Obama Comes Out Against Telecom Immunity Bill

Comments (58)

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 7:48 PM:

Hillary, the ball is in your court.

Wonder how she is doing in money from telecom PACs and lobbyists.

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 7:49 PM:

yeah? and what is he prepared to do about it?

oh yeah, he doesn't have to do anything. dodd's already got us covered.

homovivens wrote on October 18, 2007 7:51 PM:

For those who think experience is the only measure of a man, consider this:

"We had the experience but missed the meaning;"
T.S.Eliot "Four Quartets"

Or the old standard:

"Forget about experience, I'd rather have potential. I want a young, young man..."

OBAMA, you are the man! Rev it up! Experience without judgment is folly, or HILAR-Y-TY.

Greg wrote on October 18, 2007 7:51 PM:

true enough re dodd having this covered. still, opponents would point out that the more people raising their voices against, the better...

Allsburg wrote on October 18, 2007 8:07 PM:

If Hillary comes out against telecom immunity, I will eat my hat and actually vote for her.

I doubt I have much to worry about.

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 8:14 PM:

Next, Clinton will have to make weasely pseudo-statement with lots of wiggle room.

Then all the Republican candidates will fall all over each other to be the candidate who will stick the camera farthest up our asses in search of the terra.

These GOP noises will be amplified by the corporate media, making it impossible for the telecom lobbyists and their pawns to sneak immunity though the Senate before opposition can rally.

It's going to be a fight.

Thank you, Senator Dodd.

donna wrote on October 18, 2007 8:15 PM:

Read up on this with Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/22/telecom_immunity/index.html?source=rss&aim=yahoo-salon

Former Clinton officials lobby for amnesty for FISA lawbreaking:

"...It is hard to count the number of high Clinton officials who, like Gorelick, have spent the last six years getting rich selling their contacts and influence by working on behalf of lobbying and other clients to pursue legislation directly at odds with the political beliefs they pretended to have and will, once they are back in power, pretend again to have. Gorelick, needless to say, is an enthusiastic contributor to the Hillary Clinton campaign (as well as to Joe Lieberman's). She'll undoubtedly be a leading candidate for Attorney General in the next Clinton administration (perhaps serving along with Clinton supporter and "foreign policy expert" Michael O'Hanlon). Telecom lobbyist Donilon is also a maxed-out Clinton contributor..."

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 8:20 PM:

This is the issue that will force Clinton to show her true colors. She can't bite the hand that feeds her.

NCSteve wrote on October 18, 2007 8:52 PM:

I'm going to go out on the limb here and guess that eventually Hillary will issue one of her delphian pronouncements which her supporters will insist means she's absolutely opposed and her detractors will say is so full of caveats and circumlocutions as to be utterly meaningless. Edwards and Obama will then tag team her for being vague and/or beholden to the telecoms, and we'll have us a great big donnybrook in the comments.

Eventually, someone post a "a pox on all your houses only Kucinich is right" message and we'll know the thread is spent and its time to move on.

Coonsey wrote on October 18, 2007 9:12 PM:

Blanket Immunity for Snoops - NO WAY!

Ok my fellow Americans, how much more will you allow our government to play Big Snoop? The Bill of Rights states,
“Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Write, email or call your Congressman/woman or Senators right away and say NO to the Blanket Immunity for relief carriers. They need to know that if they mess up and don’t follow the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, they can and will be indicted in the court of law.

Here is a website you can go to and select your State (scroll down a bit) and it will list your representatives and senators. Click on their name to Send Them a Message.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/letters/

Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

NOTE: Donna Brazile has written a column including Coonsey's name in it. Come read the column and comment.

coonsey wrote on October 18, 2007 9:13 PM:

Thank you Senator Obama for being a DEMOCRAT and a LEADER.

lestatdelc wrote on October 18, 2007 9:14 PM:

Will Obama commit to putting a hold on it as well?

If not, nothing but empty rhetoric on his part, and after someone else did the lifting. Word is though, Reid is going to screw Dodd over on this hold and still bring it up for debate in November. That is where Obama's lack of commitment in this meaningless statement comes in. Will he join Dodd in filibustering the motion to debate the FISA bill with the immunity if Reid tries to bring it up?

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 9:22 PM:

Another vague statement from Barack with plenty of wiggle room in case he needs to squirm out of another losing battle.

Again, the sound of crickets from our "inevitable" nominee Hillary.

I'm waiting for the "I would've done that months ago if I was still in the Senate" statement from Edwards.

With Democratic front runners like these, who needs Republicans?

Tross wrote on October 18, 2007 9:29 PM:

This is another example of Obama waiting in the wings with his finger to the wind. Same goes for Clinton.

Dodd has just gotten my FULL attention as a potential president.

As someone who had no interest in Chris Dodd before a few weeks ago (Edwards is at the top of my list at the moment), I can tell you that I am totally watching him now.

And Obama and Clinton just dropped to the #3 and #4 spots on my score card.

rapier wrote on October 18, 2007 9:38 PM:

The Dems are now poised to take back a good portion of K street and the corporate direct support. The GOP base of wingnuts never liked them just as the Democratic base of various flavors of liberals won't like them either. It doesn't matter.

Corporations will only continue to more and more co opt government. That is the context of this amnesty thing and it is a defining moment. The chances of defeating this amnesty I think approach zero.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 18, 2007 9:43 PM:

Thank you, Senator Obama for ultimately coming up with the correct answer . . . Five days later than your Constitutional Scholar ass should have.

Mr. "Chiming-In-Later" strikes again . . .

Hmmm . . . That means that Clinton will be on board seven to nine months from now.

Jim J wrote on October 18, 2007 9:56 PM:

Disappointed HRC hasn't weighed in and not expecting a great answer from her, but once again we see Mr. A New Day Dawns/Profile in Courage chiming in late with another do-nothing CYA move.

I imagine even the diehards are running out of excuses for Mr. Heal the Red State/Blue State Divide, who apparently is losing even the black vote to HRC, truly one of his few signal accomplishments, albeit a negative one for him.

NJ Lawyer wrote on October 18, 2007 10:02 PM:

Props to the Big O.

It is more than a little amazing, however, that what should be an easy decision for a vast majority of Democrats and at least a significant number of Republicans, isn't.

btw, Is it clear to everyone yet that Reid needs to go as Majority Leader?

cjop wrote on October 18, 2007 10:03 PM:

I sent Dodd $25 and my thanks for doing this. Why doesn't everyone else at least than him. You are correct Tross. Dodd just got my attention also.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 18, 2007 10:20 PM:

Today's message has been brought to you by:

The War On Terror- because the War On Drugs is too much like a bumper sticker

and

The 1996 Telecommunications Act- We don't make the radio stations you listen to. We make the radio stations you listen to go belly up.

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 10:24 PM:

Greg:

What's the story with the headline on the front page (Day Late and ...?)? Obama weighed in. As far as I know, neither Biden or Clinton have come out against the measure. Kudos to Dodd for putting a hold on the measure; but it seems a little disingenous to suggest that Obama was late to the party (well . . . any later than Clinton and Biden, who still haven't shown up).

quasar wrote on October 18, 2007 10:45 PM:

I have a growing respect Dodd too!

He's like the neighbor down the street that kids and animals like, but that'll talk with a baseball bat if need be.

Keith wrote on October 18, 2007 10:45 PM:

If Dodd doesn't end up in someone's cabinet, he needs to be Senate Majority Leader. Reid just isn't cutting the mustard.

Sailmaker wrote on October 18, 2007 11:04 PM:

There was no money to speak of given to the Senate by the telcoms in the last election cycle. $1.4 million (check open secrets), ave. $18k per Republican, $13K per Democrat. The Senate was going to give away our rights for $.0047 per each if there are 300 million Americans. There have been other juicy deals for the telcoms in the last 7 years - unbreakup of the BabyBells, contracts for wiretapping, contracts for infastructure, etc., but what is the government getting? And why so cheap?

My guess is that the telcoms have been supplying the data since forever (Western Union gave the NSA copies of international cables in 1947), and that they have been doing this same type of support of the government in one form or another, sometimes above board, sometimes driven underground by FISA, so Congress does not need to be bribed further.

bob wrote on October 18, 2007 11:09 PM:

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 7:48 PM:
Hillary, the ball is in your court.

Wonder how she is doing in money from telecom PACs and lobbyists.

.....
Pretty well:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=B08

oleeb wrote on October 18, 2007 11:13 PM:

This illustrates very well Obama's problem. He has now come out late and in unspectacular fashion with another very Senatorial pronouncement of his position on an important issue. He did it the safe way. He did it the way his consultants said he ought to do it.

Now, to be clear, I'm glad he did it and it is the right thing to do. But, by choosing to do it in the safe way, Washington-style it does nothing to boost Obama's candidacy. Like pretty much everything else about his campaign, it only keeps him from losing which is the fundamental problem with the safe way. It's the path Democrats generally have chosen for most of the past 30 years and it is a strategy designed to prevent losing. It's the path consultants are most comfortable with. What it is NOT is a strategy for winning anything. When you adopt this strategy, you mostly count on the opposition losing the race by themselves, not because you beat them, but they beat themselves for you.

Thus, like her or not, Hillary pursues a strategy to win the nomination while Obama's strategy of not losing almost guarantees she will beat him. He needs a strategy that is designed to win if he expects to beat Hillary. While she has pursued her strategy for winning relentlessly, Obama's strategy has allowed her to pull way out front instead of keeping the race close. IMO it is in large part because of this overall flaw in Obama's campaign's approach. Until he comes out and starts acting like a leader who wants to win and accomplish something for the people of the country and not just present himself as a good actor in the sense of playing the serious Senator very well, he will continue to idle at his current position in the polls or sink a bit.

In any event, I'm glad he has had the decency to at least publicly condem the amnesty for the criminal actions of the telecoms.

Keith wrote on October 18, 2007 11:22 PM:

Oleeb:

Just curious, what do you think he should have done today?

Joe Buck wrote on October 18, 2007 11:22 PM:

Let us know when Obama joins Dodd and places a hold on the bill, or when he criticizes Harry Reid for saying he'll try to go around Dodd.

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 11:31 PM:

If Reid is prepared to go around the Senior Senator from CT (his a 26 year vet), what makes you think Obama putting a hold on it will be met with any more respect?

Sounds to me like there needs to be a close door meeting with the Democratic caucus. Maybe someone can find a pair for Reid to use for the remainder of this congress.

Dean Booth wrote on October 19, 2007 12:04 AM:

I previously supported Obama, but after hearing about Dodd's stand today, I plan to vote for him. I also donated to his campaign. Maybe when other Senators/candidates see what difference taking a stand can make, we can begin to stop the Bush madness.

NJ Lawyer wrote on October 19, 2007 12:10 AM:

On the merits, Obama is fine, but he seems to lack political skills, or at the very least, first rate political advisers.

NCSteve wrote on October 19, 2007 12:16 AM:

Look, I love Dodd for doing this, and I like him a lot generally, but everyone here is acting like they knew exactly What Hillary, Obama, Biden--and for that matter Kucinich--were doing about this bill before now.

Did any of y'all ever consider the possibility that the reason Dodd got onto this first is because he just happened to be the only one back in D.C., and thus in a position to place a hold, when the word came out that the leadership was ready to sell out? All props to him for doing this, but when you've got no money, no staff, no scheduled events, and no speeches to work on and practice, where else are you going to be but D.C. and what the hell else are you going to do to grab some attention? I have no problem with a politician getting attention, and campaign money, for doing the right thing, but a little proportion,folks.

When you're on the road as a candidate, you're already trying to do and think about too many things at once, every second is scheduled and every disruption to that schedule means leaving people who are counting on you waiting or, worse, out and out breaking promises to them. Imagine your worst day at work when you've got seven different people on your back about the new TPS report and half a dozen other damn things and then imagine cramming that day into an SUV on a backroad to Nowheresville with just a Blackberry to keep you connected to the office. That's a day on the campaign trail. From that vantage point, it may not automatically occur to you that a matter which you know doesn't really require action until next week has to be responded to right now, just this minute, because the netroots are screaming like they got kidney stones about it.

So even if the candidates who are on the trail fail to prioritize their activities and statements in just exactly the way those of us glued to the 'net and typing away in the comfort of our jammies would like, how about cutting them a little slack. (This, however, doesn't mean Hill gets 'til sometime next week to respond to this.)

DTM wrote on October 19, 2007 12:18 AM:

Kudos to Dodd, but I don't get how Obama was "late". As I understand it, the bill was still getting marked up in the Intelligence Committee on Thursday, of which Obama is not a member. So what exactly is it that he was supposed to have been doing?

brewmn wrote on October 19, 2007 12:25 AM:

I have been a strong Obama supporter from the start, and still am (not without reservaions, however). That said, I am very pleased that Senator Dodd is takig the extreme measure of placing a hold on the immunity bill, and will consider voting for him in the primary solely on this basis.

But let's be a little more fair to Obama here. Unlike Dodd, he has a real shot at the nomination. His move may be politically advantageous now, but it could easily come back to bite him. This move may have a calculated aspect to it, but it is by no means without risk.

Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 1:30 AM:

Allsburg wrote on October 18, 2007 8:07 PM:

If Hillary comes out against telecom immunity, I will eat my hat and actually vote for her.

I doubt I have much to worry about.

I really hate to call people stupid, but this must be the stupidest remark yet in these forums.

bystander wrote on October 19, 2007 1:48 AM:

Pray tell, what is to calculate, triangulate, consult, hedge or strategize about defending the 4th amendment? I see no excuse for Obama or Clinton to not immediately defend Dodd on telecom immunity all the way to the trenches.

erica wrote on October 19, 2007 2:27 AM:

There is something horrifying about the thought that campaigning for the presidency is more important than doing one's job as a senator at a time like this.

It's an IMPORTANT JOB, you know?

Druthers wrote on October 19, 2007 4:56 AM:

Dodd can't do everything alone. There are already other bills - consolidation of the medias for one.

Children don't count, that follows, they don't do body count either.

Really a bunch of great guys in Congress, elected from the heartless heartland.

elrpaierwit wrote on October 19, 2007 6:15 AM:

Just because Dodd was first, does not mean Obama is late.

If anything, of the candidates with the most potential to win the nomination, Obama is FIRST to address this.

The bill was not even written up until yesterday afternoon, and Obama came out yesterday with his position.

All this yammering about his being late is ridiculous and just a bunch of whinning.

Hillary, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel nor Edwards have said one thing...but we are suppose to hammer Obama about being LATE?

Get real.

vicissitude wrote on October 19, 2007 6:26 AM:

Let's see we are suppose to berate and admonish Barack for being late, even though the one candidate being touted as 'inevitable' is not going to even stand up for the Bill of Rights. The same candidate who abdicated her duty as a Senator to uphold the US Constitution when she granted carte blanche warmaking authority to Bush. Now this candidate also has the most lobbyist money from telecoms...yet she is somehow immune from criticism and worst of all despite not having said anything...the candidate who did is LATE?

Folks on this thread are crazy. I haven't ever seen so many idiotic posts. But I suppose it has to do with how TPM positions the issue...they write a headline and everyone suspends rational thiking...how they even typed 'a day late' on this is beyond comprehension. But then they are trying to smear Obama so he can't take the moral high ground given that their girl Hillary is waist deep in telecom lobbyist money and can't say one word. So, instead of Obama's position being noteworthy and protective of our rights he is deemed LATE....unfrigginbelievable!!

Here is a good read about the 'lobbyist americans' Hillary is supporting:

"The nation's biggest telecommunications companies, working closely with the White House, have mounted a secretive lobbying campaign to get Congress to quickly approve a measure wiping out all private lawsuits against them for assisting the U.S. intelligence community's warrantless surveillance programs.

The campaign -- which involves some of Washington's most prominent lobbying and law firms -- has taken on new urgency in recent weeks because of fears that a U.S. appellate court in San Francisco is poised to rule that the lawsuits should be allowed to proceed.

Among those coordinating the industry's effort are two well-connected capital players who both worked for President George H.W. Bush: Verizon general counsel William Barr, who served as attorney general under 41, and AT&T senior executive vice president James Cicconi, who was the elder Bush's deputy chief of staff.

Working with them are a battery of major D.C. lobbyists and lawyers who are providing "strategic advice" to the companies on the issue, according to sources familiar with the campaign who asked not to be identified talking about it. Among the players, these sources said: powerhouse Republican lobbyists Charlie Black and Wayne Berman (who represent AT&T and Verizon, respectively), former GOP senator and U.S. ambassador to Germany Dan Coats (a lawyer at King & Spaulding who is representing Sprint), former Democratic Party strategist and one-time assistant secretary of State Tom Donilon (who represents Verizon), former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick (whose law firm also represents Verizon) and Brad Berenson, a former assistant White House counsel under President George W. Bush who now represents AT&T."

Yeah, don't waste your votes on Obama, vote for Hillary and be assured of having all your civil rights stripped, as long as she isn't late and never takes a stand or leads on any issue...you all should be happy.

Yossarian wrote on October 19, 2007 8:09 AM:

Interesting bit of history - before Obama was elected to the Senate, he attempted to unseat Rep. Bobby Rush in the Illinois Democratic primary. In that race, Rush received, and continues to receive, a great deal of financial support from Ameritech / SBC / AT&T / whatever it is this week. AT&T also propped up a charitable / educational foundation Rush and his wife run, and which showed every sign of tanking financially under dubious circumstances. Rush is now widely known in Chicago as "(D-AT&T)".

What goes around does truly come around.

donna wrote on October 19, 2007 9:06 AM:

The point is about who and who is not standing up for our civil liberties. A lot is at stake here -- so it doesn't reflect well on the ClintonS that they have not weighed in on this matter and probably would not without it being brought forward by others. Some of their dearest comrades and supporters are lobbying for the telecom amnesty -- so if they do make a statement it will not have any substance.

Got to say -- I hadn't considered that another Clinton presidency would be such a bad thing -- I was mainly worried about the dems loosing the general again. However, after watching their campaign and tactics closely for these past several months, I am thoroughly disgusted. Yes, its nothing new -- but I wasn't as tuned in during the 90's. Take a good look at the advisors the Clinton's surround themselves with -- very dirty, duplicitous players - and Jamie Gorelick as a possible AG??? Imagine a Clinton presidency with all the familiar negatives in addition to all the unchecked presidential powers grabbed by Bush. Ends still justifies the means -- but the means are now much more pervasive and frightening.

della Rovere wrote on October 19, 2007 9:10 AM:

"oleeb wrote on October 18, 2007 11:13 PM:

This illustrates very well Obama's problem. He has now come out late and in unspectacular fashion with another very Senatorial pronouncement of his position on an important issue. He did it the safe way. He did it the way his consultants said he ought to do it."

Exactly. I am also glad he weighed in (finally), but how altogether uninspiring.

DTM wrote on October 19, 2007 9:16 AM:

I agree: this pretty ridiculous claim that by Obama coming out against the compromise in this bill ON THE VERY SAME DAY THE COMPROMISE IS BEING WRITTEN INTO THE BILL he is somehow "late" appears to have arisen solely because of the headline used by Josh Marshall.

And I really don't know what Josh was thinking. In his own post he doesn't elaborate on why he chose such a headline, and nothing Greg wrote supports such a headline. So, this appears to be completely empty attack rhetoric on Josh's part--but maybe Josh can explain himself.

Me! wrote on October 19, 2007 9:26 AM:

NCSteve wrote on October 19, 2007 9:30 AM:

Erica,

I want to address your comment, because its an important point. The issue isn't whether running for President is more important to Obama, or any of the other current office holders in the running, than performing the duties of their current office. Whatever Obama, or any of the others, can do about this bill did not have to be done in the two or three hour window after news of the planned sell-out leaked. The bill wasn't coming up for a vote on the floor of the Senate, or even getting out of committee, yesterday or even today. Dodd got there first with the most and put points on the board--and rightly gets the credit for changing the terms of the debate in yesterday's news cycle (but for that whole MSM blackout on this issue thing, I mean)--but legislatively, a hold yesterday is no more effacacious than a hold placed next Monday.

So, given that, the real question on this particular thread is whether Obama came out with a press release on the issue fast enough. The timing question is one of pure politics, and, in fact of pure presidential campaign poltics as opposed to senatorial politics.

The Republicans used this same "too busy running for president to do his job" slur on Kerry and Edwards and if they nominate Giuliani or Romney, they'll use it again on whoever we nominate. (Being Republicans, it mattered neither to them nor to the MSM that Governor GWB was out of Texas for more than half of his last two years in office, a much more serious matter given that Senators generally make a "pairing" deal with someone on the other side of the issue if they know they're going to miss a vote.)

If we can't accept that current office holders are going to miss some days at work if they run for higher office, we're going to be limited to people who are currently out of office--i.e. those people known in the cruel world of politics as "losers" and/or "has-beens."

Michael wrote on October 19, 2007 9:43 AM:

Ok, I got another question for the site. How come you refer to mrs. bill by her first name hillary and all the other candidates are referred to by their last name? Why not be consistent? Call her clintooon, not hillary, or call them all by their first names. This is really pathetic.

goethean wrote on October 19, 2007 10:25 AM:

Greg Sargent/TPM is aggressively editorializing against Obama here.

Ferruge wrote on October 19, 2007 10:37 AM:

Ironically, it is only with the Democrats having the majority in the Senate that they are collectively finally learning bit by bit how a minority party needs to act.

God, these people are slow learners.

Eric Monse wrote on October 19, 2007 11:40 AM:

Obama, yay. Standing up to bull for once. It's a creepy world out there with the telcos watching. - Eric Monse

IWW wrote on October 19, 2007 12:24 PM:

Michael -- I was thinking a bit about the name question myself. You're right to point out that using a woman's first name, but her male colleagues' last names, is often a subtle putdown. I try hard not to do it in everyday life. But at TPM, I tend to use Hillary or HRC, Obama or Barack, and Edwards or JRE. Why? For me, the reason is that "Clinton" still means "Bill" (or at the least is slightly ambiguous) and "John" is such a common name that, again, sets up the potential for confusion. It's more about avoiding ambiguity than being demeaning. I guess I could do BHO, but it sounds a bit unpleasant to my ear. Mrs. Bill, by contrast, is definitely heading into sexist territory.

clockwerks wrote on October 19, 2007 12:29 PM:

@goethean: How is it editorializing? Dodd came out on this issue yesterday. Obama made his statement today. He was...wait for it...a day late. You Obamabots do your candidate a disservice by being so whiny. He didn't lead on this important issue, he was literally a follower. You don't have to editorialize that. It's a fact. Dodd is willing to put a hold on the bill and if Reid doesn't honor that, he's vowed to filibuster. Obama has only issued a statement. Bringing a knife to a gunfight and all that...

Coonsey wrote on October 19, 2007 12:48 PM:

Let us hope that he will stand with Dodd on the filibustering of the bill.

NOTE:
Coonsey's View is looking for one or two folks to volunteer articles/columns once in awhile to it's site.

If interested go to http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/ and SEND POST. Be sure to give a title and name (at this time - your real name or a fake handle) for the column.

You can also create your own Forum under already specified Topics.

We welcome you all.

tekel wrote on October 19, 2007 12:55 PM:

Keith: it's not what Obama should have done today (yesterday). It's what he should have done LAST WEEK.

Last week, he should have stood up on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial and said, quote, "I will not permit any bill that contains immunity for illegal wiretaps to move forward in the senate, period." and then walked the fuck away from the microphones and actually done it.

Instead he waited for Dodd to make the risky first move, and then followed. Not inspirational. Would he do the same thing if the law proposed retroactive immunity to Blackwater for torture and murder?

Beth Wellington wrote on October 19, 2007 1:43 PM:

What do you make of this, posted on 10/19, after your post of last night?

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., also a Democratic presidential candidate, has come out in opposition to the provision too.

Other Democratic presidential candidates, particularly Sen. Barrack Obama, D- Ill., have come under pressure from bloggers to oppose the provision.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200710190901DOWJONESDJONLINE000536_FORTUNE5.htm

Beth Wellington wrote on October 19, 2007 1:53 PM:

Alarmingly, DNN reports this morning via Dow Jones news service

Obama's office, as well as the campaign and Senate offices for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have refused to comment.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200710190901DOWJONESDJONLINE000536_FORTUNE5.htm

ascap_scab wrote on October 21, 2007 4:38 PM:

If that was Obama's full, untruncated statement, then Obama is FOR telecom immunity!! Parse it.

It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- is not the place to start.

1541069541 wrote on January 8, 2008 4:45 PM:

265370922 [url=http://www.1509777077.com#33188483]265370922[/url] http://www.1509777077.com 265370922

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)