Obama: "...even if the phone companies are held harmless..."

[Bluebear]

@ 1:44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPljokDWERg&eurl=http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/25/dodd/index.html

:(

[katandmoon]

1. Keith Olbermann's lips are still firmly attached to Obama's exposed ass

[truebrit71]

2. Whatever...

:eyes:

[Buzz Clik]

3. Not in the video I watched. Or do you have a different bug up your ass?

[katandmoon]

36. I have a great BIG bug up my ass - the ANTI-HYPOCRISY BUG

Obama has flipflopped on FISA, and Olbermann has flipflopped right along with him. Olbermann would have EXCORCIATED Hillary Clinton for this, and non-Hillary supporters would have been brandishing torches right behind him. But when Obama changes HIS tune on FISA to go along with the repugs and the blue dogs or WETF they're called, that is just A-OK, according to Olbermann. God, I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

[Buzz Clik]

43. Horseshit. You're guilty of selective listening.

[katandmoon]

46. Oh, no, I'm not. I know exactly what I heard - spin, spin, spin. And I wasn't the only one --

Check out Glenn Greenwald's column in Salon yesterday. He's an expert on the FISA issue and he called out both Obama and Olbermann on their flipflopping.

And your nasty, coarse personal attacks on me aren't helping your cause, believe me.

[Buzz Clik]

47. zzzt! I'm not interested in being your pal.

And you're not interested in forwarding the cause. You've been called.

[katandmoon]

48. You're certainly not Obama's, by attacking people in his name

[Buzz Clik]

49. I do not represent Obama in any way. I speak only for myself.

And I will retract nothing I've said about you, the opening post, or the author of the opening post.

If you really have this much problem with the presumptive nominee, one has to wonder why you are bothering us here.

[Buzz Clik]

4. And here you are again. You know, it's funny how often I find threads with you pounding on Obama.

And yet, you claim to support him.

Pretty fucking amazing that your concept of "support" includes criticizing every action he takes.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

8. Bluebear is right on this issue. Obama is stumbling here and I hope

his campaign manages to take corrective action.

[Bluebear]

10. XOXO

We can never again afford to blindly follow ANY politician. They work for us! Or are supposed to. :hug:

[EFerrari]

11. Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy night.

:hi:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

13. Under the existing law, telcos had to comply. We already have that.

And, telco immunity is only half of the problem. The bill isn't even directed at potential terrorists. It's much too general and it ties the hands of the courts.

But, check it out, Buzz Clik, in the last few days there have been numerous news "items" that when put in a pile, seem designed to ruffle the left: FISA, the death penalty, this morning The School of the Americas, no on re instituting the Fairness Doctrine. There's a little campaign going on here to pry the left from Obama, imho. :shrug:

What's the deal? I don't believe in accidents.

edit: clarity

[Buzz Clik]

21. Oh, I agree totally about the disruption and it being intentional.

The worst of it is that the left is not united on any of these topics, but the right tends to be one way on all of them. And that is the clue that it's intentional. It follows the same trend as gay marriage in 2004 -- an explosive issue introduced just in time to give us heartburn.

This time, however, Obama is playing it quite well. Some of us get uncomfortable at his having to tack so carefully, but Obama will not win (or even come close) if he plays exclusively the left wing of the Party.

[EFerrari]

23. It says something about how activated the left is right now

that instead of a rightward appealing wedge, they're trotting out topics that hook the left. This year will be really different.

I don't have to cut Obama any slack to know they're going to gun for him in every way they can. They'd just love to tank him and there's no way in hell I'll help that along. That kind of simple has to be good enough for now, I guess. But there has to be someplace where the left can put its concerns or this coalition will not hold.

Dean was good at making a place where people could check in. And, imho, that was crucial. Because Kerry needed every single Deaniac to win. Obama, who is a smart person, needs to do as well.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

50. The precurser to all this was the meme of how Obama was the most liberal senator

Which makes it all appear all them heinous.

I've been watching all this unfold with a certain amount of amazement.

McCain is a weak candidate for the Republicans. There's really not much they can do about that, as far too many Republicans have made their mind up about him years ago. They are facing an election cycle where their base is not enthused and there's decent chance some of them simply will not vote in the GE.

The only chance they have is for the Democrats to lose their enthusiasm as well. A great deal of effort was put into creating a lasting divide between the Clinton and the Obama supporters. When it began to appear that that divide was closing, and may never have been what it was portrayed to have been in the first place, then new dividing factors mysteriously appear.

It's by design not accident.

[EFerrari]

52. I agree. They're going to damn him for being too liberal AND

encourage segments in our own camp to damn him for not being liberal enough.

[electropop]

30. The left is not united on FISA??

I don't understand. If you support shitting on the 4th Amendment, you are not part of the left, you are part of the Fascists. I am apalled that Obama decided to wipe his ass with the Constitution yesterday. He just sent millions of votes to Nader. Including mine.

[mopinko]

35. ding ding ding

very much a concerted effort to cause disarray. just like immigration. but for the GE.
people, ya just gotta see this and find a way around it. fingers in the ears and la la la la?

[K Gardner]

41. It's always the usual suspects. We know them well from GD: Primaries.

[defendandprotect]

6. Well. . . watched the video and I don't get what he's saying . . . but watching closely . . . !!!

The point of law is to protect the public --
and to PREVENT crime --

When the phone companies ignore the law --- and there were specific provisions for these

cases for action by any company asked to violate the FISA laws -- then there should be

penalty and stronger law. What we are getting is no penalty and weaker law.

FISA is already an evasion of Constitutional law --- it makes an exception to begin with!

MEANWHILE . . .

Certainly these companies had another bunch of lawyers looking at this PRIOR to 9/11 when

they were first asked to do it --- are we also protecting these lawyers and barring them

from testifying?

[ColbertWatcher]

9. What he said...

The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.

I do want accountability and making sure that--as I've said before--somebody is watching the watchers.

That you don't have an administration that feels that it can make its own determinations about when warrant-less wire taps are applicable, without going through a FISA court and that's what we had--that's the system that we had previously.

And I think if you look at why people were concerned about the original bill it wasn't simply because we wouldn't be able to sue the phone companies...I would be happy with a system that discloses what happened and make sure we prevent violations of the American people's privacy, even if the phone companies are held harmless.

The issue was can we get to the bottom of what's been taking place and most importantly do we have safeguards in place going into the future, so that American Civil Liberties are not being violated.

Transcribed by me

The cops do this all the time.

They always tell someone they are a suspect, and they just want you to come down to the station to answer some questions.

[EFerrari]

14. The problem is, the answers to his questions are simple

and a matter of public record.

Bush started spying on us in January 2001. This has nothing to do with threat level. It's political. A child can figure that out.

We can't get to the bottom of this because the Senate refuses to acknowledge that or to ask the right questions.

Suing the phone companies would make all of that even clearer because of discovery. Obama doesn't want to go there. Maybe he shouldn't in his capacity as a runner. We should in our capacity as citizens.

Finally, this bill ensures NO ACCOUNTABILITY when it requires the existing suits against telcos to be vacated and also, future suits to be dismissed if our government can attest that it asked for compliance. That's bullshit or, in other words, fascism.

Not pretty, but them thar's the facts.

Obama and his people need to rethink this because his statement makes no sense to people who are paying attention. If that matters, that is.

[ColbertWatcher]

15. I think someone said the retroactive portion was unConstitutional...

...ex post facto, or some such Latin.

[EFerrari]

16. ACLU did, iirc. The other, the big unfocused dragnet on Americans,

may also be unconstitutional re the fourth amendment.

I'm not a constitutional scholar.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. You are on the internets! n/t

[EFerrari]

19. LOL! Right! So I'm also Houdini and Einstein!

:P

[ColbertWatcher]

20. Damn right!

Give yourself a GED in any damn field of study you can make up!

[electropop]

32. When Obama shows weakness on a fundamental issue of Constitutional law, he hurts his campaign.

Of course he hurts the American people too, but that's beside the point. :sarcasm: What's important is that people respond to displays of strength, even if they disagree with the position. The fact that some knuckle-draggers disagree with having a Constitution is no excuse for wiping his ass with it. Even the knuckle-draggers would respect him more for taking a principled stand, consistent with American and Democratic values.

[electropop]

31. Right! What the telcos did was plain and simple illegal and they should pay.

The fact that only 15 Dems honored their oath of office yesterday, to "support and defend the Constitution" does not show that the others were wisely triangulating. It shows that the merger of the Dem and GOP parties into one Fascist state is essentially complete. The Dems have made themselves obsolete. It's time for a new opposition to arise.

[defendandprotect]

7. What's really troublesome here is Obama taught Constitutional law . . .!!!

[SergeyDovlatov]

17. Doesn't matter. When you step in the world of politics you have to

abandon the things you know, so that it is easier to say the right thing at the right time to the right crowd.

Trying to cling to the truth and convictions is nice, but such people will never get elected in the modern times. (Maybe internet can help more in the future)

[defendandprotect]

25. What happened to leaders providing leadership and inspiration ???

You know, I'm sure that to some degree MLK, Jr. did some of this ---

but I wouldn't compare THIS that truth --

[Buzz Clik]

22. You seem to be under the misconception that canning FISA was on the table.

[defendandprotect]

26. No -- but so much damage has been done to FISA that they might

just as well have "canned" it ---

The prescription was that any company approached by government officials to circumvent VISA laws

were to report to the FISA court --

They did not do this ---

And they are not only being offered immunity for ignoring the FISA laws ---

we now understand that pretty much immediately after the Inauguration, they were

ready to go with facilities to wiretap the public for the administration ---

SIX MONTHS BEFORE 9/11 ---


Now . . . who is addressing this major issue of wiretapping and spying on the public????

For those of us who are pushing for impeachment --- that would be one of the issues.

Oh -- by the way, Obama says he see no reasons whatever why this administration should

be impeached --- !!!!

And THIS is the man who is going to be president????

[Buzz Clik]

28. So vote for McCain. Or write in Clinton.

At this point, the level of stupidity at DU has become stunning. I find it nearly impossible to find anyone here who isn't hysterical about some pet issue.


EDIT: Read this. Get a grip. Or not. I just don't care: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6414174

[tom_paine]

33. I tend to agree with you, Buzz. getting so pissed as to not vote for Obama is nuts.

Plus, your point is well-taken about the "pet issue" thing, and that many of us, myself included at times, have swing like a compass dial next to a magnet with ups and downs.

Call it a natural human tendency amplified by instantaneous information flow combined with societal media saturation.

Lately I have tried to be self-aware about such things, and have tried not to sway like the magnetized compass needle so much on these day-to-day variations.

Having said, that, and keeping my compass needle firmly 100% pointed towards voting for Obama in November, I also want to bring up the FISA thing as it relates to my larger concern...that Obama is not going to be "tough enough" when it comes to reconnecting the burglar alarms of the Constitution, so to speak.

I am not speaking of fighting terrorists, the Bushie bullshit talking point. I have no doubt Obama is going to do what needs to be done, and do it smarter as well as without the huge "Bushie skim/kickbacks" diverting so much of our monies into Loyal Bushie pockets, and therefore his efforts will be so much better and effective.

But I am speaking of other things here. I am speaking of restoring a credible voting system, for one. Nullifying unConstitutional Bushie signing statements, which is probably most of them. DeBushifying the Executive Agencies and turning them into a fair arbiter for all Americans...well as much as humanly possible, perfection being a human impossibility. I am speaking of restoring FCC ownership regulations, before the Toady Media, especially TV, becomes even more of a Soviet-style laughingstock.

That's just a few of the things that MUST be done if we are ever to be a Constitutional Representative Democratic-Republic again, and not an Inverted Totalitarianism.

Now, it is a given that politicians misrepresent themselves in order to get elected. That's that nature of the beast. FDR, as I understand it, did not campaign on the New Deal.

Bushler pretended to be a moderate in 2000. :rofl:

We can only hope Obama is doing what FDR did. Because if he isn't, even if he really does get on the throne, then goes in their playing Mr. Nice Guy Let's All Work Together with the Bushies, they are going to do what Authoritarian Thugs ALWAYS do to the naive...have him for lunch.

Under such a circumstance the best we can hope for is essentially a repeat of the Clinton Presidency, which changed nothing and actually immensely strengthened the Bushies by burying all the Iran, Iraq, BCCI, etc. investigating in 1993 "for the good of the country", and failing to notice or combat the Bush Lie Machine as it grew up around him.

Don't get me wrong, Clinton was an excellent President in any number of ways, but all he did was "cosmetic" in the sense that the deeper damages to the System of Checks and Balances, so hidden then and so clear now, got much much MUCH worse through his neglect during his term of office.

In the "worst case" scenario of an Obama Presidency, like Clinton, Obama turns the economy around and starts paying off the now doubled debt, but the rest of our collapsing or collapsed System of Checks and Balances remains unaddressed, such as when the Bushies return to power they will pick up as if they'd never left off.

Just like Bushler did in 2000.

That is my concern when I hear Obama make comments like these. Time will tell.

And yes, NOT voting for Obama is insanity, for we are going to have to win by 10% in the ACTUAL votes to win by 1% in a "squeaker". Yes, I know you disagree with me on that, but we both agree that Obama needs every vote he can get. :toast: :patriot:

[Buzz Clik]

34. "That is my concern when I hear Obama make comments like these." We all hold our collective breaths.

In my heart of hearts, I'm hoping he's merely tacking to the center to avoid generating fodder for the bored press corps(e).

(You'll never know how much I appreciate your detailed, well-considered responses. It gives me hope that intellect at DU is not passé.)

[EFerrari]

24. Yes, that is troublesome but maybe only to people who try to understand

that set of issues.

He should know (does know) that retro immunity is a no no and also that the bill is too broad and too impinging on the judiciary.

The Obama campaign is switching over to a GE effort. Maybe that has something to do with the way he responded to this bill.

[defendandprotect]

27. ...and maybe he's gone corporate . . . maybe he got DLC'd . . . ???

There were a lot of meetings with MONEY MEN in the past week or so ---

Clinton's money men --- they now have a "joint fundraiser" together coming up ---

Another meeting with billionaries and millionaires closed to press/public ---

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. "...and maybe he's gone corporate...." Yeah, it's just a recent occurrence.

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

51. Mainly what I've known about Obama is the general info/slant on him here . . .

I supported Kucinich and Edwards ---

Obama is not someone I would have picked --- he seems "set up" ---

[bean fidhleir]

37. If we "win" but get essentially the same kind of governance as if we'd lost,

then ...who *really* won?

DK asked that question in Oakland in 2004. It's still pertinent today. If the only difference is who signs the orders trashing our lives, does it matter? If Obama won't stand up EVEN FOR THE CONSTITUTION, who the hell is he serving?

[Tyler Durden]

38. "He's gonna have to SERVE somebody...."

You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody.
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

[bean fidhleir]

39. And so far it looks like it's going to be *us*. On a platter with an apple wedged into our mouths

It'll keep us quiet while his masters consume us.

[Tyler Durden]

40. I never expected "The Candidate" to heel to his "aspirations"....

...but I did expect him to WAIT until he at least got elected before he stopped even paying lip service to his "promises."

[bean fidhleir]

42. I pretty well had his number right after his speech at the 2004 convention

That was filled with coded "I'm safe and for sale" flags. So my feeling now is more one of disgust than disappointment. Part of the disgust is that so many of us have been reduced to a state almost of mindlessness, where we're so desperate we expect nothing, accept anything, and automatically alibi everything.

[highprincipleswork]

44. I don't care

I don't care if he's strategically tacking to the center, that is not going to get my support.

I don't care if he thinks he's doing the smart thing or issuing a guarantee that he won't be an administration that breaks the rules. That does not thrill me, that does not allow me to support his policies.

I don't care today about Barack Obama and his candidacy the way I have before. And there have been warning signs, we have all seen them, about this for some time.

If Barack Obama acts like all the other Democrats, who cave in on any issue, how is that a meaningful change?

If he trades in principles for expediency or the mistaken notion that to win in America you have to appeal to the mythical center, which is actually right, then he is wrong.

We are educated as kids to believe in the American Revolution. We're talking revolution here. Not appeasement. Not appealing to the mythical center.

I believe that "misunderestimating" the extent of the liberalism and even radicalism of the American people is just the mistake that will cost him money and support at a time when he really doesn't need that.

I believe that high principles win, each and every time.. You just have to stick to them and rely on them. If you give in to the lies, they will win, but with greater difficulty.

[Buzz Clik]

45. To anyone still reading this piece of shit:

The selected deleting of subthreads is further testament that DU no longer subscribes to its own dictum that posters cannot campaign against the presumptive nominee.

And anyone -- anyone -- who dares to point out that a given poster is consistently railing against the nominee will be censored.

Thanks a shitload for this. As we slowly unravel Obama's campaign, we can look forward 4 more years of Bush's presidency -- all for the sudden desire to have balance at DU? Brilliant.

We get the government we deserve.