So Why Aren't Obama & Clinton Taking The Lead On Opposing Telecom Retroactive Immunity?

[Blackhatjack]

This really tells me a lot more than I wanted to know about their likely future conduct as an elected President.

Both are still Senators --- this is a poor example of leadership IMHO.

[elehhhhna]

1. K&R. Hell, Hil didn't bother to even vote. I cannot bring myself to vote for her. EVER.

[Straight Shooter]

2. For one reason, Claire McCaskill, who endorsed Obama, supports telecom immunity.

Thank you, Ms. McCaskill, for your endorsement which gave a slight edge to Obama in Missouri. We all appreciate your dedication to the privacy rights of American citizens. :eyes:

[debatepro]

9. Obama voted against it... your attempt here is comical and desperate

Nice try... by this logic then you need to blame hillary for Rendell telling white voters in PA they aren't ready to vote for a black man.

[Straight Shooter]

16. I stated a fact. McCaskill holds an important position, and supports telecom immunity.

To the talkingpointsmemo archives, the facts are there.

As for your red herring, I'm not going to go there with you.

[sandnsea]

10. Mikulski and Feinstein do too

Is your hatred so completely irrational that you can't even think to check what Hillary's supporters did.

[Straight Shooter]

21. Oh, now I "hate" obama? Thank you, Ms. Mindreader.

I will be sure to consult with you concerning my feelings about political issues and candidates from now on, since you have such insight into my emotions such as "hatred."

Get a grip. I've never said I hated him. He's just a manufactured candidate, all glitter, no gold.

[sandnsea]

33. Your post is what is manufactured

Completely pulled out of your ass with no thought whatsoever in order to attack someone you have total disdain for, but "don't hate".

[cloudythescribbler]

14. I don't think this should be held against Obama -- and note Kohl, Webb and other disappointments

[Straight Shooter]

19. I am very disappointed in Webb.

He is very strong in some Democratic principles; in others, he isn't. He said he was going to show bush the way. On the other hand, he is from a conservative state, so I give him leeway.

[EffieBlack]

3. Because there are 48 other Dems and they need to leave them something to do?

Seriously - while this particular issue is a priority to you, I have other priorities. And other people have other priorities. If we beat up on our candidates because they have not taken the lead in the Senate on whatever issue WE happen to care about, we'd destroy them.

There are 48 other Senators who can take the lead on issues. And bet that not one of those other 48 Senators is all worked up about the fact Obama and Clinton aren't cemented to the Senate floor fighting over issues. In fact, they want them out their campaigning as hard as they can so that they can change the White House and help increase their numbers in the Senate.

Give them a break and let them do what they have to do.

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. EffieBlack says "while this particular issue is a priority to you, I have other priorities."

So you don't mind getting spied upon and you don't care about Bill of Rights violations against your fellow citizen?

"You had other priorities" Lol

[EffieBlack]

39. You think that being spied on is THE only important priority?

You can laugh all you want, but what's really laughable is your apparent narrow-minded assumption that if something is YOUR top priority, it must be everyone else's as well.

[Leopolds Ghost]

27. Let me guess... I bet you "have nothing to hide," also.

Immunity for impeachable acts and legalization of Bush's warrantless wiretapping are not "other issues".

[goodhue]

4. probably doesn't rank as important issue to most voters

eom

[Leopolds Ghost]

28. What doesn't? Do you and EffieBlack have a clue about what this bill is referring to?

[goodhue]

32. I'm fully aware of issue and wish candidates would address it

I was merely sincerely answering as to why I think they don't

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Adlai Stevenson was right

The average American voter, rich or poor, is and has always been "just too damn dumb to understand."

[EffieBlack]

40. I'm quite sure I'm considerably more familiar with it than you are

And, as I said, assuming that everyone's top priorities are the same as YOUR top priorities is foolish and grossly narrow-minded.

[goodhue]

31. wrong spot

[gaiilonfong]

5. Obama was just there for the vote

Hillary missing in action

[Kittycat]

12. There you go - pointing to facts again.

They don't want to hear that he showed up and voted YEA to STRIP them of their immunity. It was HRC who decided she had better things to do. Obama has a full plan on open government. And open government does not include stripping citizens of their rights and spying like this. I would have to deduct that Clinton is in favor of this bill, by her inability to vote on it.

[stillrockin]

18. oh, thank god. I was getting depressed at the thought of both

ducking the vote. What's Hillary's deal? I guess she has to get her corporate peeps' backs.

[anigbrowl]

6. This is Chris Dodd's fight

and he has been fighting it well. It's unrealistic to expect two senators in the heat of the campaign to get involved in a legislative fight, especially over an issue that 90% of people won't understand, because the legislative situation is not that clear at first glance.

[cloudythescribbler]

15. But it's PRECISELY on issues like that where political leaders need to LEAD!

Isn't that what you vote someone for president or Senate for -- not just on the visible spotlight issues but all the others, including in secret committee, to represent the larger interests of the Constitution and of the People.

I KNOW that Obama's record in this regard has not been perfect btw

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. 90% of peopledon't understand universal illegal dragnet surveillance of the American public?

Americans, maybe even some bloggers are dumber than I thought.

I know that there are dozens of DUers reading my posts going "warrantless wiretapping of American citizens
who are NOT suspected of any crime... yah right... obvious conspiracy theorist... what a loon."

"This is about terrorists... as the name of the bill implies... the details are complicated but
that's OK, I know they would not surveil someone like me without a reason."

"Hell, I'd be proud if I WERE a Dem under surveillance... but I KNOW the government is not competent enough to do that. This NSA stuff is a CONSPIRACY THEORY!"

"The only problem with this bill is it shields telcos from liability for SPYING ON A FEW PEOPLE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE TERRORISTS"

WRONG! This bill authorizes the NSA to filter the communications of all US citizens, as Rockefeller admitted on the Senate floor.

The fact that nobody backs up my observations makes it all the more blatant.

[MagsDem]

7. Join the club

[berni_mccoy]

8. Obama voted to strip Immunity off the telecom bill.

[ProSense]

11. Dodd took the lead on that. Obama took the lead on ethics reform

How Obama defied Reid and got real ethics reform passed

[jackson_dem]

22. "real" ethics reform?

Like "banning" lobbyists from buying lunches for members of Congress--so long as they are not sitting down. :eyes:

[mmonk]

13. One voted against (two guesses and one doesn't count).

As far as tools in the democratic toolshed such as fillibuster, it was erased by the leadership. The end is pretty near as far as being able to fight back (for the people). Maybe they can be entertained with the election and kept busy.

[madeline_con]

17. Because they probably got campaign $ from them. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. Liability for what? n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. The Terrorist Surveillance Program (targeting communications of everyone in the US) is now legal.

There is nothing for them to be liable for.

This is like the people who supported Clinton's banking deregulation
but not the immunity provision exempting Citibank from jumping the gun
on the bill's passage up to a year in advance by creating a dummy
"non-bank entity" known as "Citibanc".

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. It is difficult to sue people for behavior that is not only legal now, but encouraged by the gov't.

Such lawsuits against the telecoms would be denounced by the Blue Dog Dems,

and the Intelligence Committee Traitors who were familiar with the unconstitutional
and illegal NSA preogram going back more than a decade
\
(Rockefeller, Mikulski, and now Webb)

would write letters in support of the defendant.

[Leopolds Ghost]

29. Forget Obama & Clinton, why aren't the owners of this blog?

This was an issue that got stickied up to hell and back by the DU administrators
back when impeachment was an issue and warrantless wiretapping was a CRIME.

This bill makes it NOT a crime.

DUers....?? Why didn't you post on the numerous threads on FISA in the past two weeks,
which died an instant death? Why didn't the owners of this site encourage people to
hone in on this issue? Hmm?

[JuniperLea]

30. Exactly...

All the nutty arguing over two candidates who are so much alike, taking the Kool Aid bait and in-fighting instead of paying fucking attention to how much more quickly we're going to hell in a hand basket around here!

Edwards should have stayed in the race... there is no choice of difference now... the two remaining are idealogical twins... genitalia and melanin levels do not differences make.

[democrattotheend]

35. Because average Americans don't even know what that means

Sorry, but I think this issue is a lot more important to the blogosphere than the average American worrying about heating their home for the winter. Standing up there on the podium talking about "retroactive telecom immunity" is going to make them sound like elitists and out of touch, which is one of the main reasons Gore and Kerry lost. Not saying it's not important, but it's not something I'd expect to be part of their bread-and-butter stump speech. Maybe it's what they should talk about at YearlyKos.

At least Obama was there to vote for the Dodd amendment...didn't Clinton miss the vote?

[JuniperLea]

36. You don't give the "Average American" enough credit...

People understand corruption completely. People understand that they are having a problem paying their bills because of corruption. Kerry and Gore were sooooo last presidential term or two. Not the same game now, not the same players. BushCo is corrupt. Joe Average American understands that completely. Not only that, but Joe Average American is looking for a candidate who will stand up to that corruption.

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. This is not just corruption, this is empowering telecoms and the NSA to SPY ON US CITIZENS.

Obviously "real Americans" don't care about "complex issues" like this one

Maybe guys like you just don't have a clue what this bill is about because
nobody's told them.

Even the opponents of this bill are understating the depth of importance
to our freedoms.

Maybe most DUers and most Americans don't understand what this bill does.

And what you don't understand, you don't have time for,is that it?

[EFerrari]

37. No kidding. I miss Dennis. n/t

[Blackhatjack]

41. TWO(2) Points Here......

One, Obama and Clinton are addressing massive crowds every day and the opportunity to address this very important issue for maximum news coverage is roughly equivalent to the next President using the 'bully pulpit' to influence the public AND the members of Congress to vote in the public interest.

Two, before the fall of the Soviet Union the most effective tools used to stay in power were the control of information available to the Soviet citizen AND complete surveillance of all communications by Soviet citizens. Does any of this sound familiar?

This bill provided the opportunity for both Democratic Candidates to speak out forcefully on the Campaign trail and on the floor of the Senate in favor of protecting the American citizens from illegal spying and holding Bush and the Telecoms liable for their extra-constitutional criminal activities.

'Taking the lead' on this important issue involved more than just casting a single vote in the Senate.

If they won't do this now, why should we expect any better once they are President?

[Blackhatjack]

42. This criticism does NOT mean I won't vote for either as the Dem Nominee...

We need to pull the Dem Party together and support the Nominee to put a Democrat in the Oval Office.

However, it is our duty to hold our candidates accountable, and that they uphold constitutional rights by enforcing the law and holding lawbreakers responsible.

The two are not mutually exclusive.