Matt Stoller points out that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could be using their platforms to highlight the legislative fight over FISA issues in a way that would likely be very effective. But time and again they've declined to do so and there's little indication they'll change their minds now.
« The Difference | Main | Yes We Can? »
Leadership
23 Jan 2008 09:34 am
Comments (20)
Yeah, I thought it was Hillary Clinton who was the new LBJ, the Master of the Senate. This will give us a chance to watch her in action.
I can think of a candidate who would probably do this, but of course we can't nominate him..
Stoller is dead-on here. I can't go so far as not to care who wins the nomination, but the Democrats' collective spinelessness on this issue is really frightening. In Obama's 'closer' speech prior to Iowa, his loudest applause lines were a couple of brief throwaways on the importance of restoring the rule of law. Too bad he and Hillary are both afraid to engage fully on this issue of issues.
Rid, MikeKC:
OK, Hilbama sucks.
Your point?
Maybe John Edwards should lead the fight against telco immunity. The basic message (i.e., "This is a giveaway to lawbreaking corporations promoted by lobbyists and lawbreaking government
officials, and voters should demand that Senators crush it.") would seem to fit with his campaign narrative, and embracing this issue could give his campaign some much-needed media attention.
Worth noting is that pursuant to Senate Rule 23, former Senators may "be admitted to the floor of the Senate while in session."
See also "Selected Privileges and Courtesies Extended to Departing and Former Senators" [PDF] ("By tradition, former Senators are also accorded floor privileges in the House of Representatives, including joint meetings and sessions of Congress.").
Accordingly, Edwards could show up in person to jawbone Senators into supporting Sen. Dodd's anti-immunity efforts. If Edwards showed up, perhaps that would shame Sens. Clinton and Obama, who have actual votes in the Senate, to lead on this issue too.
I think "Rule 23" makes a pretty good point.
What would be the real downside for Edwards? Maybe a few big corporate lobbyists or Democratic donors would get angry at him, but I can't see him seriously running for high office again in the future. Maybe he wants a shot at getting on the ticket, but I'd think it would be a really long shot right now.
I'd been favoring Edwards on the grounds that he seemed the "least bad candidate", so this provides a pretty good means of determining just how bad "least bad" really is...
Maybe John Edwards should lead the fight against telco immunity.
Funny how people are fine with Edwards if he's like Al Gore, ie, leading but not running for anything. Edwards can actually lead the party, as he has done in this campaign, but Dems wouldn't actually vote for him, because..well, it's obvious (...isn't it?).
Any buyer's remorse setting in out there? Do we really want only two choices?
jonnybutter: I posted what I wrote earlier only because Edwards is running for something. If you read deep into your local paper, you'll discover that he's running for president.
I intend to vote for him in the primary, and I think the FISA issue, rather than allowing him to lead without running (in a Gore-like manner, which has its value too), could allow him to run more effectively because of his leadership.
Rid, MikeKC:
Your point?
That Harry Reid better have a change of underwear handy because HRC is a comin' after him.
Thinking of your hit on Obama from the last post of not living up to his reputation as a "golden man of principle," what does it say about "Hillary the fighter" than she's run away from this contentious issue?
*****
Hillary has set the bar so low that she's immune from this kind of criticism. Even her supporters know she's a shrill, partisan liar who is driven entirely by her own sense of entitlement and vanity. Nobody really LIKES Hillary Clinton. Just some misguided people who are retreating to a comfortable past or banking on her being such an unscrupulous asshole that "our side" wins in November. For some reason these folks can't see that McCain will crush her in a general election.
I posted what I wrote earlier only because Edwards is running for something.
Didn't mean to cast aspersions on you. Just commenting that it doesn't seem to matter how much Edwards does lead on whatever issue, Dems still have decided that he 'can't win' - meaning, of course, the *nomination* (not the mere General).. He's like a consultant, for some reason. He had that role with Kerry in '04, too.
And the reason I made *my* initial comment is that this is exactly the kind of thing Edwards would indeed highlight. I like your idea of his going to the Senate, but...come on. You know how that would be percieved: another 'stunt' from a desperate Edwards-who-can't-win. I guess there would be no downside at this point, as you say. But there's no downside because very little is at stake, in terms of his candidacy.
That's because they're both huge triangulating pussies. I have no respect for either one of them.
A lot of people are telling themselves that Hillary and Obama are simply pragmatists, doing what they have to do. I disagree. Anybody who takes a pass on defending the worst kind of violations of principle -- and does so when popular opinion is on the side of justice is just an unprincipled little pussy afraid of the Village People and consumed with ambition.
Fuck'em both.
For the email sending inclined among us:
Dear Friend,
Our civil liberties are at stake.
I've just emailed the three Senators who are also presidential
candidates to see if they'll return to Washington and defend our
civil liberties. The Senate is preparing to give President Bush
unprecedented new wiretapping powers AND retroactively excuse
past acts of warrantless and illegal eavesdropping.
You can take action on this action alert from CREDO Action at:
http://act.credomobile.com/campaign/wiretapping08
oops -- the above should read "Anybody who takes a pass on ATTACKING the worst kinds of violations of principle..."
Remember the big boost in the polls that Chris Dodd received after taking a stand on FISA? Me neither.
I suspect that the main reason that the major Democratic candidates haven't highlighted this issue is that relatively few people care deeply about it.
@N:
You'd be 100% wrong, N, you little pussy. Check the poll the ACLU commisioned:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/33745res20080118.html
The title of the poll memo is, "Voters Vigorously Oppose Warrantless Wiretaps and Immunity for Telecom Companies"
The fact that Clinton and Obama are afraid to take a stand on an issue that has the overwhelming support of the voters tells you everything you need to know about their political courage -- i.e. they have none.
What's your excuse, N? Are you facing re-election? Do you need to curry favor with the Beltway media whores? Or are you simply an unprincipled little pussy?
I suspect that the main reason is the latter.
You'd be 100% wrong, N, you little pussy. Check the poll the ACLU commisioned:
"The Fool," did you just graduate from the Jennifer school of comment writing?
Well one thing is for sure, Reid has been horrible, same with the Dems on the Intelligence Committee. And Reid's backing Hillary...
Even Obama doesn't do anything now, he could change the rules once elected. He's been good on civil rights issues.
Obama '08!!!
Peter: I ghraduated from the telling-it-like-it-is school of comment writing. Obama's a big fat pussy, just like Hillary. Neither one deserves my respect or anyone else's.
Comments closed February 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Thinking of your hit on Obama from the last post of not living up to his reputation as a "golden man of principle," what does it say about "Hillary the fighter" than she's run away from this contentious issue?
Posted by Rid | January 23, 2008 10:01 AM