Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Just sayin

On FISA cloture, Clinton NAY, Obama YEA. NAY is correct.

On the FISA bill, Clinton NAY, Obama YEA. NAY is correct.

Just sayin. Thanks, guys. Well done, all. Mile High Stadium, here we come!

UPDATE When my Unity Pony comes, I'm gonna name it FISA!

And Uncle Harry n Uncle Barry n Aunt Nance are gonna to come by tomorrow and show me the secret places where my pony's wires really tap LOL!!!!!!

I'm so happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UDPATE Here's the rec'd diary at Cheetopia. Hilarity ensues. Hey, remember when Obama was going to be "transformative"? Now the OFB are all nodding sagely and saying, "Yep, just politics. The votes just weren't there." Of course, leaders lead, as Atrios used to be fond of saying.

UPDATE Oops, I almost forget to say shut the Fuck up and send Obama more money. Sorry.

UPDATE Good guy Peter Daou sends Hillary's statement. Quoted in relevant part:

While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President's power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government's targeting and minimization procedures.

But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.

That's just silly. Checks and balances aren't what "set us apart." What sets us apart is having a Leader!

0
No votes yet

Comments

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Just sayin'.

For all the trash talking about Hillary the triangulator, she strongly stood her ground in the face of unrelenting criticism. She was also strong in her advocacy of a liberal, responsible government philosophy. Obama, on the other hand, uses conservative frames (ya know, faith based programs rather than efficient government ones) that undermine liberal philosophy. You shouldn't be surprised about his abandoning of universal healthcare and dogwhistling SS.

Just sayin'.

Only tyrants rig elections.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

What a divisive bitch!!

I'm gonna go contribute to her campaign to retire her debt. She's earned it.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

An interesting analysis of contributors by gender is here. (via NYCweboy)

While Clinton got more money out of the average donor, Obama's big advantage was that he had more male donors and men, on average, gave a higher $ amount donation than women did to both candidates (not surprising since men earn more than women do on average):

The # of women contributing to either campaign was almost the same: 48K for Clinton, 53K to Obama, but they comprised 49% of Clinton’s donor pool, versus only 41% of Obama’s. Almost twice as many men gave to Obama (71m) versus Clinton (39m), and this disparity meant that Obama raised $75M from men to Clinton’s $58M from male donors. In contrast, Clinton’s female donors gave her $57M and Obama’s female donors gave him $54M. The $13M advantage to Obama came entirely from male donors.

So women basically split evenly and men swamp to Obama. Hmmm, I wonder why that could be? Probably just their enthusiasm for finally seeing a man in the White House.

There's also a breakdown along industries, here. Emily's List was Clinton's biggest bundler. Goldman Sachs was Obama's. Heh. Other than that not a whole lot of difference, although Exelon was #15 for Obama. What a surprise.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I'm a bit taken aback that they were evenly divided. They should have backed her much more so, not because of gender, but because she was the best candidate bar none (Let's be honest: Obama simply never belonged in the same league as her). I fear way too many women are terrified of being shamed on misogynistic grounds (You support her only because she's a woman!) to the point they have internalized it (Truly "free" women support Obama), while men who act primarily, if not solely, by gender applaud themselves (Bros before h**!).

Well, this bro is proud my money went to Lucifer Herself and her "nay" votes (HRC: 2/2 "correct;" Obama: FAIL!). I actually tuned into C-SPAN to make sure it was true. I turned it off soon afterwards, though; I couldn't bear to see Congress thrash the Constitution. Brutal.

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

Male OR female. Propaganda works on both sexes.

Also, as Phyllis Schlafly, Kathleen Parker, and Maureen Dowd remind us, many women have internalized the societal sexism that they learned from infancy, and so are sexist themselves. How DO we break this cycle?! So discouraging.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Via Avedon, there's a report that Nancy Pelosi is fighting the Judiciary Committee's attempts to hold Karl Rove in contempt. I see no reason to give Nance the benefit of the doubt on this one and it's completely consistent with the rest of their strategy to capitulate their way to victory.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

-- “Once again, Congress blinked and succumbed to the president’s fear-mongering. With today’s vote, the government has been given a green light to expand its power to spy on Americans and run roughshod over the Constitution,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant. This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.” -- http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/359...

Submitted by jawbone on

http://www.govtrack.us/users/events.xpd?...

Repubs, 100%, plus Dems 44% gave this gift to BushBoy the Unworthy.

56% of Dems voted against the bill. But, WTF were the 44% thinking?????? Including Whitehouse, good grief! I thought he had a much clearer grasp of the Constitution than that. What's with him?

We need more and much better Dems, obviously.

We could use a better Dem nominee for president.

Politico wrote that Obama was grinning on the floor of the Senate as Rockefeller described the "merits" of the FISA bill.

May they receive their just desserts, if there is an afterlife. However, since that's really iffy, may they change their freakin' minds and pass legislation which negates the abomination they passed today. And that will not be pushed for by Obama.

I think Obama wants that ol' Unitary Executive power, as much as possible unto himself....

I'm still feeling sick to my stomach over what my party and its presumptive leader have done to me, my rights, my nation, my Constitution.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

women are more likely to be anti-war

Clinton lost this because of the war

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

And I have yet to see anyone dig into what Bill Clinton said about Hagel and Rice re:Fairy Tale.

It would be interesting if someone did...

liberal media!!!!

/snark

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Kerry was nominated despite his war support.

While I think there are Obama backers who genuinely chose him over Clinton because of the war, I think for a lot of folks it's simply a convenient excuse. That's especially true given that their voting records on funding the war and their plans for ending the war are the same. And I never saw the same kind of scorn heaped upon Edwards (who may have apologized, but also had a worse record on the AUMF having voted against some restricting amendments), Dodd or other candidates for their war votes as it was on Clinton (who never have technically apologized, but came very close by repeatedly stating that she wouldn't do it if she had to do it over). It was as if she single-handedly became responsible for this war. And I've never seen any meaningful discussion of the role Daschle, one of Obama's most important backers, played in the Dems decision to back the AUMF or any resistance to Daschle being in an Obama administration.

The low point for me on the entire Clinton and the war thing was when Chris Dodd went on one of the Sunday shows and not only denigrated Clinton's experience but then said Obama was more qualified because he was against the war. Somehow I don't remember Dodd claiming Obama was more qualified than Dodd to be President even though Dodd voted the same way as Clinton did.

Nope, everybody will now be forgiven on this, you wait and see. The only person who will be punished for their war vote will be Hillary. Which to me means it was never about that vote.

As for the even split in women donors, I think it's because Obama had many more donors total. Hillary was very late in putting together a decent outreach to get small donors. If she had started sooner, she would probably have had more women. As it was, she really only got going after the media announced she had lost. It's amazing she got the donations she did under those circumstances.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

What BDBlue said:

The low point for me on the entire Clinton and the war thing was when Chris Dodd went on one of the Sunday shows and not only denigrated Clinton’s experience but then said Obama was more qualified because he was against the war. Somehow I don’t remember Dodd claiming Obama was more qualified than Dodd to be President even though Dodd voted the same way as Clinton did.

scoff's picture
Submitted by scoff on

"Today, the Democratic-led Senate ignored those protests, acted to protect the single most flagrant act of Bush lawbreaking of the last seven years, eviscerated the core Fourth Amendment prohibition of surveillance without warrants, gave an extraordinary and extraordinarily corrupt gift to an extremely powerful corporate lobby, and cemented the proposition that the rule of law does not apply to the Washington Establishment."

Congress votes to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, legalize warrantless eavesdropping

Witness the slow creep of fascism.

Historiann's picture
Submitted by Historiann on

Lambert, I've got your pony over at historiann.com.

inna's picture
Submitted by inna on

according to the Senate roll call vote -
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...
- Clinton voted FOR cloture.

could someone please kindly provide the link (other than the firedoglake one, since they don't cite their source) that could explain this discrepancy?

(actually, Glenn Greenwald also stated that she voted against cloture, but - in a way that is very atypical for him - he didn't provide the link to the source, either. strange.)

Submitted by lambert on

... she switched her vote. It ended up the right way, I'm told.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

Thanks! Wow, an error, a correction, and linky goodness. Mini-PB 2.0....

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

Care to speculate who they'll investigate now that they torched the constitution?

Gosh, and I used to think burning a draft card was a statement and a half.

Oh, Hell YEAH -- Ted Kennedy returns to the Senate but unfortunately went AWOL for this vote, lest he make Obama look unpatriotic. At least that's my opinion.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

On Rachel Maddow - when Obama gets into the White House we will have the potential to fix this. He actually used the phrase "hope for change."

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

Submitted by lambert on

He needs it!

Don't bother with those pesky down-ticket races!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

cal1942's picture
Submitted by cal1942 on

It's not far fetched to contend that the American Revolution began with James Otis' argument against the writs of assistance.

That makes supporting this FISA remake deeply un-American as the ACLU states.

In August the Democratic Party will nominate someone who crapped on one of our original reasons for being.

UNFIT.

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

Hillary Clinton on FISA:

For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President’s power is debatable.

...In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct.

Hmmm... after reading the above, I think I'm beginning to understand why Obama wanted this.

And why he worked so hard to discredit Clinton's "judgment."

The witch must burn.

Submitted by hipparchia on

made my day to read it, and i would have missed it if you hadn't posted it.