Obama: I Might Be There For Dodd's FISA Filibuster

Comments (41)

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 17, 2007 7:02 PM:

Obama MIGHT be there for the filibuster UNLESS it will make him appear to give a flying-fuck about human rights . . . IF that happens, Obama is going up blow town SO farging FAST that our ears will be popping in California from the pressure drop.

Way to go, Mr 'my vote and voice does not matter in regard to human rights issues'. I knew he was an asshole after the Mukasey vote . . . I am glad that he is confirming it for the benefit of his Kool-aid drinkers. Happy voting for the proto-fascist boys and girls!

Fred wrote on December 17, 2007 7:11 PM:

Obama is saying that whether or not he votes, he won't be voting yes.

"Hear my voice. It's saying something and I hope you're concentrating I've got money now..."

Michael Lafferty wrote on December 17, 2007 7:16 PM:

So an intelligent observer is left to wonder which of the two choices is more important to Senator Obama?

• the critical opportunity to engage his colleagues and debate one of the most important issues of the many raised in the Senate this year, and to support Senator Dodd's efforts…

• or, the need to fulfill some campaign scheduling commitment on the trail to the nomination and the White House, while simultaneously reneging on the implied promise turn his public claims of opposition into substantive action

Hmm. I suppose the answer is obvious, is it not?

Poor choice. And in fairness to Senator Obama, neither Senators Biden nor Clinton have indicated that they will back their public claims with action at all. That's pathetic, and the statement attributed to the Obama campaign is—well—pitiful. You might reasonably think that all three were running for senior class president at this point.

None of them deserve the nomination if they cannot take a break from clawing their way to the front of the line and focus on climbing on the problem instead.

DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 7:24 PM:

As I have noted before, I really think this notion of requiring people not just to support an effort like this, but instead to support it in a very particular way, makes little sense.

Andrew wrote on December 17, 2007 7:34 PM:

Looks like it won't be necessary: Reid has tabled the issue until January. No filibuster tonight.

Michael Stevens wrote on December 17, 2007 7:34 PM:

Woot!

It's done, Reid just folded and canceled the vote until next year.

At this point, this is the best we could have hoped for.

I'm sure Reid didn't want the first to suffer the first filibuster in 15 years. Especially a filibuster by a Democratic Senator in a Democratic controlled Senate.

I wasn't a Dodd supporter before today, but if Not for Chris Dodd, this WOULD HAVE PASSED this week.

zk0sm0 wrote on December 17, 2007 7:36 PM:

DTM,

it isn't about supporting dodd 'in a particular way.' it is about actually supporting dodd vs just saying you support his efforts.

either way, reid just pulled the bill. so you can just go back to giving a pass to your horse in the race.

zk0sm0 wrote on December 17, 2007 7:39 PM:

if Not for Chris Dodd, this WOULD HAVE PASSED this week.

exactly.

no thanks to clinton.

no thanks to obama.

no thanks to biden.

and no thanks to harry reid either.

DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 7:41 PM:

zk0sm0,

As an aside, my comment obviously applied to every Senator in question.

Anyway, not voting for cloture would in fact be "actually supporting dodd" in by far the most meaningful way. Indeed, when was the last time you heard about a filibuster failing because of insufficient hydration? The cloture votes are what actually count.

Michael Lafferty wrote on December 17, 2007 7:45 PM:

Really? So to promise—but, not deliver in a manner which a reasonable person would consider meaningful and substantial—is just fine?

New politics. Same old politics. Whatever. I just don't get it.

It obviously is not really 'important' enough for any of the other three candidates to step forward and let the issue take precedence to their campaign efforts. Great.

Lucky them, however. Particularly Senators Biden and Clinton who now need make no statement at all. They are all off the hook as a result of the developing situation - the effective tabling of consideration of the measure.

I extend a thank you for Senator Reid for taking the issue temporarily off the table, noting nonetheless that it was he who tossed it up in the air in the first place.

And, a very special thank you to the one US Senator on the campaign trail who recognized the importance of taking a stand, and leaving his struggling campaign effort in New Hampshire to provide the sort of concrete leadership we need to see from ALL Democrats in the Senate. Particularly those who place primary emphasis on self promotion in seeking the nomination of their party, rather than seeking to address the critical issues we face as a nation.

Senator Dodd is not my choice for the nomination, but I will support him in a concrete manner by contributing to his primary campaign effort. And, I will work hard during primary season to insure that neither of his other three colleagues who apparently just could not be bothered to become measurably involved beyond mere words, don't get to take home that prize at the nominating convention.

dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 7:47 PM:

Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect.

Having said that

It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.

This is a bombshell. It epitomizes the bizarre "phenomenon" that is Senator Barack Obama. Other than trying to win yet another election just 2+ years after winning a Senate seat, what does Senator Obama believe in? Is this how he would govern as POTUS? He's already short-changed the people of Illinois on key votes, does he intend to also short-change the American people on key issues if elected POTUS?

I am sure that Senator Obama would show up if the Dodd filibuster won't interfere with a previously planned fund-raiser or campaign event...

Hillary, John: I hope you would issue statements that won't equivocate like our new-kind-of-politician's just did. This issue is so important that your should consider it the only "campaign game" in town. It is all you need and it is a political ad for which you won't have to pay a penny!

Watch Obama now retreat; if he does not, he'll show up and "introduce" a bill that would nullify the offending immunity provision in the current bill if the filibuster fails, just he did after ducking the K-L bill.

Michael Lafferty wrote on December 17, 2007 7:56 PM:

No. You know what would really have been meaningful? All three of the other Senators appearing with—as in, alongside—Dodd, and not voting for cloture. Screw the arcane Senate rules which properly determine the actual outcome! They ALL needed to be there as an easily understood symbol of REAL opposition to the Bush administration and its six years of deviant behavior. But, it just wasn't important enough…

What an incredible missed opportunity for all four campaigns to pull together for a critical demonstration of how they are "…mad as hell, and just not going to take it anymore!" Can't they coordinate the simplest of cooperative efforts? Apparently not, because their 'rock star' is more important than any other, and than creating a unified front. The longer this goes on, the more it looks like a high school class election.

Senators Biden, Clinton and Obama should all be embarrassed and ashamed of their obvious inaction beyond 'mouthing' support for Senator Dodds efforts.

Seriously.

Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 7:56 PM:

Dear Greg, Richard and Michael,

You are profoundly confused about how the Senate works. Everyone knows whether votes are going to pass or fail before they are taken. This vote to invoke cloture on telecom immunity is going to fail, period. It doesn't matter whether you write, call, fax or email your Senator or what Senator Dodd says or does.

In fact, I think it's over already, isn't it?

"By 76 to 10, with Democrats divided, the Senate voted to advance the bill for consideration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/washington/17cnd-nsa.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Thus, without the support of 14 more Democrats, Sen. Dodd's quest was quixotic from the start, and it was pure political theater, meaning that it was pointless to request that the other candidates show up to help him get destroyed in a vote in which everyone knew the outcome anyway.

Perhaps you especially like political theater or pointless, preordained votes, but that is simply a matter of personal preference, and you should not attempt to extract any real meaning out of it.

dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 7:57 PM:

Saved by the bell... But if I were a Senator running for POTUS and there was an important vote to be cast in the Senate, I would make that a priority even if I had a prior engagement. The reason is obvious: It would convey the view of one's seriousness toward issues that people care about, which is why Obama's nonchalance toward the business of the Senate is quite telling about...

Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 7:59 PM:

dcshungu, since you are a big clinton backer, where's clinton's statement???? I don't see her leaving the campaign to go support Sen. Dodd.

those who live in glass houses...

Jeremy wrote on December 17, 2007 8:04 PM:

Wow. Hillary's haters really have some negative feelings for Senator Obama. It's really nice seeing this "missed votes" canard again, reminds me of those rovian days in 04 when they did the same thing with Edswards and Kerry. I suppose this is the fun part for the haters.

Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 8:04 PM:

Looks like I'm looking at the wrong vote in my NY Times post above. Regardless, my larger point that these political stunts are just that still stands.

They are pointless, preordained votes, those in the know in D.C. (obviously not me) can count the votes beforehand, and getting worked up and saying that someone has to be there in all but the closest votes is silly. If someone has to vote

Michael Stevens wrote on December 17, 2007 8:05 PM:

@ Anonymous

What are you smoking? You either don't understanding the workings of the Senate or you are purposefully misrepresenting them.

Do you think all the Senate process experts at all the various progressive sites are ignorant of Senate rules?

If Dodd hadn't threatened to filibuster, this bill was well on its way to being passed. It would almost certainly have passed this week.

If not for Dodd, this bill would have passed this week. Clinton, Obama, and Biden all promised to support the filibuster, none of them lifted a finger to help.

dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 8:06 PM:

It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."

I was not worried about Clinton...She shows up and votes, even when the way she votes if extremely unpopular (e.g., the K-L bill)...And Obama, of course, was also true to form.

zk0sm0 wrote on December 17, 2007 8:08 PM:

You are profoundly confused about how the Senate works. Everyone knows whether votes are going to pass or fail before they are taken. ... "By 76 to 10, with Democrats divided, the Senate voted to advance the bill for consideration."

kinda funny accusing other folks of not knowing what they are talking about when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. i'd bother pointing out the ridiculousness of that 'everyone knows before hand' chestnut that is so often used by the naive and the cynical to sound informed and oh so wise, but you've already made my point for me.

DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 8:12 PM:

By the way, to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with people who want to credit Dodd for taking a leadership role on this issue.

Michael Stevens wrote on December 17, 2007 8:14 PM:

zk0sm0, exactly right.

Today was in no way preordained. Not in the least. In fact a good one-sentence summary of today's events could be:

"Dodd played chicken with Reid, Reid blinked."

bg wrote on December 17, 2007 8:23 PM:

Did I not hear Reid speak disapprovingly of immunity near the end of his remarks? My understanding from the way events played themselves out, is that Reid, with Dodd, set this whole circus up from the beginning, that it was nothing but theater and the outcome preordained. Am I missing something?

Michael Caine wrote on December 17, 2007 8:25 PM:

To everyone that is criticizing Biden, Clinton and/or Obama you don't know a thing about what you are talking about. Cloture was never voted on. The FISA Revision bill was never on the floor. The only vote held was whether or not to allow it to come to the floor. Everything after that was a pre-discussion about the bill prior to it being officially placed on the floor for Amendments and Debate.

There has been no filibuster to support and none of you have any idea as to whether or not Biden, Clinton and/or Obama were in contact with other members of the Senate to both keep tabs upon where the bill was in the process and to pressure them to both speak out against the bill publicly and/or pressure Reid to table/kill the bill as was done. None of you apparently know one bit about how bills are brought before the Senate or, if you do, you obviously don't care and just want to slander Biden, Clinton and/or Obama.

Michael Lafferty wrote on December 17, 2007 8:47 PM:

You miss the bigger picture.

There should be no argument that the actual bill was on the floor. That matters not. The point is this: one guy said he would stand against this legislation. The other kids on the playground said, "Me too!" But, they didn't show up for the initial skirmish.

The choice not to make a cooperative stand with Senator Dodd as this unfolded today is telling. Or, maybe you can interpret their claims to stand with him—but, not show up at the outset—as something else?

Forget for a moment all of the substance you 'know' about how the process works in the Senate, and think about the simplistic terms in which most citizens appear to think. This was a missed opportunity bordering on betrayal, and a sad commentary about the conduct of our anointed 'front runners.' And, Senator Biden too.

Katerina wrote on December 17, 2007 9:02 PM:

What's obvious is that Dodd took this issue seriously and was willing to make it a priority to BE IN THE SENATE FIGHTING against immunity for the telecoms.

Obama, Clinton, and Biden did not.

We owe a great thank you to Senator Dodd for his dedication and for keeping his promise.

The others failed to deliver. Again.

I take that as a significant indicator of how they would keep their campaign promises if elected.

Michael Stevens wrote on December 17, 2007 9:12 PM:

@ bg

Your suggestion that this was a pre-planned attention grabbing ploy between Reid and Dodd is ridiculous.

Completely and totally ridiculous.

Sure, Reid spoke against the immunity bill today. In fact, he'ss been speaking against the Intelligence Committee bill for ages. But then he submitted the bill he's been against, and not the bill he's been for.

Reid's actions speak FAR louder than his words.

Attention grabbing ploys don't happen barely a week before Christmas and barely 2 weeks before the most open Iowa caucus in decades.

Why? Because no one is paying attention to the Senate this time of year.

Attention grabbing ploys don't try to sneak a bill in using an accelerated timeline before a holiday break.

The kind of bills that are shoved through before the Christmas break are often the ugly, awful, bills that the Senate wants to see passed before the public realizes what has happened.

You'll notice that except for MSNBC's Countdown (sans Olbermann), hardly a mention of this was made by the major media. Outside of the netroots, this bill is still flying under the radar.

I stand firmly by my earlier summation of today's events.

Dodd played chicken with Reid, Reid blinked.

Michael Stevens wrote on December 17, 2007 9:26 PM:

@ Michael Caine

You're way off base here. In fact, what's you point? No one here disagrees with the time-line of events. Why are you playing this straw-man argument?

Not one of the facts you've stated change the FACT that had Chris Dodd NOT made himself an impediment the process, the immunity bill would almost certainly have passed the Senate by the end of this week.

No, Dodd didn't have to filibuster, but he definitely impeded. And the ONLY reason Dodd didn't have to actively filibuster is because Harry Reid blinked in the face of Dodds impeding actions. Had Harry Reid not blinked, Obama, Clinton, and Biden would have been 2000 miles away, unable to assist in the true filibuster.

You suggest that Biden, Clinton, and Obama "may" have been working behind the scenes. It doesn't seem likely. Why would they help and not take credit? Why would they petition Reid and not even make a press release in support of Dodd's actions? Your guess just doesn't wash.

Because in fact, neither Clinton nor Biden have even made an official comment on this topic in the past 3 days. And that while Obama gave verbal support to Dodd this weekend, he had not yet decided whether to return to DC if a filibuster became necessary.

The bottom line is that Obama, Biden, and Clinton didn't do a thing to actively assist with impeding the passage of this bill. Feel free to prove otherwise.

The only fact that matters is that Chris Dodd actively impeded this bill. And without Dodd's impeding actions, this bill would have gone through the Senate on greased rails.

votenic wrote on December 17, 2007 9:42 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

zk0sm0 wrote on December 17, 2007 10:49 PM:

michael caine:

you can't be serious.

thanks for the update but i sat here and watched the whole thing unfold so you don't have to bother telling me what happened just because you've gotten caught up on your current events (kinda like how you know when bush learns a new word or concept because he'll explain it to us in the same complete idiot's guide to the presidency way that it was explained to him, but he's too dense to know that his audience is smarter than him and not the other way around).

how the process unfolded determined the outcome. your fantasy that somehow clinton, obama, and biden would have had all the time in the world to mosey on back in to work if dodd had to filibuster is so laughable on the face of it and yet you continue to accuse others of not knowing how things work in the senate. ha.

rladlof@ix.netcom.com wrote on December 17, 2007 11:03 PM:

I am not confused on the way the Senate works. After the raping the Republicans did to the rules and the Vasaline-covered reach across the aisle the DLC DEMs have been delivering for the last decade . . .

A filibuster should make someone sweat and cry 'til ones voice gives out and their eyes bleed tears of rightousness.

A leader should step into the gap between hellfire and damnation to do the right thing. One leader standing up can turn a tidal wave of insanity by mere presence of his or her being.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to reveal in announcing that he is not that man . . . especially when it comes to matters of human rights. The guy has charisma but continues to avoid displaying character when it really matters.

There is a reason why I am not a Republican. I don't want that sorta piece of shit behavior in a Senator and I refuse to have it in a candidate for President.

As always, if Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him but solely because every single one of the Republicans are worse. I am tired of voting against folk, but Obama is not someone I can vote for . . . Not even if Oprah tells me.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 17, 2007 11:24 PM:

Having typed the way I feel about Obama above . . . Biden and Clinton did not even have the testicular fortitude to declare that they would rather slink outta town town than do what is true and right. They hid behind their silence during the Mukasey confirmation also . . .

There is a reason I keep beating the drum for a real Democrat to get the party's nomination and keep donating cash to Edwards. Yes, he has the luxury of being on the outside of the Senate . . . BUT his voice is always speaking truth to power even if the corporate media is denying its communication. Kucinich also gets my support for the very same reasons.

Obama, Clinton and Biden are agents of the status quo that is strangling flesh and blood Americans . . . Frankly, I pissed off about that.

desider wrote on December 18, 2007 2:36 AM:

I'm conflated on this one.

First, I think everyone should be effluvious (I think that's a word) towards Dodd for carrying the water for them.

Obama could have made that more obvious. Clinton & Edwards should have made some statements at a minimum.

I do agree that they know how the votes are falling, and I imagine a few of them were on the phone to Harry saying, "Look, this is really bad timing, shelve this goddamn thing". I'm not terribly supportive of Obama, but I'm not sure what we get out of him skipping out on his campaign at a very critical point to make an appearance if it's not needed. Others can keep the filibuster going. It would have been nice actually if all 3 major candidates had the sense to make a joint statement expressing this - "the voters need us to campaign hard to give them better choice, and the voters need us to defend their rights in Washington. Thanks to Sen. Dodd this week, we're able to do both, but if our presence is needed in DC, we will be there."

Mike wrote on December 18, 2007 2:53 AM:

Obama better stop ducking issues like these with no-votes, or in this case not
supporting a filibuster. Its in his best interest anyway because the GOP will use it against him.

Alan wrote on December 18, 2007 9:07 AM:

Obama showed yet again that the campaign comes first. He misses a vote here and there. And his choir dutifully sings his praises. This guy is not ready for prime time.

Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 9:08 AM:

Keep this in mind......HRC if you like her or not....is doing what the party should be doing vetting BHO. If there are issues the Repubs can use on any of the Dems, it's better now then in 08 when we are stuck with the guy. These issues are all valid ones. The dirty tricks you guys hate are the ones coming down the tracks and if you don't like the heat get the hell out the kitchen. How's it gonna be for your boy walking in the White House with a few years under his belt having no experience having to deal with real world problems, a picnic.
A Chicago community meeting, a few years on a committee. Giveme a break.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 18, 2007 9:24 AM:

desider,

Edwards has made a number os statements. They can be found on his website and press releases. The issue here is the media for the most part has failed to carry the vocal distain for Telecomm Immunity.

Truth be told all three other Senator running for the DEM nomination also made statements when Dodd first made his announce of the intention to filibuster.

The issue is none of the leaders who could have done something did something. If a lukewarm Senator like Dodd could have this impact . . . Just imagine if the two big guns did not run from the attempt to call corporations on their willingness towards fascism.

Imagine if leaders led instead of running away and to the right.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 18, 2007 11:37 AM:

I read the above comments with a gathering sense of wonder. Is someone dropping mickey-finns into the civic water supplies around this nation? Are we honestly to believe that this is so damaging to Obama? Are we honestly to believe that this shows up Obama's strengths? Are we honestly believe that Obama's statement stands as testament to why we should choose Clinton. This is all so much nonsensical spin! It is like Rashomon, with forty different viewers watching the same story unfold and offering forty different, mutually irreconcilable accounts.

Well, evidently everyone gets his or her own perspective on the reality, so for my part I will simply say that Sen Obama's statement above looks like a feeler being put out to the Clinton campaign - if you will cease campaigning to support Dodd, then so will I. No doubt the Clinton supporters will look on even my interpretation as proof of his deficiencies, while my fellow Obama supporters will look on it as some sort of sign of his elegant mix of cunning and decency. Bizzare.

jess wrote on December 18, 2007 12:07 PM:

NOT impressed that he didn't make it. f him. all talk, no action. just like his couple of years in the senate. blowhard.

desider wrote on December 18, 2007 1:09 PM:

Richard, I didn't look for comments from the candidates (even if they said them before, they should have repeated them now, but the chance of the press reporting Edwards' statements is low).

But I also acknowledge that all the candidates need to be careful for the general campaign. Too much media, too many ways it's spun.

votenic wrote on December 18, 2007 4:33 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

Post a comment

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