Hillary Says She Would Support Filibuster Of Intel Committee's Telecom Immunity Bill

Comments (77)

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 8:50 PM:

I sometimes wonder if Clinton is trying to parody herself.

Joe Bonham wrote on October 23, 2007 8:51 PM:

"...As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently...."

Pre-Weaseled.

NCSteve wrote on October 23, 2007 8:54 PM:

Specifically, additional information regarding additional campaign contributions from the telcos.

texasdem wrote on October 23, 2007 8:55 PM:

Clinton's position on immunity for the telecoms?

I hope that those posters not satisfied with Obama's statement will be equally dissatisfied with this...item.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 23, 2007 9:01 PM:

Why do we have to keep pushing these Ivy League elitists? Dodd said he would filibuster last week.

Coonsey wrote on October 23, 2007 9:05 PM:

Typical of MOST media outlets and blogs - HILLARY is mentioned FIRST and in the HEADLINES as saying something - EVEN THOUGH, Senator Obama said it FIRST. Look at your TIME of day people.

The media is pushing HILLARY.

Coonsey's View
Political Blog and Forum
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Currently looking for amateur writers willing to write columns/posts for our site (conservative or liberal - doesn't matter) - for Free. If interested, come visit the site and SEND POST with title of column and name you desire to use as author.

party-of-one wrote on October 23, 2007 9:18 PM:

"Me too" Hillary shows her full capacity for leadership once again. Has she ever been out front and vocal with any principled stand on any controversial issue? She always echos someone else, waits for the polls and then starts posturing to be sure her position is sufficiently ambiguous that she can claim to be on whaever side of the issue offers current advantage. Hillary is so well cast as a photo-op foot solider in a do-nothing Congress. It's her true calling . Long may she serve.

dcshungu wrote on October 23, 2007 9:40 PM:

There is one thing about Hillary's detractors that is laudable: They are predictable, they never disappoint...

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 23, 2007 9:46 PM:

I wonder if this means that a donation check from a Telecomm bounced . . .

urbino wrote on October 23, 2007 9:49 PM:

Although this statement is qualified to within a comical inch of its life, and is late arriving, it is a skosh more concrete and specific than her statement about reviewing Bush's power grab. I'll give her that.

Time and [in]actions will tell, though.

Keith wrote on October 23, 2007 9:52 PM:

I think this is the key passage of her statement:

"I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently"

Ralph wrote on October 23, 2007 9:57 PM:

Wait you forgot the other salient feature of Hillary's detractors. They're predictable and usually kind of silly.

Why should anyone agree to filibuster a bill that isn't out of the committee process yet?

While I have every confidence that the final bill will be as bad as possible, I've learned that just because it's on a blog doesn't make it so ...

destor23 wrote on October 23, 2007 9:58 PM:

Very depressing. Neither Hillary or Obama have the guts to say "No telecom immunity, period."

Is nobody ever allowed to take anything off the table?

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 9:58 PM:

Notice how Obama's statement saying that he would support a filibuster of the Telecom bill results in the following headline" Obama: I would support Dodd's Filibuster"

And Clinton says that she will support a filibuster in the absence of additional information that would convince her otherwise results in: "Hillary Says She Will Support Filibuster of Intel Committee's Telecom Immunity Bill"

Obama sounds like he's following Dodd's lead (which isn't what he's saying). And Hillary comes off sound far more CERTAIN than the her actual comment suggest. Not sure why this always seems to happen vis-a-vis Obama, but it's been pretty consistent lately (Anyone recall the "Better Late than...?").

Pete wrote on October 23, 2007 9:58 PM:

"I hope that those posters not satisfied with Obama's statement will be equally dissatisfied with this...item."

I can only speak for myself and yes I am very disappointed that neither are willing to actually come out and say anything. Obama babbled and said nothing, Hillary babbled and said nothing. The question is would they support Dodd's filibuster, we still don't know the answer from either.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 11:08 PM:

dcshungu,

Well, it is nice to see you, as a Clinton supporter, breaking new ground by attacking her critics rather than defending her on the substance.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 11:14 PM:

Pete,

Obama's spokesman said: "But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it."

I don't see the ambiguity.

oleeb wrote on October 23, 2007 11:27 PM:

"As matters stand now..."

Nothing like an escape clause huh?

Well, for me, as matters stand now I can't trust her on this anymore than I can trust her on even attempting to get us out of that immoral/illegal war in Iraq.

It's so galling to watch her waffle and wiggle on everything. How hard would it be to say essentially as Dodd did that she would oppose any bill that includes immunity for telecoms and that I will filibuster it too if need be? But she won't say that, because she won't oppose it in the end and she won't filibuster it either.

phil james wrote on October 23, 2007 11:29 PM:

I want to see Hillary and Barack slugging it out with George and Dick until everyone's nose is bloody and we, the people on whose behalf they all serve, see some convincing evidence that the tide (as indicated by public polling for how long now?) has finally been turned by the Democratic majority in Congress. Short of that, I don't want to hear from or about Hillary or Barack. NOW Dem leaders. NOW.

hwc wrote on October 23, 2007 11:34 PM:

Dodd has said that he will filibuster any legislation with telecom immunity in it.

That, IMO, is an unreasonably broad position. The telcom executives agreed to help the United States trace Al Qaeda communications immediately after 9/11 after receiving assurances that the necessary steps would be taken to make their assistance legal. To that extent, I think the country has an ethical obligation to these companies.

Here's the crux of the issue. The administration has been so secretive that the Congress doesn't want to offer immunity that would cover other nefarious things that they knew nothing about. For example, suppose the Congress granted good faith immunity for the assistance after 9/11 and then found out down the road that the Bush administration used their access to wiretap the DNC.

It's a mess. But, I don't think Dodd is being reasonable in rejected any and all immunity. Basically, the Bush administration hung these telco executives out to dry. If we sue them up oneside and down the other, we'll never get their help again.

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 11:39 PM:

All this focus on Hillary, Obama and Dodd is sorely misplaced. The pressure points, at this stage of the game, are the Judiciary Commitee and Senator Reid. I'll say it again, Judiciary Committee and Senator Reid.

FSE wrote on October 24, 2007 12:20 AM:

"I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently"

I'm no fan of Hillary, but she sure is taking a lot of criticism for stating that her mind is open.

Attack her for being a follower instead of a leader. And if she changes her mind without good reason, then certainly attack her position at that time.

But accusations of "pre-weaseling" are absurd. Do we really want another president whose mind is made up and doesn't want to be bothered by the facts?

Michael Lafferty wrote on October 24, 2007 1:16 AM:

Gee, I don't know? Do we really need another President who waits for polling results before announcing a decision?

I don't think so. Lead, follow or get out of the way!

And, quit pretending to be a leader when you clearly have not demonstrated actual leadership to date…

betrue wrote on October 24, 2007 1:19 AM:

HWC,

You're wrong! The telecoms started spying on us long before 9/11. That came out last week!

It had nothing to do with 9/11 and had everything to do with the reality of a police state. That's why spying on citizens is ill-fucking-legal! And that is why any bill that immunizes those fucks for breaking the law is a bad bill and should be filibustered by every liberty loving Senator.

Michael Lafferty wrote on October 24, 2007 1:23 AM:

Don't for get that close Clinton associate Mike McCurry and former White House spokesman for President Bill Clinton, is a primary telecom lobbyist.

Wonder if he will have anything to say to his former employers wife regarding such "… additional information coming forward that would convince [her] differently."

Hmm…

seamus wrote on October 24, 2007 1:25 AM:

HRC's statement does not seem to mention immunity specifically.

The telecoms started giving Bush customer data without a warrant MONTHS before 911, so the fairy tale about "everything changed after 911" is not credible. Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio is appealing his conviction for insider trading, saying that he was selectively prosecuted because he refused to go along with illegal NSA requests for access to his network, starting in February 2001.

Jess wrote on October 24, 2007 1:27 AM:

Hwc, you said:
"The telcom executives agreed to help the United States trace Al Qaeda communications immediately after 9/11 "

Aha .. but they started way before 9/11
(refer to Qwest executive).

The only reason they are asking for immunity is because it was illegal.

~ Jess

Daniel wrote on October 24, 2007 3:36 AM:

New LA Times poll of the general election has Clinton AND Obama up against all Republicans by comfortable margins.

hwc wrote on October 24, 2007 3:52 AM:

I hope you don't mind if I remain a little skeptical when the sole source of a claim is an indicted Qwest official looking for a plea bargain.

One of the reasons that it's impossible for armchair lefties (or armchair righties) to really analyze this whole NSA situation is that the facts are all classified.

Jan wrote on October 24, 2007 6:22 AM:

We're "attacking her critics" instead of "the substance" because you refuse to accept the substance.

Me, I'm bored with the people who are never going to give Clinton her due.

Vote for John Edwards. He NEEDS your vote.

Here's some substance from www.hillaryclinton.com:

"With his announcement that his Administration will now seek nearly $200 billion in supplemental funding for overseas military operations, President Bush is once again asking Congress and the American people to foot the bill for his failed leadership. The Bush Administration's escalation in Iraq has not led to political reconciliation and our troops still remain in the middle of a civil war. As I have said before, I cannot and will not support funding legislation that does not begin to bring our troops home. Our men and women in uniform are serving bravely and honorably - funding a failing strategy does not serve our troops or our nation. We should begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops safely and responsibly. Unless the Administration changes course in Iraq, I will vote against this supplemental request."

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 6:53 AM:

The following comment gives me the opportunity to re-post my thoughts from thread on how MoveOn.org and the far-left blogosphere have teamed up to put pressure on Clinton and Obama to support Dodd's planned filibuster:

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 11:39 PM:

All this focus on Hillary, Obama and Dodd is sorely misplaced. The pressure points, at this stage of the game, are the Judiciary Commitee and Senator Reid. I'll say it again, Judiciary Committee and Senator Reid.

I agree with that comment whole-heartedly. The Netroots' and far-left bloggers' bullying tactic of trying to pressure politicians into adopting their agenda or POV is one of the main reasons why I have never cared for their brand of "progressive" politics. It's like, "Do it our way or we'll make you pay." Have any of these folks thought about just picking up the phone or emailing the Obama and Clinton camps to discuss this matter with them before threatening to flood them with phone calls from their rabid followers, who generally have the subtlety of a sledge hammer? For all we know, Clinton and Obama might already have been inclined to support Dodd's filibuster, so why not contact them to find out what their take is on the whole thing, and possible offer to work together to ensure that an acceptable bill goes to the Senate floor for a vote? IMHO, trying to persuade the Committee is the way to achieve the desired outcome. To go after one or two Senators and bully them into supporting a bill is counter-productive and might achieve nothing. These are the same folks who think that Hillary is not qualified to be POTUS because of her vote on the AUMF bill. The truth of the matter is the AUMF bill would have passed even with Hillary "Nay" vote. Individual Senators often cannot alter the outcome of a vote on a bill. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be important to work to build consensus and support for a bill through gentle persuasion and not through bullying tactics. Moreover, such tactics could have a "chilling effect" in future dealings with the lawmakers, who would be put off and refuse to deal, especially if it is not during an election year. They can bully Obama and Clinton NOW because they would deal for fear that refusal might affect their chances to win the nomination; but what would happen in the future when neither has as much at stake? For folks who undoubtedly have very high I.Q.s, these "progressives" seem to have little taste for a reasoned debate. Muscle over mind, any day, any time...

I fear that in the Netroots and the far-left blogosphere, we are seeing the emergence of the "progressive" equivalent of the Christian right, the neocons, and far-right elements of the GOP, whose "take no prisoners mentality" has contributed to the current demise of the GOP and the conservative movement.

Tone it down, please...

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 6:54 AM:

FSE,

I agree that everyone should be open to changing their mind about anything if new information comes forward, because that is just being rational. But because that is a universal proposition, there is really no need to attach that caveat to everything we ever say about our intentions.

And I think it is important to understand the political context here: Senators like Clinton can put pressure on the Judiciary Committee to revisit this issue by threatening to filibuster the bill in its current form. But Clinton's statement implies that she may be open to persuasion, and that takes some of the pressure off the Judiciary Committee to actually change the bill.

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 6:59 AM:

Jan,

I'll just note you didn't address the substance of this issue, but rather attacked her critics and then tried to change the subject.

Frankly, I don't really get what Clinton supporters like yourself are trying to accomplish with such tactics. Is all that supposed to be persuasive? Or is the idea to drive up negative impressions of non-Hillary supporters so that undecideds will be less likely to join them? Or are you just getting a personal thrill out of attacking people?

Seriously, I don't get the motivation.

Jim J wrote on October 24, 2007 7:46 AM:

I agree with dcshungu. I read far more vitriolic personal attacks against Hillary on lefty blogs, particularly dKos, than on the right-wing blogs. Shameful.

Jan wrote on October 24, 2007 7:48 AM:

re: "Jan, I'll just note you didn't address the substance of this issue, but rather attacked her critics and then tried to change the subject."

WHAT IS THE "SUBSTANCE" OF THIS ISSUE?

She was asked if she would support Dodd's filibuster on a bill that she has not seen a final version of.
She said, "...and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently."

Now, are Clinton supporters supposed to have a "debate" with people here who don't like the way she SAID that she will support Dodd's filibuster???
Or are we to have a "debate" with those who have said that they will NEVER trust her???
LOL!

WHAT'S THE SUBSTANCE YOU WANT ME TO DEBATE?

"I don't like the way she phrased her statement that she would support Dodd's filibauster."
"Why not?"
"Because I don't trust her."
"Well, I do."
"Well, you only support her because "

I criticize her critics because THEY don't debate the substance.

Here are THE FIRST THREE COMMENTS:

(1)I sometimes wonder if Clinton is trying to parody herself.
(2) Pre-Weaseled.
(3) Specifically, additional information regarding additional campaign contributions from the telcos.

THESE are what you call "substance"?
These are "debate" points that you feel Clinton supporters need to respond to, because of their SUBSTANCE?

Bah!

Michael wrote on October 24, 2007 7:56 AM:

Finally, mrs. bill took a position. I guess the polling and mr. bill said it was ok to get on the band wagon after everyone else was driving it. How pathetic.

Anyone else notice the similarities between the mrs. bill's staffer posts? They are almost identical in tactics as pointed out by DTM. Attack, attack, attack and never, ever address substance, just generalities. Either they're the same staffer, which I doubt, or they are "using talking points," to quote one of their favorite charges. Same old, same old. Anybody but mrs. bill in 08.

Also, the right isn't attacking her now, because they want her to be the nominee. Will people please wake up.

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 8:18 AM:

Jan,

Yes, I think you should address the substance of what Clinton said. Clinton made her support for a filibuster of the current bill conditional, and she implied that she might be convinced to support the current bill if given more information.

That conditional expression of support is materially different than what Dodd, Biden, and Obama have said. And as I noted above, Clinton's position places less pressure on the Judiciary Committee to actually change the bill, since Clinton has specifically noted she is open to persuasion instead.

Now ultimately you may disagree with that analysis of what Clinton said and how it fits into the political context. But at a minimum, I think it is fair to say those claims are in fact addressing the substance of the issue, and at least merit serious consideration.

As a final note, I have noticed a tendency of some Clinton supporters here to suggest that if a poster says something rude, harsh, nasty, etc. about Clinton, it is OK then to be rude, harsh, nasty, etc. to that poster. I think responding to even harsh criticisms of Clinton by personally attacking the critic tends to lead us away from discussing the candidates and toward exchanges of personal insults.

That doesn't mean you cannot call critics of Clinton out for being unfair in their criticisms (if you think that is the case). But I just don't see the point in turning a discussion about the candidates, however harsh it may get, into a flame war between the posters here.

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 8:29 AM:

By the way, to give an example, FSE above defended the actual substance of what Clinton said. I think HWC was also doing so, at least somewhat indirectly. In both cases, I think what followed was a substantial discussion of the relevant issues. So I really don't see this as an impossible task for Clinton supporters.

Kitt wrote on October 24, 2007 8:35 AM:

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 6:53 AM:

The Netroots' and far-left bloggers' bullying tactic of trying to pressure politicians into adopting their agenda or POV is one of the main reasons why I have never cared for their brand of "progressive" politics. It's like, "Do it our way or we'll make you pay." Have any of these folks thought about just picking up the phone or emailing the Obama and Clinton camps to discuss this matter

Well, DCshugna, when your "POV" is to protect the Constitution and not reward lawbreakers with amnesty, I'd say your "POV" is well within reason. I don't call demanding that Senators protect the Constitution and not reward lawbreakers with amnesty "bullying" tactics.

And what a joke to suggest that we call or write and discuss. You think we haven't done that...several million times?

Jan wrote on October 24, 2007 8:41 AM:

Ok, DTM...
You said, "Clinton made her support for a filibuster of the current bill conditional, and she implied that she might be convinced to support the current bill if given more information. That conditional expression of support is materially different than what Dodd, Biden, and Obama have said."

I applaud her conditional support, since she has not seen a final bill.

The FACT that you "imply" a bunch of other stuff that I don't "imply" is the problem with our "debate." If I don't "imply" something the way you do, I hardly agree with the rest of what you "imply.".

The FACT is, she said she would support the filibuster.

Here it is, in case you missed it:

She said, "...and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently."

You stated that that "implies" she MAY BE CONVINCED to support it.
Actually, she said she SUPPORTS it.

This is why I don't have "debates" with people who are never going to vote for Hillary Clinton. They think it's "substance" for me to debate what they imply. I think it's a waste of time, because you're always going to "imply" anything you want to about Senator Clinton.
So be it.

Vote for Edwards. He NEEDS you vote.

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 8:42 AM:

Michael wrote on October 24, 2007 7:56 AM:

Finally, mrs. bill took a position. I guess the polling and mr. bill said it was ok to get on the band wagon after everyone else was driving it. How pathetic.

That comment is supposed to be the substance that Hillary supporters are supposed to be addressing? I agree with Jan's post above. We hear cries about Hillary's supporters never discussing "substance" and only throw out insults. Here's the dirty little secret: Once Hillary's detractors put something substantive on the table, they'll see just how effectively Hillary's supporters can address "substance". Until then we'll stick to the view that mindless criticisms that do not have the "substance" of a 2-year old would just be ignored. A case in point is the comment I quoted above: For days, this Michael guys has harassed every Hillary supporter, requesting that we tell him why Hillary has not taken a position on the FISA bill and the issue of immunity for the telecoms -- as if we could speak for Hillary! Now that she has issued a statement, what does Michael say? Here is again the "substance" of it: bill said it was ok to get on the band wagon after everyone else was driving it. How pathetic.

How can anyone, even s/he has the patience of a St. Paul, deal with such mindlessness? I'll tell ya, it is scary!!!

Michael wrote on October 24, 2007 8:47 AM:

DTM, don't wast your breath. I've been trying for weeks and they avoid the issue at hand, repeat fluffy generalities and attack the questioner. On another note, I really don't believe these posters are supporters. A supporter would address the issues one way or another, not just ignore them. I really think they are staffers for mrs. bill. Their statements are too canned and their tactics are virtually identical. Not once have I seen these people ever address head on an issue that is being discussed by the rest of the posters.

texasdem wrote on October 24, 2007 8:49 AM:

What is Clinton's position on immunity for the telecoms?

I missed it in her above statement.

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 8:56 AM:

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 8:18 AM:

Jan,

Yes, I think you should address the substance of what Clinton said. Clinton made her support for a filibuster of the current bill conditional, and she implied that she might be convinced to support the current bill if given more information.

That conditional expression of support is materially different than what Dodd, Biden, and Obama have said. And as I noted above, Clinton's position places less pressure on the Judiciary Committee to actually change the bill, since Clinton has specifically noted she is open to persuasion instead.

DTM, please wait until Clinton has cast her vote (ot at very least, seen the bill) before speaking of the "substance" in her qualified promise to filibuster this bill. Intelligent people would want to see what it is that they are supporting. She has not seen the bill in its final form yet. Hypothetically, it is conceivable that Dodd my have a town hall meeting with his constituents in CT and be convinced that some aspect of that bill are too important to just completely dis the bill, and be urged to support it. What then? Why could you not just wait and see the final bill before criticizing HRC for her statement on a non-existent bill!!! What is the "substance" in HRC's answer that anyone would wish to discuss when the content of the bill is not yet known. Please read my post above about how the netroots and far-lefties leave no room for reasoned debate: Either you commit yourself now or we'll crucify you. That's schoolyard bully tactics. I have never been able to stomach that from the rightwingnuts and won't from the leftwingnuts either. Period.

DCS, NYC

Michael wrote on October 24, 2007 8:59 AM:

dcshungu, no it wasn't supposed to be substance, it was supposed to be an observation. I've been asking staffers for over a week what her position was, including you by the way which I would expect that you would remember, and all I got was bs generalities and personal attacks. What, I'm supposed to be a cheerleader over her taking a waffling position on something as cut and dry as this???? Give me a break.

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 9:07 AM:

Well, DCshugna, when your "POV" is to protect the Constitution and not reward lawbreakers with amnesty, I'd say your "POV" is well within reason. I don't call demanding that Senators protect the Constitution and not reward lawbreakers with amnesty "bullying" tactics.

LOL. I have heard it all now. He protects the Constitution by bullying lawmakers into adopting his POV or else? Double LOL...

If you did call Obama's and HRC's camps and they turned a deaf ear to you guys, it is because you were not interested in discussing anything. It was, as I said, "support Dodd's filibuster or there will be hell to pay." I am almost sure that that is how it went, assuming that you even attempted to contact them. As a New York resident, I have written to Senator Clinton on an issue that is of import to me as a biomedical research scientist (re: Federal support for biomedical research, which has dried up because of all the billions that we have been pissing away in Iraq), and she responded!!! Try being nice and she'll respond to you too.

Kitt wrote on October 24, 2007 9:09 AM:

Dcshungu,

It isn't about whatever trivialities might or might not pop up in the final bill. It's about retroactive telecom immunity...period. There is nothing complicated about this. There is nothing bullying about people wanting Congress persons to stand up for the constitution, and to not allow law breaking of an enormous proportion to go unquestioned and, no less, rewarded.

You're pretending to be making reasoned debate. You aren't making reasoned debate. There is nothing reasonable about allowing someone running for the leadership position know as President of the United States to, at this point of the discussion, to say that he or she hasn't read the bill. And to use that as an excuse to mumble a bunch of hogwash as to where he or she might stand on it in the end.

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 9:24 AM:

Michael wrote on October 24, 2007 8:59 AM:

dcshungu, no it wasn't supposed to be substance, it was supposed to be an observation. I've been asking staffers for over a week what her position was, including you by the way which I would expect that you would remember, and all I got was bs generalities and personal attacks. What, I'm supposed to be a cheerleader over her taking a waffling position on something as cut and dry as this???? Give me a break.

First, just because you refer to us as Hillary's "staffers" does not make it so. Therefore, how can you intelligently expect any of her supporters to speak for her, when we are not privy to the internal deliberations of her camp? Is that very smart? But, when you finally hear what you've been asking of her nonexistent "staffers" directly from the horse's mouth, how do you respond? Very childishly: "bill said it was ok to get on the band wagon after everyone else was driving it. How pathetic." So, were you really interested in knowing what she thought at all, or were you just trying to make the ludicrous point that (I paraphrase) she does not support anything if it is not about going to war... You cannot be taken seriously, even by yourself.

Kitt wrote on October 24, 2007 9:24 AM:

Try being nice and she'll respond to you too.

Your entire post was crap but that last line is just so damned full of yourself that it needed to be quoted.

My last post to you makes clear how so clearly disingenuous you come across to me. There is no point in further discussing with someone who is just not being honest, and who shows no inclination to alter his or her dishonesty.

I don't take you seriously. You can't be as blind as you appear to be. So the only other reason you'd be posting this pablum you've been posting is a total lack of integrity and honesty.

As I said in the previous post, you're not debating, you're just making s**t up.

hadenough wrote on October 24, 2007 9:48 AM:

"texasdem wrote on October 24, 2007 8:49 AM:
What is Clinton's position on immunity for the telecoms?

I missed it in her above statement."

That might be because there was no statemnent on telecom immunity. There was a question at a press availability in Colorado:

"Q: Can you discuss your position on the reauthorization of the FISA bill?"

So you are correct Hillary didn't answer a question she wasn't asked. Now back to reality. Something that seems to be getting lost:
There is no bill, there is no hold, there is no filibuster.

That makes it awfully hard for any candidate to state exactly what they would do. Ya know, seeing has how nobody knows what exactly is gonna happen.

Michael wrote on October 24, 2007 9:49 AM:

dcshungu, the funny thing is we still don't know what her gd position is. It's mumbo jumbo garbage. You guys/gals crack me up. Alot of typing on attacks and no typing on substance. Why does it bother you guys/gals so much when I make funny comments and refer to her as mrs. bill? Who cares? The only ones that would, would be staffers. Also, the reason why I am pretty sure that you are staffers are the deferential ways that you refer to your boss on this site. Nobody refers to a politician on a blog so deferentially. Senator Clinton - come on. Are you running your posts by a supervisor first?

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 9:55 AM:

Kitt wrote on October 24, 2007 9:09 AM:

Dcshungu,

It isn't about whatever trivialities might or might not pop up in the final bill. It's about retroactive telecom immunity...period. There is nothing complicated about this. There is nothing bullying about people wanting Congress persons to stand up for the constitution, and to not allow law breaking of an enormous proportion to go unquestioned and, no less, rewarded.

I will repeat: Please wait for the bill to be written before ranting. You'll look foolish if the bill comes out and the telecom immunity clause is not even in it. I, for one, would want to see that bill before I pontificate. Second, I am not sure how going after Hillary and Obama would help your cause other than the fact that you KNOW that you can bully them since they have too much at stake in this election to risk upsetting the wingnuts. You need to be putting pressure on the Committee as a whole! That is how you might influence the bill that would emerge from there. I don't know about you, but that is obvious to me...

You're pretending to be making reasoned debate. You aren't making reasoned debate. There is nothing reasonable about allowing someone running for the leadership position know as President of the United States to, at this point of the discussion, to say that he or she hasn't read the bill. And to use that as an excuse to mumble a bunch of hogwash as to where he or she might stand on it in the end.

She has told you what she might do on a nonexistent bill and that is my point. It is clearly "reasoned" and reasonable, but I do not expect you to see this since you have already conceded to being a lefty. Either she promises to do as you request or it is unacceptable. For you that is "reasoned", for me it is schoolyard bully tactic.

Let's leave it at that.

Ciao, capo!

Duckman GR wrote on October 24, 2007 10:01 AM:

Here's the deal. At this point, she doesn't need to talk about what's in the final bill. Nor does Obama. The issue is the bill that Chris Dodd says he put a hold on, and will filibuster if Leader Reid forces it onto the floor.

We don't need to hear about if's and when's up or effing down. The point is to put pressure on th Pols now, RIGHT FUCKING NOW, to take immunity for those god damnable telecon corporations of the FUCKING TABLE, just like Speaker Pelosi did, PRE-EMPTIVELY, for impeachment.

I don't want a final bill at all, quite frankly, let alone one that countences in any way, shape or form, ANY kind of protection for those corporations.

Whomsoever can't figure that out needs to revisit their positions and what they want for their own future.

Got it?

asdf wrote on October 24, 2007 10:09 AM:

Spoken in the affirmative, Hillary’s statement on FISA is that she can be persuaded to support the bill with more information. In other words, its current form could be fine, as far as she is concerned. But the press plays it as if she has taken a stand? That is absolutely, positively Orwellian.

We are so screwed. There isn’t any hope at all for change in ’08.

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 10:14 AM:

I don't take you seriously. You can't be as blind as you appear to be. So the only other reason you'd be posting this pablum you've been posting is a total lack of integrity and honesty.

What exactly am I blind about? Because I do not see things the way you do? Hell will freeze over before that happens! I told you that I had emailed Senator Clinton and that she'd responded to me. Where is the dishonesty and lack of integrity in that? Sir, I have no doubt what your politics are. You're speaking from way out there on the left. I think you took the wrong turn and missed the DKOS site. You'll find people who practice your kind of politics over there in land of the "collective unconscious." Do not let the door hit on your way out.

Good day, sir.

Kitt wrote on October 24, 2007 10:27 AM:

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 10:14 AM:

I have no doubt what your politics are. You're speaking from way out there on the left.

I rest my case about your disingenuous, making s**t up approach. Unless you honestly think that the framers of the Constitution, and the now protectors of same, are "way out there on the left" than you, "Sir" or Ms, are a dishonest jive shucker of the worst sort.

hadenough wrote on October 24, 2007 10:28 AM:

"Duckman GR wrote on October 24, 2007 10:01 AM:
Here's the deal. At this point, she doesn't need to talk about what's in the final bill. Nor does Obama. The issue is the bill that Chris Dodd says he put a hold on, and will filibuster if Leader Reid forces it onto the floor."

Here is the problem: There is no bill, there is no hold, there is no filibuster.

More problems: Dodd can't but a hold on it till Reid tries to bring it to the floor.

Here is a pretty good run of what has to happen:
What is Dodd Doing?
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/10/19/134610/71

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 10:41 AM:

Jan,

Actually, what I claimed was that Clinton's statement implies that she could be convinced to NOT support a filibuster if given more information. And I really do think that is a fair implication of what she said. But again, my point is that is a substantive issue, and we should be able to have a civil discussion about that issue, even if we disagree.

dcshungu,

As I noted before, there is a very important process which the bill has to go through before it reaches the floor, namely review by the Judiciary Committee. And as I also noted before, Senators not on the Judiciary Committee can put pressure on the Committee to change the bill by threatening to oppose it in its current form.

So, I agree with you that we should not demand that the Senators promise to oppose the bill no matter what final form it takes. But it is reasonable to ask them for a clear statement on the bill in its current form, precisely in order to influence the final form that the bill will take as that process moves forward.

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 10:54 AM:

NCSteve wrote on October 23, 2007 8:54 PM:
"Specifically, additional information regarding additional campaign contributions from the telcos."

Again, I am so sorry to see someone of your obvious intelligence throw in with the lot of the sexist (Mrs. Bill?!?), progressiver-than-thou, confirmed Hillary-hater lunatic fringe that Jan so eloquently described above.

Again, I understand that only frontrunner Hillary takes campaign contributions from corporations with agendas (Telecoms etc.), while Senators Obama, Dodd, and Edwards (yes, it's okay to still call him by his former title), well, they only get contributions from the piggy banks of poor children who look to them alone to help them realize their shared dewey-eyed American dream.

And, again, if Obama or Edwards or Dodd happens to win the first few primaries and establish themselves as the frontrunner, I'm sure that their near-saintly political ethics will ensure that they will reject all the corporate donations that would start coming to them instead. Yesireebob!

Get real.

Do corporations have undue financial influence on American elections and legislation. Of course they do. Would electing a liberal progressive like Hillary (see ratings of her entire Senate voting record) be a good start toward gaining a sympathetic ear to true reform in this area. Maybe. Ask Russ Feingold.

Dennis wrote on October 24, 2007 10:58 AM:

Given Hillary's personality, my guess is she would like an opportunity to spy on Americans just as GWB is doing.

And something I've not heard anyone say, but if you are "in" with whatever political administration might be in office, just think of the corporate spying you can do against your competition.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

colonpowwow wrote on October 24, 2007 10:59 AM:

Oops, sorry for the accidental anonymous post above addressed to NCSteve's comment. It's me.

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 11:04 AM:

No direct mention of Dodd, but clearly supporting Dodd's idea of filibustering this bill.

colonpowwow wrote on October 24, 2007 11:23 AM:

Dennis wrote on October 24, 2007 10:58 AM:
"Given Hillary's personality, my guess is she would like an opportunity to spy on Americans just as GWB is doing."

Again, another Hillary-hater with the Bushlike quality of seeing into the heart of someone they've met and talked with.

Oh, you haven't met and talked with her yet? Well, even better than Bush are you then, sir.

If you would go back to say, yesterday, and read a pertinent interview on the Bush administration's abuses of executive power that was posted here, you will see that Hillary is opposed to, and is certain to dump such eggregious and illegal power grabs.

Going back farther than that, Senator Clinton is on record opposing the Bush administration's abuses in this area since the day the spying came to light.

Hillary-haters, please continue to expose yourselves by going with your Bush-like Hillary-soul-probes and your Chertoffian gut instincts, rather than what she's actually said, as always.

Of course, you can always parse to death what she's said using these extraordinary gifts as well.

asdf wrote on October 24, 2007 12:35 PM:

Colonpowwow-I wish my problem with Hillary was just an irrational hatred as you characterize “Hillary haters.” Sadly, as she demonstrated yet again with this FISA comment, there is real substance to a progressive’s opposition to her nomination.

Colonpowwow, what is it that compels you to post off topic comments in discussions in substantive discussions about Hillary? A suspicious mind would conclude that diminishing conversations about Sen. Clinton’s statements and policy history as hysterical emotionalism is an effort to conceal the truth of where she stands. Are her stands are so indefensible that as a last resort you must scream incoherent nonsense in a hope to derail discussion about the truth?

Your girl will make it to the finish line first. You win. The nation and the world lose.

Michael wrote on October 24, 2007 1:11 PM:

Asdf, I can answer in one word - Yep. Your concise statement sums up the strategy of Jan normally afternoon to evening, colon about 11 to late afternoon and then dcshunga in the morning. Either these bozos are the same person and just changing their sign-on or they are punching a clock. Bottom line is that they are following mrs. bill talking points. Same old, same old, over and over and over again. They divert from the issue and attack the poster without ever addressing any substance. They have to be mrs. bill staffers. I'd bet a lunch on it.

lestatdelc wrote on October 24, 2007 5:07 PM:

Hillary is, in the above statement still open to granting immunity for telcos for their illegal activities. This is 100% unacceptable. Her statement is pure weasel word crap.

"I will block any bill that grants retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies for their involvement in any illegal programs."

How hard is that?

Kitt wrote on October 24, 2007 5:32 PM:

dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 10:14 AM:

Do not let the door hit on your way out.

Good day, sir.

Not sure if you think you own this blog or what. You have made a lot of eighth grader mentality statements. That one about the door is a clincher.

Who do you think you are thinking that I would leave this blog because you demanded it or wished it? Especially since I happen to be a whole lot more on par with what goes on hers than you are by tenfolds?

Really, it seems like you are a twelve year old posing as a grownup.

Kitt wrote on October 24, 2007 5:42 PM:

Hey, dcshungu! Here's a statement from that "way far left wingbat" Governor Bill Richardson:

We need strong leadership to prevent this latest injustice, not equivocation or political calculation. Senators Clinton and Obama say they will oppose the bill, but are leaving the door open to a potential compromise. There can be no compromise on personal rights and privacy. I urge my Democratic primary opponents, and every Senator, to stand up and state loudly and clearly -- without any equivocation -- that he or she will not pass any bill that grants retroactive immunity to companies that willingly aided the Bush administration in violating the law and spying on our own people.

colonpowwow wrote on October 24, 2007 9:08 PM:

DTM kicks off the comments here by basically laughing off Hillary's statement, then complains later we don't take his "substantive" comments seriously.

Joe Bonham calls HRC a weasel.

Then NCSteve attacks her motives because she didn't word her statement to his satisfaction.

Liberal Larry then calls her and Ivy League elitist.

And that was just in the first five posts.

Thanks asdf. I stand corrected. No irrational Hillary-hate to see here at TPM EC.

Sorry. Oh, and thanks for insulting me personally. That's classy.

And my posts are "off topic?!?" I specifically addressed my comments here to other post(er)s on this thread. WTF are you talking about?

John wrote on November 8, 2007 9:09 AM:

Hillary is such an ambiguous president candidate. First she votes against ethanol then she changes her mind and decides to support it in her energy plan. In the last debate, she contradicted herself in different subjects, which is obvious in this video that compares her many contradictions at the same day: http://www.weshow.com/us/p/22225/the_politics_of_parsing_by_hillary_clinton
You guys that have watched the debate or this video that shows just some of her obvious contradictions should agree with me that we just can't vote for a so clearly pathetic candidate.

Vote for Hillary Online wrote on November 12, 2007 12:46 PM:

Hillary supporters: please don’t get discouraged. PLEASE. She is getting attacked from all sides because people deep down know she is our only hope for America and they’re trying to ruin it for everybody. Hillary is the ONLY candidate with these 4 attributes: honor, patriotism, loyalty, and kindness. I got $35 in the bank that says no other candidate has those attributes.

angel wrote on November 14, 2007 2:48 PM:

THE TORRES-VIGNALI CONNECTION is explored in detail in a congressional report that resulted from Pardongate, when revelations surfaced that President Clinton granted clemency for Carlos Vignali Jr. — convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison in 1995 — along with other convicted criminals and one-time international fugitive Marc Rich. The granting of clemency occurred after payments were made to Clinton’s brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, the brother of former first lady, New York state senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ralph S. Mavrogordato wrote on December 16, 2007 1:11 PM:

Senator Clinton: Please take a strong stand against the usurpation of power by President Bush and his attempt to make Congress irrelevant and weak. Your actions on the floor of the Senate are more important than your campaign speeches. Telecommunication copanies should not get immunity from prosecution. Nor should anyone who violates constitutional law. Nor should the Senate allow Republicans to thwart really important legislation. One reason why the Nazis were able to gain control in the Weimar Republic was the impotence of a deeply divided German Parliament. Don't let it happen here.
Ralph S. Mavrogordato

Michael Thomas wrote on December 16, 2007 1:37 PM:

All of these politicans took an oath to uphold our constitution and the laws of our country. And the Companys have broken the law
so why should they have imunity ? so they can do any thing they want?She took the oath so why should she need any information it is cut and dried.I say vote no and filabuster there is absoutely no question they all need to do their job.
Michael T

Will Hillary Clinton be president? wrote on January 5, 2008 12:51 AM:

Hey, many people I know are talking about the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the lead in Iowa... most of them think she will lose the election. Myself, I'm not sure. But I don't believe her message that "only the former first lady has the experience to bring about change"! Surely experience has more to do with political experience and knowledge, rather than merely being married to the ex-president. Anyway, I guess they keep their campaign messages fairly simple to appeal to people.

cindy wrote on January 26, 2008 2:54 PM:

Get to know Our Message RonPaul2008.com
It is for all of US.
cin3@mac.com

cindy wrote on January 26, 2008 3:04 PM:

We need strong leadership to prevent this latest injustice, not equivocation or political calculation. Senators Clinton and Obama say they will oppose the bill, but are leaving the door open to a potential compromise. There can be no compromise on personal rights and privacy. I urge my Democratic primary opponents, and every Senator, to stand up and state loudly and clearly -- without any equivocation -- that he or she will not pass any bill that grants retroactive immunity to companies that willingly aided the Bush administration in violating the law and spying on our own people.
This correct

First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
and then you win?
Keep the support up,
Ron Paul for President 2008
Cindy Mulvey
cin3@mac.com

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)