home

FISA: Hillary And Obama to Vote No on Cloture

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:40:52 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, FISA (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Christy at Firedoglake:

Hillary Clinton will be in the Senate tomorrow to vote "no" on cloture on the Intel version of the FISA bill. The vote is scheduled to take place at 4:30 pm tomorrow.

Will Obama show? Christy is waiting to hear from his campaign -- He has a 4:00 pm fundraiser scheduled in D.C.

Update from Jane at FDL: The Obama campaign confirms that Senator Obama will also be in the Senate tomorrow to vote "no" on cloture. I've added his name to the title of this post.

< The Divisiveness Is Tearing The Party Apart! Isn't It? Hello? | Krugman Reviews The History Of The 1990s Partisan Wars >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FISA: Hillary And Obama to Vote No on Cloture | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Good for HRC. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:44:33 PM EST
    I expect Obama will also show up.  He can't really claim to be out of state or didn't know about the vote and he'll be at American Univ. in the a.m. with Caroline and Teddy Kennedy.

    No doubt HRC felt lots of pressure from my e mail to her campaign website.

    Congrats (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:18:41 PM EST
    You are being pandered to.

    Parent
    Ya think? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:19:58 PM EST
    The only response I got was one saying surely I understand they can't respond to all this e mail.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:40:41 PM EST
    not YOU personally. You a Dem voter who cares about FISA.

    Parent
    I have a selfish motive: one of (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:57:22 PM EST
    my offspring lives in Europe.  

    Parent
    What's wrong with the word (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:04:39 PM EST
    children? You're a wine track person.

    Parent
    Sometimes I'm (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:11:28 PM EST
    "peeps" and sometimes I'm "parental unit."  "Children" seems too personal under the circumstances. Plus, I don't want to reveal too much detail to those listening ears.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:20:06 PM EST
    Ok.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#35)
    by manys on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:14:32 PM EST
    Who peed in your Cheerios today? Are insults really necessary?

    Then again, maybe this is the pomo part where it's my fault for casting negative on "wine track."

    Parent

    If there is such a thing as a (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:18:03 PM EST
    "wine track person," whatever that means, I'm probably it.  

    Parent
    I was joking with a friend (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:19:38 PM EST
    Before you report me to Jeralyn maybe you should think for a moment.

    Parent
    To confirm: I'm listening to the (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:22:01 PM EST
    opera (Xerxes by Handel) and about to pour myself a glass of blanco seco port.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#59)
    by manys on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:56:16 PM EST
    An outside joke.

    Parent
    Kinda sorta (none / 0) (#44)
    by Steve M on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:51:14 PM EST
    They're in Washington for the SOTU anyway so what are they going to do, skip the vote?

    Dodd is kinda the panderer on this issue IMO cause I'm more and more convinced that it wasn't a coincidence that he picked up the netroots' pet cause just as he was hurting for campagin funding.  Mind you, I wish more people pandered like that, and I'm glad he is following through!

    Parent

    I like being pandered to (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:54:58 PM EST
    Politics IS pandering.

    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#52)
    by Steve M on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:13:13 AM EST
    Well yeah.  It's actually kind of cool to have the candidates at the beck and call of the Left [tm] just because it's primary season!

    Unfortunately, I think Obama basically decided that no one really cared if he showed up to work once he started running for President, which he seems to have been correct about.  Hillary was actually doing very well at making votes before the primary season got hot and heavy.

    And Edwards, of course, has had the right position on every bill, but never seems to be able to cast a vote for some reason.

    Parent

    He has an Obaminable voting record last year (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:31:34 AM EST
    Missed almost 40% of the votes -- far more than Clinton or any other candidates from Congress on the campaign trail, who were rated with average attendance, while Obama's was "very poor."  

    That and never calling a meeting of the committee he chairs really are reason to wonder why he wanted the job, except as a steppingstone -- although he had promised Illinoisans to serve his term and not run for the presidency.

    Well, at least missing so many votes reduced the chances of him hitting the wrong button in Congress.

    Parent

    You are tough, and you didn't even (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:50:40 AM EST
    mention Kyle-Lieberman.

    Parent
    According to AP, McCain (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:55:57 PM EST
    is skipping the State of the Union address.  You'd think he would be able to clap and smile with no problem at all.

    Parent
    If this is pandering, I'll take a second helping. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:06:07 AM EST
    Aren't you the other guy who was more interested in performance as Senators than promises?

    Parent
    apparently Obama will be there too to vote no (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by white n az on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:02:25 PM EST
    Now if they forgo campaigning to pitch in and help Dodd filibuster the bill, I would really be impressed

    Glad They Are Going To Vote No (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:17:13 PM EST
    Now the question is will they do anything to sway any of their Dem supporters who normally support Bush on this to vote No with them.  Leadership requires more than a vote IMO.

    Jeralyn, could you or BTD (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    post a primer on the procedural niceties of what is happening tomorrow on FISA?  I understand the different proposals and tel com retro immunity.  What I don't understand is the procedure taking place tomorrow.  Thanks.

    If it is up to me (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:28:53 PM EST
    I will be cutting and pasting Gleen Greenwald.

    IF J wantsa to do an original work on this, she is welcome to.

    Parent

    yep (none / 0) (#14)
    by Nasarius on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:37:39 PM EST
    On Thursday, Glenn linked to this nice concise explanation of what happened in the Senate, which leads into the cloture vote tomorrow:

    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/24/what-ever-happened-to-upperdown-votes/

    Parent

    Got that part. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:44:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Or here's another idea: you and J (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:39:38 PM EST
    use that new live blogging software to critique what is happening on the Senate floor AND the MSM.

    Parent
    So, is this just for show? (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:19:01 PM EST
    And how does it dovetail with that gang of 14 deal of no fiilibusters except in extremis.

    Parent
    No connection. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:09:54 AM EST
    the gang of 14 deal was strictly over Judicial nominations. The Rs never put their ability to filibuster policy en prise.

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:15:22 AM EST


    Parent
    So NOW (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:18:11 PM EST
    You are a Clinton AND an Obama shill?

    Shameless . . .

    Better to be a fascist liberal? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:21:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Centrist Fascist (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:28:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Just no blue ponies, yeah? (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:28:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:29:17 PM EST


    Parent
    I wonder (none / 0) (#9)
    by phat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:26:41 PM EST
    How many of Obama's cross-over open primary voters support this?

    I would guess they probably don't know much about it. But if they do, well, he stands to lose a lot more by opposing immunity.

    But his pollsters have probably been running that question all week.

    phat

    Some of his endorsers are (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:46:26 PM EST
    on emptywheel's call list.  McCaskill, Nelson (NE

    Parent
    I understand the FISA deal... (none / 0) (#19)
    by andreww on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:51:39 PM EST
    But what I don't get - and haven't understood all along - is why any Democrat would allow to give the Telco's immunity.  What's the advantage to them politically?  This just seems like a no-brainer.  Am I missing something?

    Ask (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:53:11 PM EST
    McCaskil, Nelson, and so on.

    Just tweaking you about Obama's famous persuasive skills . . ..

    Parent

    He'll bring them together (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:56:19 PM EST
    in a big hug after they vote differently.

    Parent
    andgarden, did you see my question to (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:58:23 PM EST
    you earlier today?

    Parent
    no one ever gets that one either (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:58:55 PM EST


    Parent
    I mean, "no" (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:59:14 PM EST
    Stupid autocomplete

    Parent
    OT: I'm looking for background (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:00:22 PM EST
    info to establish the cred. of Paul Rosenberg.

    Parent
    No idea (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:01:17 PM EST
    Go check what he's written before.

    Parent
    "Gramacian" (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:24:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Gramscian? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:35:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Whatever. Italian communisst. (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:42:35 PM EST


    Parent
    He is a professor of something or other (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:03:30 PM EST
    in Calfornia.

    About 50 I think.

    Smart guy. I vouch for him. What more do you need?

    Parent

    More than I knew (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:06:11 PM EST


    Parent
    That'll do it. Thanks. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:13:15 PM EST


    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#27)
    by andreww on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:00:58 PM EST
    that was funny.  I agree though - Obama and Hillary should be able to stop this.

    Parent
    I've got the music cued. (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:12:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:53:29 PM EST
    Not to be crass, but telcos lobby and donate $$.

    A lot of Dems probably don't see why they would OPPOSE immunity aside from the fact that 2 or 3 bloggers will be annoyed with them.  I mean, these guys don't all study their pocket Constitution as they eat their Cheerios.

    Parent

    Big $$$. second largest (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:57:21 PM EST
    contribution to campaign war chests.

    Parent
    Perhaps a trillion bucks at stake (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
    Statutory Civil damages on 100,000,000 phones.

    Parent
    Lots of public employee pension funds (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    tied up in potentially worthless telcom shares.

    Parent
    Oh wait. Give 'em immunity! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:52:21 AM EST


    Parent
    Hillary on Face The Nation tonight (none / 0) (#58)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:32:16 AM EST
    and did a really fine job answering very pointed questions about losing SC, about Bill, Caroline Kennedy's endorsement, etc.

    Outstanding.

    A pro.

    FISA: Hillary And Obama to Vote No on Cloture | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment