Obama not sure he can make it back for FISA Vote...but he Supports Dodd/Firedoglake

:wtf:


Obama’s Statement on Dodd and Filibuster
By: Jane Hamsher Monday December 17, 2007 11:32 am


I contacted the Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaigns last night to ask them if they had statements on Dodd's filibuster against retroactive immunity today. So far the only one to get back to me with one is Obama:

"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."

Both the Edwards and Clinton campaigns said they are working on statements.

It would be wonderful if Obama came off the campaign trail to support Dodd.

http://firedoglake.com/

To say that I'm disappointed would be an understatement. The post from my thread:

And, that's very frightening...if one thinks about it. Just like with other votes they missed....what did they know that they didn't even bother. :scared:

Because they're selfishly promoting their own campaigns instead of doing what's right for America. :grr:

Read it and weep:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2485245

QUOTE FROM THE POST:
Biden, Clinton, Obama said they would support Dodd's filibuster...Guess what? They are nowhere on the Senate floor to be seen, let alone heard from.

and those criticisms were just as misplaced then as these are now.

gone to DC. Afterall, after he was pretty much forced to take matching funds, he claimed it was for moral reasons and challenged Hillary and Obama to do the same.

Edwards was asked for his opinion of Dodd's actions and the lack of support from the others. Edwards waived off both questions without offering comment or opinion.

I will gladly accept his supporters to "our side" when he drops out. :)

Nuff said.

I thought he came out in support of the filibuster?

hard to get excited by the "front runners" when they're only running for themselves. . .

Dodd is filibustering. It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. While Obama could be in there arguing the case in favor of filibustering, his only substantive contribution would be in not voting to end the filibuster.

There are two ways of not voting to end the filibuster. He could vote, "no". Or he could not vote. Both count exactly the same. The vote could be 59-Yes, 0-No and 41 Not Voting and the bill would fail to move forward.

If he or Clinton truly have sway in the Senate, wouldn't their presence be decisive in keeping the debate on track and riding herd on the recalcitrant? Just because they are not the majority leader within the Senate, does their word not carry weight? For that matter, history is rife with instances of Senators who dominated deliberations without holding fanciful titles, people who moved their agenda without speaking publicly at all.

I guess the issue can be seen as this: Do our front runners lead or merely "fail to move things forward?"

Senators can also ask "questions" during the filibuster -- such "questions" being allowed 20 minutes -- That's time that Dodd can save his voice during the filibuster, lean his head on the podium, maybe take a bathroom break (not sure if the rules allow him to leave the floor or podium during the filibuster or not).

What's more important, at least to me, is that promises have been made... now promises have been broken. There use to be a time when a person's word of honor was sacred. That doesn't seem to be the time we live in anymore.

It is no longer necessary for Dodd (or someone else) to stand up their talking the entire time. Hasn't been for decades. Now they simply say they are filibustering and that is that if those opposed to the filibuster can not come up with 60 votes.

Dodd can eat, sleep and spend as much time in the bathroom as he wishes.

And, since Reid is the one who disregarded Dodd's hold, there is every reason to believe he will require it.

It's a shame that people beat up on Senators for not making it back for cloture votes - when it doesn't matter whether they vote or not since as long as they don't vote yes, they're doing the right thing.

I'd rather the presidential candidates not upend their activity, lose one or more days on the trail in order to run back to Washington to cast a vote that won't make a whit of difference to the outcome. They can make a statement and talk about the issue in the field - which will actually get more attention than what they might say on the floor. The bottom line is that I want one of them to WIN next year and the only way they can do that is to campaign like it's going out of style.

And, remember, if Clinton, Obama, Biden, Kucinich or Dodd win the nomination, their likely Republican opponent will NOT be a sitting Senator or Governor - they will probably run against someone who doesn't have anything else to do with his time but campaign - and will take advantage of every opportunity to be on the campaign trail while their Democratic opponent is stuck in Washington. Of course, they need to get back to Washington to make important votes when their vote will make a difference, insisting that they run back to Washington everytime a vote is called, in order to "send a message" is, in my view, very short-sighted and counterproductive. The best way to "send a message" is to win the election and take this country back.

So... in your world, it is more important to host another campaign event (in addition to the nearly 2,000 that have already been hosted in Iowa in 2007) than stand up for the rule of law?

It is more important for the 150,000 Iowans who will be caucusing in a couple of weeks to have the opportunity to see and hear the presidential candidates than it is for millions of Americans to understand that our party can unite on the grounds of something right and moral?

As far as you are concerned, Dodd should not have launched this filibuster, even if it meant allowing telecommunication companies and the Bush administration to not only get away with disregarding the law, but to offer them precedent to do it again?

What a topsy-turvy world you live in.

and that's why I know there's more than one way to "stand up for the rule of law" - and running back to Washington to cast a vote that makes no difference to the outcome is certainly not the only way to do it - especially in the middle of a presidential campaign.

And since "millions of Americans" aren't likely sitting around watching C-Span to see who is voting on a procedural matter in the Senate in order to determine whether the Democrats are "united on the grounds of something right and moral," I'm not really worried about whether Obama, Biden, and Clinton get back for the vote.

Because I live in the real world, I understand the difference between symbolism and real action and don't fall into the trap of demanding a nice show when it will undercut very real work. Posturing might make some people feel better - like throwing red meat - but it doesn't make a lick of difference in the long run.

The world I want to leave to my children, has every elected official, regardless of party or campaign commitments, standing up and screaming at the top of their lungs that we MUST ABIDE BY OUR OWN CONSITUTION and that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

has its place - but sometimes it only provides temporary catharsis followed by a sore throat. While listening to politicians who agree with me scream at the top of their lungs might feel good, I don't think it's always necessary or even productive to have every one of them spend all of their energy concentrated on that exercise.I am a child and student of the civil rights movement. One of the most - if not the most - effective tactics of the movement was its diversification of tactics. While some agitated - screaming at the top of their lungs - others used softer rhetoric to persuade and while some took to the streets, others worked behind the scenes from within the system. All of these tactics and approaches were critical to the successes the movement brought (e.g., Brown v. Board, 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, etc.). That's the case in this instance. There are many ways to get this point across. Dodd and many other Senators (none of whom are "screaming at the top of their lungs" - are working within the Senate to do it. Obama, Clinton and other Democratic candidates are out on the stump, both educating voters through reason and persuasion and, hopefully, creating a climate that will enable one of them to assume the presidency and, with a few strokes of a pen, change these very policies that we so strongly oppose. And many others - including you and me and many others - are screaming at the top of our lungs, putting the full court press pressure that needs to be brought to bear. All three tactics are critical and none of them can be successful without the others.So, I think we all share the same goals and want the same kind of world for our children. But I agree with Beaconess that it is not necessary for the presidential candidates to pull off their game and rush back to Washington in order to cast a vote that won't change the outcome or to "scream at the top of their lungs" on the Senate floor. They're doing what they need to do. Dodd is doing what he needs to do. And we need to keep on doing our part. There is plenty of work to go around and there's more than one way to make a difference.

If there is not a united front from our party -- if we, as party members, do not demand a united front -- we will never be able to overcome the odds that are against us.

Yes, we all have jobs to do. Yes, we all have roles to play. I did my part today (and I'll do it again when FISA comes up after the first of the year). Sen. Dodd did his part today as did Sen. Feingold and others. Sens. Obama, Clinton and Biden did not do their part. Further, they broke direct promises that they would stand against this bill if it included retroactive immunity.

You want to support these folks to take over the highest office in the land when you understand full and well that they broke a promise? That is your right as a citizen of our nation. But please don't insult the intelligence of others by insinuating that we either don't know our place on the bus or that these folks were off serving some higher purpose.

Come next January someone is going to raise his or her right hand and say: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Here's hoping that whomever takes that oath has already demonstrated the ability to do the job.

I was getting ready to respond, but she said it all much better than I could.

Is he afraid of airplanes or something?

I think all our people should be there, presenting a united front, and screaming bloody murder-- as the Republicans would do in their place-- if the debate is brought to a close.

Granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies would be a disgrace, proving there is one set of laws for the man in the street and another for rich, powerful corporations.

Equal justice under the law. Yeah. Sure.

Biden, Clinton and Obama were all absent for the cloture vote to bring the bill to the floor (and begin the path to filibuster):
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00435

it will raise serious doubts in my mind about his fitness to be President.

Just to make sure everyone knows that it's not just Obama.

Having said that, ALL of them should be there.

but they're all in a close race right now. Obama put out the first statement on his position on it. If you won't support him because of this, I ask you who you WILL support...

:eyes:

Either you expect Senators to make every vote, or you can't bitch when they miss one. If you support Hillary while she misses this vote, and shit on Obama, you're nothing more then a hypocrite.

others while he passes up his opportunity to cast a ballot.

:rofl:

seen no signs that indicate Hilllary won't return to the senate for the vote.

Mr. Big Talk has already handed in his RSVP.

i'll be impressed if he makes a stand

Did it really matter that neither one was? Fact it, they need 60 votes for cloture, to shut down the filibuster. Obama, Biden, and the rest would have voted against cloture anyway.

of course it matters.. they all need to be speaking on the floor of the senate right now, supporting Dodd, and drowning out the voices of the Republicans, standing up for our constitution and our rights.

but the reality is, it probably wouldn't change a thing. They have 30 hours set aside. Some of them may show up.

of his campaign?

.

she'd just vote on the wrong side of this issue as well. In that case, I'm glad she decided to sit this out.

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

HRC: I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven't seen it so I can't express an opinion about it. But I don't trust the Bush Administration with our civil rights and liberties. So I'm going to study it very hard. 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.

Which I guess gives us the moral victory.

:headbang:
rocknation

saved us. Let's hope they have a better game plan after the holidays. The only thing that actually got noticed in the MSM is a segment on KO.. and even they noticed the other 3 weren't there.