home

Hillary's Statement on FISA

Hillary's statement on FISA:

One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today's vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.

More...

The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration's surveillance activities. Some of the legislation's provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration's surveillance activities.

While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President's power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government's targeting and minimization procedures.

But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.
< FISA Passes Senate, Vote 69 to 28 | Bad Argument For Obama Fans >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I love Hillary! (5.00 / 21) (#1)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.

    Yes, it's your responsibility and the rest of the Dems.  Sadly, a lot of them let us down today.

    And at the Democratic convention (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by lizpolaris on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:12:44 PM EST
    a lot more of them are going to let us down by making Obama (I never met a Constitution I couldn't shred) the nominee.

    Parent
    I'll take that even further (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by angie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:35:04 PM EST
    I believe it is the responsibility of all of our elected officials -- GOP & Dems -- after all, they do take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And I presume they know that it is their job to be a "check and balance" on the executive branch. Any and all who voted yes on this bill are not fit to hold public office.

    Parent
    let's not forget the We the People roll here (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Salt on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    time to hold each accountable for their representation regardless of which secret ring they wear, this was a very important principled issue for me, my Senator Brown voted against the bill I thank him for his Representation of the People of Ohio interests, his peer the other guy, who voted for the bills passage up in 10 will not receive my vote.  

    Parent
    Me, too. (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by mrjerbub on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:46:29 PM EST
    She is one heck of a strong leader. I am also proud of both my senators for voting against it.

    Parent
    Lioness of the Senate! May she prosper and live (5.00 / 9) (#67)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    long!

    I wonder how Ted Kennedy feels about Obama's stand on FISA? I understand he was in the Senate for the Medicare vote, but did not vote on FISA.

    Parent

    Lioness of the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:43:42 PM EST
    I love that!

    Parent
    Hillary, one of the few SANE voices (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:39:33 PM EST
    in the wilderness.  What this Congress is doing is unconstitutional and the lamebrains that voted for it, should be tossed out on their ears.

    Parent
    She is so Presidential!! (none / 0) (#162)
    by abfabdem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    Sigh and mourning for what might have been . . . .

    Parent
    Clinton teaches basic civics: (5.00 / 28) (#2)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    "Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used - and used within the law - for that purpose and that purpose alone."

    Yes, that was a great line (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MsExPat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart.

    And I wondered, reading between her lines, whether she's also saying this:

    "I blew it with my Iraq Authorization vote. Now I get it."

    I wonder if Hillary is having her Gore moment--realizing, ruefully, that she played the game the wrong way. And resolving to do it no more.

    I really think that in a year or two, she'll be as big a hero to progressives as Gore is now.

    Parent

    the left blew it (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:02:34 PM EST
    by obsessing over IWR votes.  You have it backward.

    Thank You Iowa...%%42@@@f**king&&52eds!

    Parent

    I hate the recent trend of Velvet Revisionism ... (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:58:19 PM EST
    ... that's retrofitting lies that CURRENTLY flatter Obama's latest mendacity onto Sen Clinton's (AKA The Clintons') clearly stated "evil" policies.

    Classify it as Bitter Cling or Ye Auld Cacklin' B!tch mode for doing so, but I'm just bloody minded enough to call out every instant of that upon encounter.

    It's just a bad Obama habit of hiding behind the better person(s), public servant(s), and politician(s) while simultaneously trashing her and their characters and records.

    It's just not right.

    Parent

    You should read (5.00 / 8) (#95)
    by PamFl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:15:40 PM EST
    the speech she gave in the Senate on the Iraq War Resolution. She was THE ONLY SENATOR to speak just before the vote. Compelling, just as the one on FISA today.
    You will have a completely different perspective on her IWR vote if you read that speech.

    Parent
    When I read that speech (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:19:16 PM EST
    last year, it turned on a light for me.  I never had a second thought about the IWR vote afterward.

    Parent
    Same here, when I heard it then -- when (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:42:04 PM EST
    I was just about yelling against the war.  

    But I have not been able to get the Obamans in my family to read her speech when I send it.  Nope, they know exactly what she did, and what she meant, and she was a horrible warmongering youknowwhat.

    It has been hard to find myself genetically linked to willing fools.

    Parent

    She played the only (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by 0 politico on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:10:28 PM EST
    hand she could on the IWR and authorization to use force.  As she said, she was a Senator from the state of New York on 9-11.  A junior one at that.  She made comments on it, voted like she "had" to.  If she had voted otherwise, detractors should be realists and acknowledge she would be another private citizen after the 2006 Senate race.

    If she is having a "Gore moment", it would be because so called "progressives" are waking to the realization that she is indeed more progressive than their hero.

    Parent

    The Audacity of Hope (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    There is still the convention

    I can't believe how great it feels (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    to know she voted no.

    I guess I'm in bittersweet mode right now.

    Parent

    Bittersweetie mode? n/t (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
    Ugh. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    Don't remind me.

    Parent
    Hillary's vote (none / 0) (#152)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:17:33 PM EST
    It is the only smile on this day of otherwise utter disaapointment.

    Parent
    me too (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by lmv on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:34:41 PM EST
    Another reminder why we supported her (and do still ...)

    Parent
    The Authenticity of the Vote. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:21:40 PM EST
    Peter Daou has a diary you no where about it. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:14:09 PM EST
    I couldn't help but read it. The usual suspects are still in full hate mode. A few (AdamB and Geek actually have a little sense). I'm tempted to rec it. :)

    the course is set. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    We have our nominee. Quite a few bright propagandists will either go sheepishly along with their audience for the moment, or they will feign anger at Obama's craven lack of leadership on the issue.  

    I na aweek or two the entire thing will be dismissed as the ACLUs pet issue.

    Parent

    Oh, you're wrong. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:27:48 PM EST
    You're very wrong.

    Parent
    Always responsible and thoughtful (5.00 / 19) (#11)
    by Pol C on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:17:03 PM EST
    Hillary lays out in clear language her opposition to this legislation, outlines with full understanding the objections most of us have to it, and defends the prerogatives of her office and the Senate against the "trust us" arrogance of the executive branch.

    Bravo, Senator Clinton. You remind me of why I was so happy to vote for your reelection in 2006, and why I supported your run for the Presidency this year.


    One of the best things about Bill was his ability (5.00 / 11) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:27:14 PM EST
    to explain the complex issue in simple terms so regular folks could "get it."  Masslib refers to civics lessons - anyone who went to school (even if u got a failing grade) can relate to checks and balances.  The ability to couch the complex in layman's terms is a skill Hillary has as well.  Our presumptive nominee, great speaker that he is, is great w/platitudes and grandiose oratory, but can't simply say I won't vote for this because it would take away my responsibilities as a senator to keep watch on your rights as intepreted by the president.  If only I had a time machine.....

    How did they put it? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:39:01 PM EST
    secure liberty through competing institutional interests.

    If none of them are interested in freedom in the abstract--competing ego's should prevent a dictatorship.

    Parent

    No room for egos when there's all that (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:46:38 PM EST
    bipartisanship floating around.  Mix in a dose of CYA, er, self-preservation, a dash of built-in institutional influences and suddenly we've got a congress that has a monopoly on cowardice.

    Parent
    Yaay for Hillary! (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:37:13 PM EST
    Good for her.  I'm so proud to have voted for her.  I was proud on SuperTuesday and proud today.

    That was Good Valhalla Twin speaking.  Now Evil Valhalla Schadenfraude Twin has elbowed her way to the front to say to the Big Orange Cheetos et friends:

    Ha ha!  Joke's on you.  Where you gonna go now?

    Broke it.  Bought it.  Thanks for playing though!

    You have to isect the agenda there (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    It's not as if his supproters were particularly liberal anyway.  The readership sorta went with the flow.

    What will be interesting to see IMHO is how this affect anyone's declared vote long term.

    The FISA bill vote explodes the left's contention that Bush has amassed the powers of a dictator. If anything Obama will now inherit a more centralized security state than Bush built up.  At least he was acting outide the law. Now the illiberal activity has been codified by many Dems including our own nominee.

    Parent

    44% of the Senate Dems. 44% n/t (none / 0) (#77)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    They bought it, then broke it. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:52:46 PM EST
    Some Dems are doing everything backwards these days.

    But not with grace and in heels, like Ginger Rogers -- and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Parent

    Her supporters in Denver (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    should march backwards in heels  ;)

    Parent
    Hillary At Her Best (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:42:14 PM EST
    More of that, please.

    I have a feeling she'll be serving up more ;) (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:13:21 PM EST
    And you-know-who there soon may be (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    . . . a real Nowhere Man
    Sitting in a Nowhere Land
    Making all his nowhere plans
    For nobody.


    Good (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:44:21 PM EST


    BTD: (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:46:52 PM EST
    Succinct and to the point.

    Parent
    HRC makes me proud! (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:44:53 PM EST
    DNC:  please bring Hillary Rodham Clinton back to the presidential run !!!!!

    Dear Senator Obama, (5.00 / 15) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    Please read Hillary's speech and take note that it is not particurly difficult to cast a vote to protect the Constitution and clearly state your reasons for doing so in language that all Americans can understand and accept.

    Signed

    A former Democrat

    Dear President Carter, (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:52:16 PM EST
    What do you think of your nominee now?

    Parent
    You have to ask Feingold. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    He's the left wing Saint.

    Parent
    I guess Obama won't be asking her to (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    campaign for him now.

    I sure this will have no impact (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    on that at all. Ras says he may even need her in New Jersey. . .

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:08:04 PM EST
    Ras may be right. I read McCain opened an office there. First GOP candidate to do it in sixteen years. I guess NJ is not looking so hot for Obama. I'm not surprised though.

    Parent
    This woman is my hero - (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by snstara on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:59:35 PM EST
    and she would have made a damn good president.

    Well, she can lead the loyal opposition (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:00:44 PM EST
    if either McCain or Obama are elected.

    Parent
    Here are my favorites (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by joc on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    Craziness:

    I only wish her thoughts were backed by action. (26+ / 0-)
    She didn't speak out against it. She could have influenced others. But she remained silent.

    Yes, if only she had acted on her principles today! She should have been someone else and spoke out about filibustering the bill, but then didn't.

    Sanity:

    she didn't lie (or is the word "flip"?) (6+ / 0-)
    about this.
    Obama came out clearly against immunity, then smoothly changed his tune once the primary election was over.
    Blatantly shameful.
    If he planned it in advance, he lied to us.  If not, he just Kerry'ed it.
    Either way, at least Clinton is being consistent.


    What need (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:30:21 PM EST
    did BO have of voting Yes on FISA??

    Republicans had  enough votes to force the FISA immunity bill through. SO BO still had a chance to stand on principle.  Where is his "courage" to be President ?  Didn't he say a while ago:

    No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people -- not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

    So what now?

    If he stood by (none / 0) (#115)
    by themomcat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:35:19 PM EST
    his original opposition, he would have actually had to filibuster. And that would have taken time away from his campaign for Messiah.

    Parent
    I commend (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:36:30 PM EST
    Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton for her vote, I warned here that I would call her out if she voted the wrong way, and I'm glad that I don't have to and that she kept the faith of not only Progressive ideals, but more importantly of the Constitution of the United States.  I likewise commend all of the other votes against this travesty from the other Senators, regardless of Party.  (Did any R's vote against it?  I haven't seen the roll call of the vote yet.)

    Jackson

    Repub senators were 100% for BushCo's immunity (none / 0) (#158)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:18:59 PM EST
    and trashing of the Constitution. 44% of Dem senators voted with them. 56% of Dems stood for our rights, our Constitution, and against BushCo's malfeasance.

    Parent
    Very Good To See Her (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM EST
    express her opposition not only to the immunity, but to the additional surveillance powers.

    I wish this statement had come sooner, but she was under more pressure than most Senators to get with the Obamanation and so I'm gratified to see it come at all.

    Even though I knew (5.00 / 10) (#133)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:53:27 PM EST
    this was going to happen, I am finding it very difficult to control my outrage against Obama and the Senate right now. I am very proud of Hillary. But that's not enough. I want to storm the Senate building. News Flash: An angry old bald-headed hippy with a white fringe and white beard and an insane fire in his eyes wearing a Vets for Hillary t-shirt stormed the Senate building today with a wine bottle in each hand thrashing senators right and left... sigh.

    You are SO hot to me right now! :-) n/t (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:00:51 PM EST
    I'll note briefly here (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    The thing that sticks out for me here is how Clinton treats her fellow Democrats, she does not question their motives the way Feingold and bloggers do.

    I might question the motives of some Dems, like (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:17:10 PM EST
    those who should be investigating the BushCo malfeasance and never called the AT&T whistleblower to testify before any committees.

    Dear Dems, we did not work to get a majority to have you treat the Constitution like toilet paper--and to give BushCo immunity.

    Mark Klein was on Democracy Now with his story of getting no Congressional attention.

    unlike sen. obama, who (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:59:18 PM EST
    One of the best things about Bill was his ability to explain the complex issue in simple terms so regular folks could "get it."  

    has great difficulty explaining simple issues, so regular folks could "get it".

    i'm certain we'll be hearing numerous "explanations" for sen. obama's vote. who cares? he is what he is. if you can live with that, your standards are much lower than mine.

    What I love about this (4.81 / 16) (#40)
    by dk on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:41:12 PM EST
    is how partisan that statement is.  Yes, there are many reasons to oppose the FISA bill.  But a main thread in Hillary's statement is that the Bush administration is hiding something, and it is her responsibility to figure out what they're hiding.  And, if she can't figure it out, she is not going to vote for a bill that just extends the cover-up.

    That's a Democrat talking!

    I admire Hillary Clinton to no end... (4.00 / 1) (#14)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:23:54 PM EST
    And I'm very very glad that she voted against this.

    While not making any excuses for Obama, I will concede that it was easier, if only slightly easier, for her than for him.

    He still should have voted against, no doubt.

    are you serious? (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by kimsaw on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    Easier politically? She will now be attacked for failing to fall in lock step by Obama supporters and the media. It will be call calculating by most of his supporters. I can hear Olbermann now. For a presumptive party leader, Obama chose not to lead on this issue and it suggests at least to this independent that he's a follower and should be lead out of the arena before he implodes his own party.

    Parent
    No, in reality. . . (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    I imagine most Obama supporters will give Clinton kudos for this vote -- although there's always the lunatic fringe, of course.  It won't necessarily shake their support of Obama (just as Clinton's rotten vote on AUMF didn't ultimately dissuade me from voting for her in the primary).

    Parent
    Fall In Lockstep??? (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    Nonsense.

    I'm an Obama supporter and I've already expressed my appreciation for her votes as well as earlier saying that since she is my senator I HOPED she would vote this way.

    Yeah, I support Obama's candidacy. That doesn't make me an uncritical follower.

    Parent

    okay I'll apologize if I overly generalized. (none / 0) (#141)
    by kimsaw on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:09:14 PM EST
    I should not have said most, perhaps some would have been better and include her critics. But I still believe she will be suspected of a political calculation in opposition to Obama.

    Parent
    No Need To Apologize (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:01:02 PM EST
    Admittedly, I get exercised when I see generalizations about supporters (on BOTH sides, by the way) but yours was one of the gentler ones.

    Truth be told, I can agree with you, without even looking around for it, that some of my fellow Obama supporters have a reflexive hostile or suspicious or contemptuous spin on all things HRC, something they have in common with some of her supporters regarding BHO.

    Got awfully tiresome in the heat of the primaries and is even more so now that it's been going on so long.

    Parent

    Good for Hillary (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CST on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:15:57 PM EST
    I hope she finds a niche to lead in the senate if she is not V.P. or in the cabinet somewhere.  Maybe losing the primary will take some of the political pressure off and she can do sort of what Kennedy did after he decided not to run anymore, which is be a left-wing warhorse in the senate.  She has enough clout in NY that she probably doesn't have to worry too much about re-election against a more "moderate" candidate.  I thought that she was swinging to the middle the last few years in anticipation of the run for president, now maybe she can swing left again.

    In the final analysis, (5.00 / 12) (#16)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:25:19 PM EST
    as we've come to learn, the best candidate is not the presumptive nominee.

    He does not have her experience, knowledge or insight.

    We will not be well served, I'm afraid.

    Parent

    He does not have (5.00 / 12) (#34)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:38:36 PM EST
    her experience, knowledge, insight, or principles.

    He lectures, she leads.  I learned more from her in statements like this than I ever have from his speeches -- and as ever, her wonkiness was easier to follow.

    I would like to hear it in her voice, though.  Much as this statement would not be followed by her chuckle.  I miss that.

    Parent

    This is not the final analysis (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    And I don't know that we will ever "know" who the best candidate is, since it's not like we can compare their "presidencies" side by side unless they both become president at some point.

    The final analysis will come when they are both dead, if ever.

    Parent

    kinda like Iraq I suppose (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    give it a few years and then history judge.  snark

    Parent
    The final analysis (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    of the primary campaign.

    And I don't know that we will ever "know" who the best candidate is

    That has always been the problem with you.  You see Obama as the future.

    He's the crystal ball presidency with no past record to support substance, such as it is in politics.

    Parent

    I find your comment laughable (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:37:34 PM EST
    I will explain why.

    Here you have implied that Clinton will be a more left leaning politician now that she is no longer under the political pressure that comes with running for president.

    I find that funny because clearly you must then admit that Obama is now a right leaning politician because he is caving into the political pressure that comes with running for president.

    I find it equally funny because Obama himself, just yesterday, totally rejected his supporters who find themselves, out of force habit, with nothing to add to the discussion save for ascribing political motivations to every decision made by a politician.

    Now tell me.  Is there really a shrimp tray and open bar under the bus?

    Parent

    That's fine (none / 0) (#161)
    by CST on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM EST
    My comment was about Hillary, not Obama.  And I made a comment about her "leaning to the middle" because it was something I noticed over the last few years.  Not everything is a him vs. her argument.

    Finally, I don't agree with Obama all the time, and of course I think he is running to the center.  And I think he is politics as usual while pretending not to be.  I just think that makes him a good politician rather than hate him for it.  But then again, I'm a realist not an optimist and I never thought he was the Messiah so I'm not dissapointed that he turned out not to be.  I don't "ascribe political motivations to all his decisions", but some yes.

    Besides, I have been "totally rejected" in every national election.  I'm a "northeast, over-educated, elitist", from MA, home of gay marriage and UHC.  Even Kerry tried to disown us.

    Parent

    Interesting here: (none / 0) (#3)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary.

    So it'll be a CYA for those who voted for it?  Didn't Feingold say he saw the evidence and would be willing to share for anyone who would get clearance to see it?

    Note to my old friend Russ Feingold (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:18:21 PM EST
    Re-read No. 71-1026, United States v. Gravel (Pentagon Papers)

    he points out that the last portion of 6 affords Members of Congress another vital privilege - they may not be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate in either House. The claim is not that while one part of 6 generally permits prosecutions for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, another part nevertheless broadly forbids them. Rather, his insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause at the very least protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. [408 U.S. 606, 616]    The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer - either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution - for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting. Our decision is made easier by the fact that the United States appears to have abandoned whatever position it took to the contrary in the lower courts.


    Parent
    Ben - not sure what your point is here (none / 0) (#106)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    what did I miss?

    Parent
    He is saying (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:30:58 PM EST
    that there are ways Feingold could reveal what he knows about the Bush Administration's actions without getting in trouble, for example by putting it on the record at a subcommittee hearing like Mike Gravel once did with the Pentagon Papers.

    Parent
    If he did, (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:13:53 PM EST
    it didn't make a dent in Obama's resolve to vote for this thing.  Hillary makes a great argument about being withheld the necessary information.  It makes Obama's vote look more ridiculous.  There were so many ways for him to get out of voting for FISA.

    I think he counted on people being quite naive about this.  Very smart, but not telling the truth - that's the way Bill Clinton rubbed one of my closest friends, and Obama's FISA letter immediately brought to mind that characterization for me.

    Parent

    It's kind of funny (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:54:49 PM EST
    Obama kept telling us during the primary how foolish it was to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt.

    Parent
    ah yes (none / 0) (#123)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM EST
    thanks for the context. i grok

    Parent
    Maybe with young people... (none / 0) (#116)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:35:26 PM EST
    it certainly will differentiate the generations.

    CNN won't repeat it .. (none / 0) (#127)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:47:45 PM EST
    They say they're not sure, but it was racist and of course it won't hurt Obama because Jesse comes from an older generation, not Obama's supporters...same ole water on oil..

    What Jesse said (5.00 / 15) (#132)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:53:22 PM EST
    is so racist and offensive I really don't think I can repeat it here, but if you promise not to tell Jeralyn, I will do it.  Jesse said:

    "I won the South Carolina primary twice."

    Parent

    Steve, right now i love you. (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:11:16 PM EST
    best laugh I had today--thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by NJDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:20:41 PM EST
    They just read Jr's statement (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    I was too busy laughing after "disappointed" in Sr to catch everything . . .

    Parent
    Jr needs a prayer break? (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:19:54 PM EST
    ..of Bibilical proportions.. it's as if Sr, blasphemed against a devotional figurehead.

    Parent