home

What Obama Said About Telco Immunity

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:34:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

On February 26, 2008, Senator Barack Obama said:

The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law.

(Emphasis supplied.) That was then. What about now Senator Obama? Please also note that in October 2007, Obama's spokesman said:

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

< Pelosi: Sexism No Big Deal | Politicizing the Department of Justice >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Obama Said About Telco Immunity | 196 comments (196 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well, Glenn Greenwald (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    says:

    I was just on a conference call with Obama foreign policy advisor Dennis McDonough. The Huffington Post's Scott Bellows asked about Obama's abandonment of his rhetoric vowing to defend the Constitution in order to support this bill, and McDonough adopted the Hoyer line, claiming that this bill has all sorts of great oversight protections including the requirement that the Inspector General submit a report on Bush's spying program (audio is here).
    It is, to me, the same (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    as voting "present"

    [ Parent ]
    actually (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by Turkana on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    it's worse. that's abdication of leadership. this is complicity.

    [ Parent ]
    he's the choice of pelosi (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by sancho on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    and reid and dean. this is the leadership they, the dem elders, expect of him. why would anybody think he'd do any differently? the dem primary and its dreams of a "new politics" is over.

    [ Parent ]
    Hardly (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:48:16 PM EST
    Voting present is a no vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly, no vote..he keeps (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    changing his mind, cannot decide, doesn't know what to do, so in essence, when he says one thing, then does another, it is playing safe and voting present, which is uncommitted!

    [ Parent ]
    when I vote present (5.00 / 7) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    in November I hope that's how it will be perceived.

    [ Parent ]
    You Are Either Willfully Ignorant (1.00 / 1) (#139)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    Or just trying to be annoying. Or maybe it is just that you bought Hillary's self serving misrepresentation when she was in the ring with Obama for the nomination. Hey I do not fault her for BSing during the fight, not a biggie. It is up to voters to do their own homework, rather than vote on blind faith.

    In Illinois, the "present" vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.

    State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the "present" vote "a no vote with an explanation." Legally, there's not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected.

    That's not how U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) characterized it in a debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., this week.

    "In the Illinois state Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times `present.' That's not `yes,' that's not `no.' That's `maybe,'" she said.
     

    link


    [ Parent ]

    On the Present Issue (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    it was Obama who was being self-serving.  He took what is clearly designed to be a political out and then tried to paint it as something noble.  It's not that I didn't hear his explanation the first time, it's that I didn't - and don't - believe it.  I'd look up the You Tube where he fails to explain one of his votes on a morning show, but I've already done that numerous times and it never seems to stop these arguments.

    [ Parent ]
    Of Course Obama (none / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    Is self serving, I am certainly not arguing that, he is a politician. But it is clear that you are misinformed about the system in Illinois and how it used.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary says its maybe (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:37:56 PM EST
    you say its a "no" vote.

    All I'm asking you to do is apply the same consideration to my "present" vote in november.  And regard it as a "no" vote.

    With or without calling me ignorant.

    [ Parent ]

    I Am Not Opining Here (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:59:51 PM EST
    I am relating a fact. Check it out for yourself. In Illinois a present vote is tantamount to a nay vote. It is a common procedure among Illinois lawmakers. If there are 59 lawmaker in all voting on a bill and 30 vote present the bill does not pass.

    Obama used this option 139 times in 4000 votes. Feel free to spin that this means that Obama cannot make up his mind. To me it says more about you than Obama.

    Hillary gets a pass, imo because she was obligated to spin it, just as Obama misrepresented things about her.

    [ Parent ]

    you win that argument (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:09:27 PM EST
    by default.

    My point stands about my "present" vote come November.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, if "present" is functionally a (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by sallywally on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:53:00 PM EST
    "no" vote, why not just have the balls to vote "no"?

    Why did he make that choice all those times?

    [ Parent ]

    Read Up On Illinois Legislative Rules (2.00 / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM EST
    And practices. You will find out the answer to your question. Planned parenthood head Steve Trombley can get you started on the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    How convenient an excuse for (none / 0) (#237)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:37:05 AM EST
    voting for something. You are not for it, not against, just don't like parts of it. That's how Obama explained those 130+ present votes in the IL Senate. I am wonderfully impressed, Squeaky, of how you can pull material to support views right out of your hat, however, just because it says so, doesn't always make it so. A present vote, no matter how you slice it, is non-committel. It's an out...

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever You Say (none / 0) (#239)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    I am sure that you are an expert on the voting practices of other state legislatures as well, based on nothing but what Hillary et al, tell you, in order to win your vote. You sound like an easy mark to me, although I guess your benefit is that it keeps things clean and simple by saving you having to think too much.

    And I am assuming that you are just repeating outdated Hillary talking points as you have not offered any indication that you know anything about how the Illinois legislature works.

    Odd that now Hillary has endorsed and is campaigning for an anti abortion candidate, don't you think?  Maybe she is anti abortion too, and it is all a vast right wing plot. Check under your bed.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not good! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    Obama, the Master of Change, is a Blue Dog?

    Ugh!  

    [ Parent ]

    So he'll abstain. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:07:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This was sent to my email account two hours ago: (none / 0) (#184)
    by abfabdem on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:31:05 PM EST
    from Charles Chamberlain at Democracy for America--
    Over the last 8 months, you and I have stopped Congress from granting retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies who illegally spied on Americans for the Bush administration -- at least three times.

    On Friday, Democratic Leadership in the House of Representatives decided to stand with President Bush instead of with America. They voted for a so-called "compromise" to let AT&T, Verizon and the entire Bush administration off the hook for lying to America and illegally tapping our phone calls.

    If this bill passes the Senate, then Americans will never be able to hold President Bush accountable for warrantless wiretapping.

    We need to take action to stop this horrible bill. Last time immunity came up for a Senate vote, Senators Dodd, Feingold and Obama each said they would filibuster to stop it from passing. They will need 60 votes to keep a filibuster going and stop the Senate from caving to pressure to support this fake "compromise".

    Call your Senators right now and demand they support a filibuster of any Senate bill that will ultimately grant retroactive immunity to telecoms who spied on innocent Americans.

    Dick Durbin
    (202) 224-2152

    Barack Obama
    (202) 224-2854

    Suggested Text:
    "I calling to demand Senator (Durbin or Obama) support a filibuster of any bill that will ultimately grant immunity to telecommunications companies who spied on innocent Americans. Can I count on the Senator to stand up to President Bush and his fear mongering?"

    CLICK HERE TO REPORT YOUR CALL

    Let's call a spade a spade. This bill is a complete capitulation to Bush and the telecom lobby. We need all the support we can get in this fight to uphold the constitution.

    The vote is scheduled to happen this week. We need to act today. Please make your call right now.

    Thank you for everything you do,

    [ Parent ]

    They do NOT need 60 votes to filibuster (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:58:19 PM EST
    They can, and should, do this on principle and Obama should be leading.

    The 60 votes metric is an arbitrary and false standard the Dems all too often use to excuse their cowardice, laziness and complicity.

    Repugs have no compunction about using the filibuster (or mere threat to use one) to ram pet agendas past the toothless, declawed Dem (non)opposition.

    This is yet another defining constitutional issue on which the Dems can pivot and move forward towards rebuilding deservedly lost trust and respect or continue hanging back in a trembling timorous mass "led" by fellow fauxgressive invertebrate, Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, you said it yourself BTD, a pol is a pol (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    and Obama has over-proven himself here. It doesn't seem to matter what he said before, what he says now and what he will say. If it benefits him and apparently on him, he's for it (or against it). He is very power hungry...what's gonna happen if he gets the power, how long will it take to be bored, what's next, all imo?

    Yes, but then Dodd endorsed him (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:43:07 PM EST
    Obama got what he wanted, and now has changed his position. Anyone surprised?

    Used, then abused. Join the line.

    How (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    will we hold his feet to the fire!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Anyone surprised? These people... (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by zyx on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL

    I wonder how many of 'em there are...

    [ Parent ]

    OMG (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:25:58 PM EST
    But notice how he skipped the last "Lightworker" in American politics, Ronald Reagan. Reagan and the intuitive reaction to him fits this bimbo's description to a tee. I personally know liberal people that voted for, and loved, Reagan. But pesky little facts shouldn't get in the way of deification.

    For the record, I never got Reagan either.

    [ Parent ]

    ROFLMAO (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 07:20:28 PM EST
    Obama has
    a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity

    and is

    that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment.

    Ok, no one can say we can't make fun of Obama supporters for drinking the Kool-Aid now.  C'mon, a unique high-vibration integrity?  Bwahaha.

    Alright, alright, I know some people are flipping out about that last paragraph already.  But some Obama supporters are both frightening (in a moving-to-Guyana sort of way) and a few ice cubes short.

    [ Parent ]

    It seems to me that BTD wants ... (1.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    ... to hold Barack Obama's feet to the fire on this issue.

    You, however, go much further, wanting to smear Obama's character.

    And you do it before he votes on the FISA compromise and with no real knowledge of what he has planned for the issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Please realize that Obama is (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    human, flesh and blood, no more, no less, just like you. We can read, interpret, understand, opine and suggest what he has said, what he now says, what he will say. I always tell my children, it is important to study the past to live throught today, and have knowledge about tomorrow. He always changes positions!!!

    [ Parent ]
    now that's what I was trying to get at (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    in the other thread.

    The difference between holding someone's feet to the fire and attacking someone's character.

    [ Parent ]

    You can also laugh at the guy too. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    Yes it's okay to laugh at Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I would think that ... (1.66 / 3) (#29)
    by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:09:55 PM EST
    ... calling someone a backstabber or a person who accepts shady telecom campaign contributions goes a little farther than "laughing" at that person.

    Rationalize it if you must, Salo, but please don't insult our intelligence.  

    BTD is doing what he thinks is important as a Progressive Democrat. He is NOT smearing the presumptive nominee's character.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    Obama got what he wanted, and now has changed his position. Anyone surprised?
    Used, then abused. Join the line.

    backstab?  where's that coming from? word's in mouths?

    Frankly I don't care a great deal about being spied on.  I assume I am being recorded by either the NSA or GCHQ whenever I make a call and the two cross tab it all. What i do wonder about is the lengths to which the left delude itself about a sharp pragmatic fellow like Obama when all the warning signs were there months ago that he's no idealist.

    Smear?  Hell, Obama'd be avoiding the smearing by voting for more spying. He'd be accused of undermining national security and working for the enemy if he did vote against the bill.

    [ Parent ]

    insulting our intelligence? please speak (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    for yourself. i find the giving in to the telecoms while they are sponoring the convention way too much. i find that insulting. i find the fact that obama never even held an important committee meeting on his plum assignment insulting. i find the way he treated hillary insulting. i find his lack of a real substantial health care bill insulting. i find race baiting insulting. i could go on with what i find insulting and i am not insulting anyone's intelligence. thanks ever so much!

    [ Parent ]
    But, he is questioning his character (none / 0) (#96)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    We all want to hold his feet to the fire - (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    there are very few of us who believe it is enough for the candidate to be a registered Democrat; standing by while the candidate, or the office-holder - does whatever he or she wants is not acceptable for most of us.

    Obama has a record.  He is on the record with a number of positions on a number of issues.  If he says he will support a filibuster, or that he is opposed to this or that, should we expect him to hold to his word, or take actions consistent with them?  And if he does not, isn't it at all fair to draw some conclusions about his character?

    You seem to want to separate Obama the man from Obama the politician, but I think at some point the two converge - and I think it's where words meet actions; if someone is not a person of his or her word, they lose my respect and my trust.  

    You really, really need to stop making excuses for him if you want more from him than you're getting.

    [ Parent ]

    And you do? (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    Further, since when has the offering of a personal observation about the nominee's very discernable pattern of political behavior become tantamount to "smearing Obama's character"?

    "Trust everybody, but cut the cards."
    - Finley Peter Dunne, Chicago humorist and author (1867-1936), Mr. Dooley in Peace and War (1898)

    [ Parent ]

    How powerful (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:51:01 PM EST
    contributionwise are the Telco's?  10s of millions or 100s of millions?

    This is campaign finance time bomb for Democrats.

    they are sponsoring the dem convention. (none / 0) (#80)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:44:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You've made this statement... (none / 0) (#106)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:00:16 PM EST
    ...at least 3 times here without providing much detail.  Who, exactly, is "they'?  A single telecom, a group of them, a telcom PAC?

    [ Parent ]
    go check obama wire. they have the list. (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:01:21 PM EST
    go to the dnc and ask them. geez!

    [ Parent ]
    list of dem sponsors for democratic convention (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    att, dewey digital, level3, mircosoft, qwest, vertical response. all are connected with telecoms or computers/telecoms. let's not forget general motors and all their holdings either.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you. (none / 0) (#116)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Qwest will be a big player (none / 0) (#208)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 06:49:24 PM EST
    at both conventions, providing services etc. They are headquartered in Denver, and have a big presence in the upper midwest and MN.

    They were as you all may recall, the only telecom to resist the government's "request" for data, without a warrant.

    [ Parent ]

    Really, what's with the Clueless Pestilence anyway (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:46:35 PM EST
    I demand that you re-re-re-re post the link that was posted here a dozen times and discussed repeatedly in many threads that I didden read and didden click.

    Um, no.

    Oh come on. You better. Oh you're mean.

    [Annnnnnnd scene!]

    [ Parent ]

    smile. i want popcorn when the (none / 0) (#233)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:35:53 PM EST
    movie comes out.

    [ Parent ]
    If you can't answer a simple question... (none / 0) (#115)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    ...just say so.  I'm sure as heck not going to that crackpot website for any "information".

    [ Parent ]
    go where you will. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    not speaking for you here but i find that asking and asking folks to give this and that a way of diverting the conversation. which is not to say that a request for a source or information about an important situation such as this is not relevant.

    [ Parent ]
    As a hard working white... (4.00 / 2) (#125)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    ...it is not always practical for me to surf the net while I work.  I was generally curious as to whether Qwest was included.  

    They are the one provider that I don't mind having a sponorship as they were one of the only ones to say "wait a minute, this isn't right" and they are generally a positive civic-minded member of the Denver business community--regardless of what Nacchio did or didn't do.  

    [ Parent ]

    When You Are Free To Surf (none / 0) (#148)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    if you want to see a list, the Rocky Mountain News has an annotated one from May 12, 2008.

    Obviously, it may have expanded or changed since then, but it is a pretty impressive list of all kinds of corporate interests with reasons to cozy up to politicians.

    [ Parent ]

    That doesn't surprise me... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:49:25 PM EST
    ...one little bit anymore.  It is always interesting to see who contributes to a candidates campaign.  The big corporate interests tend to cover both sides of the fence pretty well.  Hence, it is not surprising that the Telecoms will most likely get immunity.

    It is maddening that the "little people" can't have the same kind of influence.

    [ Parent ]

    agree 100% with that sentiment! (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:45:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes,,,and the GOP convention as well (none / 0) (#199)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Even if he can't stop the FISA bill (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    He could oppose it and vote against it.

    Looking "strong on defense" is a bogus excuse, and there is no Democratic constituency in favor of the bill.

    I smell lobbyist money.

    and your evidence for this ... (1.50 / 4) (#16)
    by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:57:31 PM EST
    ... evidence-less accusation is?

    [ Parent ]
    My evidence is a flip-flop (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    and no rational explanation for it.

    [ Parent ]
    The most obvious explanation... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:11:19 PM EST
    ... for anything Obama does in the next five months is that he thinks it will help get him elected. I would expect him to virtually never make decisions on any other grounds. And I think that's always been true of pretty much any candidate who makes it to this stage of the race.

    It's possible his judgement about what gives him the best chance of winning is wrong. But that's far more likely than that he would intentionally hurt his own chances because of money.

    [ Parent ]

    He has not flip flopped (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    yet.

    [ Parent ]
    did you hear (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    about the conference call?  he can't go into an election and be seen to be undermining spying operations and expect to survive the patriot games the GOP will play.

    [ Parent ]
    How does he expect to survive (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    his term in office then?

    [ Parent ]
    A potential change of position (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    against a multi billion dollar industry?  One so wealthy that they can contribute 10s of millions of dollars to 527s or bundle 1os of millions against a disfavoured candidate?

    [ Parent ]
    isnt it possible (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    there are enough dems (the usual dems of course) who will not support a filibuster and will vote for the bill?

    I'll be consistent.  Lobbyist money is a lame thing to consider and I'll say that even when it would please me immensely to see dems I do not like attacked just so.

    [ Parent ]

    If we're not sure (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    Of where Obama really stands on this and what action he's going to take. Shame on us We have been through 6 months of dabates and primaries. His latest press release wasn't very encouraging. In addition, the Democratic Illinois members of the House voted yes. I don't think they would be going against his wishes.

    I just can't understand how so many of his progressive supporters can dismiss this so easily. When someone is wrong, they're wrong.

    it's called cognitive dissonance (5.00 / 6) (#134)
    by dws3665 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    They have spent so much time building him up into a progressive hero to slay the Evil Hil-monster that, when confronted with his feet of clay, they have two options:

    1. Admit they were wrong about Obama and suffer the recriminations over demonizing their opposition and the loss of self-assuredness that logically must follow;

    or

    2. Claim that feet of clay are not that negative a feature in a politician, and that this issue isn't that big a deal.

    Neither options maintains their credibility.

    And science tells us they will choose the one less emotionally costly to themselves (#2).

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:24:01 PM EST
    I can see you're going to require more than one fainting couch before we're through.

    Tell me, do you find it equally outrageous when progressive websites call Joe Biden the Senator from MBNA, for example?

    If you seek to enforce a standard where we all pretend to be naive and not understand how bad laws get made, you probably won't find any takers.

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    Well, I never cared for it that muhc myself but I am not going to waste much energy defending Joe Biden. I am not a bog fan of his. He;s all right but what the hell, I think all pols should get guff myself, including Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    ... that the Military Commissions Act passed with well over 60 votes in the Senate. I suspect this will go the same way.

    Will Feingold try to filibuster? I'm not sure. It's possible that he won't, to spare the Democrats the embarrassment of voting to break it.

    Then again, the whole idea that Democrats have to filibuster in a Democratic Senate is embarrassing enough already.

    Feingold has said he will filibuster (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    So has Ron Wyden.

    So has Dodd.

    [ Parent ]

    But will Obama (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    make the time committment?

    His statement suggests he isn't that serious about his opposition.  And I'm sure he can convince many with "I have some campaigning to do."

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I'm sure (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    he'll filibuster once he is sure that the filibuster won't hold up.

    And then what?  The A-list bloggers will fall in love with him all over again until he fails to bring about any real change on some other issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#181)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    A filibuster does not really have a time commitment.  It's not like in the movies.  Basically, there's just a cloture vote and nothing more.  It's a given that if the Democratic nominee were to tell Harry Reid, "I'd really like to be there for the cloture vote," they will rearrange the schedule to make it possible.

    [ Parent ]
    and reid? where is he? (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:42:36 PM EST
    look under the desk maybe!

    [ Parent ]
    Ron Wyden (none / 0) (#192)
    by zyx on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:59:05 PM EST
    ...he is pretty okay. I like the guy.

    [ Parent ]
    good luck with the feet and fire thing. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    Personally, I tend to feel that Obama is playing a power game that is beyond our own personal squabbles about the issue at hand.  He can go either way as far as i am concerned. he doesn't need the antipathy of AT&T and other telco firms if he hopes to win in November.  he's going to get clobbered by the media after the conventionand he really doesn't require more enemies than he already has.

    i agree that obama (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by sancho on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:31:05 PM EST
    need not offend the corporations if he wants to get elected. but isnt the logic here ultimately that the elections themselves are just parades to conceal or ratify corporate power? why whould we think any prez of any party could stay in office if s/he does not keep the promises made to corporations?

    there's a reason that the biggest political party in this country is that of the non-voters.  

    [ Parent ]

    Does he have courage and honesty or not????? (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by sallywally on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:35:05 PM EST
    This drivel about his not letting anyone know where he stands on anything in order to get elected is complete absurdity, and the Obama supporters who parrot it have taken leave of every reason he gave beforehand for why he should be elected.

    This is straight politics, nothing new and nothing hopeful about it. If he really believes he has to tilt right and/or take no stands to win, he should have stayed in the Senate and exercised courage and leadership there.

    And by the way, though he has said he stands against this bill, in fact he has tilted to the right wing on this and every other thing that has come up, including the FISA bill, since Clinton suspended her campaign.

    He has capitulated to the right already. Actions speak louder than words. How much farther will he go?

    With the vast majority of Americans hating the provisions in this bill, there was no real courage required if he had spoken out honestly on it; but he chose not to. Yes, lobbyist money does seem to make sense.

    He continues to prove he is not trustworthy. The buyers' remorse about his nomination is becoming palpable among his (now former) supporters since he has taken this craven stand on FISA.

    He isn't getting more support from these right-wing stances, he's losing it. Had he shown leadership and courage, he would be gaining much more support, especially among Clinton voters and independents.

    He is either the courageous, honest, progressive leader he said he would be (apparently not) or he is and has been a fraud. Fallible humans can also be courageous - but Obama is not.

    Very disappointing. Half the Dems were not for him in the primaries. Now many of the half who were with him are bailing out. No comparison to someone like Bobby Kennedy, who was straightforward and honest in his campaign. Everyone knew where he stood. Ambition did not stand it the way of his convictions, and he would have been elected anyway. Obama is taking the exact opposite course.

    Not a good sign for either the general election or  if he wins the presidency and continues his rightward motion.

    you didn't answer my question - (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    why should we have to beg and plead with a Constitutional lawyer to uphold the Constitution and our rights??
    Most likely the answer is because Hillary is eeeevil.
    go check closely to see who is (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    sponoring the democratic convention. that's right, the telecoms. and we wonder why the dems caved? we assume many things but maybe we need to do some real research on where the money comes from and where it goes. then correlate it to votes.

    Oh SNORT (4.00 / 1) (#193)
    by zyx on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:03:05 PM EST
    Gimme a effing break. Obama is such a holy messiah that he turns down lobbiest money, and he's going to vote for telecom retroactive immunity because they are putting up money for the convention?

    That seems very sordid for petty calf-excrement.

    [ Parent ]

    ok i read your comment and (none / 0) (#235)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:21:17 PM EST
    am wondering. maybe it is a reading comprehension problem or something. obama is taking lobbiest money through bundlers, etc. no surprise there! and the dems are caving on telecom immunity. i point out that many of them (telecom/connected companies) are backing the convention. i also recommend tracking the money and then looking at votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course it's before he's voted. . . (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    kind of late to influence the vote (by ginning up blogosphere outrage) afterwards, isn't it?

    Dude (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:57:08 PM EST
    Why do you think there's even a frigging bill giving these corporations immunity for illegal cooperation with the CIA NSA and FBI?

    the bill is itsel;f a conspiracy of pols and telcos to avoid prosecution.  Nebulous?  OMFG.

    Here is your "jump" for all the ... (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:15:47 PM EST
    ... world to see, Salo:

    A potential change of position against a multi billion dollar industry? One so wealthy that they can contribute 10s of millions of dollars to 527s or bundle 1os of millions against a disfavoured candidate?

    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST

    Note: this comment was in support of another commentator's implication that Obama had taken telecom campaign contributions. Moreover, the other commentator had indicated there was no "rational" reason for what he/she thought Obama might do vis-a-vis FISA. Now, here's the Jump!:

    Hell, Obama'd be avoiding the smearing by voting for more spying. He'd be accused of undermining national security and working for the enemy if he did vote against the bill.

    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM EST

    Note: Now, it isn't a big Obama/Telecom conspiracy, it's something Obama has to do! Note the timing of the comments, too. Here's more jumping:

    he can't go into an election and be seen to be undermining spying operations and expect to survive the patriot games the GOP will play.

    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:18:44 PM EST

    [ Parent ]

    Do you know where he stands? (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:09:36 PM EST
    No you don't.  

    [ Parent ]
    obama is a public figure. he has made (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    enough comments regarding these issues to see where he is going. bloggers will interpret what he said and does and make some assumptions based on these very things. they have always done this. so i don't see making a special exception for obama. that is so pc it makes my eyes cross thinking about it.

    Tortmaster....what is really too much is your (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    fake outrage and you spending all your time on here shilling for obama, which I believe is a violation of the rules Jeralyn posted again yesterday.  If you can't take anything negative being said about your boy, then maybe this isn't the place for you.  We are holding obama accountable; are you?

    that the government reads my emails hears (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by thereyougo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    my phone conversations is the point.  I don't want to hear people start defending it, because they're not terraists.

    Either the USA is a country  run by the rule of law or it isn't. Simple.

    this law and the way the bush admin. has been trashing the country's laws, violating their oath of office is going to encourage future presidents to do the same. I don't look forward to it at all.

    the corruption will then be complete. Whose going to stand up to that president? A caved in Democrat party?

    it's not run by the spirit of the (none / 0) (#168)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:10:47 PM EST
    law---or by the technical interpretations of the law. it's more of a Fiat.

    [ Parent ]
    As I've said. . . (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    there's a fair amount of ODS around here (perhaps a mutated strain of CDS -- these things have the tendency to do that once they escape from the lab).

    This has been a season notable for various folks in the blogosphere launching nasty attacks on the candidates -- 90% of which have been from Obama supporters against Clinton.  That doesn't justify the same happening back to Obama from Clinton supporters, but it goes some way towards explaining it.

    You claim to be disturbed by people casting unsupported aspersions on Obama's motives and integrity -- and that does happen.  But since your response so often (at least in the comments to this thread) does exactly the same thing against the people you seek to criticize you can't expect to escape censure for doing exactly what you accuse the other folks of doing.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    Not addressed to me I hope.

    [ Parent ]
    That was for someone else. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:12:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not at all. (none / 0) (#185)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    The original comment, as well as the commenter, her other comments, and her ratings, seems to have left the building.

    To you I say only "Bloomberg, Bloomberg, Bloomberg".  Heh.

    [ Parent ]

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    watching obama get treated the same way Clinton has been treated is no less enjoyable in spite of how predictable this all is.

    One of the reasons why I have some respect for Clinton is because I have NEVER seen her do what feingold did yesterday.  She may disagree but she has not ever, as far as I can remember, recontextualized another politician's position as capitulation.

    But Joe Biden isn't the nominee. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    Barack Obama is.

    Further, if Obama continues to make a good case to a still-sizable number of skeptical Democrats that there's just cause for their buyer's remorse, that will pretty much be as far as he's going to go.

    Deal with it. Or rather, the candidate himself needs to deal with it.

    As humorist Will Rogers once aptly observed, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

    The continual questioning (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:37:25 PM EST
    Of what will Hilary do or the suggestions that she will cave too is pointless. She's not the leader. The only point that I am sure of is that if she were the leader and had back pedaled on these key issues, neither the progressive blogs or the media would cut her any slack. That was the one primary reason I supported her. I was convinced she would have been held accountable. (something that has been sorely lacking for 7 years).

    Hillary needs to do what's right (none / 0) (#187)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    regardless of whether she's the Dem leader.

    She should filibuster.


    [ Parent ]

    Stay on topic (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    and stop the gratuitous slams against Obama. And the rating of comments based on the point of view expressed.

    I don't know where BTD is and I am not going to spend the time reading each comment here. Those I see that violate the rules will be deleted and the commenter suspended or banned.

    Just curious. (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Radix on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 06:10:47 PM EST
    How is anyone who says Obama's got my vote, despite his actions, holding his "feet to the fire"? Those sorts of statements are just silly on their face. Also, can we drop this utter non-sense about this election being to important? After all, can anyone point to a single elections in our history when that statement wouldn't have been true?

    A challenge (2.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    May I suggest that anyone wanting to post an anti-Obama comment on this topic take a temporary hiatus from the seething anger over Hillary's loss in the primary, and instead, add to the suggestions on what can be done quickly to get our senators to stop this bill.
    From my last "take action" post here:
    Obama's senate office 866-675-2008
    Hillary's and other senate offices 800-828-0498, 800-614-2803 or 877-851-6437  
    Submit this action form to your members of congress & your local paper.
    http://www.usalone.com/no_following_orders.php

    Here's another link to use from the True Majority site.
    http://www.truemajority.org/StopFISA

    I also think it would help to post to Christian sites and mailing lists to get them to call/email, especially since Obama is currently reaching out to evangelicals.

    The God of the Panopticon? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:52:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    WITH HILLARY. This has to do with the change of positions of the dem. preemptive nominee and only him.

    [ Parent ]
    Have You Lost Your Mind? q (2.00 / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:50:53 PM EST
    This has everything to do with Hillary, Schumer and any other Democratic senator that can be persuaded to vote no on the FISA bill.

    [ Parent ]
    They, the Shumer's, even (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:58:07 PM EST
    the Hillary's (who does listen to the people at times) do not care what you think. They only care and only justify what they've done or are about to do around election time. They are bad, we are good, vote for us, look at all we've done or couldn't do because of them!! "They" will do whatever they please, that's what our gov't "of the people, by the people and for the people" now means. I have written letters, I have made phone calls, I have talked to many citizens, no one cares enough anymore and so they are out of control in wash. and Obama wants power, just like them!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Disagree (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:14:43 PM EST
    I am sure that Hillary believed that her vote for AUMF would be a plus, she was wrong for this constituent. I am sure that her vote against the last FISA bill would make her constituents happy, it did. I am sure that Obama's and Hillary's vote against Roberts was done because they believed that it represented their constituents.

    Their vote is a permanent record. They do care about what we think because we put them in office, and can put them out of office.

    [ Parent ]

    Would you have said the same thing (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:18:50 PM EST
    has Obama voted "yea" on the Roberts nom before voting "nay"? Didn't he realize the difference between one vote or the other of the potential consequences?

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:32:12 PM EST
    Obama vote yea and then nay during the same vote? You seem confused. Maybe I am missing something, but if he voted nay I would have held it against him.

    [ Parent ]
    OK (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:38:38 PM EST
    Now you have me confused, I am happy that Obama voted Nay for Roberts' conformation. Had he voted yea I would have held it against him.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    Because the only reason anyone could ever be concerned by the stance of the Democratic nominee on this bill is "seething anger," right?

    In the progressive community, the only people who need to justify their stance on this are the ones inclined to give Obama a free pass.

    [ Parent ]

    Reaching out to (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by pie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM EST
    Evangelicals who voted for Bush?

    I swear some of you have gone off the deep end.  

    [ Parent ]

    It has nothing to do with Hillary; (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by magnetics on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    and I have no idea how she will/would/might react in situations real or hypothesized.

    It is about whether Obama is willing to lead on this issue.  We're waiting to see.

    [ Parent ]

    If Hillary supports this bill (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    she'll be wrong too.

    [ Parent ]
    That Is A Great Question (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    What will she do. She has come out against immunity before. She voted against cloture in the past if I recall correctly.

    Her dilemma here is that if Obama votes yes on the bill, which he will, and she votes against the bill, she will make Obama look bad as she stands on the stage campaigning with him.

    And of course for her to vote yes on the bill would be the wrong thing to do. Politics is tricky.

    What will happen is Obama will vote to strip immunity when it comes up and it won't pass. Total CYA. Then he will vote to pass the bill itself.

    I'm not going to try to predict what Clinton does - but I want her to do the right thing and vote against the bill. Screw Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    If she votes for cloture (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    I will rip her and call her on breaking her commitment on this issue.

    [ Parent ]
    Too bad you don't (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 07:10:42 PM EST
    make that threat against Obama.

    There is still time to be fair and balanced.

    [ Parent ]

    Just do likewise for Obama (none / 0) (#170)
    by magnetics on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:11:59 PM EST
    if he does likewise.  If he does right and she does wrong, so much the better for him.  I am a strong Hillary partisan, but  wouldn't be shocked (unfortunately) to see her go wrong here.

    [ Parent ]
    But... pols are pols (5.00 / 1) (#216)