No, she is exactly wrong. Until this vote passes the Senate, we should be putting extreme pressure on every Democratic senator to change their vote or to let the fillibuster go through.

This is not about Obama. This is about NOT LETTING THIS BILL PASS.

If you are not from Illinois, move on from Obama and get on your own Senators.

Posted at July 3, 2008 7:36 PM in response to Obama Responds To FISA Group On His Web Site

I'm quite happy that he responded. It shows respect. I'd be much happier if he didn't respond and Harry Reid had this bill quashed.

Obama's response still does not explain why our Senate is about to vote for removing a warrant requirement to have our government search our records.

Telecom immunity is a red herring. It totally sucks, but it's not the worst thing about this bill.

Removing a warrant requirement for listening to my calls and reading my emails is a travesty, and I'm ashamed of the Congress for letting this bill even sniff a vote.

Posted at July 3, 2008 7:25 PM in response to Obama Responds To FISA Group On His Web Site

This is in reply to "admiralmpj" above, but I figured I'd add it to the bottom.

Since when is "the perfect" adhering to the Constitution and "the good" trampling all over it?

This bill allows the government to listen in on your phone calls and read your emails without a warrant and without even letting a court or anyone else know about it. Since when is that some left wing issue?

WTF is wrong with this country these last 8 years? Simply pathetic. Really. That this would even come to a vote and that a politician would be torn about what to do here.

PS: Be sure, when you post your much welcomed dissent on Obama's site, that you use someone else's computer and you post it anonymously. Otherwise, president Obama can figure out who you are and keep some notes. You know. Just in case.

Posted at July 3, 2008 7:17 PM in response to Obama Responds To FISA Group On His Web Site

On a positive note, it helps to fight the Obama "always goes along with the liberal agenda" meme a bit. IMO this can be used to show that he took a ton of flack for backing what he believes to be a necessary evil. He's pragmatic, and willing to take a hit when having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

How exactly does it do that? If I were a McCain leaning voter, I would look at the evidence and see no reason to believe that Obama actually thinks this is a good bill worth voting for. I would instead think he caved. I would therefore think he was weak. It would reinforce all of the things I've disliked about the previous Democratic candidates, that they don't take a stand on anything.

I just don't see any upside whatsoever to Obama's choice here. Those who think he's "soft on terror" will still believe that. Those who are not sure will just think he's soft. And those who thought he really had the guts to stand up for what he believes will be disappointed in his choice. What subgroup of voters looks at this and say, "Yippee! I was thinking I would vote for Obama, and this seals it!" None.

Posted at July 3, 2008 10:50 AM in response to Group Urging Obama To Oppose FISA Cave Now Biggest On His Web Site

I love how so many people see the headline on the side of the TPM main site, click on it, read the article, and THEN take the time to post how uninterested they are.

Posted at July 1, 2008 12:21 PM in response to Anti-FISA-Cave Group On Obama's Web Site Keeps On Growing

I can't believe that anyone can view Obama's position on FISA as politically smart for him.

Think of this from a Republican or a McCain leaning independent's perspective. Here's what they know:
1. Obama is against telecom immunity and has said he would support a filibuster
2. Obama promised no warrantless wiretapping when he's president and ridiculed it as being unnecessary to protect us
3. Obama now claims to believe we need warrantless wiretapping, and we need it so badly that he'll let telecom immunity slide
4. Media talking heads talk about him being politically expedient for changing his position

If I were someone leaning towards McCain, my beliefs are already colored a certain way. All of these facts would lead me to one conclusion: Obama is another spineless Democrat with no principles who doesn't believe in anything.

So how does this make any sense for Obama? He takes the wind out of the sails of his supporters, which means there will be less volunteering and less donations. He reinforces the weak democrat theme that runs rampant in Republican circles. He reminds us all of Kerry when he does this.

Voters don't mind if they disagree with a President. But they really mind if a President doesn't believe in what he's doing.

It's as clear as day that Obama thinks this bill is a farse, and yet he's still voting for it. That is never a good thing in politics. If you support Obama, you should criticize him passionately so he learns this lesson right away. Remember, many of his advisers have spent years on the losing side offering advice like this. If he doesn't hear anything else from his real base, he'll continue listening to those idiots.

Posted at June 30, 2008 11:57 AM in response to Networking Group Opposing FISA Cave On Obama's Web Site Grows And Grows

We can lament that the Constitution will fall by the wayside and civil liberties will not be protected through this passage of a BILL which can be easily overturned in another administration. If we don't not steadfastly hold our support with Senator Obama, we risk even worse consequences.

I would say this goes without saying, but that doesn't mean we keep our mouth's shut about it. Obama is making a calculation here that's it more prudent to support this bill than to be against it. In my view, he is wrong on that count.

This is the first time he's not had faith that he could explain the merits of a decision and he would get support for that decision. And this time it's on the biggest stage he's ever been on. That's why it's disappointing. Easy to have principles when you're a lowly freshman senator. Much harder when you're campainging for president.

Posted at June 25, 2008 7:54 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

Since when is a memo from the president a "an apparently lawful order by government officials"?

And since when do government officials "[have] the power to give such an order"?

I'll add this part, then respond more "In fact, under the law as it existed at the time the gov’t could go to a judge for pre-approval OR direct the records be turned over and then have it retroactively appoved by a judge. So there was no way the telecom could know, at the time they were told to turn over the records, if the order was going to be given approval in the future, even if it didn’t arrive with a warrant."

Yes there was a way the telecoms could know if the order was legal. The order would have been in the form of a WARRANT. If that warrant didn't appear, the telecoms knew the law full well and could have provided the data without a warrant for the time allotted by FISA. Once that time expires, the telecoms were legally obligated to shut off the spigot unless the Feds produces a warrant.

This is not rocket science. There was no legal basis for providing 5 years worth of data with no warrant.

Posted at June 25, 2008 7:21 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

As a lawyer, you must know, then, that the only way the government could indemnify the telecoms at the time would have been to PROVIDE A WARRANT.

That's the issue. Telecoms were paid a large amount of money to implement these surveillance systems. They did so without being compelled to do so by a warrant. They violated their customer's privacy and gave their data away simply by receiving a letter from the President and a promise to make a lot of money.

Qwest responded to the Executive's request by asking for a warrant. The Executive didn't bother getting one.

The "netroots" get up in arms because American citizens' rights were trampled on.

Secondly, I for one would happily indemnify the telecoms if the trials were allowed to proceed. The issue is not making the telecoms pay. The issue is that these trials are the only way to find out what was done. If they want to transfer liability to the Feds, fine by me.

The president can't pardon the telecoms for civil penalties, btw. These are civil trials, not criminal trials. I sincerely doubt the justice department is even pursuing an investigation, considering it does whatever the Executive wants at this point.

Posted at June 25, 2008 7:12 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

He didn't say I get a pony. I WANT A PONY!!!!

Posted at May 15, 2008 11:17 AM in response to McCain Promises Victory In Iraq by 2013