Hillary Explains Vote Against FISA Cave
As you may have heard by now, Barack Obama voted for the FISA cave-in bill in the Senate today, and Hillary voted against it.
Hillary has now explained her vote in a new statement...
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...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.
Her full statement after the jump.
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.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.
This spells trouble. Hillary as ususal is being politically expedient.
She saw that there were 15K ppl on his website who opposed Obama on this issue.
Hillary is going to run with this all the way to the convention.
She is going to make this her Alamo...mark my words.
July 9, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this. A title mentioning both Hillary and FISA. OK catfighters, go at it!
July 9, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'm hoping MoveOn will sponsor a speed-dating party for PUMAS and FISA refuseniks.
July 9, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
A shut-up-nik can only dream.
July 10, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need to get her debt paid off & push her to
END her campaign, as oppossed to 'suspending' it!
July 9, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have my issues with Hillary, but you have to give it to her on this. I will say though, I wonder if she would have voted this way if she was our nominee...
Still, well done Senator! Keep up the good work!
July 9, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, as we've seen, one's vote is greatly determined by one's political aspirations.
July 9, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
See her vote on the Iraq war if you really wonder. She only does what is safe, and this was safe for her, if she was the nominee, it wouldn't be safe, and there is no way she would have voted for it.
Hell, she probably would have sponsored the damn thing.
July 9, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So does Obama. They're both pretty cautious.
July 9, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it, per usual.
July 9, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's that sort of convoluted logic that nominated a Lieberman Democrat.
July 9, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is 'yes' but again, it's just a guess. The political calculus changes sometimes when you're the nominee. Nobody likes it, particularly when you've just seen the candidate for months on end running for the votes of the party faithful and leaners. But when you get the nomination, you're now trying to get votes from the middle. No surprise here.
July 9, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was no political calculus for Hillary here. She already knew the bill was going to pass. She also knew 15K Obama supporters opposed the bill and she knew she could make political hay out of this.
She is nothing but a craven, unprincipled politician.
July 9, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tell you, I am o.k. with unprincipled so long as the lack of principles leads one to vote the way that I like. I was never Sen Clinton's greatest fan, but I give her credit here. She did the right thing (and the smart thing) while my guy did the opposite. Meanwhile, I have a hard time believing that she is doing Sen Obama any real damage in taking this approach. While it pains me to say this, few American voters care about the awfulness of this FISA "compromise," so the whole thing will pass largely unnoticed by the vast mass of our fellow citizens.
July 9, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I care. I care as much as you. However, respect is earned. Hillary has not shown herself to be a principled politicians. In fact, she has repeatedly demonstrated that she has no principles and will do whatever is politically expedient. As was the case here.
She is seeking political points and power, nothing more. She gives less than a damn about the American people or the violation of our rights. If she did, she would have never voted to give the executive brance carteblanche authority to wage war endless.
Nor would she have voted for K-L amendment or said she would obliterate Iran.
Hillary is bought. She voted like this to stick it to Obama because the votes for passage were already there. She had nothing to lose, politically and everything to gain.
She makes this statement and she keeps the Democratic party divided. If she was so interested in this and truly beleived it was terrible for our civil liberties...then she would have lead the fight against the bill.
She did not. She simply waited until Obama declared a position and voted the opposite and she will be on the news shows..talking about her vote just so she can attack the nominee.
Puhleeese...I give credit where credit is earned. She is backstabbing all Democrats and being divisive something we cannot afford at this time.
She is a sore loser and has no ethics, she will do anything to destroy Obama's presidential chances.
July 9, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, I was not suggesting that you do not. My point is was that you and I and those like us are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of Americans (even of democrats) just do not care about the violations of our civil liberties enjoined by this bill. As such, very few people are going to support Obama less or McCain more based on how either Clinton or Obama voted today. From a political perspective, this was a non-event. There is no sense getting to hot under the collar about it because the electorate was, by and large, not paying attention.
July 9, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. How did she vote on the Patriot Act? I don't remember for sure.
Today on HuffPost, Kristen Breitweiser has a post called "Oh, Yes She Can".
Hill doesn't think she is out of it yet & is pulling all the strings she can!
Very sad, I think.
July 9, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think you're getting carried away on this one:
You're out of your mind if you think, upon pause from rant, that this statement is any way reasonable. How much hell would you be raising and more attention would it be gaining if she were to make herself into the spectacle of FISA mounted opposition right now?
Granted she could have done the 'loyal soldier' role to demonstrate she was going to fall in line for the sake of unity for the dem party, but your comment is beyond the pale. If she had locked up the dem nomination, and Obama had voted against it, would you be criticizing her for her expedient vote and crediting Obama's proper understanding of the bill's deeper implications?
The deeper issue is that we should be equally disappointed in their both of them. O for his political expedience when as a professor of constitutional law he should know better, and for her willingness to continue to play ball when we had been led to believe she was truly willing to move on. I don't think it's much of a coincidence it happened the day the WSJ does a front page on how Obama's having a hard time winning her loyalist's love.
July 10, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny! And candid!
But I have to agree.
July 9, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah.
What Pete said.
July 9, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
...15K?
Do you mean to say that 15,000 Obama supporters lost their political virginity on this issue alone? I'd guess more but, again, it's just a guess.
July 9, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes
July 9, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, K is shorthand for 15,000.
July 10, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree ... I have no doubts that if the nominee was reversed, so would have been the votes. It's a shame that people put getting elected over principle. I'm disappointed in Obama over this ... but I'll get over it by Nov.
July 9, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stirling,
she cast a political cover your ass vote to go to war in Iraq, along with the Kyl/Lieberman; I can only surmise she would have voted for FISA if she were the Candidate.
July 10, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meh. She probably would've made the same wimpy Obama move if she was still in the race, based on her other wimpy moves in preparation for her run.
Wimpy Dems. Blech!
July 9, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't wimpy, it was smart. We aren't looking for a martyr, we are looking for a president. It was going to pass no matter what, it would have been reckless to walk into the Republicans' trap, especially since the bill is meaningless because Bush wouldn't follow it no matter what it said, which is the REAL issue, no accountability, no impeachment. People who make a big fuss about the details of this bill completely miss the point. For Bush, laws are meant to be broken, no matter their details.
July 9, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I say he did walk into the republican trap by not being a leader, by not having principles ro core values. He walked into the Repub trap by capitulating and flip-flopping.
He's weak on this one. Sorry. It may hurt. But that is the truth. Where once he said giveing up core values for security is a false choice, he now says it is the right choice. Disgraceful.
July 9, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you on this one. Obama missed an opportunity here. He could have used this bill as a teachable moment, as it were, to make plain to the voters the different visions which republicans and democrats have for this nation. The democratic vision is a far more pleasant one, so this could have been a chance for Obama to win over some undecided voters of good will. Instead he opted to play it "safe" and missed a golden opportunity. It will not spell our certain doom, but it was a mistake nonetheless.
July 9, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. This bill was a trap. Obama could not have had leadership on this issue and presented himself as strong on National Security. The GOP would have ate him alive on that issue.
I mean Misssouri voter you already noted the masses are asses and don't have a clue about FISA.
Obama has already said they will not have civil immunity just they can't be sued for damages.
This issue is going to resolve itself when Obama is in the White House...however if McCain is in the WH ..the wiretapping will simply become more expansive.
Hillary had no leadership on this issue whatsoever, she is just stuffing it to the party and Obama.
Unethical people like her are the scum of the earth.
July 9, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I am told. Suffice it to say, I disagree. Ad Absurdum rather helpfully linked to a recent public opinion survey showing that most Americans (when asked about the specific provisions of the FISA "compromise") did not like them. Now I think that it is safe to say that most Americans do not know what is in the new FISA compromise, but if Obama had made a very public stand opposing it that would have forced the media to give the issue some coverage and put the Republicans on defense. It would have been a bold move of the sort which Obama has rather impressively carried off many times. To say that the Republicans would have eaten him alive, I think, does not do justice to the strength of Sen Obama's gifts as an orator and a thinker.
He could have won this battle if he had cared to fight it. I am still his supporter, but I am disappointed that opted not to take this opportunity.
July 9, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about being disappointed so am I. I also believe that you have to pick your battles so as not to lose the war, no? I believe very strongly that this was a major civil liberties issue and would have loved to have seen Obama take a stand, but in the midst of a general election, I just doubt that the media and coverage would have been beneficial the way they twist talking points.
It's not like the primaries, Obama is not even getting balanced coverage. McCain's false talking points are repeated as if they are accurate and I do not think Obama's position would have been heard above the loud den of voices claiming he was weak on National Security.
Can't you just hear some pundit asking..what good are civil liberties when your country is being demolished/infiltrated by terrorism?
I mean look at how they feigned ignorance about Obama's use of the word refine to somehow come out with the meaning that he was switching his position, when even the most cursory understanding of the word means to be more precise.
Geez...and you think he could have not taken a hit on National Security? Very doubtful...and that would have been time he could spend on economic and immigration issue where he stands to gain more votes vs. losing votes on National Security.
So, you just have to pick your battles.
But I am disappointed, as well.
July 9, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
and it is you who miss the point, because this is not only about Bush.
July 9, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indie Pro = Indie, ie. not Dem
He hates Dems, if you haven't noticed.
Prolly a GOP troll
July 9, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Tankard once observed elsewhere, sometimes these jokes just write themselves.
July 9, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems are often disappointing, no doubt. Read this morning that Pelosi has opened the door to compromise on off shore drilling.
But you are correct, I am not a democrat
July 10, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
And we have Jesse Jackson senior caught on tape and having to apologize.
"This is a sound bite in a broader conversation about urban policy and racial disparities. I feel very distressed because I'm supportive of this campaign and with the senator, what he has done and is doing," he said. "I said he comes down as speaking down to black people. The moral message must be a much broader message. What we need really is racial justice and urban policy and jobs and health care. That's a range of issues on the menu."
This are all ominous signs that the Democratic party major hitters and players are planning a coup at the Denver convention.
These are nothing but power plays.
For all those people who claim HRC did a good job on this, I hope they recall that she voted to take the country to war without ever once reading the NIE report.
Yet, she seeks transparency in government wiretapping?
Bull. This is nothing but political expediency.
If holding the government accountable was a core value or principle she truly held we would have had her demanding intelligence data BEFORE she voted for war.
This is nothing but backstabbing and leveraging on her part to come out swinging in Denver.
Hillary did not want to concede until Denver and she is reving up to tear the Democratic party asunder her and Bill will do their damnest to rip this nomination from Obama.
They are pissed that he will not kowtow to their extortionist tactics to help her reduce those campaign debts.
This stuff stinks...like Bills cigars!!
July 9, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I opposed the bill because I don't have to worry about the political ramifications of opposing it like Obama does, and I felt like this would be a nice FU to Obama!"
Can we expect every Senator that voted against it to put out a press release explaining their vote, or is this special? The primary is over, I'm tired of the games.
July 9, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is shoving it to Obama, like Bill shoved his cigars up Lewinski...no doubt about it.
No other Senator will have the crassiness to put out a statement that effectively opposes the leader of the Democratic party and the party's Presidential nominee.
Hillary is not a team player, neither is Bill..you are either on THEIR team or they will work feverishly to pull you down.
This is trouble.
July 9, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, her releasing the statement was pretty petty, she knew what she was doing, which is why she did it. The Clintons are angry and bitter, and they will never be team players with Obama, they will always be looking for a way to sabotage or get some sort of revenge. Its just their nature.
July 9, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, as we've seen, one's vote is greatly influenced by one's political aspirations.
July 9, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud her vote this time around, but I kind of choked on the claim in her statement "I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions... during previous debates on this subject." As a matter of public record, she did not participate in the last round of FISA debates. Her arguments here are admirable and sound, but I sense a measure of revisionist history afoot in the above.
July 9, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's Hillary. Always making delusional statements. Just like 'sniper fire ducking' and her assertion that she was 'briefed' on the NIE before she voted when no one on her staff had clearance...or her assertion that she has foreign policy experience from having tea and crumpets with foreign diplomats when as first lady she did not have the security clearance to discuss foreign policy.
The women will say anything hoping folks are paying attention.
She's Annie Oakley and the shot glass drinking white appalachian truck riding regiment calvary leader...whatever role she thinks works politically she will morph into.
Let's not forget she said during the debate that she would obliterate Iran.
July 9, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on dudes, have a sense of humor. She's lo-o-o-oving this.
I don't actually dislike the bill that much. But I love this gesture. It's a noble, intelligent statement, designed to give the netroots a gigantic, throbbing cognitive-dissonance headache.
July 9, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! Nicely put.
July 9, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is no more noble than the stench of Bill's Lewinskivaginalscent cigars.
July 9, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or a jizz-stain on a blue dress.
July 9, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, nicely said.
The whiplash that might be occurring in some readers might have to be treated.
July 9, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you bitch Hillary! How dare you vote to protect the constitution! How dare you don't stand up and fight for those corps that broke the law! We know who you are. Thats why near everyone on this page is calling you calculating bitch, cause you're making Obama, who HAD to vote for it ya know, look bad! Damn you CLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITON!!!!!!
July 9, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Standing up for the Constitution would have meant there would never been a need to violate FISA because Hillary would have stood up for her constitutional pledge to uphold her check and balance role in the SENATE and OPPOSED the vote to go to war.
Hillary gives less than a damn about the US Constittuion or the more than 3K soldiers she sent to die in the desert or the over 50K who are maimed and injured for life.
This woman is unprincipled and doesn't care about anything other than herself.
July 9, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Hillary should be chastised for her vote for the war. But you can also turn this around. Obama can be chastised for his vote on FISA just as much. And given his cautiousness here--and pretty much throughout his time in the Senate--who knows how he would have voted for the war.
July 9, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you cannot turn it around because when Hillary voted she was not running for a darn thing!! She was not in the midst of a Presidential election where National Security is perpetually the achilles heel of the Democratic party and she was the nominee.
Not at all the same. What Hillary was doing was thinking she was 'going to run' and therefore she needed to be strong on National Security and be able to vote for war with as much false bravado as a man could.
Not alike at all.
July 9, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I follow the distinction you're making. She voted for it because she was "going" to run, but wasn't running, yet? In either case, you're suggesting that she would have been hurt by the vote because it plays into the narrative of Dems as weak on defense. How is that different than Obama here?
July 9, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is opposing the nominee of the party to make him look weak to his supporters. She is not being a team player.
She was a team player for Bush&Cheney though and voted for their war and said it was working.
Hillary has never been the democratic presidential nominee..that is the distinction. She has not stood up on any principled position ever. She has not taken a leadership role as an advocate for any national issue despite her having a platform as a former First Lady and being a NY Senator with access to the biggest media market.
Obama on the other hand has stood up and taken a leadership role on unpopular issues. He has spoken to the masses and advocated for us to be involved in our government, to work for green energy to increase gas mileage, to successfully pass ETHICS legislation and to work for immigration reform.
Hillary has not ever once stood up for any controversial issue. She only does what is politically expedient.
She is not a leader.
July 9, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would certainly agree with you about Hillary, but it's hard to see Obama as not as equally calculating. His support for coal and ethanol interests, his fundraising through lobbyists, his reversals on handguns, FISA, campaign finance, death penalty, his softening stance on NAFTA, his explicit opposition to progressive candidates in Democratic primaries . . .
"Obama on the other hand has stood up and taken a leadership role on unpopular issues."
Which ones, exactly? Ethics reform, green energy? Are these really controversial issues?
July 9, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/8/15615/48851/119/548046
July 9, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, that means that if you're running for President as opposed to just doing your Constitutional duty as a Senator, then it's OK to.... do what, exactly?
July 9, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are the only one who called her a bitch.
And c'mon, she is the queen of calculation.
I really hope she doesn't have a role at the Convention...I know she wants to try to steal the spotlight and sow more seeds of discontent. That's exactly what this is, and she is only too happy to oblige.
July 9, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I just checked DailyKos and saw the best part. One of Hillary's internet advisors has graciously posted Hillary's statement as a diary on DKos, and it's on the rec list.
Oh baby. That is what I call -cold-.
July 9, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Through their vicious campaign to drive Hillary out of the race early, Kos did more than anybody to make this bill possible. Because if Hillary was still in the race, Obama would never have dared to go back on his word and the bill never would have passed.
So it should be called the "KOS Telecom Immunity and Fourth Amendment Nullification Bill"
July 9, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing how dems wouldn't mind moving to the left when little is at stake. It's obvious she's sticking it to Obama and his netroots gang, but it's the right vote. For whatever reasons, she made a better choice and for whatever reasons, Obama didn't. There is no point in hating Hillary for a wrong Obama vote. She saw the opening and she did what she knows best, sneak in and create a holler.
While I support her vote, she was no where to be seen debating or fighting against the bill.
July 9, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I support her vote, she was no where to be seen debating or fighting against the bill.
I totally agree.
July 9, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As do I.
July 9, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually you are wrong. She fought against the bill. The MSM and their netroot pals just did not see fit to report on it. Do your homework before you veture to fabricate things on the spot.
July 10, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the quote you dumbass
. 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...
July 10, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
*cough* There is a difference between saying she fought for whatever and actually having done it. You might do well to research what she actually did and then post that information, as it would actually have some credibility.
July 10, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that Mr Strat would care to do that research, because then he would have to admit (as I noted above) that Sen Clinton skipped out on the last FISA vote. Incidentally, this point rather gives the lie to the idea that Clinton would have been any better. Back when she was the odds on favorite to be the nominee, she wanted no part of the democratic resistance to FISA "reform." It is only now that she is out of the running that her concern for justice and right to prevail has returned. In other words, they are both equally disappointing in precisely the same way that we have all come to expect from democrats. She would have been no better.
Still and all, she did right this time, and I applaud her for it.
July 10, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do not need to hate Hillary to see how she is backstabbing Democrats on this issue. This is not about hate.
Rather, what we have here is a sore loser who is going to do her best to make this about her and damn the party, damn the voters and damn the US Constitution.
So there is no need to support her vote, she is too craven and giving support to her politically expedient acts only encourages her to tear the party apart.
Surely you see that? This is fuel for her to go out and cast the nominee as weak on Civil Liberties while he has to fight the GOP on the other front regarding National Security.
Hillary is very bad news. No one who cares about winning the White House should even acknowledge let alone recognize or support her statement.
It is sowing the seeds of destruction for the Democratic party, to lose to McCain.
Just as she and Bill have beleived all along, no way could anyone win other than HER.
It's HER turn reMEMber?
July 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is weak on civil liberties. Didn't you see how he voted? I can agree Hillary was expedient but she didn't force Obama to join the coward caucus.
July 9, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168
Here's the vote. I notice my Senator Klobuchar was with the "nays" this time. Interesting. She voted with the "yeas" a few months ago and I know she got a huge response.
July 9, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Klobuchar voting against the bill is also more bad news.
This is about women power..how did Feinstein vote?
Hillary is leading a female insurgency...that is all this is about.
July 9, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein voted as you'd expect a Republican to vote.
July 9, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Hillary did not force Obama to do anything. She is the loser. She is simply trying to tear the party apart by opposing the party nominee. This is a power play that she is going to use to advance her 'suspended' campaign and not release her delegates. She is going to use this to galvanize the Democratic base to support her in Denver.
This is so clear. All of which is very bad, VERY bad..VERY BAD for the Democratic party.
July 9, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not weak on civil liberties. Heck he just passed the legislation for transparency in government spending. We can now go out on the net and find where every single penny is being spent.
Obama is anything but weak on civil liberties. I too, am not pleased with his vote. However, I know that I agreee with him on the majority of issues.
I also know that McCain will have the entire country quarantined and in a state of national emergency where no citizen has any rights, if he becomes President.
There is a time to be right and there is a time to win.
This is about winning the Presidency, not fighting some losing battle in the Senate that wastes political capital and holds no sway with the majority of the masses.
All Democrats need to focus on winning the White House.
If we win, Obama will probably go down in history as the greatest civil liberertarian ever.
I do not hear any other candidate calling on Americans to take back their government.
Only Obama is.
So, while I do not like his position or vote on FISA...I do know he is the best choice for President and all this backstabbing, whinning and Hillarycraveness can cost us the White House because the party will be divided.
July 9, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, unlike Clinton, voted to ban cluster munitions. I have a hard time caring about FISA because, on balance, I'd guess cluster munitions from our military probably kill more people than telecom immunity ever will.
July 9, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remarkably similar justification to John Yoo's position on torture - as long as you don't kill anyone or risk major organ failure it's OK.
July 10, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like my parents said, it's all good fun till someone puts an eye out.
July 10, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you implying Clinton is preferable to Obama because she voted against telecom immunity, even though she supports maiming innocent children with what amount to booby-trapped toys? Yes, yes you are. Get a grip.
July 10, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that your justification for not caring about Obama's FISA stance is that no one's getting killed.
That's a pretty low standard by which to hold a candidate or any government action.
July 10, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on the mark.
July 9, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me? Look at the list of Dems who voted nay, including Obama endorser Kerry, among others. The backstabbers voted aye, pal.
July 9, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
can we please stop calling this a cave in because it wasnt.
Find out what Jesse Jackson said
July 9, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've noticed throughout this session, since we're in the "majority" (ha, ha, ha) and all, that it's as if there is permanent "fix" in on these kind of votes. 20-30 Democrats are allowed to vote against the Republicans (who always win the big ones - can you think of ANY big one they've lost) and they vary a bit from vote to vote almost as if they rotate a few "left" votes among those who have left of center constituents. This is supposed to con us blithering idiots who are believed to be too stupid to look up all the roll call votes. Many of the Iraq votes have been similar.
My contempt for the Democratic party is becoming limitless. At least the ruthless creeps in the other party vote their own agenda.
It's hopeless people as long as we vote for them. Stop now. They may have no integrity. That's no reason for us to lose ours.
July 9, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please share the names so we can work to put them out of office.
July 9, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's hopeless people as long as we vote for them. Stop now. They may have no integrity. That's no reason for us to lose ours."
These purist principled stands of yours keep getting real people killed.
If only some of the Nader fanatics in 2000 could have put aside their santimonious egomania and voted for Al Gore, the government wouldn't be spying on us and there would be no debate about FISA because it would be violated. A heck of a lot of people wouldn't be dead or maimed either.
Now the same zealots who caused this mess are outraged and propose doing more of the same?
July 9, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. YES. YEEESSS.
July 9, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, had Gore spoken authentically on the issues that truly do matter to him, he might have won because he would have been a more believable candidate! Instead, he became a wooden DLC clone and chose Joementum to win FL and lost FL anyway. That's what selling out does for you.
July 9, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
An obviously illogical chain of cause and effect.
July 9, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now the same zealots who caused this mess are outraged and propose doing more of the same?
I guess it's OK to tear the party apart as long as it's you who's doing the tearing, eh?
July 9, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we say "backlash?"
That's what she's giving those of us who went (and still are) with The O Man.
July 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is now less cautious since she's not running for President.
She totally would have backed this had like she did on Iran, flag burning and everything else when she was trying to act "tough".
Leave the highminded principled stands for pols in safely liberal states/districts
July 9, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, concede the agenda to the Republicans at all times without fail.
July 9, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are capitulating to the Republican agenda.
The GOP needs people like you. They love you. Keep up the attack-the-Dems-247-strategy. It's McJerk's only hope.
July 9, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not me. I'm a fighter. My Senator actually switched sides so maybe the harassment worked in her case, at least on this vote. You gain nothing by letting them get away with taking the easy way out because you not only lose the vote, you concede the argument. Until the Republicans stop winning the argument, they will rarely lose elections.
July 9, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And once you start criticizing Republicans with the fervor you do about Democrats, maybe we'll win a Presidential election for a change.
July 9, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Hillary...you and mr. bill just can't see thru your fog! You lost but you still hold out for the miracle that everyone will come to you and plead with you to be the next president of the US. Until Obama makes that acceptance speech it's not over for the Clintons. My Blue Dog congressmen, Rep. Shuler(NC-11) refuses to endorse Obama and won't even make a staement of support for Obama. He endorsed Hillary. This game she plays is about power and holding onto power! We have to remove these unamerican power seeking politicians from both parties.
July 9, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee guys, Hillary does the right thing, Obama does the WAAAY wrong thing and somehow she is the unprincipled coward. Must be interesting to live on Obama land.
(Populated by hypocritical sniping bastards from what I've seen on this site for, oh the last 9 months.)
July 9, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Well said.
July 10, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument also cuts against Obama. One minute he was against telecom immunity, the next he's vote for a bill granting such immunity. I'm pretty sure that Obama would have voted for the authorization for the use of military force if he were in the Senate at the time, and I think you know that's true.
July 9, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if I'm pretty sure, but I'm a hell of a lot more skeptical.
July 9, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
really. turn it down a notch, vicissitudes,
you're going to stroke out.
July 9, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL LOL..I can't STAND, deceitful, backstabbing, conniving, unethical people who do stuff to make others look bad.
you know the type, they never outperform or gain accolades on merit or achievement? They get ahead by making others look bad...they have no success themselves, just their path up the ladder is littered with the thousands who were stupid enough and gullible enough to be sucked into their deceit only to wind up with egg on their face at best and their ass in the slinger at worse.
July 9, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Populated by hypocritical sniping bastards from what I've seen on this site for, oh the last 9 months
Thank you for bringing civility from now evacuated Hillaryland. .
July 9, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud Senator Clinton for opposing this bill now. It should be noted that the first time the senate caved on this, she was one of two senators who couldn't be bothered to show up and vote on it. It was the day of the potomac primary. Barack Obama took an hour from campaigning to vote, but Senator Clinton did not.
July 9, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. thanks for highlighting that point
That is the kind of difference I mean between principled and unpricipled when a person has core values and the acumen to to what is right not what is politically expedient.
July 9, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tell you, I am o.k. with unprincipled so long as the lack of principles leads one to vote the way that I like.
This is really unbelievable to me. You seem like an intelligent guy I would say that's trying to sell a message that, even thought Hillary Clinton voted against the FISA bill today...and we need to note here that you oppose it because of your principles...she shares your position and votes it...but she's unprincipled in doing so. Wow.
July 9, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I was not really taking a position on the subject of whether or not Sen Clinton is "unprincipled." It seems to me that "unprincipled" is one of those words (like "moderate" or "responsible") that mean a million different things in a million different mouths. My point was that Clinton deserves credit for voting the way she voted today. Voting against this FISA "compromise" was the right position to take and Sen Clinton took it, so she deserves the kudos (however modest) that flow therefrom.
July 9, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your reply and apologies for misinterpreting the "unprincipled" reference.
July 9, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What really turned my stomach was learning that Hillary liked dogs. How craven can you be? To put aside all of your "true, secret, inner beliefs" that only posters here know about to toy with the affections of the dog owning majority is despicable. I've read these pages. I was warned you were going to run as an independent if you lost. I was told you would run as McCain's VP. I read all about your plans to take the fight to the convention to insure an Obama loss so you could run in 2012. Damn it, one of these days someone here will be right about some claim they predicted after reading your mind from afar then the celebrating can begin because we're not happy with supporting the winner we just want to kick you some more.
Can't we get past all of the foolishness?
July 9, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk to use after Denver..that's when we will be able to prove to you that it was not us who were being foolish.
July 9, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
An awful lot of Clinton-bashing, yet I notice there is very little here actually, you know, defending Sen. Obama's vote. Perhaps because there is no defense?
July 9, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, perhaps because and most-likely...this does not play outside the Beltway! Seriously, this is not an issue most people are going to vote on in November. It's all about the war and the economy. Most people have no clue what "FISA" is or means.
July 9, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one defending Obama?
where the hell have you been?
It's over; the FISA bill is over.
time to move on.
July 9, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the candidate for change. Now that he is in you will see a more change out of him. He is not a different kind of politician, he said what he had to, and now that he is in you get the "change" part. Don't feel bad, they are all like that, the next thing he will be changing is his War exit strategy, then Taxes, Social Security, and so on. There is always Nader.
July 9, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My respect for HRC having reached its nadir sometime in March, I'm not inclined toward cheerleading on her behalf. However, she voted right on this one, and speculating on her motivation for doing so is useless. Perhaps she was acting out of political expedience, but the end result was still that she did the right thing.
And why does anyone care why she did it? She lost, and now she's back in the Senate. Perhaps she wants to grow in that role, to "bloom where she's planted," as it were - as did Ted Kennedy following his unsuccessful bid for the presidency back in 1980. She's a smart, highly competent person, and here's hoping that she brings those qualities to bear in her votes on other important issues, as well. We need politicians who can learn from their mistakes, and it's almost never too late to do that.
Good on you, Hillary.
July 9, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate that several staunch Obama supporters take Clinton at her word and give her the kudos I think she deserves.
Those who speculate on how she might vote if she were the nominee at this point are just grasping to justify Obama's deceit.
Truly I would wish that the content of her statement and the example set by her vote would trump any previous negative feelings about her.
As this election cycle proceeds toward the convention I would only ask that Obama supporters be honest with themselves. Is he now, right now, the candidate you originally supported? Has his recent actions and positions reflected his words?
Think hard on what might happen in Denver. McCain will be formidable. Will Obama be able to beat him knowing what you've seen recently? You know I don't think so. Rhetorical as it may seem, the question is what do you think?
July 9, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh goodness. McCain is winning few if any of the main issues at this point. Obama is winning or tied in primarily red states. It really will not be close in November. Heck, Shrub declared a mandate after losing the popular vote; Obama will have that plus a stronger Democratic Congress. No doubt whatsoever. Of course McCain makes it all the more easier with his ineptness, stumbling, and numerous flip-flops.
July 9, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no more questioning our nominee. We can't afford to have a floor fight in Denver. If you think Clinton can beat McCain, then push to have her on the ticket. The time for discussing Clinton as the nominee is DONE.
July 9, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep titlting at windmills!
Hillary actually has two chances of winning the nomination:
zero and none.
July 9, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screwed up my italics, dammit. Grrr.
July 9, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fogu2 said: "I would only ask that Obama supporters be honest with themselves. Is he now, right now, the candidate you originally supported? Has his recent actions and positions reflected his words?"
1. Yes.
2. Largely, yes. However, I am deeply disappointed by his vote on this, to say the least.
However: I won't allow perfect to be the enemy of very, very good. I'm prepared to give HRC all the credit she deserves on this, but if the campaign she ran (not to mention her vote on the war) didn't change your mind about your support for her, you can't possibly think that this will cause every Obama supporter to do something as catastrophically stupid as vote for McCain.
And "McCain will be formidable?" Really? When? Looking forward to seeing that.
July 9, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd suggest you look at this map.
http://www.thebigsort.com/images/maplarge2004.gif
In al likelihood all those "landslide" counties will vote the way they did in 2004. The white counties are the only ones in play. The swing that Obama is relying on is disenchanted voters. When it becomes apparent, and it will to the general populace, that is not just politics as usual but a chameleon, the Reeps that were considering him as a breath of fresh air will recert to McCain.
Also keep in mind that Clinton won the vast majority of counties that typically are Republican.
The electability issue is real and by Denver it will be apparent that there are real issues with Obama that Clinton does not and never did have.
McCain will indeed be a formidable candidate.
Game, Set, Match.
July 9, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Dems that were doing the voting in the 'republican' counties. That was Demm against Dem NOT Dem against Rep. So... That doesn't say much about her being able to win those counties in the General!
July 9, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd suggest you look at this map.
http://www.thebigsort.com/images/maplarge2004.gif
In all likelihood all those "landslide" counties will vote the way they did in 2004. The white counties are the only ones in play. The swing that Obama is relying on is disenchanted voters. When it becomes apparent, and it will to the general populace, that is not just politics as usual but a chameleon, the Reeps that were considering him as a breath of fresh air will revert to McCain.
Also keep in mind that Clinton won the vast majority of counties that typically are Republican.
The electability issue is real and by Denver it will be apparent that there are real issues with Obama that Clinton does not and never did have.
McCain will indeed be a formidable candidate.
Game, Set, Match.
July 9, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not 2004 by any means. You better take a look at reality: http://www.electoral-vote.com/.
Game. Set. Match. Championship, sport. I realize you are trolling for attention but you're done. You just can't admit it! LOL!
July 9, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And DOWN goes fogu2!
A Swing and a miss, you struck him out!
July 9, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls are meaningless, especially at this point.
The 2004 maps reflects actual voting. If you read the associated interview it appears very little has changed since then.
July 10, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, almost forgot what you conveniently left out from your own reference, "BigSort.com":
"The Bush campaign in '04 was the first to figure out that the way to win the presidency wasn't through persuasion, but by mobilizing the social groups defined by church, neighborhood, and communities of interest. So far, Senator Obama has done the best job building a political campaign among these local social networks."
End. of. story. Next!
July 9, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of makes you wonder, when another tough bill came up, back in 2003, would Obama have voted for it? You know, the safe bet? Based on the psych 101 and poli sci interpretations of the HRC vote today, I think it is a pretty safe bet that Senator Obama knew he had a 'safe' opportunity to 'vote' against the war.
Oh wait...it doesnt go both ways if the candidate is a woman....
July 9, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right.
Please.
July 9, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was the better candidate for POTUS.
I hate to admit she was right, but Obama is all talk.
They tried to warn us.
July 9, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that this is a tad more than can be believed. Remember, when an even worse (albeit only slightly) version of FISA "reform" came up in February, Obama voted against cloture to allow the bill to come to the floor while Clinton skipped out. In other words, back when she was still the odds on favorite to win the nomination, she wanted no part of FISA resistance. It was only once she was out of the running that her opposition to this infringement of our constitution became a motivating factor for her. In other words, they are both equally spineless on this issue. They were both willing to oppose it when the price to be paid was minimal, and it just came to pass that it was minimal to Obama at one point and minimal to Clinton at a different point. Neither, however, had the spine sufficient to oppose it when it might have cost them. They are equally cowardly.
July 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you may give her credit if you like; however, while Obama and Clinton both voted in favor of amendments that would have stripped immunity (they did not even come close to passage), the Senate next moved to a cloture vote - which allowed one last opportunity for a filibuster. Originally, both Clinton and Obama voted for cloture. However, Clinton changed her vote before the tally closed. A little later, she voted against the FISA reform. So if you think she wasn't trying to work the situation, you are entitled to your opinion.
July 9, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I wrong in remembering that Clinton, when she was the presumed nominee, supported the first FISA bill which was much weaker?
Probably just as important today, is who voted to give Bush the power to invade Iran? I believe Clinton voted to give Bush that option and Obama didn't Her vote was a big mistake because Bush has already proven he doesn't understand the idea of diplomacy,just threats and war.
July 9, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So did Klobuchar. I think these votes are pretty much fixed. A couple of dozen vote left and the rest vote right on almost any issue. They switch around on some of the votes which enables them to vote both ways on the same issue but they also make sure they can't win anything. They are either totally terrified of actually being accountable for governing or they're all bought. It's beyond pathetic.
July 9, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
==An awful lot of Clinton-bashing, yet I notice there is very little here actually, you know, defending Sen. Obama's vote. Perhaps because there is no defense?==
It is indefensible both from the principled point of view as well as from political. He chose to vote against the opinions of majority of Americans, on a constitutional issue he could have lead and won on. At the same time, he gave a lot of ammunition to the Republicans who can now spend the rest of the campaign painting him as a Kerry redux - an "I was for it before I was against it" flip-flopper, which most voters hate, no matter what the political spectrum. It was both craven and stupid.
I really think he just lost the election. I have never seen a candidate who, in the span of three weeks, and before he was acually nominated, managed to handicap himself so well, he is lucky to limp to the convention. It is unbelievable! Who is advising him?
July 9, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's absurd. Like it or not, FISA does not mean a thing to most voters. They won't be voting on it. It's all about the economy and the war come Election Day. Here is a clue: No candidate has ever been or will ever be the perfect candidate, for pete's sake. And as for flip-flopping, you must be joking because that is all McSame has been doing for many weeks. On multiple issues! And looking terrible on his stump speeches on TV.
Limp to the convention?! That is simply laughable. Right now Obama is ahead in the electoral vote, polls, and even intrade.com bets. He is actually winning in red states such as Montana. And is competing in red states that were never competitive before. McCain is behind on practically every issue of concern. Even right-wing polls have Obama ahead.
July 9, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's laughable and pitiful to see such devoted hatred.
July 9, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Clinton are both voting for what's politically expedient here. Had Clinton been the nominee and Obama the runner-up, their votes would've been the opposite. Can you really argue otherwise after seeing Hillary's Thatcherbot 5000 routine a couple months ago?
July 9, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
How else can we prove we are Republicans if we don't vote like Republicans! Americans will surely reward us for voting with all the Republicans because there is no other way than the right way and the further right the better, right?
July 9, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...Clinton makes the right call, and people come out of the woodwork to attack her anyway. This board never disappoints.
Glenn Greenwald certainly has a number of Obama's supporters pegged (I too voted for him, though my support has diminished significantly since the primary).
July 9, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, wake me up in November....this stuff is straight wack!
July 9, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Puh-LEEEZ!!
There was nothing courageous about Clinton's vote. If BO's vote was a matter of expediency, hers was no less so.
However, I can't agree that this means there are Clinton shenanigans in our future. Obama has effectively taken control of the party machinery, which will march to his tune, and no one else's.
The Clintons are out in the cold unless they play nicey nice during the campaign. If they don't and Obama still wins (which he will), there will be nothing in the administration for Mrs. C., while Bill will wind up getting stuck as the target of an investigation into whether he failed to register as a foreign lobbyist - a failure which (where is Ken Starr when we really need him?) is a federal crime.
July 9, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed to the 10th power!
July 9, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, I'm tired of this, Man. Can't people see? Like GaNavy said, the Clintons need to play nicey. I think most voters can see straight through these politics. Hillary's my girl and all, but, I don't think most voters are stupid (Actually I take that back...they voted for Bush TWICE). But come on...the rest of the world wants Obama, we want Obama. And regardless of what Jesse Jackson says...the African American community wants Obama.
So what's the problem???
Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry if I'm going too much. I'm just a little passionate!
July 9, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they need to play nicey-nice. The problem is that their actions are not nicey-nice. Rather, HRC releasing this statement which opposes the Presidential nominee or our party is continuing to act like she is a rival for the nomination.
That's the point here.
Why the hell release a statement. Who the hell is she. Lots of other Dems voted no, and we do not have statements from them!
She is continuing to stir up disharmony and fragmenting the party.
That is not being nicey-nice. Whatsoever, she is smilin in his face, with unity talk, all the time she wants to take his place with released statements like this where she will be on every cable outlet with her 'rationale'
for opposing the vote.
Which is when they will highlight the 'difference' between her and Obama's stance and she will keep this story in the news while they will mention how he has 15K supporters onhis website that opposed the position as well. Making it seem like Hillary is their candidate vs. Obama.
Surely, you can see there is nothing nicey-nice about this political theatre. She is playing smashmouth politics.
Backstabber!!
July 9, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right.
July 9, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This obsessing over Clinton (once again) is wholly misplaced.
This bill (and Obama's flip-flop on it) is a travesty.
Forget Clinton. Did these guys all do it for the "political expediency?"
Democrats voting against final passage of the FISA bill: Akaka - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Byrd - Cantwell - Cardin - Clinton - Dodd - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Kerry - Klobachur - Lautenberg - Leahy - Levin - Menendez - Murray - Reed - Reid - Sanders - Schumer - Stabenow - Tester - Wyden.
There is no defense to Obama's behavior here, and attempting to turn this into another attack on Clinton won't cut it.
Shame on you.
July 9, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shame on you...for not noticing that NONE of those people other than Hillary released a statement highlighting their direct opposition to the Presidential nominee of their OWN party.
Geez.
July 9, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, I'm tired of this, Man. Can't people see? Like GaNavy said, the Clintons need to play nicey. I think most voters can see straight through these politics. Hillary's my girl and all, but, I don't think most voters are stupid (Actually I take that back...they voted for Bush TWICE). But come on...the rest of the world wants Obama, we want Obama. And regardless of what Jesse Jackson says...the African American community wants Obama.
So what's the problem???
Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry if I'm doing too much. I'm just a little passionate!
July 9, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing...all of you that are against this FISA bill...never stood up when Obama had to leave his church, pastor, etc. and the African American community had to feel the pain. Only when it was offensive to you (FISA bill), did you stand up and complain about Sen. Obama's position. So you pick and choose what offends you.
Go head, vote for McNap. I hope you'll enjoy the next 4 years.
July 9, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They probably didn't cry for Katrina either.
July 10, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Stand up?" What are you talking about?
I supported Obama's stance on this issue...before he changed it. I'm not going to suddenly alter my opinion on this important issue because some politician suddenly decided he'd gain more votes by voting with the Republicans.
What on earth does Obama's "church" or "pastor" have to do with it?
July 9, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stand up meaning being as passionate about that topic as everyone is about this FISA bill. I just never saw it!
July 9, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plenty of people "stood up" and defended Obama against the political attacks leveled at him during the primary....but what does that matter? This issue is vastly more important than the predictable personal attacks that are present in any political campaign.
July 9, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
MORE IMPORTANT???????????
July 9, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
A helluva lot more important.
Obama's faith does not impact my personal life and liberty.
Civil liberties being disbanded clearly impact my life as an American citizen.
If you can't see the vast difference and how much more profoundly this bill impacts the nation, then you might wish to take an 8th grade Civics refresher course.
July 9, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking about my community. You're completely off topic!
July 9, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What matters is where you vote. Call what you want. But she voted right and he voted wrong.
July 9, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama is a pandering centrist. Hillary actually is a centrist. At least she is not a lying sack of shit. Barack Obama is scum of the earth. I'll hold my nose and vote for this worthless piece of refuse only because McCain is worse. My guess is that you morons will revert to your apathetic stay at home or vote third party instincts once you realize how badly you have been taken. This was my fear all along. This idiot whipped up a frenzy of hope for big change, when all we can really hope for is holding the line. She would have probably made some incremental changes. He ain't gonna do a damn thing but kiss republican ass.
July 9, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God this FISA bullshit is over!
I can never recall such mindless, self-righteous posturing by people claiming to know constitutional law, much less politics on the national stage.
July 9, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU!
July 9, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's part of being President....You win some, you lose some.
July 9, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't "lose" anything....he changed his position.
July 9, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this issue is vastly more important than attacks on Obama's preacher (and I'm an attorney, by the way...as are many other individuals who have taken issue with the illegal surveillance conducted by this administration).
July 9, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well friend, I'm an attorney too, and while I condemn the Bush administration's illegal surveillance, this FISA bill does not gut the constitution.
Nor is it the end of our democratic republic as we know it.
This bill was in the political realm in an election year.
Once we win the political campaign, then we can revisit it or bring criminal charges against the Bush administration.
July 9, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not proclaim this as "gutting the constitution" nor 'putting an end' to the republic, but it is most certainly bad law and it is inexcusable that so many Democrats in Congress were party to it...especially our candidate for president.
I disagree that this was a politically-wise move, in any event.
July 9, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
To you maybe...but not to me.
July 9, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"WASHINGTON — More than two and a half years after the disclosure of President’s Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program set off a furious national debate, the Senate gave final approval on Wednesday afternoon to broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program.
The plan, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, marked one of Mr. Bush’s most hard-won legislative victories in a Democratic-led Congress where he has had little success of late. ...."
Gee, thanks, Obama, for handing Bush one of his most hard-won legislative victories.
July 9, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's over bluebell.
No amount of bitching, whining or threatening is going to change it.
Obama could have voted against it and it still would have passed.
Move on.
July 9, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Man. Point well takin.
July 9, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you mean "stay the course"?
July 9, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
MoveOn.org
July 9, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama had voted against the FISA bill the vote would have been 68-29 which wouldn't have changed anything; and there would been Republican ads out tomorrow attacking Obama as too naive to be trusted to protect our children from terrorists. I didn't support and donate to Obama for him to throw himself on a sword in July over a bill he couldn't win.
We have to work to change the mindset of the country...and that's going to take some time after Bush/Cheney's campaign of fear for the last seven years.
July 9, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how you've come to this conclusion. Opinion polling demonstrated that a majority of Americans opposed telecom immunity.
Rest assured though that we'll see plenty of ads knocking Obama's obvious "flip-flop" on this issue. If we're lucky he'll respond by reminding Americans that he was against it before he was for it...
July 9, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hogwash.
The general public knows little if anything about FISA and telecom immunity.
It's the spin war that will tell the tale, and posts railing about Obama do nothing but aid and abet the Republican noise machine.
July 9, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh, THIS is the sort of response I find most repulsive. Obama himself has provided the Republicans with the wealth of the ammunition on this front.
National opinion polling most certainly did demonstrate a strong opposition to telecom immunity...but let's assume for a moment that most don't understand or know anything about the topic. Doesn't that undermine your assertion that Obama needed to change his position for political reasons?
July 9, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't confuse the shill with the facts. Docha see by his avatar he is pushing the "Obama-is-a-Saint" agenda?
Not even the Republicans are as sleazy as these folks
July 10, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eat shit, you know nothing abbout me or the law.
You know nothing about constitutional law, because if you did, you would be embarrassed by your rote recitation of Glenn Greenwald talking points.
July 10, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let see some support for your naked assertion that the public is against telecom immunity in polling.
I bet you can't because your assertion is bullshit.
July 10, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary. Hillary. Hillary.
Floor Fight! Is that possible? Cage match at Invesco Field? Anybody?
July 9, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right.
The Democratic Party is going to steal the nomination from the first African-American who won it in the primaries.
Hillary, the inevitable one, lost.
Next time, look for a clue before you post, 'kay?
July 9, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you glad now that you bullied Hillary out of the race before the convention? Because if you hadn't, Obama would have had to keep his word and immunity never would have passed. Good job!
July 9, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw the Clintons.
I am still tired of their crap and yours.
Repeat after me: "the FISA bill is a molehill."
July 9, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you keep telling yourself that, you might not hear the sound of Obama flushing the fourth amendment.
July 9, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You show your ignorance by making such an asinine assertion, you're nothing but a Repub troll trying to stir up shit.
And why a monkey avatar?
Because Obama is black?
How original!
Begone.
July 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a bit disingenuous. All sorts of political debate involves circumstances that cannot immediately be altered by those participating in the discussion--and 'inconsequential' votes (such as those made by Clinton) were viewed as incredibly important to the Obama campaign during the primary (which they absolutely were).
July 9, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
To people saying "how dare you make this about Hillary", well...I'm not the one who made the post specifically about her statement, out of all of the other senators who opposed it. Commenting on her stance on FISA is appropriate on a thread about her stance on FISA.
July 9, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
==That's absurd. Like it or not, FISA does not mean a thing to most voters. They won't be voting on it. It's all about the economy and the war come Election Day. Here is a clue: No candidate has ever been or will ever be the perfect candidate, for pete's sake. And as for flip-flopping, you must be joking because that is all McSame has been doing for many weeks. On multiple issues! And looking terrible on his stump speeches on TV.==
Let's see - It's absurd to suggest that supporting a Constitutional position, one which is FAVORED by STRONG MAJORITY of Americans, is actually good policy and good politics. Check.
Flip-flopping is no problem because the other guy does it more. Check.
The other guy looks bad on TV so we are good to go. Check.
==Limp to the convention?! That is simply laughable. Right now Obama is ahead in the electoral vote, polls, and even intrade.com bets. He is actually winning in red states such as Montana. And is competing in red states that were never competitive before. McCain is behind on practically every issue of concern. Even right-wing polls have Obama ahead.==
Let's reconvene in about a month. Obama's fundrasing will be way down, the Democratic party will be in dissarary, he will be hemoraging support among the liberals, libertarians, indepenedents and the young voters, forever in a defensive crouch, explaining how he was "for the stripping the immunity from the bill" before he was "against it", all while Republicans run devastating but at least semi-factual ads on his pandering flip-flop.
And the truly sad thing - he did not have to shoot himself in the foot like that at all - should have just went with his instinct, instead of his handlers, who think like you - who the heck cares about this FISA/4th amendment thing - masses are asses!
July 9, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase Tena...
For the love of God, get over it.
FISA will have zero impact on the 2008 election, except in your mind.
July 9, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the point of repeatedly telling people to "get over it" in a discussion specifically about the FISA vote?
July 9, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to say 'I told you so' but ... I TOLD YOU SO!
Hillary was the one who fights for basic principals like the fourth amendment. Obama does whatever he thinks is in his political interest at the time. Then he lies about it and pretends that's not what he's doing.
At least now you know how Rev Wright feels. What it's like to be used and tossed aside. But I'll say this much for Obama ... at least he's black. Sort of.
July 9, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like Larry forgot to flush No Quarter.
July 9, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary kook parade is back, like Jason on Friday the 13th!
July 9, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you glad now that you bullied Hillary out of the race before the convention? Because if you hadn't, Obama would have had to keep his word and immunity never would have passed. Good job!
July 9, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am glad she's gone.
she would have lost to McCain.
July 9, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just keep telling yourself that as he falls further behind in Missouri.
July 10, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't need Missouri, or Florida for that matter.
And trust me, if the FISA vote was "the issue" for Missouri, he would gain votes because of his vote on it.
July 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, he doesn't need Missouri, Florida, West Virginia, Tennessee, or any of those other states that Clinton would have carried. That's what makes him so electable.
July 10, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
WAHHH!!!!
WAHHHH!!!!
Hillary lost!
Deal with it.
accept defeat.
You are a loser because you backed a loser.
hahahahahahaha!
July 10, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It must be comforting to know that no matter what the issue, no matter what the flip-flops, Clinton is the craven, unprincipled political hack and Obama is the noble, visionary leader.
Oceania is at war with Eastasia.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
July 9, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I'm not mistaken, that's the first intelligent statement you've ever posted here.
Congratulations!
July 9, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much Kool Aid can one person drink?
July 9, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How big of an ass can one self-righteous idiot be?
July 10, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's your opinion, and you are welcome to your opinion, but you aren't the candidate so you don't have the responsibility to weigh these decisions against the other important issues. It seems a bit egotistical for you to think you know best how to run for and win the President of the United States. Have you ever run a national campaign?
July 9, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
AT LEAST HE SHOWED UP TO VOTE!!!
MSM WANTS TO REPEAT MCLAME"S TALKING POINTS BUT HE WASN"T EVEN THERE!!!
FUCK THIS
July 9, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
==To paraphrase Tena...
For the love of God, get over it.
FISA will have zero impact on the 2008 election, except in your mind.==
I am sorry, but I really can't take anything you say very seriously. Your avatar is an Obama campaign poster and you ID refernces a "fist jab" which in this context is another Obama reference.
Most of the time you sound like a sycophant
with close to zero informational content and 100% refighting the Obama-Clinton nomination fight. Most of your posts are kind of robotic campaign propaganda - OK if you are on the job, but doesn't lend itself to any kind of real conversation.
July 9, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like McCain was one of three senators who decided not to vote on FISA. I guess McNasty couldn't decide if he was wishy or washy today.
July 9, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got to say that the remarks of vicissitudes and constantinople in particular, and others who continue to slam Hillary, even as she votes as you would have her vote, are telling. You continue to distort, you imagine motives with very little or no information, and slander those who supported a candidate whose policy proposals were superior to Obamas. "Clinton kooks?" I am certain Hillary would never propose any "faith-based" social programs; she voted against FISA; and she hasn't modified or reversed her position on any of her policies during her campaign. Just who are the kooks here? Is this the type of intelligent discourse you Obama supporters (young college-educated) favor. Your remarks are boorish at best. If you are examples of what colleges are putting out these days, you should have just gone into the job market after high school.
July 9, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me?
Did you even read what I posted, or do you have an extremely underdeveloped sense of irony?
July 10, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton does not lie? U lost me right there.
July 9, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read a couple more of vicissitudes comments and have come to the conclusion that he is a hysterical, hyperbolic fantasist. He reminds me of the south part of a horse facing north.
July 9, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah tell that to the 4,000+ soldiers who have died in Iraq.
July 9, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you still confident in the belief that Obama will bring our occupation of Iraq to a close?
I'm sure as hell not.
July 9, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's most distressing about this is that it is representative of exactly what Obama supposedly ran against in the primary--overly cautious political maneuvering and strategic voting based on the 'direction of the wind.' (Remember the Iraq vote?)
It was one of the very few things that purportedly set him apart from Clinton (as policy-wise they were nearly identical).
It now appears that Clinton and Obama are apparently even more similar than what it seemed initially.
July 9, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama has become a virtual flip-flop machine in the last few weeks, and it hasn't cost him a thing on the left. (Have you seen David Corn's contortions on TV lately? Embarrassing.) He's got to be feeling like Superman, or at least like L. Ron Hubbard.
There won't be much left of his "progressivism" by November, but I don't think he cares.
July 9, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK so you're upset with Obama...
Sooooo you're voting for WHO again?
July 9, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama may end up being the 'lesser of two evils' but that doesn't mean that he deserves no criticism for this poor decision.
July 9, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rim shot moment.
July 9, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who imagine they can see into the mind of Senator Clinton convict on spirit evidence, as in the Salem witch trials. It doesn't matter what her actions are--opposing FISA or supporting FISA-- the fanatics here begin with the premise that she is evil, and work backwards from there.
Meanwhile, Senator Obama has been doing what virtually every politician does, which is move to the center after winning the primary. If Senator Clinton were doing the exact same thing, these fanatics would be condemning her as a power hungry monster who would sell her soul to win the election.
July 9, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Clinton is evil, I just think she is a politician, not a saint. What I don't understand is people who can't accept the fact that she lost. If Obama loses I will be upset, but I will accept it within a few days. I won't be sitting around weeks later belittling McCain. I, like most people, have suffered and accepted worse losses than a candidate losing an election.
July 9, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish to clarify that I am not belittling Senator Obama for moving to the center, I am merely pointing out that he has been doing that, and that virtually every politician does that after they win the primary. I am condemning the comments of haters of Senator Clinton, who demonize her for the mere fact that she acts like a politician, when Senator Obama also acts like a politician.
July 10, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, we will never know how Obama would have voted on Iraq because he was not even in the position to do so. So the FISA bill is a molehill? And what about public financing? Did I hear that his campaign is saying he won't get around to Universal health care until 2nd term? Bwahaha.....
July 9, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we sure we're all Democrats in this bottle?
Hillary is a great Democrat. Barack is a great Democrat.
Each voted their own way on a bill whose lifetime is going to be fairly short, I hope. And whose writings are so opaque not even lawyers can figure out what a "person" in the sense of the bill is.
Cut both of them some slack. I am proud of Hillary and I am proud of Barack: both have many years of service yet to give and will make lots of contributions our grandchildren will be quoting at us someday.
I'd vote for either of them in a heartbeat against ANYBODY the republicans could field. But there no longer is a choice...Barack is our candidate and a great one!
FISA was a huge loss, but we shouldn't turn that sick disappointment feeling into anger at our foremost party members.
July 10, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran shooting off missiles today gives Republicans yet another opportunity to run on a terror 24/7 platform. Obama made the smart call on the FISA bill today, as he did on public financing. And Hillary's vote against FISA will actually be politically helpful for Obama, as was Jesse Jackson's comments.
July 10, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that gives me the willies about Iran and its missile shoot.
Remember how the Republicans cut an under-the-table deal with the Iranians way back in 1980 to scupper Carter's chance at a second term?
Hope they don't make another one this year to scupper Obama's chance at a first term.
July 10, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If only she'd given as much effort to understanding the implications of the War Authorization Act and properly reviewing the intelligence estimates before voting to go to war with Iraq. Selective political posturing is what I see, but I can't say I disagree with her stance. Let's see if she is willing to maintain her stance on this issue in the years to come. She is a woman scourned, and woe be to the person who underestimates the implications and potential for revenge. Obama has a far superior lawyer's mind, and realized all the above (if it is in fact accurate) when he voted. You can bet the telecoms won't be aiding and abetting the Govt anytime soon with blanket wiretapping. They know Obama is the likely victor in November, and they won't do anything else to raise his ire as POTUS.
July 10, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not convinced that you completely understand what this bill entails.
Of course the telecoms will continue aiding the government. They're making big money off of it.
From the ACLU:
Do you really have such unwavering faith in this person that you've convinced yourself that he made the right decision by changing his position (completely violating a prior campaign promise to support a filibuster on such a bill)?
July 10, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right, tell the public that the ACLU is against telecom immunity.
Then watch your imaginary polling that the public is against telecom immunity evaporate.
July 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Imaginary polling?"
I don't think so.
I can't help but notice that your posts on this board are conspicuously light on substance and heavy on invective, friend.
July 10, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
First on your poll:
Counterpoint - Should I quote you the Heritage or Hoover institute's commissioned poll on telecom immunity?
C'mon, a little intellectual hoonesty rather than ACLU talking points would go a long way, don't you think?
Most people couldn't tell you what FISA does, except how it's spun in the media, assuming they can remember it. For most folks, it's too nuanced to understand, until it's reduced to a sound-bite. Unfortunately, the right-wing sound-bite on these types of issues get far more credence from the corporate media or ordinary folks than the ACLU's position.
A pollster can get any result he wants depending on how a question is posed.
As a lawyer, you should know that better than anyone else. But please, an ACLU commissioned poll would never be released unless it came up with the result they were looking for.
Moreover, I could commission a poll with a question: "the ACLU thinks telecom immunity is a bad idea. Do you agree with the ACLU's position?"
Care to guess what the result for that "poll question" would be?
The invective I've been giving is regrettable, but is the response I give for the same old tired bullshit that's been appearing in every FISA thread since late June.
I never saw you post anything on FISA or this site until yesterday.
If you were around earlier (or search those threads in the archives), you would see the legal and more thoughtful arguments I made on the FISA bill compromise, and Obama's position on it.
As a citizen, I think the telecom immunity sucks.
But as a lawyer, attuned to politics, I find no offense with Obama's position on FISA, or his explanation, which is usually dismissed by the lefties/netroots out of hand.
I simply tire of Greg's incessant "FISA cave" posts, because they bring out all kinds of trolls who are simply trying to stir shit up against Obama, or make over-the-top one-liners like "he's urinating on the Constitution" or "wiping his ass with the 4th Amendment."
People who never post on TPM, except on FISA.
If I see a post taking Obama to task from someone I recognize as a regular poster on TPM (other than trolls like fogu2 or EastWest), I accord that poster a modicum of respect.
Since you are new here, I apologize to you, for mistaking you for a troll.
July 10, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I took statistics in college, yes. Shall I assume that you've already sought out the methodology of how this particular poll was conducted? I would be more than happy to entertain any evidence that suggests it utilized inappropriate questioning tactics or did not capture a truly random sample. Obviously I myself am sure to check such a thing before offering a poll in defense of my argument.
I have been completely "intellectually honest" in my few posts here. The reason that I do not post regularly is because I usually get quickly turned off by the invective (and during the primary by the ridiculous attacks coming from both sides).
Of course, the polling doesn't matter. At one point, Obama held the correct position on this bill. No longer. I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many Democrats are convinced that the only way the party can get ahead is by capitulating to the fear-mongering from the right. The White House is dead-wrong on this issue, and I find it quite disappointing that the candidate I voted for made an about-face and sided with Bush on something that I find to be quite important.
In my opinion the Democrats are in the ascent right now in spite of their actions, not because of them. I am most definitely unimpressed with how they've run Congress thus far.
July 10, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me thinks you are new to the '08 election scene. I believe O man has a very active commitee headed up by Mrs Edwards addressing the health care issues, and he is not even in the White House, yet. I call that impressive. Not sure if Hillary has been invited to the party (chuckle).
July 10, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I third the motion on this point. Hillary should not have released such on oration at this time. It is absolutlely inappropriate, and could have waited until after the election to be used as an incentive to reopen the issue. She is still playing the Hail Mary card.
July 10, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? Clinton is a senator. She and every other senator that voted against this bill will be speaking out, as they should. She didn't mention Obama or his position in her speech.
It completely blows my mind that some people still think Clinton is out to 'get' Obama and steal the nomination from him. She returned to her job in the Senate, and is doing what senators do.
July 10, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Christians use saint to refer to a person who, after their death, is widely recognized and formally honored as having led an exemplary and holy life.' Wikipedia
I believe Obama will fall quite comfortably into this definition. Could you please clarify your use of the word 'sleazy', because I don't see Obama's behavior or the working within his campaign as what I would normally consider 'sleazy'. Thanks.
July 10, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why my replies are not being attached to the original posts. Can someone help me understand? Sorry if my posts seem disconnected or confusing.
July 10, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember to check the box next to the In reply to statement.
July 10, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This should end any speculation of Hillary as a vp to Obama. She will not be asked and she does not care for being asked. She can use vote to rally support in 2012! Go Hillary! You go, girl!!!
July 10, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
2012?
Yeah that's right, Hillary be running for reelection to the Senate that year while Obama will be running for his second presidential term of office.
Nice call!
July 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Teachable moment: When you fall on your sword to make a point no one will notice.
July 10, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who 'fell on their sword?' A majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted against this bill, it isn't as if Clinton went against the tide or anything. Obama and a minority of Democrats voted with every single Republican to get this bill passed.
July 10, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never liked the "majority of the majority" test that Speaker Hastert used to apply when deciding which bills to bring to the floor, but you must admit that it made him very successful in getting his agenda enacted. If Speaker Pelosi took the same approach, this FISA renewal would have never seen the light of day.
Perhaps civility and fair-play are over-rated? I am not saying that I know that to be the case, but this recent travesty does make ask the question.
July 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink