Clinton Against FISA

Her office puts out a good statement that reaches the correct conclusion:

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.

I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently. But the reality is that as long as Obama thinks he's going to be wielding executive authority, he's going to be useless as a check on out-of-control executive authority. If Clinton wants to channel whatever regrets she has about losing the primary into taking up that cause, well, I think that would be an excellent decision for her to make.

Comments

"I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently. But the reality is..."

...that Matthew Yglesias supported Obama for the nomination since he's the most conservative Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter, and Matthew likes to support royalist politicians like Mike Bloomberg and Mitt Romney whenever he can.

The way Obama is acting on FISA and other issues is a plus in Matthew's twisted trust-fund scumbag mind.

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 5:13 PM

"...Matthew Yglesias supported Obama for the nomination since he's the most conservative Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter"

Surely, you joke. I mean, you know you're a pretty consistent troll here, but at least try to troll better please.

Posted by dannity | July 9, 2008 5:20 PM

Petey has no interest in trolling "well." He'll just type any old idiotic bullshit as long as he can figure out a way to work the phrase "trust-fund scumbag" into it.

Yglesias's and Ezra's comment sections would be much more readable if someone would invent a Petey filter.

Posted by ResumeMan | July 9, 2008 5:29 PM

I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently. But the reality is that as long as Obama thinks he's going to be wielding executive authority, he's going to be useless as a check on out-of-control executive authority.

I agree that they'd each be acting how the other is now acting if their positions were reversed.

That being said, I don't think the reason Obama changed his mind is because he thinks he's going to be wielding executive authority. It's because, as the nominee, making a fight out of this makes him look weak and unable to control the party he's supposed to lead. He'd basically be picking a fight with his own party's congressional leadership.

The idea that the prime motivating factor in a bill being pushed through by the congressional leadership is that Obama likes having as much executive power as he can get is deeply flawed.

Posted by John | July 9, 2008 5:35 PM

I suspect Clinton is doing this simply to once again differentiate herself from Obama.

Of course, one can welcome any vote against the compromise, whether for right or wrong reasons.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 9, 2008 5:37 PM

I just never get tired of seeing Petey say, "trust-fund scumbag"! It's fresh and witty every time!

Posted by Glenn | July 9, 2008 5:38 PM

As to Petey's nonsense, does even he believe what he is saying at this point? The issue Petey supposedly cares about is health care. Whatever one says about the Obama health care plan as compared to Clinton's plan this year, Obama's plan is, in fact, to the left of anything that was proposed by the Democrats in the last three presidential elections.

Bill Clinton in 1996, moreover, ran what was probably the most conservative Democratic campaign since 1924. I don't see how either Carter or Obama can really measure up to the total center-rightism of Clinton's re-election campaign, which, so far as I can remember revolved largely around welfare reform and school uniforms.

Posted by John | July 9, 2008 5:38 PM

"I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently."

You can guess and say that, but the reality is we don't know. It's not as if McCain really could've beaten Obama up on FISA. Even as a matter of pure politics, what Obama did was dumb and excessively risk-adverse.

Posted by Asher | July 9, 2008 5:45 PM

Even as a matter of pure politics, what Obama did was dumb and excessively risk-adverse.

Especially when Title II is likely to go down as unconstitutional in the courts some time next year.

McCain didn't even show up for the vote: not that he needed to be there given the number of cowed Democrats pissing on the Fourth Amendment and keeping their telco donors happy, but if you're going to upset your base with a vote, you want your opponent there to suggest the issue matters.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 9, 2008 5:51 PM

It's because, as the nominee, making a fight out of this makes him look weak and unable to control the party he's supposed to lead

That's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. He may have evaluated his chances of beating this, and figured that the opposition would lose anyway. In this scenario, he'd rather take the hit from the left than lose a big fight like this and end up looking like a failure.

Not to say that it's a profile in courage or anything, but at least this cynical calculation seems smarter than "take terrorism off the table," which is just pathetic.

Posted by ResumeMan | July 9, 2008 5:51 PM

I thought wouldn't it be cool if the Clinton lady reinvented herself as a champion of wartime civil liberties and became the pre-eminent shepherd of a privacy amendment to the Constitution.

But the last I heard she would vote for the bill.

This is a very pleasant surprise.

You can be sure we Clinton supporters feel vindicated.

Posted by Linus | July 9, 2008 5:55 PM

Talk is cheap. She voted against the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy filibuster despite the fact that a non-presidential candidate who won't face re-election for four years in a dark blue state runs no risk at all in filibustering horrendous legislation. She chose not to anyway. That's what matters.

Posted by Daniel Koffler | July 9, 2008 5:59 PM

But there are no consequences to her vote. The bill passes anwyay. Nothing short of a filibuster would make any difference. How courageous is that?

Posted by bobbo | July 9, 2008 5:59 PM

Good on her for voting the right way on a pretty important issue, and shame on Obama for getting it wrong. She's to be commended for that.

You can be sure we Clinton supporters feel vindicated.

That's nice. The party still made the right choice.

Posted by jbryan | July 9, 2008 6:02 PM

It's not as if McCain really could've beaten Obama up on FISA.

Why not? I mean, he'll be attacking him as a terrorist lover regardless, but a vote against the FISA revision would be one more brickbat in McCain's satchel.

Posted by KCinDC | July 9, 2008 6:06 PM

Obama is just scum.

Hillary should be the Democrat nominee.

This Hillary supporter is voting for McCain in November.

Posted by Mark | July 9, 2008 6:15 PM

I with Koeffler: if she meant any of that shit, she would've voted to allow the filibuster and she didn't.

She de facto voted for the bill, even though she de jure voted against.

Whereas Obama just voted for it straight up, no bullshitting.

max
['So, somebody work the guy.']

Posted by max | July 9, 2008 6:26 PM

Hillary really can just do nothing right in your book can she?

"It's because, as the nominee, making a fight out of this makes him look weak and unable to control the party he's supposed to lead"

Who said it had to be a huge fight? The entire reason we are being told to vote for this man is because he is a different kind of politics... of hope from what I understand. As near as I can tell, that means cowing down and not even voting with your heart for a bill you said you would filibuster.

Hopechangehopechangehopechange only goes so far when there is nothing to back it up. Whatever Hillary's reasons, at least she ended up on the right side of the line on this issue.

Posted by ryan | July 9, 2008 6:26 PM

Wow, look at all the employees of the McCain campaign pretending to be Clinton supporters . . .

Posted by rea | July 9, 2008 6:33 PM

Well, politics as usual. I guess all those who fought and died for our freedom, died in vain. obl won and changed our country. Pathetic.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/9/16487/96720#commenttop

Posted by gotalife | July 9, 2008 6:39 PM

What are you guys talking about? She voted against cloture, supporting the filibuster.

Posted by Katherine | July 9, 2008 6:45 PM

"Why [could McCain] not [have beaten Obama up on FISA? I mean, he'll be attacking him as a terrorist lover regardless, but a vote against the FISA revision would be one more brickbat in McCain's satchel."

Because, as little understanding Americans have of nuance, if Obama, with his immense rhetorical skills, just explained how terrible an idea telcom immunity is and that this law dramatically expands their ability to listen in on all kinds of calls, not just ones being placed to suspected terrorists, but basically anything going through whatever call center they feel like targeting, he'd easily win the debate. Sure, you'd see some stupid "Obama's against terrorist espionage" ad, but you'd also see some "Bush got your phone company to spy on you and now McCain wants to protect them from ever getting exposed" ads. I think Obama would win that argument. But because his campaign's in let's-not-do=anything-to-piss-away-our-four-point-lead-mode, you see crap like this. I'm a Republican so I'm not too heartbroken about the new centrist Obama, but if taxes on my bracket are going to go up 14%, I'd at least like some rollback on the excesses of the Bush administration in return. It seems I'm not even going to get that from a President Obama. Instead we'll just get something symbolic and empty, like closing Guantanamo.

Posted by Asher | July 9, 2008 6:56 PM

If Clinton wants to channel whatever regrets she has about losing the primary into taking up that cause, well, I think that would be an excellent decision for her to make.

Heck, yes! If Clinton wants a shot in 2012/2016, maybe she should, I dunno, stick up for liberalism or something.

This vote is a start. How about next time an unconstitutional bill is proposed, she supports the filibuster too? How about she puts her political capital and name recognition on the line before it's too late to stop the bill? Hey, I'm grateful for this vote, but, geez, there was so much more she could have done.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 9, 2008 7:08 PM

Isn't this a bit too convenient for Hillary?

Making the netroots proud a day after Hillary hack Lanny Davis writes an op-ed in support of Obama's stance?

Whatever, I'm not going to dredge up the primary again.

But her vote, more than anything else, has made me feel pretty crappy about Obama's one and only actual flip-flop (as opposed to the other fake ones).

Bummer.

Posted by Reversed | July 9, 2008 7:55 PM

What are you guys talking about? She voted against cloture, supporting the filibuster.

It's way stranger than that.

Neither she nor Obama voted either way in the June 25 cloture vote. Obama had announced before hand that he was voting for the bill with or without amendments. Clinton offered no indication that she continued to support the filibuster or opposed the bill without amendments.

Then in today's cloture vote (I guess they had to have another one after the recess?) she initially vote for cloture. Then after Obama voted, she changed her vote to against cloture. Then she voted against the final bill.

The final vote tally makes her look good. The timeline makes her look, well, Clintonian.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 9, 2008 8:11 PM

If Obama had gone against this, the Republicans could say he was even more liberal than San Francisco Liberal Nancy Pelosi. Rinse, repeat, etc.

Posted by John | July 9, 2008 8:20 PM

If Obama had gone against this, the Republicans could say he was even more liberal than San Francisco Liberal Nancy Pelosi. Rinse, repeat, etc.

Posted by John

Instead, they will do that anyway and try to add this to the 'flip flop' meme. Smart thinkin'.

Posted by El Cid | July 9, 2008 9:07 PM

I think that's the first thing I've ever heard her say that I liked.

Posted by brenna | July 9, 2008 9:38 PM

What are you guys talking about? She voted against cloture, supporting the filibuster.

Well...

Then in today's cloture vote (I guess they had to have another one after the recess?) she initially vote for cloture. Then after Obama voted, she changed her vote to against cloture. Then she voted against the final bill.

...apparently she's real sneaky. Anyways, here you go guys: all the votes that counted:

Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 6304)

Vote Number: 158
Vote Date: June 25, 2008, 06:25 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to
Vote Counts: YEAs 80 NAYs 15
Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting - Obama (D-IL), Not Voting

D's voting Yes: Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bingaman (D-NM) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Dorgan (D-ND) Feinstein (D-CA) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI)

Question: On the Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 5064 )
Statement of Purpose: To strike title II.
Vote Number: 164
Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 11:55 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 5064 to H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Statement of Purpose: To strike title II.
Vote Counts: YEAs 32 NAYs 66
Clinton (D-NY), Yea - Obama (D-IL), Yea
D's voting Yes: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Feinstein (D-CA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Mikulski (D-MD) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Webb (D-VA)

Question: On the Amendment (Specter Amdt. No. 5059)
Vote Number: 165
Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 12:20 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 5059 to H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Statement of Purpose: To limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional.
Vote Counts: YEAs 37 NAYs 61
Clinton (D-NY), Yea - Obama (D-IL), Yea
D's voting No: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Feinstein (D-CA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Mikulski (D-MD) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO)

Question: On the Amendment (Bingaman Amdt. No. 5066)
Vote Number: 166
Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 12:39 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 5066 to H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Statement of Purpose: To stay pending cases against certain telecommunications companies and provide that such companies may not seek retroactive immunity until 90 days after the date the final report of the Inspectors General on the President's Surveillance Program is submitted to Congress.
Vote Counts: YEAs 42 NAYs 56
Clinton (D-NY), Yea - Obama (D-IL), Yea
D's voting No: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Inouye (D-HI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV)

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 6304)
Vote Number: 167
Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 02:17 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 72 NAYs 26
Clinton (D-NY), Nay - Obama (D-IL), Yea
D's voting Yes: Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Dorgan (D-ND) Feinstein (D-CA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Mikulski (D-MD) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI)

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304 )
Vote Number: 168
Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 02:47 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 69 NAYs 28
Clinton (D-NY), Nay - Obama (D-IL), Yea
D's voting Yes: Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Feinstein (D-CA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Mikulski (D-MD) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI)

The pro-tyranny wing of the Democrat party (always voted with the R's): Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Inouye (D-HI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV)

max
['Missing the forest for the trees.']

Posted by max | July 9, 2008 9:38 PM

Hmmmm. Obama embarassingly and cravenly flip flops on FISA, helping to gut the 4th Amendment and bolster our corporate national security state, and Matt's take on it (along with some of the commenters here) is to snark on Clinton's motives for not doing that. Attention, fanboys - the primary is over, your guy won, your Evil She-Devil fetish doll ain't running any more, so maybe coming to terms with what your nominee actually is, or isn't, might be in order. Just saying.

Posted by scottreads | July 9, 2008 9:56 PM

Posted by Consumatopia | July 9, 2008 7:08 PM

That's ridiculous. If HRC had done anything vocal during this time she would have been accused of trying to hurt the presumptive nominee, embarrass him or upstage him and would have been vilified.

Instead, she voted the way she (and he) should have and went out of her way not to allow her statement to be held against him by saying she understood it was a difficult decision for others.

Posted by nycvoter | July 9, 2008 10:13 PM

... so maybe coming to terms with what your nominee actually is, or isn't, might be in order. Just saying.

I've come to terms with it. I've supported Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton for quite some time, I was pleased he won the primary, and I still am -- for lots and lots of reasons, he was my choice in this contest. And I applaud her for doing the right thing on this vote as much as I am disappointed in him for doing the wrong thing. He caved, he flipped, and I'm not happy about it. But life goes on. I never supported any politician with the expectation that I'd fully love each and every thing they do, and I was never under any illusions that Obama was some sort of messianic figure outside all norms of human politics. I'm not happy about it; I'll cope. Meanwhile I'm still focused on ensuring that the best (by millions of leagues) candidate wins in November.

Posted by jbryan | July 9, 2008 10:24 PM

"That's nice. The party still made the right choice."

When Obama loses I'll be sure to put you on my holiday card list. Do you prefer Christmas or Chanukah?

Posted by Linus | July 9, 2008 10:34 PM

But the reality is that as long as Obama thinks he's going to be wielding executive authority, he's going to be useless as a check on out-of-control executive authority.

You keep saying this as though it would be just totally unreasonable to expect a presidential candidate to have a principled view about the limits of presidential power--as though it were the most natural thing in the world for any would-be president to strive as much as possible for dictatorial powers. I still have no idea why you believe this to be true. It would be very easy and natural for Obama to believe, and say, that as president his powers should be held within certain limits, such as the Constitution. If you're right about Obama's motive, which I don't think you are, it reflect very badly on his character and I don't understand how anyone could apologize for it.

Posted by Brendan | July 9, 2008 11:22 PM

Mark -- let's see. You're mad, because the hack we nominated for president is voting the wrong way, so you're going to exercise your anger by voting for an even bigger and much more dangerous hack who voted the wrong way a lot more.

It makes no sense.

Why don't you vote for Bob Barr instead?

Posted by DBX | July 9, 2008 11:53 PM

Glad so many are waking up to the truth about Barack Obama. Wish it would have happened back when it would have made a difference.

Posted by jeebus | July 10, 2008 12:31 AM

When Obama loses

We're not going to be losing. Sorry to disappoint you.

Posted by jbryan | July 10, 2008 12:49 AM

Hmmmm. Obama embarassingly and cravenly flip flops on FISA, helping to gut the 4th Amendment and bolster our corporate national security state, and Matt's take on it (along with some of the commenters here) is to snark on Clinton's motives for not doing that. Attention, fanboys - the primary is over, your guy won, your Evil She-Devil fetish doll ain't running any more, so maybe coming to terms with what your nominee actually is, or isn't, might be in order. Just saying.

As I see it, there are two issues. One, telecom immunity, is really about getting at Bush and his subordinates about breaking the FISA law after 9-11. Bush only has 6 months or so left in office and more will come out on this after the Inspector General's investigation. So this is still going and isn't a dead issue, although it seems to me more a political issue than a legal one. It's Democrats versus Republicans, with many Democrats not wanting to fight over it at this time, and with possibly only one Republican, Arlen Specter, willing to be somewhat objective about it.

The second issue is warrantless wiretapping. They still have to go to the FISA court if an American is specifically targeted over their international communications. An Obama administration couldn't do what Bush did after 9-11. The new vague bit is that they can target a foreign "group" and use a dragnet on its members' communications with American citizens in a somewhat warrantless process without much oversight. This will be revisited. Privacy rights groups are already sueing. It seems to me critics are making this sound worse than it is, in that the old FISA law didn't really cover the dragnet stuff, because of the new technology. Hopefully in the future a system with more oversight will be put in place.

Perhaps I'm being naive. However, I am sure that many critics didn't like Obama in the first place, like the poster above, and are trying to put the most negative spin on it as possible.

Posted by Peter K. | July 10, 2008 12:50 AM

Matt:

Just say No! to kool-aid. If you need help getting off the juice, I know a 12-step program that specializes in you sippy-kup kidz.

Posted by myiq2xu | July 10, 2008 12:57 AM

"We're not going to be losing. Sorry to disappoint you."

Oh, yeah, you will.

And Clinton would have lost, too - even though the Zionist freaks in Israel actually preferred her over McCain, according to a Haaretz poll.

But then, they preferred Giuliani even over McCain, because they could SEE he was nuts - and thus controllable by Israel. McCain is less so - but not by much.

So the neocons and the Zionist freaks - along with the oil companies and the military-industrial complex, who see oodles of money from future wars coming - will spend whatever money it takes and bribe whatever MSM media it takes to make sure Obama loses.

Don't fret - they would have done it to Clinton, too.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 10, 2008 3:02 AM

Dude, get some psychiatric help.

Posted by jbryan | July 10, 2008 3:07 AM

"You keep saying this as though it would be just totally unreasonable to expect a presidential candidate to have a principled view about the limits of presidential power--as though it were the most natural thing in the world for any would-be president to strive as much as possible for dictatorial powers. I still have no idea why you believe this to be true."

It doesn't have to be true for the complaint to be valid. The whole idea of constitutional government, checks and balances, separation of powers, etc. is built on the standing presumption that those who exercise power aren't virtuous enough to exercise it responsibly. The reason we adopt this presumption is not that it's true with respect to everyone who holds political power, but rather that it is needed to give us assurance against arbitrary exercises of executive power. Perhaps Obama is virtuous enough to exercise unrestrained presidential powers responsibly. But that is irrelevant from a constitutionalist perspective, since your protection, as a citizen, against arbitrary power shouldn't depend on whether the president personally happens to be a morally principled man. If limits of presidential power were given only by the president's own view, however morally principled, of what those limits are or should be, you might as well be living in an absolute monarchy with a virtuous king.

Posted by gr | July 10, 2008 3:15 AM

I must say that this is a brilliant bit of analysis. The "leader" of the democratic party and their presumptive nominee for president just played a major role in gutting the fourth amendment (and along the way protection to the bunch of lawbreakers in power currently), and all that this post has to say is that "Clinton would have done the same". Brilliant. I thought she was not the nominee, and neither did she support the nominee?

Posted by kris | July 10, 2008 6:04 AM

With Congressional popularity under 10%, I'd think the time was very ripe indeed for Obama to pick a fight with Democratic leadership. He's popular; they're even less popular than Bush, a truly amazing feat.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | July 10, 2008 8:19 AM

Why not? I mean, he'll be attacking him as a terrorist lover regardless, but a vote against the FISA revision would be one more brickbat in McCain's satchel.

Instead, they will do that anyway and try to add this to the 'flip flop' meme. Smart thinkin'.

Indeed, the McCain campaign called Obama an unprincipled flip-flopper on this issue before they even held the votes yesterday. So, you know, well done.

Still, I guess he needs to publicly break his word and meekly capitulate to the most craven, corrupt, anti-Constitutional elements of the Democratic Party now, so he can effectively work with them to force through a genuinely progressive agenda as President. Or something.

Posted by mds | July 10, 2008 9:11 AM

Mr. Hack! Oh Richard! Yoohoo... Me and the crow here are still waiting. Hillary has now been off the trail for a considerable time. No evidence of Obama undermining. Some pretty full throated support for his capaign from her. I believe a certain meal is in order yes? Yes some of her supporters are cavailing but she herself has been pretty reliably supportive of the Obamaster. If you feel your prediction still is going to come true I shan't begrudge you more time, I'll be happy to hold onto it for you. The convention at the latest is reasonable. But Mr. Hack this crow isn't going to get any more palatable the longer it sits in the tupperware.

And while we're on the subject of predictions I have a live crow here watching the Iranian issue. I don't feel confident enough to cook it for you yet since obviously anything is possible with Captain Koo-koo Banannas in the Whitehouse but it still doesn't seem like an iranian invasion is likely.

Posted by Minnesota | July 10, 2008 12:39 PM

Minnesota, I have a place to suggest where you can stick your crow.

As I said before, if Clinton supports Obama thoroughly throughout the campaign and to the election and beyond, then I will admit I was wrong about her intentions - if not her bitch personality and her corrupt nature.

Until then, kindly STFU.

Second, the Iran war will happen before Bush leaves office.

As John Pike at GlobalSecurity put it:

"Bombing is either going to be the last thing Mr. Bush does or the first thing Mr. McCain does," he said.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 10, 2008 5:44 PM