Obama OK, Clinton not wuite as much (4.00 / 4)

Why do you lump the two of them together?

Obama says he is against retroactive immunity and supports a filibuster of the bill in its present form.  What else should he say -- that he supports a filibuster no matter what the bill says?

Clinton's comments leave a bit more weasel room, although they might be OK.  She does not single out telecom amnesty as did Obama.

I give Obama a B+ to A-, and Clinton a B to B-.

---

by: threegoal @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:37:34 AM UTC

I agree (0.00 / 0)

I see Obama as being clear here, which is a refreshing change from his campaign.

---

by: Oly @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:46:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree also (0.00 / 0)

How much more clarity do you need? They are commenting on what is in front of them at this moment in time and said they would support a filibuster if things stayed the same. That seems pretty clear to me.

The caveats come by way of the Judiciary Committee  still having a say and of course of the final bill still to be presented. There may be nothing to filibuster so what is wrong with them saying that?

Of course tomorrow a number of blogs were teaming up on both Obama and Clinton to support Dodd's filibuster and that is now
in essence what they said they would do. I guess given that their statements have preempted that move it is time to raise the bar? For what? You now have Dodd, Clinton, Obama, and Biden all saying the same thing.

http://tpmelectionce...

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:26:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

how to be more clear (0.00 / 0)

- speak for himself, not through a staffer
- "has serious concerns" - about what, exactly?
- use plain English, not PRish. this is part of the first point, really - if he was talking, he could talk like a person talks. this isn't a courtroom, this isn't diplomacy (in the foreign policy sense).

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

---

by: tatere @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:38:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is the weasel language that bothers me: (4.00 / 1)

But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.

Any change at all would get Obama off the hook.  This is a one-sentence position: I will filibuster any bill that includes immunity for telecoms.  Also, not crazy about an aide delivering the statment.

---

by: eRobin @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 16:57:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Funny way to 'lead'... (4.00 / 1)

from waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the rear.

It's good to have them 'on board' with Dodd but by waiting so long they really, really lost an opportunity.

One wonders just how much help they'll be.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:04:44 AM UTC

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

They shouldn't have waited so long and let Dodd take over the nomination race like he has. They will be lucky to get a cabinet seat now.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:29:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strwaberry Fields Forever! (4.00 / 3)

Always, no, sometimes, think it's me
But, you know, I know when it's a dream
I think, er, no, I mean, er, yes, but it's all wrong
That is, I think I disagree.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:41:18 AM UTC

I hate caveats. (4.00 / 4)

Check out this Senator's weasel language:

[I]f you're going to break a filibuster then you need to have those 41 votes to do so. And it may come to that, if in fact this legislation, this language in the FISA bill remains.

What about other language?

And that is to strip out this provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as it's been rewritten. It that doesn't work here; if this bill leaves the Judiciary with this provision still intact then I'll be filibustering this bill.

So, all they have to do is change it a little, right?

Oh, wait: Those were Dodd's caveats yesterday.

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 13:55:01 PM UTC

Actually Yes. (0.00 / 0)

As an attorney you should know that changing just a few words in a document can give it a whole new meaning. Subtract a provision and you have the solution you are looking for, right?

Basically Dodd is saying that it is not FISA he has a problem with - it is some of the new provisions. So change it a little in the right places and he has no problems.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 14:58:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course. (4.00 / 1)

Which is why Obama's statement is just as firm as Dodd's.

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 15:15:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

:) :) :) (0.00 / 0)

Now that's being an attorney! Trying to have it both ways.

I hate caveats. 
Check out this Senator's weasel language:

First ridicule them for using weasel words - and then embrace their position with some weaseling yourself - LOL

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 15:40:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]