Obama Adviser: I ‘Strongly’ Believe Telecoms ‘Should Be Granted Immunity’
Obama Adviser: I ‘Strongly’ Believe Telecoms ‘Should Be Granted Immunity’
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has consistently spoken out and voted against granting retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. This stance was part of the reason he won the support of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a leader on civil liberties issues.
One of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who “strongly” supports telecomm immunity. John Brennan is a former CIA official and the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. In a new National Journal interview, Brennan makes it clear that he agrees with the Bush administration on the issue of immunity:
There is this great debate over whether or not the telecom companies should in fact be given immunity for their agreement to provide support and cooperate with the government after 9/11. I do believe strongly that they should be granted that immunity, because they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context, and so I think that’s important. And I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that’s the right thing to do. I do believe the Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately.
These corporations may not have been acting within law, which is why many of them are now pushing for immunity. They chose to break the law and profited greatly from doing so. (At least one company refused to comply with the Bush administration’s request because it knew the actions were illegal.)
Because they complied in illegally wiretapping their customers, telecoms currently face around 40 lawsuits. Telecomms have nothing to fear from going to court, as long as they can prove that what they did is lawful.
Brennan also warned the next president from making any partisan “knee-jerk” decisions on intelligence when he or she takes office.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
.
IMPEACH
CHENEY
FIRST!!!
.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:31 pmObama needs to seriously dump this dude.
No excuse for breaking the law whenever the ‘administration’ asks you to, pretty please, or we’ll get blown to smithereens…
~ RHUsseinCerious ~
March 7th, 2008 at 1:33 pmThat’s a big Ooop’s……Hummmm…..Blessings..Over and out..
March 7th, 2008 at 1:33 pm.
One of the defining characteristics to what it means to be an American, is the freedom from a form of Government that needs to spy on it’s own people; THE FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY. Thus The Fourth Amendment.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS…
And so, THEY(sic) lobby and debate the merits to undermining that characteristic, that freedom, that Right. When Americans and America lose that Right and freedom, who wins?
.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pmWe’ve got plenty of time to ask both Obama and McCain about this subject. And it’s high time we started.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pmbecause they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context
Yet within this “legal context” they all broke the law.
There is no other truth. HOLD THOSE WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO BREAK THE LAW ACCOUNTABLE - CONGRESS.
I guarantee you that they gave approval to this warrantless eavesdropping BEFORE 9/11.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pmBeware the bicycle riding gays with toe cancer!! Oh wait, wrong thread… um…
Beware the Freedoms of the Constitution because they allow bad men to think up bad things
FEAR FEAR FEAR!
We now return to American Idol
raynhusseinman
March 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pmGood! I hope Obama keeps this guy AND sticks to his guns RE:NO Telecom immunity.
I’m sick and tired of the current administrations habit of surrounding themselves with yes-men.
I’m sure John is very well versed in foreign policy and intelligence matters and is an overall value-add to the team. Brennan can ’strongly support’ whatever the hell he wants, he’s not the “decider”.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pm.
SINCE WHEN IS WARRANTLESS CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL?
If WARRANTLESS is to be considered legal, then why the need for amnesty from prosecution for violating the Fourth Amendment?
If doing the Patriotic thing means handing over your protection from a form of government that is compelled to invade one’s privacy, then how did the Founders get the Fourth Amendment wrong?
What then, is the definition of TYRANNY?
.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pmANOTHER REASON YOU IDIOTS SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO KUCINICH
OR AT LEAST EDWARDS.
OBAMA IS “BETTER”…….BUT YOU ALL ARE STILL CLUELESS !!!
March 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pmThe lying, spying, war-mongering election-stealing Bush regime is just trying to cover up its treason-tracks by the granting of retroactive immunity to the turncoat telecomm corporations. In a side comment, Hillary Diane is no more of a monster than the lying, election-stealing, war-mongering Bush, Cheney and Rove. Just corporate four peas in a fascist pod. And you can easily squeeze Old McCane into a fifth slot in the pod.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm1. We still don’t know what the Telecoms are doing.
2. It is probably a spectrum of different surveillance techniques, including:
3. Data Mining, which is illegal by several interpretations of the law.
If our Democratic candidates support the same surveillance policies of the Bush administration then it’s going to get very ugly in this country.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm.
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=i1m35EzVCpw&eurl=http:/ / www.johnconyers.com/ node/ 200
.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pmThat defense sounds suspiciously like “we were only following orders”. It didn’t work at Nuremberg and it shouldn’t work here.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:39 pmIt doesn’t matter what YOU believe in Mr Brennan, you work for Obama’s campaign.
If you can’t do your best to get the man you’re working for elected, I suggest you spend more time with your family.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:39 pm.
If warrantless wiretapping is the “PATRIOTIC” thing to do, then why the need for immunity from the Fourth Amendment?
So that it can then be legal?
But if it were to be the “PATRIOTIC” thing to do, the Fourth Amendment would allow warrants to NOT be obtained.
So,
WHAT DOES CONGRESS SUPPORT AND DEFEND
IF NOT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S.A.?
.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pmThere is a difference between an advisor and a handler. I’m confident that Obama can listen to opposing viewpoints and follow what he thinks is the best path instead of doing what the last guy says…
March 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pmHey TP, we haven’t seen a single post about Hillary Clinton’s filthy campaign.
Why is that?
You’re all about fighting again “corrupt establishment,” aren’t you?
March 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pmNice job TP. I love how to take these round about shots at Obama for your overlord Hillary!
March 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pm.
The Bill of Rights was written to protect the People from a form of government that can grow tyrannical such as our has become. How anyone can argue the patriotic nature of removing these safeguards is no Patriot and deserves not to be called an American, even if elected into the People’s House. What kind of American argues to remove the very qualities that make him an American?
.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:44 pmSo,
WHAT DOES CONGRESS SUPPORT AND DEFEND
IF NOT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S.A.
Themselves and each other, nothing else.
I posted yesterday, somewhere, parts of the Declaration of Independence.
At some point, it WILL become necessary to take matters into our own hands, or continue down the path of no return.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:44 pmgood point bobwurst
March 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pmYou’re right about Kucinich and Edwards but, not all of us are clueless.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pmway to frame it, amanda… doing your part…
i’m sure it wouldn’t take much for anyone to come up with
March 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pma hillary advisor who we all disagree with also…
…
This is the wrong discussion and argument.
It is NOT about the Telecoms!
It is about Bush/Cheney.
Start Impeachment hearings against Bush/Cheney
and then give immunity to Telecoms once BC are in prison.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pm.
ROLL CALL on PAA:
http://www.senate.gov/ legislative/ LIS/ roll_call_lists/ roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020#position
O B A M A
A B S E N T!
WHY?
Granted, he did vote to support the Dodd amendment however couldn’t be bothered to take and keep a stand for our PRIVBACY RIGHTS!
.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pmAnd this is how “advisors” are handled with class.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pmIf they had been told to kill their staffers who were aware of the illegal tapping would they get immunity for that too?
March 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pmI do believe the Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately.
No it doesn’t. The Senate version gives them total and blanket immunity. He says he supports it if the Telcoms helped after 911. The Senate version does not do this. I am to the point where I think they should give the telcoms immunity from anything they did AFTER 911 and after they give the congress full disclosure of who, what, when, why and how.
Now, on to equating this guy with Obama. This is one of his adviser’s opinion, NOT Obama’s opinion. We can’t continue to say that what an adviser says is what the candidate means. That is not how it works.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pmThis guy is a “foreign policy advisor” to Obama. Telecom immunity is a domestic policy. What does one thing have to do with the other.
Getting a little carried away with this Hillary or bust thing aren’t you TP?
March 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pm.
Whistle-Blower: Feds Have a Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier
Zzzzzzzzz
.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pmOBAMA IS “BETTERâ€â€¦â€¦.BUT YOU ALL ARE STILL CLUELESS !!!
Comment by rastaman
Are you saying that Obama should be branded by something his adviser thinks? Until the day comes where Obama says he is for Telcom immunity, I will take him at his word.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pmNice job TP. I love how to take these round about shots at Obama for your overlord Hillary!
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Wow TP, when you have me agreeing with RX2 maybe you’re going too far.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:01 pm“because they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context”
Excuse me?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pmIf that is the case, then they should be exonerated at their trial.
He’s the adviser who resigned today, right . . .? yeah, right, no such luck. IMHO, both HRC and BHO are becoming bigger and bigger disappointments with each passing hour and each new silly surrogate story. can’t wait til November. My bet, we’ll ALL be less than amused with what we get for ‘change’ or ‘results.’
March 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pmOn second thought, it isn’t a bad idea for Obama to have advisors with dissenting, different opinions, as long as he is able to filter through the BS and agree to ignore opinions from advisors like this dufus
~ RHUsseinCerious ~
March 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pmIf you want to get the full scoop on Hillary’s latest “scorched earth” policies, go to the Huffington Post. They are not censoring anything. They post about both candidates and don’t censor.
Shame on you TP. What are you going to do when Hillary loses? Are you going to start supporting McCain? How about Nader.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pmComment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 7, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Fight back. Post links and let’s light em up!
March 7th, 2008 at 2:06 pmOn second thought, it isn’t a bad idea for Obama to have advisors with dissenting, different opinions, as long as he is able to filter through the BS and agree to ignore opinions from advisors like this dufus
~ RHUsseinCerious ~
I agree. I have had it with people who surround themselves with “yes” men. We have all seen where that takes us. I would rather have a President who listens to a lot of ideas and then takes the best and the brightest and runs with it than someone who surrounds themselves with sycophants.
At least TP is allowing us to post rants about Hillary’s latest tactics. They could be taking the “Sybil Edmonds” track like they did before. But they are smart enough to realize if they did that, this place would become a ghost town in a hot minute.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pmWow TP, when you have me agreeing with RX2 maybe you’re going too far.
Comment by Shayne
That’s ok Shayne, but if you find yourself wandering about the neighborhood saying “braiiins, must eat braiiins…” in a vacant voice, let us know.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pmIf you want to get the full scoop on Hillary’s latest “scorched earth†policies, go to the Huffington Post. They are not censoring anything. They post about both candidates and don’t censor.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 7, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
New policy at HuffPo? Everytime a Zoo Critter posts a link to anything over there, we get sent to the moderation queue.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:08 pmThat’s ok Shayne, but if you find yourself wandering about the neighborhood saying “braiiins, must eat braiiins…†in a vacant voice, let us know.
Comment by Bobwurst — March 7, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
Just stay away from the worcestershire sauce….
March 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pmNo HRC supporter, but Obama is sounding more and more like the candidate that will say anything to get elected….
March 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pmClinton’s experience on the “world stage”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2008/ 03/ 07/ clintons-experience-on-w_n_90398.html
March 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pmComment by Lungman424 — March 7, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
So you’re a McCain supporter?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pmNo HRC supporter, but Obama is sounding more and more like the candidate that will say anything to get elected….
Comment by Lungman424
Care to give some examples. What has he said that isn’t true?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pmI guess the BHO supporters think telling the truth is bad when it involves their candidate, but telling lies like they’re doing over at Huffpo is cool, as long at they’re lies about HRC.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins
YES….YOU’RE GOING TO BE VERY DISAPPOINTED AT THE OUTCOME…AGAIN.
YOU STILL HAVEN’T LEARNED ANYTHING…..BUT IT’S TOO LATE NOW……
SO VOTE OBAMA AND WAIT FOR YOUR SOLUTION TO TURN INTO ANOTHER NANCY PELOSI/HARRY REID
March 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pmSamantha Power, a Harvard professor and Pulitzer Prize winner, was quoted in a Scottish newspaper calling Clinton “a monster†who would do anything to win the presidency.
Comment by gummitch — March 7, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
Sadly, She was and is correct.
Now let’s hope Obama shit-cans this guy!
March 7th, 2008 at 2:13 pmNew policy at HuffPo? Everytime a Zoo Critter posts a link to anything over there, we get sent to the moderation queue.
Comment by Zooey
I don’t think it is just you Zooey. Every time I post there I get sent to the Moderators queue. My posts do show up in time. I just think that they are being very careful. They were recently invaded by righties who were posting outrageous stuff to try to get HP in trouble. Also, they do a good job at keeping out the odious trolls like those that post here. I am finding myself spending more and more time at HP these days because of the fact that TP is ignoring Hillary’s scorched earth policies and because of the fact that they won’t moderate out the trolls who post only to disrupt.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:13 pmJust because the president tells you to do something does not make it legal or patriotic. It is a travesty that these corporations are going to get immunity for performing illegal actions and in turn getting special favors. There are other companies who refused and were punished by the government by not getting contracts.
We need accountability not more lies.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pmSO VOTE OBAMA AND WAIT FOR YOUR SOLUTION TO TURN INTO ANOTHER NANCY PELOSI/HARRY REID
Comment by rastaman
Isn’t it nice when we run into people who can predict exactly what someone is going to do? What’s the matter rastman, are you disappointed that Hillary won’t make it or are you just another right wing troll?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pmI guess the BHO supporters think telling the truth is bad when it involves their candidate, but telling lies like they’re doing over at Huffpo is cool, as long at they’re lies about HRC.
Comment by nellre
So nellre, please tell us what lies are being told at the HP. Either put up or shut up.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:16 pmToday is the last day I read TP. It was my homepage. The fact that you are so willing to take cheap shots at Obama - a very probable Dem candidate - to shill for Hillary is repulsive and shows that this site is as prone to follow a demagogue as RedState is prone to back Bush
This has nothing to do with Obama’s stance - the central issue of his candidacy is his ability to consult with people he disagrees with.
Shame on ThinkProgress.org
March 7th, 2008 at 2:17 pmNice job TP. I love how to take these round about shots at Obama for your overlord Hillary!
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Oh, get over it! It’s a campaign. It’s not civil war. It’s not the thrilla at Manila. It’s a political campaign. If you can’t take a little flak now, what are you going to do in August and September.
These two fine people are not only fighting to win the Democratic nominiation, but, whoever wins will be the presumptive overwhelming favorite to become the next president. Yes, the stakes are high.
As far as I can see, both candidates are qualified and neither one has a decided numeric advantage over the other. It burns me up when people say that one or the other should drop out “for the good of the party.”
If they really want to help the party, both candidates should stop trying to tear the other down and both should turn on the common enemy, McCain.
The focus of the campaigns could be how each candidate is better than McCain. Then the electorate, and the super delegates, can better decide which candidate is “more better” than McCain.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pmThank you TP for bringing this to the forefront. The truth isn’t always pleasant and comforting. I want to hear from Barak Obama on where he does sit with this.
I am strongly opposed to immunity for the telecoms (and now the possibility of the likes of Google and Microsoft).
I still beleive this country is ours and we are a nation of laws.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm“If they really want to help the party, both candidates should stop trying to tear the other down and both should turn on the common enemy, McCain.”
This puts the cart before the horse. One has to win the nomination before they can begin to stop attacking their Democratic opponents (plural) in favor of their Republican opponent (singular). The problem is becoming that some of the candidates’ surrogates are acting like the Democratic opponents are the Republican opponent, or worse.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm.
IMPEACH
CHENEY
FIRST!!!
.
Comment by Max-1 — March 7, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Stop spamming.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pmI would like Obama to come right out and say that if elected he would reverse any illegal immunity and hold accountable those that broke the law. (meaning ALL of Those that broke the law, from the administration on down!)
March 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pmThank you TP for bringing this to the forefront. The truth isn’t always pleasant and comforting. I want to hear from Barak Obama on where he does sit with this.
http://www.voicesweb.org/?q=node/1308
Obama voted no on the Senate version with telcom immunity. Hillary, on the other hand, didn’t bother to vote.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:27 pm“This puts the cart before the horse. One has to win the nomination before they can begin to stop attacking their Democratic opponents (plural) in favor of their Republican opponent (singular).”
WHY?!??!?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pmIf they go into this with the mindset that they are running against McCain, and not each other, then that solves all the problems of demonizing a respected member of your party.
Obama better consider that the Republicans will use the NSA to spy on him and his communications, if they aren’t already.
John Kerry didn’t dismiss the idea that he was spied on during his campaign.
We know that the Republicans spied on the computer of Senator Kennedy:
http://query.nytimes.com/ gst/ fullpage.html?res=9F00E0D7103FF936A35750C0A9629C8B63
** This spying crap is a cancer and must be destroyed. To even suggest the government should be able to spy on us without PROBABLE CAUSE and WARRANTS is disgustingly unAmerican.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pmObama voted no on the Senate version with telcom immunity. Hillary, on the other hand, didn’t bother to vote.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 7, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
I don’t think this is accurate. Obama voted no on an earlier version of the legislation. I believe he also did NOT vote for the final bill.
Give me a few minutes to double-check.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pmThanks bilbo. I knew that Clinton avoided the vote. My concern is now this inner circle advisor has made his views known and they aren’t jiving with Obama’s.
It may be part of the idea that Obama does sorround himself with people who don’t always agree with him and this could show a greater grasp on this, and other, situations.
I still think Obama should address this.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:32 pmObama Adviser: I ‘Strongly’ Believe Telecoms ‘Should Be Granted Immunity’
NO. Telecoms must be granted FAIRNESS. If the helped the Government in good faith, it will be taken in account, but if they handed happily the records of everyone everywhere, they must pay, all legally done.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:32 pmNo HRC supporter, but Obama is sounding more and more like the candidate that will say anything to get elected….
Comment by Lungman424 — March 7, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
What does what this guy thinks have to do with what Obama says? You suckers will believe anything, no wonder you’re a Republican.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:33 pmGive me a few minutes to double-check.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — March 7, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Here’s the accurate information from Glenn Greenwald (THE source for FISA information).
UPDATE V: Final passage in the Senate of the Cheney/Rockefeller bill was 68-29. 19 Democrats joined all Republicans to vote in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty: Conrad, Rockefeller, Baucus, Webb, Kohl, Whitehouse, Bayh, Johnson, Bill Nelson, Mikulski, McCaskill, Lincoln, Casey, Salazar, Inouye, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Carper, and Landrieu. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted on final passage.
http://www.salon.com/ opinion/ greenwald/ 2008/ 02/ 12/ amnesty_day/ index.html
March 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pmbut if they handed happily the records of everyone everywhere, they must pay, all legally done.
I believe they installed spying systems, then handed over the keys to the NSA.
So, although they may have indeed broken the law, it is our very own government who must take the blame.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pmGive me Freaking Break….Obama isn’t for retroactive immunity…It is refresing that a Candidate doesn’t have kiss ass yes men or women on his team.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pmOBAMA IS “BETTERâ€â€¦â€¦.BUT YOU ALL ARE STILL CLUELESS !!!
Comment by rastaman”
It looks like Mr, Rastaman is playing a good game of Let you and him fight with a tiny little strawmen proceeding the deal. last time I looked Kuchinich and Edwards dropped out. So Rastaman are you for hilliary? or are you just pointing out how futile life is?
Obtusehussianman
March 7th, 2008 at 2:37 pmNO. Telecoms must be granted FAIRNESS. If the helped the Government in good faith, it will be taken in account, but if they handed happily the records of everyone everywhere, they must pay, all legally done.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — March 7, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Everyone needs to be reading Glenn Greenwald at Salon dot com every day to keep up with the FISA news.
The telcos. have teams of lawyers versed in the FISA law. They knew they were breaking the law. And they continued to do so for years until the NY Times exposed them. This is blatant unrepentent lawbreaking. It started before 9/11 and has little to do with terrorism. It’s Total Awareness V.2. Google it and find out how criminal this all is.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:40 pmCongratulations to Barack for having the guts to have advisors who actually disagree with him!!! Surrounding yourself with “yes” men/women is so ridiculously cowardly that there’s no point to even having advisors. Please Senator Obama, do NOT take any actiion against Mr. Brennan, but weigh his (in my opinion, flawed) opinion along with others and your own judgement to reach a decision in this matter.
This campaign is becoming more about who the candidates would surrounds themselve with than the candidates themselves. Whoever you associate with says a lot about how you will govern. Willingness to take opposing viewpoints from your advisors is as strong a sign that you’ve crossed the “Commander-in-Chief Threshold” as any. Simply ceding policy to your handlers (Bush) or setting policy unilaterly without input (McCain) is just plain wrong.
- Zathusseinrus
March 7th, 2008 at 2:41 pmI would like Obama to come right out and say that if elected he would reverse any illegal immunity and hold accountable those that broke the law. (meaning ALL of Those that broke the law, from the administration on down!)
Comment by TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong — March 7, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
I would too. If you’re an Obama supporter I urge you to call him and demand clarity on his position on this issue. I would like to hear from him an unequivocal statement that he will move heaven and earth and use all the powers of the Presidency to ensure our 4th amendment rights. I can’t see that taking such a stance will hurt him. I think it could only help his campaign.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm** This spying crap is a cancer and must be destroyed. To even suggest the government should be able to spy on us without PROBABLE CAUSE and WARRANTS is disgustingly unAmerican.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — March 7, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Amen to that!
March 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pmNeither Obama nor Clinton voted on final passage.
http://www.salon.com/ opinion/ greenwald/ 2008/ 02/ 12/ amnesty_day/ index.html
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
There was really no reason for either Obama or Hillary to rush back and vote since their vote would not have changed anything.
But, Obama DID make his opinion known by voting against the first version that had Telcom immunity and Hillary voted on neither, thus avoiding having to take a position.
Here’s what he said:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/ 2007/ 10/ obama_comes_out_against_telecom_immunity_deal.php
Since I have not heard anything lately that says he has changed his opinion on this matter, I choose to believe that he still believes that we should not be giving the telcoms immunity.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:45 pmWHY?!??!?
If they go into this with the mindset that they are running against McCain, and not each other, then that solves all the problems of demonizing a respected member of your party.
Comment by Art — March 7, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Because, sadly, negative attacks work. After 11 straight wins and what looked like an insurmountable lead, Obama DID start focussing on McCain, right around the same time Hillary unleashed the “kitchen sink” approach against O. Now Obama can continue to take the high road and ignore Hillary clawing at his guts, or he can start clawing back.
This thing is for keeps, and the Clinton machine is completely without scruples. If they are winning, they say, let’s all play nice. When losing, out comes the brass knuckles.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pmI would like Obama to come right out and say that if elected he would reverse any illegal immunity and hold accountable those that broke the law. (meaning ALL of Those that broke the law, from the administration on down!)
I seriously doubt he could do that. I read something recently, I forgot where, that if retroactive immunity is granted to the telcoms, the next President will not be able to undo it.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pmI would too. If you’re an Obama supporter I urge you to call him and demand clarity on his position on this issue. I would like to hear from him an unequivocal statement that he will move heaven and earth and use all the powers of the Presidency to ensure our 4th amendment rights. I can’t see that taking such a stance will hurt him. I think it could only help his campaign.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — March 7, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Already done so… I agree with you. it would help him to take a strong leadership position in this and get ahead of it. Which I think would help to stiffen the spine of the weaker Dems.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pmI seriously doubt he could do that. I read something recently, I forgot where, that if retroactive immunity is granted to the telcoms, the next President will not be able to undo it.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 7, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Which is precisely why he should come out swinging right now and let the dems know where their moral compass needs to be. Might just keep it from getting passed in the first place?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pmthank you thinkprogress for running this!
obama ain’t all that good, ain’t he?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pmobama ain’t all that good, ain’t he?
Comment by darladoon — March 7, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Compared to McCain is several orders of magnitude superior. And well the other Republican candidates are very far down the list of delegates’ votes to be even compared to Obama.
Not that Obama is perfect, but hey, compared with the current Repub bunch…
March 7th, 2008 at 2:59 pmBut, Obama DID make his opinion known by voting against the first version that had Telcom immunity and Hillary voted on neither, thus avoiding having to take a position.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 7, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
I believe the vote TP is referencing, in their link to TPM, was the Dodd/Feingold Amendment. Obama didn’t vote on the final version.
His vote wouldn’t have changed the outcome, you’re right.
What I was hoping for (and BEGGING and CHALLENGING Hillary and Barack supporters) on a dozen websites was to call your candidate and demand they take advantage of the press coverage they receive and be very vocal about this issue.
This story is still largely being censored and distorted by the corporate media. I’m sure most Americans don’t know jack about this legislation and its ramifications. That’s ashame.
I know my first pick(s) for President: Kucinich, Gore, Gravel etc. would be SCREAMING bloody murder.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:59 pmcan someone tell me why lawsuits are a negative thing? republicans are always talking about the drawbacks of lawsuits. on almost every level, republicans are afraid of:
-debate
-discussion
-democracy
-interaction with the public
-protests
etc, etc, etc
why is that?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:59 pmComment by deebaser — March 7, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Thanks, deebaser — I came late to this thread, and I noticed you said this better than I could have. Obama has a record on telecom immunity I can support, and I trust him to separate the wheat from the chaff as far as advice is concerned. He doesn’t strike me as a marionette dancing on strings controlled by advisers.
Is Brennan a full-time adviser on the Obama team? If so, he should probably keep his own opinions to himself and concentrate on getting his guy elected. But if he is one of many advisers Obama consults with (while keeping his day job), he’s entitled to say what he wants, just as any citizen is free to. As long as he makes it clear he’s speaking for himself and not anyone else.
I’m sure all three candidates have substantial lists of experts they consult on various issues. If we expect each candidate to limit themselves to consulting only people with whom they already agree on every issue, this creates the kind of insular condition we have already suffered with for the past seven years.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:02 pm- Zathusseinrus @ 2:41 pm - very well put…
and as per suggestions, i’ll ask for a clarification from obama…
…
funny… reading more at the FAST thread, it occurred to me
March 7th, 2008 at 3:02 pmwhy we can say “shit” on TP, but not “b!tch”…
heh…
obama ain’t all that good, ain’t he?
Comment by darladoon
Why? Because an adviser has an opinion contrary to his own? Why does that reflect on Obama? It doesn’t.
But to answer your question, Obama is light years ahead of and above both Hillary and McBush. Don’t like that answer. Too fu(king bad.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:02 pmetc, etc, etc
why is that?
Comment by darladoon — March 7, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Control. Everything on your list can threaten absolute dictatorial control — something that absolutely petrifies the GOP.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pmPersonal clarifacation
March 7th, 2008 at 3:04 pm1) I am not a Repuglican
2) I would never vote for McBush
3) I was a John Edwards supporter
4) I will vote,work, and contribute to whomever the democrat nominee is.
5) Just think Obama or Clinton need to “go out and win the nomination… Obama better get stronger if he thinks he has a chance in November, Tired of his whining about “kitchen sink” LOLOL it’s politics and if he can’t fend off HRC’s “attacks” he’s dead meat in the Fall….
thank you thinkprogress for running this!
obama ain’t all that good, ain’t he?
Comment by darladoon — March 7, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
I think you are confusing Brennan’s position with Obama’s. Or maybe you’re not, and you are proclaiming that Obama “ain’t all that good” because you DO support immunity for the telecoms.
I’m happy with Obama’s record on telecom immunity and I doubt his position on that issue will change because of Brennan.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm… HRC’s “attacks†…
Comment by Lungman424 — March 7, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
those attacks amount to lies…
and just how can she talk about pulling together if/when obama
wins the nomination?
she has fooked up royally…
March 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pmWhich is precisely why he should come out swinging right now and let the dems know where their moral compass needs to be. Might just keep it from getting passed in the first place?
Comment by TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong — March 7, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
I agree. He should use his great oratorical talent and light a fire under his supporters. He has the ability to explain this fascist legislation and make it understandable for the common Joe. People will be spitting mad if they find out that their government is trying to make it legal to spy on all their communications. Why do you think the press is largely censoring this story!
March 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm“This thing is for keeps, and the Clinton machine is completely without scruples. If they are winning, they say, let’s all play nice. When losing, out comes the brass knuckles.”
Yes, I agree. It is for keeps. That is why you need the brass knuckles. I don’t believe that the “Clinton machine” is without scruples, but they will do what they have to do to win. I call it tenacity and grit.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pmOne thing you can say about Sen. Clinton, is she can take it as well as she dishes it out.
I forgot where, that if retroactive immunity is granted to the telcoms, the next President will not be able to undo it.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins
A democratic president and the congress and senate both with democtatic supermajorities should be able to change anything except an ammendment to the constitution. Am I wrong in this assumtion?
March 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pmA democratic president and the congress and senate both with democtatic supermajorities should be able to change anything except an ammendment to the constitution. Am I wrong in this assumtion?
Comment by Fred
Yes, I believe you are wrong. This is a legal matter. If the telcoms are granted immunity by Congress and then the next Congress comes back and tries to undo it, I believe it could be considered double jeopardy. Anyway, I read someplace where they said that congress could not undo it if immunity is granted. I’ll try to find out where I read it and post it here.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pmToday is the last day I read TP. It was my homepage. The fact that you are so willing to take cheap shots at Obama - a very probable Dem candidate - to shill for Hillary is repulsive and shows that this site is as prone to follow a demagogue as RedState is prone to back Bush
This has nothing to do with Obama’s stance - the central issue of his candidacy is his ability to consult with people he disagrees with.
Shame on ThinkProgress.org
Comment by imorgan82 — March 7, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
I agree with you that Obama should be able to consult whomever he wishes, and I believe he certainly has the ability to consult with people he disagrees with without being led around by the nose.
I’m sorry you are leaving TP due to this item. I didn’t see it as a “cheap shot” against Obama (although I admit TP might be portraying this news as a bit more sensational than it is), and I didn’t see any “shilling for Hillary” in the item.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pmYes, I agree. It is for keeps. That is why you need the brass knuckles. I don’t believe that the “Clinton machine†is without scruples, but they will do what they have to do to win. I call it tenacity and grit.
One thing you can say about Sen. Clinton, is she can take it as well as she dishes it out.
Comment by Art
So, you see nothing wrong with her continually praising McBush while dissing Obama? You see nothing wrong with her issuing an advertisement where she darkened Obama’s skin? You see nothing wrong when asked if Obama was a muslim with “As far as I know”? And you see nothing wrong with her lying about Obama and the Nafta/Canada affair when it was actually she who was the guilty party?
If you see nothing wrong with those things, then you are beyond hope.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pmYes, I agree. It is for keeps. That is why you need the brass knuckles. I don’t believe that the “Clinton machine†is without scruples, but they will do what they have to do to win. I call it tenacity and grit.
One thing you can say about Sen. Clinton, is she can take it as well as she dishes it out.
Comment by Art — March 7, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Yeah, no doubt there! And I would advise Obama to get tough and fight back, too.
My point is, Hillary will attack Obama as viciously as possible until she destroys him. She WON’T focus on McCain because McCain isn’t the threat to her ambition at present - Obama is.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:20 pmI’m sorry you are leaving TP due to this item. I didn’t see it as a “cheap shot†against Obama (although I admit TP might be portraying this news as a bit more sensational than it is), and I didn’t see any “shilling for Hillary†in the item.
Comment by missmolly
I’m curious missmolly. Don’t you think TP is “shilling” for Hillary in that they have not printed one negative thing about her since the start of this campaign? Don’t you find it odd that they didn’t report that the Canadian government is now saying it was Hillary that did what she accused Obama of doing? Don’t you find it odd that TP never reported Hillary’s ad that darkened Obama’s skin?
I think that TP is shilling for Hillary by virtue of the fact that they have a complete blackout on Hillary and all the dirty deeds she has been doing.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pmanother glaring example of how obama and Clintons campaign of “change” is nothign more than words. iof cource the telcoms broke the law..everyone knows that. the question is whether the goverment wants to give up the power they have to keep tabs on us. they do not and will not so they will grant immunity eventually..this is all a dog and pony show. this country is screwed…
March 7th, 2008 at 3:26 pmthose attacks amount to lies.
Comment by katy — March 7, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Well if that’s your premise we can assume that
1) General Public is stupid because they “believed those lies” .or.
2) Genral Public likes someone who acts like the’re fighting for the nomination…us “oldtimers” sat back and watched Gore and Kerry act like a puching bag and now kinda like our canidates to fight and fight back.
By the way, you never heard me or any other Edwards supporters “cry foul” when Obama haul out that classic GOP attack on Edwards as being backed by Trial Lawyers….I got no problems with Obama hitting HRC on tax returns or whatever….I’m in the camp that believes hard fought campaigns IMPROVE canidates, not destroy them or the party….Think the arguement that democrats wont pull together and rally around whoever wins the nomination..is just MSM BS…Any Obama supporter who wouldn’t support Clinton or any Clinton supporter who would support Obama is just ” I’m taking my marbles and going home” poser
March 7th, 2008 at 3:26 pmI just read this on TPM
“Dude, That’s What They Want.”
By Paul Kiel - March 7, 2008, 2:39PM
From Wired’s Threat Level:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/
A U.S. government office in Quantico, Virginia, has direct, high-speed access to a major wireless carrier’s systems, exposing customers’ voice calls, data packets and physical movements to uncontrolled surveillance, according to a computer security consultant who says he worked for the carrier in late 2003.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pmThat consultant is a man named Babak Pasdar, who outlined the accusation in an an affidavit (pdf) for the Government Accountability Project. Pasdar does not name the wireless carrier, but Wired reports that “his claims are nearly identical to unsourced allegations made in a federal lawsuit filed in 2006,” which names Verizon Wireless.
He’s got other problems as well. Rumor is that Hillary is waiting for the right time to address this.
Comment by Southern Man
SM thinks that Obama is in trouble because he wants to end nuclear proliferation in the world? Wow…
March 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm.
#58 Comment by Repunklicans — March 7, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Jealous?
.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:30 pmI call it tenacity and grit.
One thing you can say about Sen. Clinton, is she can take it as well as she dishes it out.
Comment by Art — March 7, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
I appreciate tenacity and grit as much as the next person, and I believe a fair amount of it is needed by anyone hoping to get elected.
However, there’s a big difference between “tenacity and grit” and Rovian dirty tricks. Between the NAFTA/Canada affair, darkening Obama’s skin in photographs, releasing a photo of Obama wearing a “Muslim” outfit in Africa, etc. — she has crossed the line a few times.
This is not “taking it as well as dishing it out.” This is unbecoming conduct for any candidate, and I hope the voters realize it.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pm.
#103 Comment by leftcoast — March 7, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
I know… #31
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pmAny Obama supporter who wouldn’t support Clinton or any Clinton supporter who would support Obama is just †I’m taking my marbles and going home†poser
should have read >> any Clinton supporter who “WOULDN’T” support…..
March 7th, 2008 at 3:33 pmComment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — March 7, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Well said. My thoughts exactly. If he were to make this important and talk about it often and loudly, the media would have to cover it.
I’ve called both his campaign headquarters and his office in DC as well as posting comments on both of those sights via his contact page.
Just curious, if anyone knows of a more direct way to contact his campaign regarding this. I heard a reporter last night say, “I called his campaign and they said…”
All I every get at his campaign is v/m and a low level aid at his DC office.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pmObama’s speeches are not in synch with his actions. When BC called Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war “a fairy tale”, I agreed with BC. Obama has to go back to one speech in 2002 to convince his supporters that he was non-stop against the war. The unity schtik is another fairy tale. Obama has not worked with the Republicans on substantive issues, like FISA, to change the dynamics of how the senate Republicans vote. To point to one bill, like Obama does to point to his work with Republicans is not accurate. Obama cannot point to any accomplishment that support his “change” emblem. It’s all talk, and I’m tired of it. It’s time Obama was vetted by another Democrat before the Republicans vet him.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:36 pmA democratic president and the congress and senate both with democtatic supermajorities should be able to change anything except an ammendment to the constitution. Am I wrong in this assumtion?
Comment by Fred — March 7, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
It’d be enormously difficult to undo a freshy passed piece of legislation. The forces that’d oppose you are enrmous: the television networks that do billions of dollars of advertising with the telcos., the telcos who could be suded for HUNDREDS of Billions of dollars is the lawsuits are allowed to proceed and the Republicans who’d face criminal prosecution for setting the spy network up.
Just imagine upsetting even one of these forces. The blowback would be very severe. A President would have to be willing to risk EVERYTHING (in a John F. Kennedy way) to undo this mess.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:36 pmAnother reason not to vote Obama…
March 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pmAnother reason not to vote Obama…
Sorry for you, but TOO LATE.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pmI think that TP is shilling for Hillary by virtue of the fact that they have a complete blackout on Hillary and all the dirty deeds she has been doing.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 7, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
I admit there has been a complete blackout on anything negative about Hillary. But I also notice that this is the most “negative” thing I have ever seen about Obama on TP, and I have never seen TP run anything else that even remotely resembles an Obama hit piece.
And yes — I would like TP to run items whenever ANY candidate does something beyond the pale. I think TP can afford to level the playing field — the Democrats are still better than the Republicans and they don’t need to be shielded or propped up.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:39 pmBrennan’s argument is misguided for at least two reasons:
1) The Bush Administration sought and received requested information from telecoms, without a warrant, beginning several months BEFORE 9/11. This process was already underway by the time 9/11 occurred.
2) The telecoms were completely within their rights to insist upon a court warrant. Then they would have been covered under the law. And if the Bush Administration had certain individuals in mind to monitor, the courts would have surely granted REASONABLE surveillance requests.
Without some form of oversight, the Bush Administration can monitor the activities of every Democrat running in the elections later this year, with no mechanism in place to correct this violation of our right to privacy. This is tantamount to one team in the Super Bowl being allowed to listen in on every word being said on the opposing team’s sidelines and in their huddle.
In addition, they can monitor all communications by Republicans as well, just to ensure that no one begins to stray from the party line.
Brennan’s actions suggest several possibilities: 1) that he is a mole for the opposing side; 2) that he has been bribed; 3) that he has been threatened; or 4) a combination of #2 and #3. Without a doubt, none of the explanations are reassuring.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pmA democratic president and the congress and senate both with democtatic supermajorities should be able to change anything except an ammendment to the constitution. Am I wrong in this assumtion?
Comment by Fred
Yes, I believe you are wrong. This is a legal matter. If the telcoms are granted immunity by Congress and then the next Congress comes back and tries to undo it, I believe it could be considered double jeopardy. Anyway, I read someplace where they said that congress could not undo it if immunity is granted. I’ll try to find out where I read it and post it here.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 7, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
If it’s a double-jeopardy matter (and it sounds like it would be), that IS covered in the Bill of Rights, and it WOULD require a constitutional amendment to change it. So Fred’s assumption seems to be correct, even though it doesn’t mean that immunity can be easily reversed with a flood of Democrats.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pmThink the arguement that democrats wont pull together and rally around whoever wins the nomination..is just MSM BS…Any Obama supporter who wouldn’t support Clinton or any Clinton supporter who would support Obama is just †I’m taking my marbles and going home†poser
Comment by Lungman424 — March 7, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Except for the fact that Obama is attracting a lot of Repubs and Indy’s who will vote for him but not vote for just any Dem.
And by Hillary praising McCaine while tearing down Obama is shortsighted-ness on a grand scale that will come back to bite her and the Dems on the ass. Just like how the weak Dems in the senate helped to pass a flawed bill in favor of immunity is now coming back to bite us all because now all you hear from those that are pusing for immunity is “the senate passed with overwhelming bi-partisanship this bill” making it look like the congress is being unreasonable.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:47 pmNo we do NOT have plenty of time. The House is floating a bill right now that gives in to Bush and sets up a situation that will guarantee that Bush gets everything he wants. They will vote on it soon, it will go to the Senate without immunity in it but the Senate will quickly add immunity in conference and then the House will be forced to vote in an up-or-down vote for it. The criminals like Reyes and Pelosi that are making this possible and inevitable will try to get cover by voting “no” while KNOWING that there are enough Blue Dogs who will vote “yes” to ensure that the immunity provision passes.
Pelosi and Reyes will have gotten away with a crime, along with Bush and then ENTIRE Congress, and the sheeple will STILL vote for Democraps in the fall even though there is NO DIFFERENCE! They are ALL for Police State. They are ALL for torture. They are ALL for indefinite detention. They are ALL against the Constitution.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:49 pmThe Telecon Corporation knew they were violating the law and their contracts with their customers! All they had to do is to ask this criminal administration for a FISA warrant. They chose not to and ignoerd the existing legislation. They boke the law and have to pay for doing so! Shame if they get away with this!
March 7th, 2008 at 3:53 pmI think that TP is shilling for Hillary by virtue of the fact that they have a complete blackout on Hillary and all the dirty deeds she has been doing.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 7, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
The only people who don’t think TP is shilling for Hillary are Hillary supporters. Most of us knew TP was doing this long before the campaign was down to Obama and Clinton.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pmThe only people who don’t think TP is shilling for Hillary are Hillary supporters. Most of us knew TP was doing this long before the campaign was down to Obama and Clinton.
Comment by Shayne — March 7, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
Geesh I must have missed your comments over at the Daily Kos, telling them quit “shilling” for Obama….and they are much more “shiily” than TP…oh I guess I should stop reading them,because the’ve written hundreds over anti-HRC threads…
March 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pmwell ill tell you what I will do if immunity passes. I will cancel my cell phone, my internet service and my house line. I will never give one cent of my hard earned money to a corporation that violates my prvacy for a political adjenda. the only way to stop this kind of thing is to hit em were is hurts..the wallet. You are not gonna violate my constitutional rights and just go about your buisness as usual. screw that…im getting pissed off!
March 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pmHowever, there’s a big difference between “tenacity and grit†and Rovian dirty tricks. Between the NAFTA/Canada affair, darkening Obama’s skin in photographs, releasing a photo of Obama wearing a “Muslim†outfit in Africa, etc. — she has crossed the line a few times.
This is not “taking it as well as dishing it out.†This is unbecoming conduct for any candidate, and I hope the voters realize it.
Comment by missmolly
missmolly, I agree with all of the sentiments here on this topic and I voted for Obama in the primary and fully explect him to be the next president.
It is odd though that many here are so upset about this issue when very close to half of the democrats are supporting Hillary despite the points you make…….I’m just saying that I don’t believe everyone is as outraged as many here are about Hillary’s behavior and of course they are not as well informed as you are but they still get to vote.
I’m starting to think that many in our party want to see a new kind of dialogue in our politics but that many still expect it to be fairly uncivil and then they just act like it never happened…..just part of the game.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:01 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/ article.php?id=D8V8NN6O4&show_article=1
Ag. Hillary floats Obama as her VP again, just coincidentally in a state with lots of African-Americans.
So - in Ohio, don’t let him answer the scary phone call. In Mississippi, vote for Hillary and she’ll make Obama VP!
Does anyone have a good link to Hillary being the real NAFTA waffler?
March 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pmwow - you mean obama listens to people who have other ideas??
revolutionary! frightening!
i thought nowadays all “advisers” were insidpid lickspittles who regurgitate the Prince’s daily p.r. package, or get fired.
this obama guy must be crazy!!
/Snark me a river
March 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm-tom hussein baker
Bilbo,
March 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pmYou need to get some facts straight. Go to factcheck.org and you will read that the “darkened” ad is all bunk. Then listen to the complete 60 minutes interview and you will see and hear that Hillary thought the question was ridiculous. As far as the bologna you hear on KO, DKos, Huffpo and TPM and Americablog, they make up crap that they get from Drudge or their arse, and then when it is proven to be untrue, they ignore the truth. TP has been one of the very few sites that has been quite fair and neutral in this primary. Kudos to them!
So, you see nothing wrong with her continually praising McBush while dissing Obama? You see nothing wrong with her issuing an advertisement where she darkened Obama’s skin? You see nothing wrong when asked if Obama was a muslim with “As far as I know� And you see nothing wrong with her lying about Obama and the Nafta/Canada affair when it was actually she who was the guilty party?
If you see nothing wrong with those things, then you are beyond hope.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 7, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
I don’t recall saying anything like that.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pmI only mean that, it is a political campaign. Candidates should have thick skin.
I can truthfully say that I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate.
Will you?
Geesh I must have missed your comments over at the Daily Kos, telling them quit “shilling†for Obama….and they are much more “shiily†than TP…oh I guess I should stop reading them,because the’ve written hundreds over anti-HRC threads…
Comment by Lungman424 — March 7, 2008 @ 3:59
Or maybe it’s because I don’t read Daily Kos, Einstein.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pmhey Keltoi, I was getting ready to ask that very same question!!! Can’t seem to find anything about that on HillaryProgress here….
March 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pmre: HRC - she did side herself with mcmaverick over obama, i saw the video of the words coming from her over-ambitious mouth, and i will not abide her bad-mouthing another D to make herself look better. period. she IS a monster.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pmthat said, i’d still vote for her over a R in a heartbeat, i just won’t expect much to happen once she’s in office.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:26 pmAccording to an article in Slate Magazine, dated January 3, 2006 , “…A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president’s now celebrated secret executive order…” http://www.slate.com/id/2133564/
According to an article in Salon Magazine, dated October 15, 2007,”…And contrary to the indescribably moronic claim by Fred Hiatt yesterday that telecoms were acting as “patriotic corporate citizens” when they turned over to the Bush administration full access to their customers’s calls and other data, the Nacchio documents leave no doubt that these telecoms were viciously competing with one another for the right to cooperate with the Federal Government — long before 9/11 — because they were hungry for the multi-billion dollar contracts for this work….” http://www.salon.com/ opinion/ greenwald/ 2007/ 10/ 15/ amnesty/ index.html
Unless the Bush Administration absolutely knew that 9/11 was going to occur, what was their rationale for initiating surveillance almost immediately after beginning the first term, seven months BEFORE 9/11? Why has no one asked this question?
March 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pmhey Keltoi, I was getting ready to ask that very same question!!! Can’t seem to find anything about that on HillaryProgress here….
Comment by whiteyfresh — March 7, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
I can’t find any mention of it anywhere, it should be a bombshell if it is true but I can’t find any reference to it…how could something like that happen? And if true, why isn’t it all over the news? I am beginning to think it is not true, perhaps….?
March 7th, 2008 at 4:37 pmvery interesting analogy of the mcHillary scenario from randi rhodes…
think about this…
children, even adults, who are abused in their lives grow up and/or
carry on in either of 2 ways - they’ll rise above it and may even turn
to advocating for the abused, maybe channeling energy to prevention, something positive… many more turn into abusers themselves…
continuing the cycle of abuse…
even with all the abuse hillary has taken from the “vast right wing”,
she has opted to take that 2nd route…
feminists, humanists, everywhere, be cheered!
SHAME ON YOU, HILLARY CLINTON.
SHAME ON YOU.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pmI truly love Obama…he is strong enough and wise enough to have advisors who do not agree with him on every issue…and he makes his own decisions.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pmI’ll support any Democrat who supports Democrat ideals and fellow Democrats. I am not sure if HRC is doing that any longer.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:59 pmIt’s time to end the Bush & Clinton political dynasties before they do any more damage to America.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:06 pmClinton political dynasty?
Good economy.
Surplus.
Good employment.
Defense spending down.
USA respected around the world.
Sure, not every administration is perfect, but the plusses vastly outweigh the minuses.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:19 pmnonetheless art, the idea here in the usa was not to establish new Habsburgs or Tudors or Windsors.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:26 pmthat said, i’d still vote for her over a R in a heartbeat …
Comment by tombaker @ 4:26 pm
i’m beginning to think she’s heard that line TOO many times…
i’m beginning to regret i ever said it…
.
Katy for BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ‘08
March 7th, 2008 at 5:34 pm.
I hate Hillary complimenting McCain just as much as I hated Obama complimenting Reagan and the “party of ideas”. They both have to stop it!
March 7th, 2008 at 5:35 pmNo immunity. No immunity. No immunity.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pmIt is odd though that many here are so upset about this issue when very close to half of the democrats are supporting Hillary despite the points you make…….I’m just saying that I don’t believe everyone is as outraged as many here are about Hillary’s behavior and of course they are not as well informed as you are but they still get to vote.
I disagree. She only started her scorched earth tactics recently. I believe if some of the earlier primaries were to happen again, she would lose by large margins. Many people I know would have been happy to vote for Hillary before this, but now they are saying that if she is the candidate they won’t be voting because the could not stomach voting for a Democrat who was acting like Karl Rove.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pmI hate Hillary complimenting McCain just as much as I hated Obama complimenting Reagan and the “party of ideasâ€. They both have to stop it!
Comment by tiffany
Except that Obama never said that. He said he admired Reagan because his communication skills allowed people to come together to accomplish things. As usual, the righties and the MSM totally