Obama's Promise To Filibuster Telecom Immunity

Let's hold him to this October 2007 promise:

Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.

(Emphasis supplied.) If Obama does not filibuster telecom immunity, it proves his commitments can not be trusted. That he will say and do anything to win, even if he does not mean it. A test for Obama's credibility is at hand.

Speaking for me only

< Saying And Doing Anything To Win | Sunstein An Advisor To Barack Obama? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thankyou BTD (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Munibond on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:04:48 AM EST
    By holding Obama's feet to the fire on something as important as FISA supporters such as BTD may make him a better candidate.  I also think showing some guts would increase Obama's chances of winning the presidency.  I cannot understand why his campaign advisors think it is necessary this time to run for the center right and confirm the perception of many that he is largely malleable.

    Center right (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:11:42 AM EST
    My suspicion is that Obama has always gone for center-right. Center- he does not rock the boat or take stands. Right - he is a corporate guy. And now he's wearing religion on his sleeve and looking untrustworthy on social issues (abortion, gays, women).

    IMO the center right is natural to him. I'd be interested in knowing the political leanings of the grandmother bank VP in a conservative state. I think he turned left to get along in Chicago AA politics but not so far as to distance himself from the mainstream to get ahead.


    According to an article in, maybe, (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    the Seattle paper, when Obama's mother lived on Mercer Island with her parents, it was rumored the grandparents had ties to the Communist party in the past and they were Unitarian.  Sounds pretty liberal.  

    But "supporting" is not leading. (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Shainzona on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:23:45 AM EST
    I'm glad he's said he would support a filibuster, but this person is the supposed Presidential Candidate - should he be leading the charge - loud, vocally and consistently?  He even put his support at the end of a paragraph that says he hopes someone else changes the bad things in this legislation.

    This statement is simply to placate his minions who started to get nervous when his original statement was so outrageously bad.


    This person is not a leader.  And I don't believe a word he's said...afterall, BTD, you admonished me that I'm an idiot to believe a politician.


    EXACTLY (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by pluege on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:06:06 AM EST
    don't be looking for no stinking leadership from Obama - you'll be sorely disappointed if you do.

    Amen, not only is he not a leader, (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Aqua Blue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:28:25 AM EST
    he is willing to sell his soul.

    Corporate America has their guy!  They've won.

    (These idealists who fell for Saint Obama will be quickly disillusioned, drop out of politics, and what is left of our Democracy will be on a fast downward spiral.)


    "Corporate America has their guy!" (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:59:44 AM EST
    They've won.

    Yes.  Either way.


    Who better to lead a filibuster than (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    Obama.  He is an elected Senator from IL, as was the golden-tongued orator Everett Dirksen.

    BTD - Naive (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gaf on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.

    Emphasis mine.

    Obama has a loophole.


    The change Obama's been talking (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Montague on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:14:43 AM EST
    about all along is the audacity to change his mind whenever he feels like it.  There's no point in attempting to hold him to his words from last year.

    Shapeshifter Obama! Changing change changes. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jawbone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    Obama will vote against Cloture... (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:26:09 AM EST
    but he's not gonna filibuster.  He doesn't have a teleprompter that he can read his speech from in the Senate, nobody is gonna faint on cue for him there, and he doesn't know enough about anything to speak exporaneously for hours...

    I really wish that Hillary would use this opportunity -- grab the issue of telecom immunity, say that Obama opposes it, and in the name of 'party unity' Democrats need to support the filibuster... (throwing in an implied threat that if there isn't 'party unity' on telecom immunity, she'll 'unsuspend' her campaign, and make 'leadership' an issue....)

    a guy can dream, can't he?

    I also hope (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by mikeyleigh on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:38:10 AM EST
    Hillary uses this bill as a cudgel to hammer Obama.  Not just for politics, but because it's the right stand to take.

    Hillary will not hammer Obama on anything (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    She is now in the uniting the Democratic Party mode in all of her public statements. Any attempts she personally makes to change positions or platforms etc. will IMO be done behind closed doors.

    Not Sure He'll Vote Against Cloture (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BDB on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    Kind of weird to vote against cloture on a bill you say you support.  Kind of weird to vote against closture on a bill you will be voting for (and I believe he will be voting for it).

    He'll vote for the amenment stripping immunity, it will fail, then he'll vote for the entire bill.

    Assuming Hillary can escape from whatever basement she's been locked up in to show up for the proceedings, I'd expect the most we'll get out of her is a "no" vote on cloture and the bill.   But they appear to let her out only to make phone calls to donors asking them to get behind Obama.  So I'm not sure she'll be there to vote at all.


    The test has come (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by kmblue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:33:00 AM EST
    and gone.  Obama failed it.

    gosh, isn't a filibuster (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST
    partisan politics? i thought sen. obama was a "post-partisan" kind of guy, hands across the aisle and all that?

    yet another example of his being a follower. fortunately, the convention hasn't happened yet, the SD's still have time to come to their senses.

    Armando (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:49:45 AM EST
    "Let's hold him to this October 2007 promise"?

    Did you read his statement from yesterday? Not only did he not utter the word filibuster, the thought never crossed his mind. We already know his commitments can not be trusted from the last week or so of his actions.

    Read his statement from yesterday. He is not talking about putting and end to this bill. He will vote for the bill that is clear - much to the dismay of the Feingold's et al. All Obama said is that he will "work" to get immunity taken out of it. He won't. His words are a charade and you should know that by now.

    There is nothing we can do to hold his feet to the fire except one thing. And that is to tell him we will withhold our votes for him. Trying to hold him to his words of a year ago is pure fantasy and accomplishes nothing.

    Unfortunately, it's not technically (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CCinNC on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:36:28 AM EST
    "immunity."  This was evil genius on somebody's part.  The telcoms' actions can be challenged in district court where it will undoubtedly be thrown out:

    Judge:  Got a note from your mommy?
    Telcom:  Yes, sir.
    Judge:  Ok then, case dismissed.

    Therefore no one can protest that the telcoms are being immunized.

    John Dean said last night that the telcoms could be sued criminally, and that might be what Obama's waiting for.  I think that's a stretch.

    I think the telecoms are being given (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:15:40 AM EST
    immunity for their past actions, and the process you accurately describe would control future actions.

    It seems to me that the existence of retroactive immunity for actions taken in what is being referred to as "good faith," ordains that all future attempts to hold the telecoms accountable would fail - which is, I think, the whole point.

    And the precedent that is established will make it that much easier for any private company to do the bidding of any future president without fear of legal consequence.  Why anyone would think that a good idea is beyond my ability to comprehend.


    John Dean sounds like he's grasping at straws-- (none / 0) (#27)
    by jawbone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    otherwise, he has to give up hope for good change.

    John Dean said he thinks (none / 0) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:07:40 AM EST
    the telecoms can be sued criminally, as he had spent all day reading the bill.  I'd like to hear what Turley thinks on criminal liability.

    The latest line is that (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:43:02 AM EST
    this bill supposedly doesn't include immunity. The Democrats in Congress really think we're idiots. It's that simple.

    Yes, They Do (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by BDB on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:10:09 AM EST
    But then, they are idiots.  

    That was one of the best things about that RBC meeting.  I've always thought a large percentage of the Democratic Party leadership was corrupt, craven, venal and stupid.  Now I have video evidence to back it up.  


    That's Why They Do These Things, BTW (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by BDB on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:16:48 AM EST
    They've convinced themselves the reason they lose elections is because voters are stupid.   That voters will believe the 30 second ad that says they're soft on terrorism.  So they do this crap.

    The problem on this is twofold.  First, to the extent voters are uninformed,* these kind of votes aren't going to change that or keep the GOP from painting Obama and other Dems as terrorist lovers.  They don't need votes to do that.  I suppose if there's another attack before November, they think this will innoculate them from claims it could've been stopped.  But again, it won't prevent that.

    Second, I believe voters may be stupid, but they aren't dumb.  What they take from actions like this is that Democrats are weak.  They promise to do X and then cave on it every time.  So voters don't trust them.   Voters might disagree with the GOP, but at least they will fight for what they want.  People mistrust and dislike weakness.  The voters won't feel better about Democrats protecting them because of this, they'll feel worse.  Not because of the substance, but because Democrats can't be counted on to fight for what they believe in.

    * of course, this might not be the case but for our truly awful media.  Having chosen the guy who reinforces the media narrative of the last 20 years at every turn, however, Dems are hardly in a position to complain about it now.


    Scarborough Reemed Obama for thinking We're Dumb (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:33:08 AM EST
    Yesterday morning. Scarborough repeated, at length, throughout the show that Obama's justification for changing his stance on public financing of his campaign was not only disingenuous but insulting and offensive because his dissembling assumes the American public is stupid.  Scarborough and Buchanan could not understand why Obama didn't just say, in honesty, that with Obama's ability to raise large sums of money, it made far more sense to opt out of public campaign finance.
    Obama got a pass from the press during the primaries whenever he was dissembling, but I gather he's not going to get it during the election campaign. Last night Anderson Cooper asked whether Obama wasn't playing the race card in his speech claiming the Repugs would come after him with everything they have through 527s, including his race.  In Obama's defense, I didn't see his statement that way, but it is interesting that CNN would ask such a question. That question was the teaser for the story before an ad break, and then repeated after the ad.

    While watching C-Span 2 last night, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    I was struck by how little mention there was of telecomm immunity.  Emphasis:  look how many terrorists attacks were thwarted by warrentless wiretaps.

    They have cause, andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kmblue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    Look who we're about to nominate for Prez.

    If Obama were committed to a filibuster, (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:52:49 AM EST
    that would have been front and center in his statement yesterday; instead, most of it was devoted to explaining why it was a good bill - not unlike his defense of John Roberts and those who voted to confirm him.

    It's starting to look to me like Obama has a fairly pathological need to be liked by everyone, hence his pattern of watching and waiting to see which way the wind is blowing on issues where he must register and actually vote, and his habit of saying whatever people want to hear even if what he says is different from venue to venue; his reluctance to buck "the plan" as cooked up in Congress and offering only lip service to the American people should appall everyone.

    This is not leadership in any way, shape or form, so if this man is elected, prepare to see a whole lot of stalling, waffling, indecision while situations that would best be handled by quick and decisive action are allowed to fester.

    No, Obama has no intention of getting in the way of stopping this bill.  To be a little fair, a big chunk of the blame goes to the so-called leadership in the House and Senate, which never had to bring this issue to the floor, but for the fact that they deemed short-term electoral concerns more important than the long-term health of the democracy.  It's pretty pitiful, don't you think, that the only way Democrats believe they can show strength on issues of national security is to offer up Constitutional principles for sacrifice?  That means no one is really minding the store, which is more frightening to me than the possibility of another terrorist act.

    Maybe the worst part is that they aren't paying the least bit of attention to what must be an avalanche of negative response from constituents - is there a worse way to say they really don't care what we think or what we want?

    Yeah, there is - make sure a politician in that mold is the nominee for president.

    So, if Obama is a leader, why wasn't he dealing w/ (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jawbone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:34:52 AM EST
    Hoyer, et al????

    No, he didn't want to get involved in something messy which might affect his victory.

    He's keeping his powder dry. It's the new thing for elected Dems.


    "current form" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Zeno on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    I'm sure the excuse will be that the bill is no longer in the "current form" it had in 2007.

    Holding him to his October 2007 statement (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:03:15 AM EST
    What are the repercussions for him if he disappoints?

    ouch, that cuts deep (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:50:21 AM EST
    snark. Good point. It's too late. He's the nominee. Many of us who were for other candidates knew or had a good idea of this sort of thing, but would anyone listen to us. Nooooo. (Tribute to John Belushi there).

    So what happens if he doesn't. Are you going to not vote, vote for third parties, vote for McCain? This is a problem us non supporters have. We don't know what to do. If we all vote for Obama anyway (or dem congress members anyway) because he's the dem, then why on earth would we expect them to not be just like republicans.

    Of course many of us had a great idea: filter out these sort of people at primary time, It just didn't work so well this time.


    Apparently a large bump in the polls. (none / 0) (#41)
    by prittfumes on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    If you're talking about Newsweek (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    it's an outlier.

    Promises, promises! C'mon, voters, the promises (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jawbone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:23:17 AM EST
    system is "broken" and the brave politician breaks promises as often as possible. Whenever it is convenient and promotes his future power. Get it or get over it. Capiche?

    Thinking promises mean something is so, well, old Democratic Party.

    There's been Change! Get on board or get under the bus: It's a new party, the Obama Party. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

    I do not think Obama will filibuster; I do not think Obama will "work" his supporters to vote against this beastly bill. I do not think Obama will change this legislation in any meaningful way. Remember, he's not all that sure Net Neutrality is such a good idea.

    I think he sees advantages for a President Obama in having the powers in this bill fall to him.

    Someone somewhere said all that's left is for the Left/Libs/Progressives to take over the Republican Party--and make it the party of the people.

    This person felt the Democratic Party has been bought out and subsumed already. Leveraged buyout, hostile takeover? Heh, not sure which, but I'm not recognizing a lot of what's going on in this party, starting with the backroom deals on Roolz and the sudden move to Chicago. And maybe machinations earlier which are still in the fog.

    Any details on that moveto ChiTown, btw?

    Rep. Jay Inslee on FISA... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Aqua Blue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    "Don't we realize there are some lines we can never cross...never legitimize illegal violations of America's privacy rights...where is the excuse for turnig a nation of laws into a nation that will be led by a President who knows how to manipulate our fears.  The law is the ultimate guardian of our liberty.

    For those who accuse us of having a pre 9-11 metality, let me remind them that July 4 1776 was pre 9-11.    Heaven help us the day that those values are shucked aside."

    Too bad we don't have a Presidential candidate who stands up for civil liberties...instead of an imperial presidency.

    Inslee was awesome. Cut to the chase. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    perfect test to judge him (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    He's been a bit slippery with talk vs. voting record or action. This will be a perfect test for him to show his quality and character. If he does this, I will be impressed and may change my opinion. If not, then I was right all along.

    I'd also like to hear from Obama about Iran... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    The NYTImes today ran a story that clearly shows that there is the same nutty mentality at work that got us into the war in Iraq.

    Discussions are at hand between the West and Iran about it's nuclear program.

    The story reads, "Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said Tehran was ready to start negotiations "based on a win-win principle," official media said. Saeed Jalili was also quoted as saying such talks represented a "golden opportunity" to strengthen peace.

    But Iran "will not bow to any illogical demands that would deprive it of its rights to continue with its peaceful nuclear activities," he said.

    The United States says it is focusing on diplomatic pressure to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions but has not ruled out military action as a last resort."

    Iran is denying a nuclear weapons program.
    It is welcoming talks.
    The US is talking about military action as a "last resort". (Where have I heard that before?)

    Reportedly, Israel is cranking up some military exercises that suggest military action.

    My point is, I wish our candidate would speak out on these issues NOW. I assume him to be the peace candidate as opposed to the bellicose Mr. McC. But Obama has had bellicose statements to say about Iran also - indicating his acceptance of the possibility of "surgical" strikes.

    Is Obama less dangerous than Bush or McCain? I would like to know.

    lesson for BTD (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    Don't just go for the primary candidate who you think at the time is most likely to win. Sometimes who they are, how they'll really vote, what their character is might actually matter. Principles and such. Just because someone is in the blue gang, doesn't mean they're the right person for the job. It's just a gang. They're just pols. We all need to look deeper. See for example Pelosi, Reid, etc.

    I Think BTD Learned That Lesson (none / 0) (#53)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:15:32 AM EST
    long ago.  The fact that he's trying to remain loyal to the party he has worked for for years is not cause for a lecture.

    BTD gets it.


    good point, so now we need strategies (none / 0) (#57)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    for how to fix this. From the inside would be best, but I'm not sure how to do it. At primaries of course is the best time. But like this time around, sometimes that doesn't work. And I'm well aware that any pol will often disappoint. But we need to improve our stock. Hmm, when did I turn into a farmer. Heh.

    My Heart Goes Out To You, (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    BTD and Jeralyn.  You try so hard to be loyal Democrats and Obama keeps pulling crap like this.  Does your patience know no bounds?

    It's easier for those of us who have abandoned party loyalty after the party abandoned us.  For people who still believe in the Democratic party, watching Obama abandon every principle it was based on must be awful.

    "In it's current form" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:04:55 AM EST
    Obama made it quite clear yesterday that he felt that the bill was dramatically improved over previous versions, except for that one trivial detail about immunity.

    A different kind of politician (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Prabhata on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    nah, just the same variety.  Obama has always been a common politician, but he sold himself as a Gandhi.  We know Gandhi didn't use words, but actions.  That's how we know people.  You look into their actions, and their friends (friends validate us).

    We are what we repeatedly do. Aristotle

    Look into the lives of all politicians, the great and the mediocre.  An individual without character does not become great because the people elect him/her.

    I don't expect Obama to stick to his word because he is not a man of his word.  If you don't know that by now, you've not paid attention.

    I disagree with McCain on maybe 85 percent of his policies, but his character is clear. It's too bad that a good politician, Hillary, may not be the nominee.

    BTD...you are right... (none / 0) (#1)
    by georgeg1011 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:52:12 AM EST
    I will be calling my Senator's offices next week in addition to Leahy's, Feingold's, and Dodd's office as well as Obama...Corporate accountability is something that should not be discarded...and this is not a republican or democratic issue...Hopefully others will follow the same and CALL their senators and kill the immunity part of the bill...or kill this bill outright...AND OBAMA should lead on this.

    Feingold's leading. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:58:50 AM EST
    As to Obama, I'll settle for his following.

    He might just do that (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:06:09 AM EST
    after all he has Chris Dodd in his corner. Will he let Senator Dodd do the heavy lifting and remain "above the fray?"
    Oh goodness, not more dry powder. You can lead from a inside a can of powder.

    Has Dodd said anything about fighting this bill? (none / 0) (#30)
    by jawbone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:30:34 AM EST
    I've been kinda busy with the yard, etc., so am a bit behind.

    But, I haven't seen anything about Dodd saying anything.


    Chis Dodd (none / 0) (#37)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    led the charge against FISA last time and Obama let him take the lead then. Why lead when you have Senator Dodd?
    Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation...

    Isn't Dodd being hung out to dry (none / 0) (#47)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:05:42 AM EST
    by his own party, which is investigating him for his "sweetheart" deal on residential mortgage from Coutrywide, which waived points for him.

    hung out to dry? nothing new here. (none / 0) (#67)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    we are all being hung out to dry. so be loyal to what pray tell? donate to what? an idea of what we want? be there, done that!

    you shouldn't settle for his following. (none / 0) (#66)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    holy cow, this guy wants to be leader of the free world. i am sick of settling then looking in my trick or treat bag and finding a big nothing there. settling gives them the green light for more of nothing. they understand no votes and cutting of donations.

    Why? (none / 0) (#7)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:21:03 AM EST
    Hopefully the backlash of this bill has been felt. Even pro "Obama" site have come down hard on him. I still don't understand why they felt the need to back away to begin with. One of his main campaign issues was transparent government.

    I've yet to read a poll that doesn't show strong support against this bill. I think the public dislike for the telecom's is only surpassed by big oil.

    You don't get it.... (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:31:25 AM EST
    Obama's nomination depended upon his not being a strong leader --- on his willingness to let the craven Democratic leadership do whatever they felt like doing in terms of policies and issues.

    Seriously, why do you think that Pelosi undercut Clinton at every opportunity?  She knew that Clinton would BE a leader -- that Clinton would have a full legislative agends, and that the deals would be cut in the White House, not in the Speakers Office.  Pelosi (and Reid's) job would be reduced to 'cat-herding' -- keeping enough Democrats in line to make sure that Clinton's legislative agenda was achieved with as little change in the bills as possible.


    Wow, Paul (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by stxabuela on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    Your statement was a real epiphany for me.  Pelosi and Reid want to hold on to their power.  Lots of SDs are members of Congress.  It all makes sense now.  They wanted the weakest candidate to win.  

    nicely said (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:42:44 AM EST
    this has been said on this site before and Obama followers never seemed to get it. Maybe it will start to sink in with more examples of not being a leader.

    So... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    ...you're saying we could have two puppet in chiefs in a row?

    Oh, goody.


    LIke Obama cares about what bloggers write? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jawbone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:27:36 AM EST
    Once he'd used blogs for his purposes, he then told the MCM he doesn't read blogs. Crikey. That's cold: write diaries for a blog and not read anything on the blog?

    This bill is about $ (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:12:42 AM EST
    Not campaign contributions, but the domestic spending attached to the Iraq supplemental. Bush had said he's veto the supplemental w GI Bill and the unemployment extension attached, but, behind closed doors, agreed to the $92 billion if her could get his trillion dollar bailout for the telcos in the p;ackage. Hence the "urgency.'

    I respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    If the Dems in Congress were truly motivated by the $ in the bill for things they wanted, then why didn't they pass that bill and shame republicans into coming out against $ for veterans and unemployed just before election? I think the Dem votes in favor of the bill were about money many of them receive from telcos, view by many up for re-election this Fall that if they did not vote for the bill, they would be attacked as weak on national security (John Dean's point), and, as Turley points out, to protect certain Dems who might feel exposed for going along with certain arguably illegal Bush policies.

    For many, yes, but (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    that wasn't enough to pass immunity last winter. The needed additional votes, and especially leadership co-operation, came from the packaged budget deal.

    Perhaps immunity did not pass last year (none / 0) (#75)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:10:50 AM EST
    because re-election contests were not approaching.

    And Bushco hadn't offered a bribe. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    The comments at Atrios' WOTD award to Obama (none / 0) (#32)
    by jawbone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:33:01 AM EST
    have been interesting. It's as if all the readers and lurkers who have been staying quiet in the face of Obama fever have decided to say what's on their minds. There's plenty of defense of Obama, but not much that very strong from what I've read so far.

    that gives me hope (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    that they're not all robots. Good for them.

    Comments at Atrios (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:11:43 AM EST
    But they're absolutely certain over there that "Hillary would have done the same thing."

    Geezus, no wonder they fell for Obama.  They know absolutely nothing of substance about Clinton.  And they don't care to, thank you very much.  Reality might get in the way of their faith.


    What's more (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:16:48 AM EST
    What has Hillary got to do with Obama's flip flopping on telecom immunity?  If Hillary had issued the same statement Obama did yesterday, she would be called out for being a typical pol, for typical Clinton "triangulation", etc.

    Obama should be judged on his own terms.


    of couse faith is all they have (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:31:23 AM EST
    since there is little or no voting record. Which is why some of us said, no to inexperience, because you don't know what you're getting. No matter how good the package looks, let it cook a little longer. Say 4 or 8 more years. What would have been the harm. Now we're cooked. I don't supposed the delegates would wake up and, nah, what am I thinking...

    Killer Opening (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:31:59 AM EST
    paragraph from Glenn Greenwald today:

    In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

    That pretty much outlines Obamamania from it's inception doesn't it?

    * bolding added


    Thank God for Glenn. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:55:57 AM EST
    He calls them as he sees them and calls them correctly.

    I have actually read more than a few comments at Huffpo that prove Greenwald's statement correct. Some are practically falling over themselves to defend Barack on his indefensible capitulation.

    "It's for our good. I trust him. He's the least corrupt of any politician. When he's President, he'll reverse this."

    That's the kind of crazy they're serving and I have had enough.


    on other blogs last night they were all (none / 0) (#68)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:09:23 PM EST
    commenting on the lack of obama partisan bloggers. interesting!

    Of course (none / 0) (#70)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:20:37 PM EST
    They're too bitter to go online.

    maybe! although i see the truly committed (none / 0) (#73)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:55:14 PM EST
    not letting such a "little thing" in their eyes get in the way of their goals.

    another politician (none / 0) (#74)
    by glennmcgahee on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 08:29:08 AM EST
    Here in Florida at the US Conference of Mayors, Obama knocked McCain for voting against the pork laden infrastructure bill for the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild levys, etc in flood prone areas. Russ Feingold and Clair McCaskill also voted against the bill. Were they wrong too? Or was obama just using the tragedy of the flooding in the midwest to score points with soundbites? McCaskill is Chairman of Obama's campaign. Somebody needs to ask her what she thinks about Obama's statements, but don't hold your breath. We've got to be all Unity right now you know. Put all these flip-flops together and we'll have the repeat of 2004 Republican Convention - "flip-flop, flip-flop".