home

FISA Debate - Clinton And Obama Are No Shows

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:43:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update (TL): Firedoglake is live-blogging.

****

Chris Dodd has announced he will filibuster the FISA Amendment which includes telecom immunity. You can watch the debate here.

Update [2008-1-24 11:56:34 by Big Tent Democrat]: Clinton a No Show. Shame on her.

Update (TL): Obama isn't there either. I didn't expect either of them to be there.

< Obama On Reagan Again | NE Journal of Medecine: Doctors Should Not Participate in Executions >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FISA Debate - Clinton And Obama Are No Shows | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Yup - HRC's a real leader.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:04:59 AM EST


    I know you are angry Scribe but (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    If Obama ain't there, then Obama supporters shouldn't throw stones.

    If he is there, Then throw boulders at HRC on this and I will with you.

    Parent

    Awaiting an update re Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:34:24 AM EST


    Parent
    To Date Neither Clinton or Obama (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    have shown any real leadership on matters that are important to me. Talking about leadership or issuing press releases is not leadership.

    If Obama shows up to actually participate and vote on FISA, that would change my opinion and my vote. If neither show up, then they both continue to fail my leadership test.

    Parent

    I sent an e mail to Clinton's (4.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    campaign website.  Result will be:  my inbox will now be full of campaign e mails.

    Parent
    As is Obama apparently. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    Quite disappointing.  Dodd/Feingold for President.

    Parent
    TPM (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ogo on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:14:00 PM EST
    Paul Keil is reporting that the bill without immunity will be first up and passage will be by simple majority.

    Will they have enough votes without Clinton and Obama?

    that bill would be (none / 0) (#16)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    vetoed by Bush anyway....Hands down....

    Parent
    All The More Reason (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    for Democrats to pass it.  Bush is basically saying he must have the ability to conduct surveillance or the terrorists will get us.  However, he'll veto any such authority unless the telecoms get immunity.  IOW, protecting telecoms is more important than protecting citizens.  

    Why the Dems cannot see what a political winner this is is beyond me?  

    Parent

    That's fine (none / 0) (#17)
    by magster on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:27:32 PM EST
    then we're back at the old FISA, which did not need to be amended in the first place.

    Parent
    I'm Mad (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:30:18 PM EST
    I am in such a rage right now against the Democratic party!  I can barely contain it.

    I will remember today forever.  I will hold the Democratic party responsible for its actions.

    What we witnessed today was historic.  The Democrats crossed a bright line.  They have unambiguously legitimized illegal warrantless spying on Americans.  The President and the telecoms committed felonies and high crimes and misdemeanors by spying on the American public and then lying about it and covering it up.  The Democrats have now responded to this reckless attack on our Constitution by suppressing any investigation or punishment!!!!!!!  The Democrats have now just decreed that there will be no punishment for this President to illegally spy on Americans.

    How anyone in the Democratic party can excuse this behavior and not fight tooth and nail against the President's illegal spying is beyond belief. There is no political justification for sweeping a crime such as this under the rug.  

    I will encourage every left-leaning and libertarian person I know to actively fight against the Democratic party.  They are indeed the enemy.

    Welcome.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:26:10 AM EST
    to the Eyes Open Club.

    Parent
    leaders lead (4.50 / 2) (#28)
    by Turkana on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    campaigners campaign...

    Sign Of A Good Writer (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    Someone who can say in four words what I took two paragraphs to say and did so more effectively.

    Kudos Turkana

    Parent

    Do you have any information as to (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    whether Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama are present?

    I can find no evidence.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:55:14 AM EST
    that Hillary or Barack are doing their jobs.

    Parent
    Edwards (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    announced his support of it but of course he cannot participate in the filibuster....

    Does Dodd (none / 0) (#7)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:23:21 AM EST
    have enough support to get the job done??

    No. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST


    Parent
    The idealist (none / 0) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    Heck, we know she is a pragmatist, where is the idealist?  Where is the "Agent of Change"

    Great LA Times story about the number of times Obama pushed the wrong button when voting

    Disappointed, Not Surprised (none / 0) (#13)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    I was hoping Clinton would surprise me, but she didn't.  That's too bad.  FWIW, I don't expect Obama to surprise me either.

    Via TPM, Harry Reid may be surprising me.  If the Republicans want to defeat Dodd's amendment stripping the Intell Committee's Bill of immunity, they are either going to have to get 51% or filibuster.  Whether Dodd can get a majority to agree on his Telecom bill without Obama and Clinton, I have no idea.  Of course, with Reid, I'll trust him after I see him do something, not before.  It's already disappointing that Reid might force Republicans to filibuster Dodd's amendment, but apparently will let them kill the bill that has no immunity in it with a straight 51% vote.  

    called Hilary (none / 0) (#14)
    by mexboy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:13:59 PM EST
    I just called Hilary and left her a message. I told her I'm supporting her for president but was disappointed she was not at the FISA debate and that she needs to make sure there is no telco Amnesty.

    This is just stupid! I know she's campaigning, but she would gain more votes by actually protecting our rights right now!
    Obama wasn't there either, and frankly I don't expect he will.

    Don't take this personally . . . . But (4.50 / 2) (#19)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    How dense can you get?  Hillary is on the wrong side of this issue.  If you think Bush's lawless spying on Americans should be investigated and should be stopped and punished then Hillary is NOT the candidate for you (neither is Obama, btw).  

    If you support a police state, limitless executive power to spy on citizens, and retroactive immunity for corporate lawbreakers, then Hillary is your woman.

    But don't be stupid.  Don't be fooled into thinking she is on your side on this.  

    You can choose to vote for Hillary (or Obama) but spare me the mental jijitsu (and cognitive dissonance) that is required to think Hillary desires or will spend the energy to do the right thing here.

    Parent

    WOW easy there genius (none / 0) (#47)
    by mexboy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:13:27 PM EST
    I wish I could tell you what I think about you for calling me stupid and dense, but I would be banned for using foul language.

    What I can deduce from your personal attack against me because of my post is that you are bitter and angry and chose to take that out on me for supporting Hilary. Sound like a personal problem to me, and I suggest you seek mental help.

    My point is that as a citizen I am doing my civic duty by calling one of my congresspersons and putting pressure on them as to what I want.

    DID YOU CALL ANY OF THEM?
    Did you take action to protect us or are you too busy attacking people with the "wrong" candidate in the forums?

    whether she shows up or not is not up to me and I will have to adjust my opinion of her accordingly, but what I find arrogant and self delusional is your thinking. What makes you think I need to justify anything? I can vote for whomever I want and for whatever reasons I want and I DO NOT OWE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE AN EXPLANATION.

     The self aggrandizing and pompous mental superiority complex you have is giving me nausea, excuse me as I go vomit!

    Parent

    I apologize for (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:22:52 PM EST
    my comment.  I shouldn't have directed it at you personally.  I was upset, in general, by so many supporters of either Obama or Hillary making excuses for their lack of leadership, to put it mildly.

    I overreacted to you personally but I still feel justified in my anger at Hillary and Obama and the Democratic party--as well as those Democrats who still make excuses for their lack of leadership.  

    And thanks for contacting her today!  The Democrats need to be shown the folly of their actions.

    Parent

    Apology accepted (none / 0) (#49)
    by mexboy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:30:12 PM EST
    I am just as angry as you are over this.
     I make no excuses for anyone. HIlary and Obama are both wrong for not being there.I haven't heard if Edwards showed up.

    Parent
    Edwards isnt a senator so cant participate (none / 0) (#50)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:36:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Exactly.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    I can't think of a better move for the Clinton or Obama campaign than to hold a press conference, while on the job in Washington, saying something like "though I'd love to be in the State of "X" meeting with the primary voters, duty calls me to Washington to ensure the privacy of all Americans from unlawful government surveillance."

    How is that not a winner?  What are these 2 boobs thinking?  

     

    Parent

    Hmmmmm (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Wonder what her political calculus is here?  Maybe she has the overwhelming support of the telecom industry and she doesn't want to appear "soft on terror" so she allows Bush and Cheney to do what they want.

    And this is the primary!  This is when Hillary and Obama are supposed to be listening to their base.

    The Democrats have made their bed--they chose right-leaning Bush apologists to lead their party.

    You silly souls that are caught up in a debate about Change (TM) and Experience (TM) are selling the soul of the Democratic party for a pittance.  Actually, it's a pig in a poke.  You think selling out will result in a short-term electoral advantage but you're wrong!  It will cost the Democrats in the long-term.  I certainly will not vote for either Hillary or Obama.  

    God have mercy on this once great party and please forgive these fools that know not what they do.

    Parent

    Both Clinton And Obama Have Received (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    campaign contributions from the telecoms. Clinton $106,300 and Obama $87,236. Source: Open Secrets

    Edwards has also received contributions in the amount of $18,761. Didn't want to leave him out.

    Parent

    Now we can see.... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM EST
    what the telecoms bought.

    It's the same thing as slipping the cop on the beat a c-note to look the other way while you rob the liquor store.

    Parent

    You prove my point (none / 0) (#33)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:03:31 PM EST
    All three are somewhat complicit.  Edwards the least so and Hillary the most so.  

    The Democats, as a party, have made this bed.  Now they must lie in it.  The party, with Reid and Hillary and Obama all being complicit, is abdicating its constitutional duty to uphold the constitution.

    Parent

    That less than 0.01% of their $100,000,000++ (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:15:22 PM EST
    in campaign funds is from the telecoms seems pretty insignificant.

    Parent
    The political calculus (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:27:18 PM EST
    They're all afraid Bush will "miss" the warnings again of an impending terrorist attack on "the homeland." If Democrats get in the way of what Bush wants re FISA and something like that happens, the blame will be put entirely on the Democrats. Democrats will be kaput as a party for a generation, maybe forever. Goodbye victory in 2008. Goodbye Supreme Court.

    Being an optimist, I'm hoping they're just trying to survive this issue until Bush is no longer president and there is a Dem in the WH, and then will amend it to meet constitutional and privacy concerns. As I said, I'm an optimist.

    Parent

    If the people buy that line o' crap.... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:40:50 PM EST
    than we deserve what we get.

    Parent
    Well, that's what I think is motivating Reid (none / 0) (#44)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    Strategic capitulation. Live to fight another day.

    Funny that people here are reacting to my optimism. If I'd made that same comment about Bush and terror attacks at dkos I'd have troll cops descending, accusing me of promoting "conspiracy theories."

    Parent

    An Optimist? How about Deluded? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:43:48 PM EST
    Do you actually believe this drivel?  That the Democrats will eventually get around to remedying their capitulation when they are in power?  Let me remind you they are in power now and Reid chose to fight for the Bush and Cheney bill.  And Hillary and Obama are quietly helping them while they distract you so-called liberals with their silly little jabs at each other.

    I guess you're probably still waiting for the Democrats to fix the torture law they capitulated on in 06?  Right?  Didn't they promise to do something on that and the war once they were in power?  They couldn't do anything about those when they were in the minority so we were supposed to stick with them when they voted against our interests and eventually they would do the right thing.  Are you still optimistic about them getting around to that?

    Your statement is incredibly naive and explains perfectly the rot at the core of the Democratic party.  Frankly, you've described the rationale for a Hillary presidency perfectly.  A secret, wink wink, promise to be a liberal at some point in the future--but right now she just has to do Cheney's bidding.  And ooops.  She never actually got around to doing the winky winky part and you're left looking like one of the biggest SUCKERS in American politics.

    SUCKER.

    Parent

    Well, in fact they don't have (3.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:12:25 PM EST
    a working majority. The calculus will change with a Dem in the WH. If you can't see that you're missing the fact that real institutional constraints exist on how they can operate, particularly when they're dealing with someone as extremist and hardball as Bush. I'd like it to be different, but that's how things are. Activism to pressure them to correct the abuses will go on if they don't, and will have more chance of a positive result.

    Your solution is, let me guess, vote Green? Or better yet, Ron Paul? Got anything beside outrage to offer? Something practical?

    Parent

    What you fail to see (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    Is there is no bill passed without the Congress passing a bill.  It goes both ways.  Bush and Cheney  can't get their 'get out of jail free card' unless Reid, Hillary, et al help them.

    If you think the calculus will change when Hillary is president you are beyond help.  I don't know how many times you will be abused before you figure out the the Democratic party has no interest in upholding the constitution.

    AS far as solutions . . . I have many thoughts on that and no doubt this will be the point of many discussions that will occur in the near future.  But suffice it to say that I will be finding a  solution in places other than the Democratic party as currently constituted.

    Today I am digesting the complete failure of the party I have spent my life in.  Pardon me if it takes awhile.

    Parent

    You're looking at it too narrowly (3.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:42:58 PM EST
    What you fail to see is that they're afraid to have no bill passed or to have one vetoed while Bush is in the WH. It's a gamble they're not willing to take with the future of the party itself while Bush is in control of protecting the country. Holding Bush and Cheney to account doesn't clearly benefit them electorally at this point in the cycle and has major risks, so they're not interested in pursuing that course of action.

    The calculus will change even if HIllary is president because, very simply, she won't be vetoing bills coming from a Democratic Congress in order to score political points against the other side. And a Dem WH and Dem Congress will be more likely to respond to pressure from Dem activists than Republicans are - the sole source of my optimism.

    I'm not particularly invested in either Democrats or Republicans or anything else to save us from our civic failures as a country. So my sympathies for your disappointment today in the Democratic Party. I think the wealthy and powerful rule no matter who's in power and that Americans are getting exactly the government we deserve. That's not to discount there there are differences in approach of the two parties and that Dems are overall preferable, particularly when it comes to next appointments to the SC.

    The Democratic Party is no intrinsic body of virtue. Pols and parties are not us as citizens. They pursue their own interest. They're of no value in and of themselves. All they are is means to our ends to the extent that we can make them act that way. Giving up on one or both major parties means giving up on the game.

    Parent

    Me either.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:23:42 PM EST
    I could not in good conscience vote for either one of them.  They are complicit...they must be, because they can't be this inept.

    Parent
    Perfect the enemy of the good` (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:37:03 PM EST
    You can obviously vote any way you want, but statements like the one you just made about Clinton and Obama is why George W. Bush is president and why we find ourselves in the mess we're currently in.  Because people spoke about Gore the same way - he wasn't perfect, he was "just like" Bush - and enough of them voted for Nader to give Bush the presidency (along with an assist from the Supreme Court).

    I'm not very pleased with Obama or Clinton on this issue, but I'm quite certain they both will be much better on civil liberties and the constitution than any Republican running.  So I'd argue that even if you don't like either of them, if you care about things like the rule of law, you have an obligation to try to keep John McCain or Mitt Romney out of the White House.  

    Or think of it this way, even if Clinton and Obama would be as bad as Republicans, Democrats have proven they have much less trouble backstabbing and undermining Democratic presidents than they do Republcans. The fastest way to make Congress protect the constitution again is to elect a Democratic president.  Of course, the democrats will also undermine perfectly good policies of any democratic president, but with Congressional Dems you always have to take the good with the bad.  Nothing emboldens a Democratic Senator like a Democratic president.  Pathetic, but true.

    Parent

    With all due respect.... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    that's bullsh*t.  I could just as easily blame you for wasting your vote on Al Gore and stealing the presidency from Ralph Nader.

    The only obligation I have is to vote my conscience...if we all stopped playing games with our vote and started actually voting for the best candidate maybe we'd get somewhere.

    How many times have you heard something along the lines of "I really like Kucinich, but I guess I'll vote for Hillary" or "Ron Paul has some great ideas, but I'm voting for McCain".  If we all voted our conscience, instead of making Machevellian manuevers with our votes, who knows....maybe we could see the changes we desire.

    One thing I'm sure of....we're in Iraq in 2012 with Obama or Hillary.  And our civil liberties will not be any more secure.

    Parent

    You could blamd someone (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    for voting for Gore, but you'd be completely wrong. So go ahead.


    Parent
    You're right..... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:35:25 PM EST
    but it's no more wrong than blaming Nader voters, which is somehow acceptable to do.

    Parent
    right on, kdog! n/t (none / 0) (#42)
    by dutchfox on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:53:43 PM EST


    Parent
    You couldn't be more wrong (4.00 / 3) (#30)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    So you want to discuss fault . . . Awesome.  So do I.  But guess what?  It is you Democrats that insist on moving the party to the right that have done the damage.  The Democratic party is now a party of torture, illegal spying on citizens, unbridled militarism, and corporate synchophy.  You Clintonian Democrats (or Blue Dogs, or DLC, or Lieberman Democrats, or just plain old conservatives) have been in charge of the Democratic party of 15 years and what have we got for it?  Republican rule and the evisceration of what used to be a good Democratic party.

    Look.  I'm not above compromise.  That's why I voted for Kerry and Gore even though they weren't as liberal as I am.  I too once thought tacking to the right, aka "Clintonism", or third way politics, was the way to move the country to the left.  I now see the error in that thinking.  It's  a terrible approach right now.

    The Democratic party has crossed a bright moral line.  It has now allowed the U.S. to torture, to spy illegally on its citizens, to evisarate habeas corpus, and to give corporate donors retroactive immunity.  Actually, the Democratic party no longer represents the average working family but its corporate donors.  

    You, are complicit in torture, war crimes, and the erosion of civil rights. It's always the same song and dance with you DLC types.  You always seem to argue that if we give Bush and Cheney what they want Americans will like Democrats and them someday, down the road, the Democrats will really vote for things they believe in.  Except this magical day where Democrats vote their convictions never comes.  It's always around the corner--if we just move a little more to the right we will get there . . . .  

    You, sir, have blood on your hands.  Not me.  You are responsible for Republican rule now, and in the future.  Not me.  You can choose to join me or fight me.

    But it is readily apparent that Hillary, Obama, and the other right-wing members of the party will spend more energy fighting me and my ilk than the Republicans (e.g. censuring Move On but not Cheney  or the other Bush administration criminals).

    But bring on the fight.  You Democrats that want to make excuses for torture, the gutting of 4th Amendment and habeas corpus can do so.  

    BRING IT ON!  Finally the Democratic party will be back to focusing on issues and I will gladly debate the efficacy of caving in to the Republicans and whose fault it is that Bush and Cheney have been able to eviscerate long-standing American values.

    Parent

    My Guess Is (none / 0) (#23)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:30:26 PM EST
    That Obama and Clinton have both decided that they are helped more by being on the campaign trail than they are by returning to D.C.  

    The depressing thing is that I suspect they're both right.  For whatever reason, this issue doesn't seem to be resonating with the public.  Now, of course, this is a viscious circle.  Is it not resonating because it hasn't gotten the attention some one like Obama or Clinton could throw at it?  Or are they not doing much because they don't think the issue resonates.

    One of the more depressing things about the last eight years is how silent Americans have largely been about the destruction of the Constitution, rule of law, and individual rights.  Yes, Democrats and Republicans in Congress deserve most the blame (with Republicans deserving the larger share since they did nothing for six years and now block attempts by Dems to do anything).  But the lack of public outcry is still noticable.  And I include myself among those who should be doing more.  

    Parent

    We're not all silent! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by SFHawkguy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    You, for instance, just wrote a post excusing the fact that the candidates aren't leading on this issue.

    Some of us tried to stop the Democratic party from going over the cliff.

    Parent

    What can you do? (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:44:01 PM EST
    Bloggers writing emails and making phone calls up the wazoo seems to do nothing.

    I know one thing we can do...but it leads to getting locked up.

    You're right about Clinton and Obama making a concious decison that their presidential ambitions is the most important thing for them right now.  Good thing for the voters to remember....

    Parent

    Well The First Thing We Could Do Is Stop (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:00:54 PM EST
    supporting candidates that have not shown real leadership on the issues that matter to us in future  primaries. It seems that we have been too willing to throw our support behind candidates on hope that they will lead rather than actions that prove leadership. Stop listening to just words and look at what they really did before they entered the election cycle.

    My two main issues are the occupation of Iraq and safeguarding and restoring our Constitutional rights. During their terms in the Senate, I find absolutely no leadership from either Clinton or Obama on these issues. I'm not talking about votes being casted. I'm talking about leading the agenda, aggressively framing the issue in the media, powerful speeches on the Senate floor, twisting arms and making things happen. Both showed no courage or leadership IMO.

    Parent

    Who'll Primary Rockefeller? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    I'll donate what's left of the warchest from my 2006 race.

    Typical "Leadership" from both of them (none / 0) (#52)
    by seabos84 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:48:45 PM EST
    Where is all that earth shaking squash the flat earth fascists legislation of hill and bar?

    Bottled up in obscure committees, awaiting their champion's arrival at 1600 casa blanca???????

    NO!

    it ain't bottled up cuz it don't exist !!

    to heck with both of them.

    rmm.

    FISA Debate - Clinton And Obama Are No Shows | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment