone's friggin sleeve.

    Parent
    Deflect? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:34:56 AM EST
    You mean like Feingold's statement? How 'bout Leahy's statement?

    Now you want her to take the proverbial bullet for him on this?

    Parent

    I don't want her to take the bullet (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    but I do expect her to lead on it, as much as I expect him to lead.  I don't think he will based on historical perspective on hot button issues that can "damage" the party come GE.  I think it damages the party more not to fight this but I am not a paranoid boogey man voter like those that voted for Bush last election.  You gotta love Feingold though, I wish we had more like him.

    Parent
    Hey... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:09:23 PM EST
    He won't say a word. And if he does, it will be so late on a Friday afternoon as to be irrelevant on "Take Out The Trash" Day.

    But if she steps out ahead of him, she will get lambasted and flamed up one side and down the other. Not cause she did the right thing...but he's now the Head of the Democratic Party. He is the nominee.

    And she will be blasted from here to Perdition for trying to upstage the nominee.

    Parent

    So far every time that someone has said (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:38:53 AM EST
    a Democrat has something up his/her sleeve, when all is said and done we find the only thing in the sleeve is that person's arm.

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM EST
    and the arm has its fingers crossed....

    Parent
    lol! (none / 0) (#74)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:50:58 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm willing (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    to bet that he's changed his mind on that just like most everything else.

    Parent
    Obama's Illinois Office phone numbers (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:08:48 AM EST
    Better chance of getting through than his Washington Senate Officew

    District Office- Moline:
    1911 52nd Avenue
    Moline, IL 61265
    Phone: 309-736-1217
    Fax: 309-736-1233

    District Office- Springfield:
    607 East Adams Street
    Springfield, IL 62701
    Phone: 217-492-5089
    Fax: 217-492-5099

    District Office- Chicago:
    John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building, Suite 3900
    230 South Dearborn
    Chicago, IL 60604
    Phone: 312-886-3506
    Fax: 312-886-3514

    District Office- Marion:
    701 North Court Street
    Marion, IL 62959
    Phone: 618-997-2402
    Fax: 618-997-2850

    good luck with that (none / 0) (#50)
    by sj on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:34:19 AM EST
    And that's said with both cynicism and sincerity.

    Parent
    Hillary should make her case for VP (none / 0) (#55)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:52:27 AM EST
    by speaking early, loudly and frequently against this bill

    Hillary will not be VP (none / 0) (#59)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    Obama has two leading candidates in mind, John Edwards and Sam Nunn. shudder

    Parent
    Not sure what Nunn adds (none / 0) (#71)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    but whatever it is, it's not worth it.

    Parent
    riddlerandy, Totally disagree... (none / 0) (#75)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    it's not payback time understand me, but she needs to stear away from all his mess. Let the leader of the party do it. He has to lead, his job is not to be the democratic town cryer.
    Come on Obama, REPRESENT!

    Parent
    obama is captain (none / 0) (#65)
    by sancho on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    of the washington generals. pelosi is the general manager and dean is the interim coach. they lose every game. why do we think they can or will do any better?

    FISA Update: Waiting For Obama | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment