What is stopping her from putting a stop to FISA sell out? Seriously, after spending years in the Starr chamber, nobody knows better to her how Republicans abuse legal power for partisan purposes, so why doesn't she do anything?

We are ruled by fools. Heedless fools.

It would be great politics in some ways for Clinton to rally some other Democrats, how about Obama backer Chris Dodd for starters. Unity for a good cause, eh?

But, she'd need to pull in others, IMO. Otherwise, she risks being punished by her fellow democrats even more than I suspect is already coming her as retribution for not giving the party what it wanted in February. Not to mention, I'm sure the media would paint it as being done out of revenge against the party and not for principles.

Still, just because she would need allies doesn't mean she couldn't do it. Leaders lead and they find allies. What's a better cause than standing up for the Constitution?

My personal hope is that this election will free Clnton some in the Senate. I was very impressed with her in the last few months on the campaign trail and I want to keep that politician around.

There are lots of congressional Democrats who hate this so-called compromise.

We should be calling her office - in large numbers, especially her supporters.

And calling Barach Obama's.

But we should also be putting in calls to Reid, to Pelosi; if they think they're going to be getting money from their base to increase the number of Democrats in the congress, when the so-called liberal ones let this happen...

Didn't we have a post that gave people a lot of phone numbers to call - can someone link to it; I'm submerged in another matter today.

Why not email Stoller et al about where they stand on this. At least check out the website to see where they stand.

But I have no confidence in the party. Harry Reid ignored Dodd's hold. Now, after months of sitting silent while Clinton was villified, the Democrats are going to cheer her on? For making them look bad? Again. Some more.

Having said that, I agree there are other Dems who oppose this and that would be the key for her, especially if some are Obama supporters. Because otherwise, I suspect what we're going to hear is how Hillary is trying to show up Obama even on the blogs who want to stop this. From what I can tell, hating Hillary outweighs everything else for many of them.

Now, what would really be great is if Clinton and Obama teamed up together to stop it. But I don't see Obama doing that as the nominee (if Clinton was the nominee, I don't think she'd do it either). Risk averse is how I would describe Democratic presidential politics.

when it comes to the fisa constitutional debacle

there is nobody who understands better or fights harder than

glen greenwald.

go here hoyer and pelosi duck and jive and read the whole thing.

pay special attention to

update 1.

then come back and tell me what a great leader barack obama will be

and what a great future this country has

with our great democratic party

and why we should support leaders who pull this kind of great political scam.

pelosi, you will recall, has been a major obama enabler.

but then obama's money gurus live and profit in her district.

All House and Senate offices contact information here

Representative Nancy Pelosi, Speaker’s Office Email

Senator Harry Reid Email

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair Senate Judiciary Committee Email

Representative John Conyers, Chair House Judiciary Committee (accepts email only from constituents)

2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126
(202) 225-0072 Fax

Senator Barack Obama Email

Senator Hillary Clinton Email

barack and george,

brothers under the skin.

compare 'em, dano

if you have a delicate stomach upset by angry, raw political commentary, you can skip the comments section.

so I'm writing away, putting together a post on the exact same subject (with a slightly different slant) and I finally get it done, and get it posted... and I scroll down, and Lambert's done it already. ARGGGHH.

anyway, since I take a slightly different approach, here is what was posted and then deleted...

The Obotosphere and Telecom Immunity

Well, gang, the usual suspects are all up in arms again about a new FISA Bill, and its telecom immunity provisions.

Kos, and Greenwald, and the whole gang at the Firedoglake conglomerate are having hissy fits about that horrible Steny Hoyer, and that nasty “Jello Jay” Rockefeller. Glenn Greenwald is even raising money to do something or other about this horrible thing.

But there is something missing from all the hair-pulling and shirt rending and general sturm and drang. No one in the Obotosphere seems to have noticed that there is one person who can stop telecom immunity in its tracks. One person who can add a paragraph to one of his speeches, demanding that the rule of law be observed, and that illegal spying on American will have consequences.

And that one person is their Dear Leader, He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Criticized, Mr. Unity Pony Himself! Barack Obama.

Now why is that? I know that if Hillary Clinton was in Obama’s position right now, I’d be screaming bloody murder demanding that she get out in front of this issue. I mean, I want her to be President so that she can lead – and I wouldn’t want her to wait until she got into the White House to lead on something that I consider as important as “No Telecom Immunity”.

But check out Daily Kos – lots of stuff about the FISA bill…. But no mention about Obama. Go read Greenwald – he’s practically obsessed with telecom immunity (and has written extensively about McCain’s ‘flip flopping’ on the issue. But somehow, the name Barack Obama – and what Barack Obama could do to stop this bill – never seems to enter Big Brain Glenn’s consciousness. Raw Story? Obama’s not part of the telecom immunity story either. Christy Hardin Smith and a whole slew of FirePups over at Firedoglake have been all over the telecom immunity story… but no mention of pressuring Obama.

But its becoming glaringly obvious that the fauxgressive movement that supported Obama throughout the blogosphere really had noting to do with Obama being a better choice for progressives – someone who would stand up for basic constitutional rights, or anything like that. They won’t make any demands of Obama, because they are desperately afraid that Obama will be revealed as the craven and corrupt phoney we’ve been saying he was all along.

The Obotosphere prefers to live in their fantasy world, and drink their Kewl-Aid, rather than insist that Obama exercise the leadership that their smears and lies about Hillary Clinton have enabled.

Is anyone surprised?

they would not dare punish her. They are in no position to do so and they know it. She is strong in NY and strong nationally. If they want her to campaign for them, and a lot of them do, they will take no action against her.

The sad truth is that Clinton has never been much of a champion of the Bill of Rights. She could lead now, and she could embarrass Obama into doing the right thing. But her telecom buddies (contributors) do not want this litigation to go forward.

Her Presidential campaign took a lot of telecom $.

Democratic Senate Campaign Committee

info [at] dscc [dot] org

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
info [at] dccc [dot] org

But I don't expect it. Didn't when she was a candidate and don't now. Hope for it? Of course, but it would be a change in who she was before the campaign. I don't kid myself about that.

Paul, Greenwald did mention Obama, albeit in his first update and not the main piece:

Barack Obama has previously expressed emphatic opposition to telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping, but his opposition has amounted mostly to pretty words, not actions. That ought to change.

What is stopping her from putting a stop to FISA sell out? Seriously, after spending years in the Starr chamber, nobody knows better to her how Republicans abuse legal power for partisan purposes, so why doesn’t she do anything?

what's stopping her is "party unity" Obama=style.

Obama is obviously demanding that she keep a low profile, and she's complying.

The last thing that Team Obama could permit is for Clinton to take a leadership role on an issue like this -- and show Obama up.

Lets not forget, kids, that one of Obama's biggest early SD endorsements came from none other than Jello Jay Rockefeller himself -- and Jello Jay has been pushing telecom immunity HARD. It took Chris Dodd to even get Obama on the record in opposition to telecom immunity (and IIRC, he kept equivocating until he was forced to take a position).

Obama holds all the cards now -- and Clinton is going to wait until she gets dealt a good hand before she starts putting any of her chips on the table again.

i kind of like and admire your anger.

not of course that i APPROVE in any way of public displays of anger;

that's very naughty behavior in our contemporary america.

who said anything about punishing her? She's doing what you Obots want her to do....stay out of the picture, and not show up Obama. Now you want to complain when SHE doesn't show leadership?

you Hillary Haters really need to get a grip here.

a VERY important question is:

why is senator clinton's name coming up in this discussion at ALL.

obama is the presumed nominee.

why is clinton still a focus in this discussion?

let me answer:

because she is a convenient scapegoat for obama's political incompetence, an expedient diversion from the reality of a democratic candidate who has not the foggiest idea how to lead - on fisa,

or on anything else.

on obama's silence.

he is a senator, isn't he?

talk left

She’s doing what you Obots want her to do….stay out of the picture, and not show up Obama. Now you want to complain when SHE doesn’t show leadership?

you Hillary Haters really need to get a grip here.

I don't hate any Democrat. I certainly don't hate Clinton. I never called for her to leave the stage. I would love for her to take leadership on FISA and embarrass Obama and the rest of them into doing the right thing. That is about what Dodd did last January. It was great.

But Clinton is too tied to the telcos to do that.

I don't like how she was treated, but that does not blind me to her defects as a senator and a candidate.

On the contrary, in some ways I think the turning to discuss Clinton is pretty damning about him because, to me, it indicates that nobody expects or believes he will lead on this issue. I certainly don't. Not a whole lot for me to say about it. It is what it is.

Clinton is more interesting because she may feel freer to lead than she did when the primaries were on-going because she's not the nominee. Now, to the extent she decides to take her 18 million votes out for a spin, I'm not sure she'd do it now or on this issue, but it's fun to think about the possibility, however slim.

And, really, all I want is for someone other than Steny Hoyer and Jay Rockefeller to take the lead. Feingold and Dodd can't do it by themselves.

Whispers.

The Democrats have decided that the best course for Party victory in November is to pass a new FISA bill now, including expanded spying powers and a path to telecom immunity if that is what it will take to get Bush to sign. Word is this is a done deal. There are several schools of thought; combined, they will deliver enough YES votes for passage.

Feingold-Dodd school is opposed, saying that this is not needed, it is the wrong thing anyway, and no good will come of it. They’ll vote no, but they understand it’s a done deal and probably won’t filibuster because it will just end up embarrassing the leadership for no gain.

Rockefeller school is that this is the right thing to do for several reasons, the usual Jello-kneed fear that bad things might happen and I don’t want anybody to be mad at me and the telecom donors are telling me I have to help them out or they won’t give me any more money.

Hoyer school sees this move as insider political gold, racks up mega bonus points with the BlueDog caucus and new House members coming aboard in November, makes him more powerful and maybe he can get that Speaker’s job.

BlueDog school are a bunch of spineless bastards who want to put away anything that a Republican can hold against them in November. Too insecure to deal with their constituents straight up, they think they need to be just like Republicans to keep their seats. They want the FISA deal done and off the table.

Reid–Pelosi school believes the BlueDogs, doesn’t want to risk losing any seats, wants to maximize the number of possible pickups and is worried about the presidential election as well. They see Obama as vulnerable on “national security” and are going to take away anything they can that the Republicans might use for attack ads. Obama agrees, and won’t vote yes but won’t stop the vote either.

Apocalyptic school believes that Bush is all but insane and is teetering on the edge of launching an attack on Iran to prove he’s still powerful and in charge. They hope that by caving in on FISA and telecom immunity, Bush will feel like he’s still The Man and be satisfied that his “work” will be carried on after he leaves office.

Pollyanna school is on board because they respect the short-term gain judgment and believe that with a Democrat in the White House and big Dem majorities in Congress they will be able to repeal anything untoward about FISA. They also believe that punting the immunity question to the courts will force them to take the brunt of the blame for the final decision, leaving Congress with clean hands however it turns out.

Call it crazy, call it stupid, call it craven or crafty or coldly calculating or foolish or dastardly or whatever, they’re going ahead with it anyway. Pelosi and Reid and even Hoyer will vote against the bill, they want deniability, but they want it to pass or it would never see the light of day. Senate, 70-25; House, 255-175.

By all means, write and express your displeasure. Polite is always best, although I am almost out of stock on this issue myself.

1) Both Clinton AND Obama need to be pushed HARD on this. As has been pointed out frequently on this blog, Clinton had half the party behind her. Both need to lead. Damn right Obama needs to. So does Clinton. Neither of them are exactly progressive stalwarts. Bickering about who won/lost/the process/who has to go first is pointless and counterproductive.

2) Updates from Greenwald:

UPDATE II: A broad alliance is now forming to raise money for and support this specific campaign, with the intent to work together on an ongoing basis on all civil liberties, constitutional rights and rule of law issues. It now includes the ACLU, as well as the faction that masterminded the online money bombs for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, represented by Break the Matrix, Rick Williams and Trevor Lymon.

We intend shortly to announce the support of a broad-based coalition of office holders and candidates who are devoted to preserving basic constitutional liberties against the ongoing erosion by the Beltway establishment, but for the moment, the goal is to work together to raise as much money as possible for this specific campaign to impede the corrupt FISA/telecom amnesty deal, the enablers in Congressional leadership and various vulnerable supporters of it. Even if they manage to pass this bill -- and everything will be done to stop it -- a coalition of this sort can generate very serious resources to undermine those responsible. For now, contributions can be made here.

UPDATE III: The announcement of this alliance from the Ron Paul/liberty-minded Right (as opposed to the authoritarian-minded Right) is here. The ACLU will distribute its Press Release tomorrow about this campaign. I really do think the British model I referenced above which is battling similar issues in England (which I wrote about a couple of days ago) is a very formidable one for opposing the Beltway Establishment's evisceration of constitutional restraints and the rule of law. As indicated, we expect to put together a wide ranging group of current office holders and Congressional candidates to support this effort, too. As Digby wrote today in encouraging her readers to contribute: "It's a shame it has come to this, but there's really no option. It's impossible to get through to these people any other way."

Original has the links.

Link to contribute:

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

About $144,000 raised so far. Greenwald's post raised $20K in the first hour.

Time to put our money where our mouths (or keyboards) are.

In other words, time for US to lead.

Spend the bucks (if you have 'em), and spread the word (regardless).

"We're Weak and Pathetic, Vote for More of Us!"

Which is why people don't trust them on national security. When you cave on every fucking issue, it's kind of hard to believe you'll fight to protect the American people. Nobody likes weakness.

What is the point of voting Democratic in November if they do this shit. I vote for Democrats to specifically stop this shit.

As for Obama, maybe he wouldn't look weak on national security if he ever did anything on national security beyond talk. He was against the war before he funded it. He's against immunity, but won't do anything to stop it. If you look at polls one of his big problems is that people think he lacks experience. You can't make up for that in six months, but leading can go a long way towards making folks more comfortable with your lack of experience. (It still amazes me that Dems thought they'd be able to write "experience" out of what people look for when selecting a President.)

As for Pelosi and Reid - they're just pathetic at this point. They have to cave on the Constitution because the candidate they selected is showing weakness in the GE (he was doing that before they selected him)? They want to maximize their seats by essentially keeping a bunch of GOP folks in the caucus, ensuring that no matter how many seats they win they will still have to cave to the GOP?

They are nearly as corrupt as the GOP. I'm beginning to think lambert is right and the main difference is they don't torture animals.

Oh, and given this, I'm not expecting a whole lot of leadership from Dodd and the Dems on the mortgage crisis either. Hope they enjoy their privileges while the Constitution is destroyed, the Government is bankrupted, and the middle class turned into an endangered species.

The party is not getting one thin dime from me this election season. Individual candidates, yes. The party - the DNC, the DSCC, or the DCCC - no. I don't give money to Republicans and a large section of them are either Republicans or Republican enablers.

All the rationalizations in the world will not change the fact that Pelosi, Reid, and OBAMA are the ones in a position to LEAD.

Sweet fuckin jesus.

There is no pressure on Obama to do anything because it's WHAT THEY WANT.

(the alternative being they're totally inept, take your pick)

It seems to me that this is the real reason the PUMA movement (if it's handled right, a big if at this point) and all those angry women could be a good thing. It isn't about FISA specifically,* but it is about Democrats ignoring a good section of their base and trying to make them pay a price for that.

* Although speaking for me, things like this make me feel a lot less compelled to vote for someone simply because he or she has a (D) after their name. As I've said before, my anger at the party isn't just because of the nominating contest - the nominating contest merely crystalized all the things I've been angry at the party about for years: ignoring its base to suck up to the GOP, its adoption of right-wing framing, the cravenness and corruption at the top, its unwillingness to fight for even its most basic principles, etc., etc.

"it is about Democrats ignoring a good section of their base and trying to make them pay a price for that."

it is also about a democratic party that has no discernable philosophy of governing other than "cling to power"

and a democrtic party whose leaders display little practical regard for the bill of rights in the united states constitution,

and more importantly ,

little practical regard for the anti-crown, anti-authoritarian distrust of government power that lay behind that bill of rights.

bringiton -

yours is a superb summary, breaking down the players into schools of thought, well, actually, schools of motive.

most informative for me.

That's what the ActBlue FISA PAC is up to in donations from 2,693 donors. One of whom is me. I'm taking the $ out of what I usually give to the party.

I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed recording that my occupation was an attorney for the U.S. Government. Some of us still believe in the Constitution.

I got the apology but not the original email.

They are corrupt, inept and GUTLESS. You can't forget to add the gutless.

So Reid and Pelosi and Obama are going to "vote against" this, and yet have no power to stop it. Yes, when you have no spine, it is tough to make a move of any kind.

Any earthworm will tell you!

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Kos isn't getting anything?

I feel we have a great opportunity here to evaluate a candidate prior to his election.

We have a campaign promise:

Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.

(Obama spokesman Bill Burton)

We get to see whether his promises mean anything, and if they do mean something, how effective he is at fulfilling them.

Dear Thom,

I'm glad you mentioned toward the end of the show today the horrific FISA/telecom amnesty bill Hoyer and company are pushing through Congress.

A broad coalition of organizations and bloggers, including progressive organizations like the ACLU as well as what Glenn Greenwald at Salon describes as the "the Ron Paul/liberty-minded Right (as opposed to the authoritarian-minded Right)" is raising money to target Hoyer and other sponsors of the telecom amnesty bill. They (we) raised $20K in the first hour, $80K in less than 24 hours, with a total raised so far (Wed. midday Pacific time) over $166K.

Glenn Greenwald has more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2...

Donation page:
http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

Please let your listeners know about this effort and please direct them to the above web page. As you know, and as Ellen Ratner reported on your show today, this bill could hit the floor as early as Friday. A substantial threat of money to target the sponsors of telecom amnesty could, potentially, derail this. After listeners donate, the next move, of course, would be to call Hoyer's office and tell the staffer that they just contributed to the campaign.

Hoyer's direct line is (202) 225-4131.

I contributed last night and just called Hoyer's office.

Your listeners could really help move this along, with help from you.

Many thanks for your hard work and dedication. I listen to your show every chance I get.

****

This is an example what you can do.

Or you can complain about Obama and about how badly HRC is being treated, damned if/damned if etc.

And sure, you can do both. I just hope the BHO/HRC complaints aren't substituting for actual action.

I'm calling Obama next. Both his Senate office and his campaign office, if there's anyone there to talk to.

Please consider doing likewise.

This isn’t a decision reached because Obama is the presumptive candidate; exactly the same considerations would apply to a Hillary run, for exactly the same reasons. If the Dems nominated Attila the Hun, Republicans would paint him as inexperienced, weak militarily and soft on national security and crime. For the Dem leadership it is about dealing with an electorate that persists in making bad decisions; I don’t agree with this particular tactic, but they believe it is necessary.

They are, after all, politicians. It is in their nature, and part of their job description, to try and stay in office them selves and facilitate the election of others who will join their caucus. I don’t believe that Pelosi or Reid or Obama or Clinton or any of the Democratic leadership actually wants increased surveillance power for the government, nor do they want immunity for the telecoms. What they do want is to win the next election, and win it big. To accomplish that, they are willing to sell out a principle or two; on a moment’s reflection, not that surprising a decision – for them. The name “Faust” apparently does not give them pause.

What drives this kind of thinking, fundamentally, is the nature of the American electorate. I just can’t find words that are disparaging enough to suit. Half of the eligible voters don’t even bother to show up, so there’s the biggest bunch of apathetic losers on the planet right there. You want someone to blame for why we get suck-all for political leadership? Start with the can’t-be-bothered crowd; they are, to my mind, worse by far than the most corrupt and venal politician.

Of those who do show up, half have no common sense or critical thinking skills whatsoever. The election of 2000? Gore blew it? Corruption in Florida? Nader? The Media? No, not at all; none of those were the real cause. The problem was that damn near 50% of actual voters voted for Bush. Who in their right mind would ever vote for an untreated coke-head alcoholic multiply-failed completely inept businessman who was also the most incompetent and damaging governor in Texas history (and that’s saying something)? Gore should have won the election in 2000 by 538 – 0. That was not the outcome because half of Americans who showed up to vote cast their ballots for someone they saw as just like them – and they were right.

Come 2004, why were there not 10,000,000 people surrounding the Republican Convention with torches and pitchforks demanding Anybody But Bush? Why did Bush get any votes at all that November? Why was Kerry not elected 538 – 0, and Bush hauled off in chains bound for Stony Lonesome along with Cheney and Rove and all the rest? Why wasn’t every single Republican up for election in 2004 soundly defeated? Same reason as in 2000; half the voting electorate is nothing but damn fools.

When you’re quick to criticize the Democratic leadership for these sorts of decisions, and I agree they should be criticized, you might also pause for a moment and see it from their point of view. They have to go sell the Democratic Party to the same electorate that out of the last ten consecutive chances selected Richard Nixon twice, Ronald Reagan twice, and George Bush père et fils three times – not, it appears, an electorate predominantly composed of quick learners. How much would you be willing to give up to ensure they don’t also choose John McCain?

As you consider that, remember – we are not dealing here with rational thinkers. Three-fourths of the American electorate are bloody idiots, and yes I know that saying so out loud isn’t a recipe for coalition building. Some things, however, just demand to be voiced.