LIke I've said before... (0.00 / 0)

Mrs. Bush-in-a-dress is an absolute disaster waiting to happen.

Triangulation married to incompetence....

Wow!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 20:03:19 PM UTC

It makes sense to an extent (0.00 / 0)

I would actually disagree with the NY Daily News' final conclusion that it's ridiculous that Clinton would filibuster something without reading it.  To support a filibuster is really, technically, to say "I don't think we're done debating this, we need more time."  If that is the case, then if I hadn't yet had the time to read the bill (which HRC should have by now, I'm not excusing that), it would make perfect sense to say "I don't think we're ready to vote on this yet."

John McCain <3 lobbyists

---

by: Fran for Dean @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 20:52:49 PM UTC

Good Point (0.00 / 0)

I certainly agree with your assessment.

I'll add this also. All this hang wringing about what Clinton said in her statement is reminiscent of the months and months of front-page posts and comments across the blogosphere that DEMANDED that Hillary apologize for her Iraq vote in the EXACT words that people wanted to hear. That she said she took personal responsibility for her vote was not good enough - as if taking personal responsibility is not an admirable virtue.

And that ridiculousness went on for months. Obviously the general public was not as self-centered as many in the blogosphere were by demanding that each candidate must adhere to their desires. I guess the public understood what 'personal responsibility' is and the blogging community didn't.

I hope Clinton does the same this time. She already made it clear enough that the blanket immunity as it now stands will not fly. If that isn't good enough for people then they can keep typing away for all the good that it will do.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 23:18:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Only problem with this criticism is.... (0.00 / 0)

.....................................................................that words do matter.

A lot.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:56:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

It's not the 'words' that matter as I pointed out.

It is that the 'words' are not the ones you want to hear.

In other words much of the Left Blogosphere is either tone deaf to anything thing said that doesn't conform to what they want to hear or they really do understand the meaning of what someone said but because of who said it they see it as an opportunity to nitpick and pile on.

I'd say that in Clinton's case it is a little of both.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 17:12:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the war she voted for goes on and on... (4.00 / 2)

...with no end in sight.  And the next one is queued up and ready to start.

The tone of your criticism seems way out of line to me.  It's not "self-centered" to demand candor from politicians and to try to hold them accountable.  Especially not on such a serious issue.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:17:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not candor you look for (0.00 / 0)

You all buy into a 'collective written script' of what the candidate should say and if they don't say it then you condemn them for months on end. It's rather childish behavior. Not a one of you would stand for other people demanding what the words you speak should be would you? You see you want your freedom to express yourself as you wish - and you have every right to do so IMO. But yet you don't extend that same freedom to others.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 17:17:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't? (0.00 / 0)

Citizens who push back against weasel words are enemies of the First Amendment rights of Presidential candidates now?  That's hardly a sound argument.

In any event, you seem more interested in talking down to some imaginary group of lockstepped "angry bloggers" than in discussing differences of opinion.  That's the attitude problem I was alluding to above.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 20:58:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you read the front page today (0.00 / 0)

you saw that the numbers of people on Lefty Blogs are going down not up. I've seen this also at dkos where a lot of the more level headed people have left one by one. And they are not being replaced by Joe Public. If anything they are being replaced, in less numbers than who have left, by angry party name callers whose support on a given day depends on how someone voted or the words they used to express something! They are being replaced by many who do not even know thing like how congress functions.

Now if you step back for a second out of your own skin and pretend you are Joe Public Democrat going to a blog for the first time and read the comments and even much of what the front pagers are saying you will understand why people are not joining the discussion by signing up. It has become more of a contest on who has the best slam than being a place for intelligent discussion.

I think it was Matt today that made that post about the Lefty blogs decline and how we wanted them to grow but instead the population is shrinking. If the good people who are able to see all sides of a debate keep getting replaced by people who get in an uproar about "weasel words" like you do just because you demand Pols use your words instead of theirs then the Lefty Blogs will not grow. And not only will they not grow they will continue to be populated by the fringe of the Democratic Party which will continue to keep away other voices by virtue of the tone lefty Blogs have taken on.

You may think that the bulk of the party thinks like you do or that they should think like you do - but they don't. So if all you what from the blogs is to high-five peoples snarky remarks that you agree with then you may get just what you want.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 23:56:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a great topic, but why be so patronizing? (0.00 / 0)

You don't have much of a factual basis on which to lecture me about what I supposedly believe and what I supposedly demand.  Obviously, I represent to you "everything that's wrong" with this medium--but on what basis?  Just because I disagree with you about one particular blog campaign against Hillary?

I really don't have all that much of a comment history here.  I certainly haven't made a reputation for attacking other commenters or engaging in petty extended pissing matches.  I've always tried to simply state my opinion with decent clarity on issues that I feel strongly about, and leave it at that.  If I can do better, and you can point out to me where I was rude or uncivil, I will take note and sincerely try.

I happen to agree with you about quality of comments and trying to keep sites inviting to newcomers.  DailyKos is now almost completely unreadable.  But genuine ideological and philosophical differences exist within the party, and it's dishonest for people, in this case you, to try to cast honest disagreement as "self-centered", "childish", "fringe", "snarky", "name-calling".

What have I said here or anywhere else that deserves that description?

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 01:10:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

immunity is not important (0.00 / 0)

I do not like the obsessive focus on this issue. It is a minor issue compared to things that matter -- getting us out of Iraq, recovering our constitutional civil liberties.

It bothers me that we are kind of being bounced around by whatever happens to be "up in the news" at any point. It seems like very reactive politics in the sense that we are talking about it because people on TV are talking about it.

In a year nobody will remember this vote whichever way it went. I barely care now, and I'm a member of the ACLU and civil liberties are very important to me.

I would much rather see people focus their efforts on building national support for -- let's say -- withdrawal from Iraq -- even on the days when something else is up for a vote. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be "led by the nose" -- we should be in charge of forcing the vital issues onto the screens.

---

by: sdedeo @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 20:53:03 PM UTC

how can we recover our civil liberties... (4.00 / 3)

If we don't hold those who trampled them responsible? This seems WAY too similar an arguement to those who don't want to discuss how we got to where we are in Iraq. Those who don't study history and acknowledge our mistakes are doomed to repeat it. Those that don't hold lawbreakers accountable make it easier for those laws (our civil liberties and privacy) to be broken again.

Retro-active immunity for Telecoms is an affront to our rights and really, to our Constitution. Getting out of Iraq is important, but ignoring our duty to protect our privacy and our right to it and hold those accountable who would violate it is important also.

---

by: ehofteig @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:01:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the bad guy (0.00 / 0)

The bad guy here is the government. The telecoms are just kind of bogus. They responded to demands from the Feds. Now yeah, maybe they should have gotten some lawyers to see if they were legally obligated to do so (as some did), but there you go.

It's like, say my roommate opened the door to the cops, they demanded to look through my medicine cabinet, and didn't show a warrant. I guess I'd be mad at my roommate, but the real blame lies with the cops.

I just can't get exercised by the issue. The root blame here lies with the Federal Government. They are the ones that made the inappropriate demand. This immunity stuff is not about holding lawmakers accountable.

---

by: sdedeo @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:32:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and in that case, whatever they found in your medicine cab wouldn't be allowed as evidence (0.00 / 0)

You're right that the Fed Government is at fault here but the Telecoms are complicit and should not be let off scott free.

---

by: ehofteig @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:36:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

as I said -- my issue here is the relative importance of the issues.

---

by: sdedeo @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:42:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

just acting under orders? (4.00 / 1)

we aren't talking active duty enlisted here, these are multinational corporations. They could have said no.

---

by: AliceDem @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:59:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True enough, but... (0.00 / 0)

...if your room-mate were chastised for his infraction, then maybe, just maybe - MY room-mate would demand to see a warrant when the cops tried similar tactics the following week.

I admit, that analogy is stretched to breaking - but in terms of the corporations involved, holding them accountable - or at least putting one across their bow - may make them think twice the next time Uncle Samuel comes snooping around.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 13:03:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i should be clear (0.00 / 0)

I'm not saying that I want immunity for the Telecoms.

What I am saying is that there are much larger issues, and that I think we can have a more forceful impact if we lead -- rather than (somewhat snipingly) follow. We should be forcing things on the airwaves and tubewaves that are not being talked about or voted upon because of their radioactivity. Like what the fuck is going on with permanent bases in Iraq? What is going on with Guantanamo, rendition, etc.?

To a certain extent, I am quarterbacking from a distance. I think the work you guys are doing on this is well done, smart, and involved. I just also feel that it is too narrowly focused, too safe.

---

by: sdedeo @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:39:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

couple of thoughts (4.00 / 3)

One, in terms of reactivity, it's important to realize that we have driven this into the news cycle, and not the other way around. 

Two, this is what we're fighting.

This isn't about sensible FISA adjustments, this is about whether George Bush gets the power to do whatever the hell he wants because the Democrats in Congress think the best way to be strong is cave into the bullying of Mr. 24%.

The actual line you draw isn't important.  It's that you draw a line that matters.  All political fights are about the same coalition sets, if you win one you win the rest, and vice versa.  It's not a coincidence we've lost every single fight since the 2006 elections.  Right now we are looking to change incentives for decision-makers.

Three, the significance of immunity is not small.  These companies spend massive sums of money on the best legal talent they can buy; one of their more effective strategies is to literally lock up every good lawyer and law firm with retainers so that other groups can't hire anyone.  There are very few telecom specialists that aren't conflicted out of going after the telecoms.  The notion that they didn't know that this behavior was illegal is simply absurd.  This was their choice, their explicit choice, and at least one company made the opposite choice and was penalized for it.  Retroactive immunity just because the government told you to do it can rationalize any kind of behavior, from murder to kidnapping to theft.  Military contractors are going to ask for this kind of immunity.  This is literally setting the precedent for a license to do anything you want so long as you can get high political officials to legalize it.  But don't you dare follow the law, or the government is going to trash you.

The telecom sector is intimately tied into the government, with the whole senior staff of the Justice department and major military officials like Mike McConnell going back and forth between private business in the telecom industry and high levels of government.  These guys are covering for their buddies.  Having such a strong business-government nexus is very dangerous, where you can commit crimes in business and ensure that the people in office legalize it as long as you hire them out of government service for large sums of money.

I'm not saying this is happening, as we don't have enough information to know, which is part of the point.  What I am saying is that this is a very dangerous incentive system.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:57:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this (0.00 / 0)

is pretty sensible stuff. As I see it, you say you are doing two things:

1. sticking it to Bush. Immunity itself is not the issue, but rather doing battle, on an issue where success and failure are clear and immediate, is. It's a way to sort the Dems from the Dogs.

2. making a larger -- and deep -- point about corporate control over the legal system.

Just kind of skimming around the blogs, I feel like neither of these issues are being made as clear as they could be. Feedback time! As a skimmer, I feel like too much time has been devoted to the horseracy aspect -- dissecting press releases.

It would be nice if blogs could start "from the top" and tie the "news of the day" into these two points above more explicitly and widely. It would make people realize how much more is at stake. Point (2) especially.

As I was taught many years ago by a PR rep from Burston Marsteller (sp?) -- talk like a pyramid, and start from the apex.

---

by: sdedeo @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 22:32:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This also just happens to be something that... (0.00 / 0)

....those pesky folks called 'citizens' get real upset about.

Funny that.

I cannot say too strongly that I totally disagree with the meme that 'this just isn't that important....'. It surely is important as the immunization of the TELCOs from the law is a big step towards what is generally considered Fascism; that is, the marriage of business and state.

The citizenry 'get this' bigtime because they are deeply concerned about BushCo.'s disregard for their rights. We progressives need to push as hard as we can on this. Otherwise just what is the difference between us and those sellouts in the 'Demcrat' Party we are always yelling about for their refusal to listen to the people?

My answer would be, 'Very little...'

As a progressive activist the last folks I want to be identified with are Miss Nancy and 'The Rabbit'. Which is exactly what will happen if we don't take names and kick ass on this.

I'm glad to see that 'we' are doing just that.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 22:34:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

fyi (0.00 / 0)

Calling something a "meme" doesn't make it wrong. Nor, in fact, does it make you look smart (any more.) I was down with memes in 10th grade when the Extended Phenotype came out.

Nobody gives a shit about telecoms getting sued. They're not going to see any of the money. If you don't connect it to a larger story, nobody will care about parsing the latest Clinton maneuver.

---

by: sdedeo @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:56:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your opinion is noted (0.00 / 0)

I happen to think that this issue is related to the occupation of Iraq and the excesses of the Neo-Con Junta that foisted that fiasco upon the world.  Its all part of the same plan.  revealing and/or blocking any part of it is an advance.

Do I think we could be advancing more quickly - YES.  I chose impeachment as the primary issue, the war is there, no matter what - it can't be ignored, obviously.  But if we don't hold the Junta responsible for their actions, some other nitwit is gonna do it all over again at some point in the future.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 13:10:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

how can we recover our civil liberties... (4.00 / 1)

If we don't hold those who trampled them responsible? This seems WAY too similar an arguement to those who don't want to discuss how we got to where we are in Iraq. Those who don't study history and acknowledge our mistakes are doomed to repeat it. Those that don't hold lawbreakers accountable make it easier for those laws (our civil liberties and privacy) to be broken again.

Retro-active immunity for Telecoms is an affront to our rights and really, to our Constitution. Getting out of Iraq is important, but ignoring our duty to protect our privacy and our right to it and hold those accountable who would violate it is important also.

---

by: ehofteig @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:02:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Immunity isn't really the reason to stop this (0.00 / 0)

The bill allows the government to further trample our civil rights, and so it is really beyond important to stop it.

Check out Kangro  X's diary from Daily Kos.

Cheers, Matt Flynn

---

by: flynnieous @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:35:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if that's the case (0.00 / 0)

then we should be focusing on that, as a way to lever the major issues back into the public arena.

---

by: sdedeo @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:43:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are more important things, yes, but... (0.00 / 0)

It's not an either/or. We can do both. Besides, there is enough support nationally for some form of withdrawal from Iraq - the problem is that there isn't enough support in the not terribly representative sample known as Congress.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 00:19:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A worthy successor to Kerry (0.00 / 0)

She's sounding more and more like Kerry last time around, and it isn't even the general election yet, when the CW says she should move right. In this case, it's not just her usual excess of caution, it's a matter of basic political competence. If Dems make the mistake of nominating her we'll see whether the last election was really about our "leaders" taking responsibility and telling the truth, or whether triangulation is good enough. I think she'll have a much harder time in the general than predicted.

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 20:53:59 PM UTC

Obama's statement: (0.00 / 0)

The original story is way out of date.  Here's is Obama's statement on the issue:

I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start.

This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

And if that isn't clear enough for you, the Obama campaign has issued the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.

---

by: DD2 @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:51:37 PM UTC

Point taken! (0.00 / 0)

Now will Senator Obama take the Senate floor and use his great rhetorical gifts to explain to all just why this legislation should be and is anathema to all of us?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 22:36:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]