home

Rockefeller Endorses Obama: Now About Telecom Immunity

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

So Jay Rockefeller endorsed Obama.

Good for Obama. But my real question is so will Rockefeller follow Obama's judgment on telecom immunity? How about Iraq funding and withdrawal? Think Obama can lead him on THOSE ISSUES? Please?

mcjoan has a good post on it.

< Does This Ad Offend You? | Hillary on Daily Show Monday, Releases Tough New Ad >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rockefeller Endorses Obama: Now About Telecom Immunity | 41 comments (41 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BTW this is a crock from Obama (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    Senator Obama said, "Senator Rockefeller's leadership in the Senate has strengthened our national security and advanced economic opportunity . . . Nobody understands the unconventional threats of the 21st century better than Jay Rockefeller, and I look forward to partnering with him as President to strengthen our intelligence community and protect our homeland. . .

    And it begs the question, will Obama partner with Rockefeller on telco immunity? On funding Iraq?

    But politics is politics.  

    What A Load Of BS (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:23:44 PM EST
    Pols propping each other up. Hopefully Rockefeller will now listen to Obama instead of working for the GOP.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:26:36 PM EST


    Parent
    More pandering. (none / 0) (#13)
    by LadyDiofCT on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:36:22 PM EST


    Parent
    He's also got an endorsement for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    locked in his safe, just in case.

    Heh (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:36:45 PM EST


    Parent
    better he should "reject" J Rock... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    Personally, I think Obama would be a lot more credible is he "rejected" J Rock's support, and "denounced his statements" on telecom immunity.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    I would rather he FLIP Jello on telco immunity.

    Let me tell you that would make me an enthusiastic Obama supporter.

    Parent

    and I feel the same way re:Clinton (none / 0) (#20)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    if should could FLIP Sen Feinstein, who just recently endorsed Clinton, and who also voted the wrong way on TelCo.

    I dunno, is there an undertone of guilt by association (Obama-Rockefeller)?  Can we make the same argument re Clinton-Feinstein?

    Despite some of the readers here, this is not a bash-Obama moment.  Rather, as McJoan writes:

    Both [Obama and Clinton] have released strong statements in opposition to telco amnesty. Now is another opportunity for them to lead on this issue. By urging their endorsers to join with them in putting accountability first, they could stop the Protect AT&T Act, and actually protect the rule of law.

    Y'all catch that?  Both.  As in: both Obama and Clinton.

    Parent

    The difference (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    There is a difference, and one that can't be glossed over.

    Rockefeller isn't just another vote (like Feinstein or McCaskill), as head of the Intelligence Committee, he is the problem.  

    And while I've been disappointed in both candidates for their failure to lead on this issue, the onus really is on Obama to flip Rockefeller -- if Rockefeller flips, others will feel free to do so.

    Parent

    I can accept that (none / 0) (#40)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:06:13 PM EST
    Yes, there is more of an onus here on Obama, but, otoh, I don't recall reading that either has flipped anybody.

    (And, thanks for explaining it in a nice tone)

    Parent

    You have not followed telco immunity obviously (4.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    Feinstein does not matter now. Rockefeller does.

    He is Chairman of the intelligence committee and the only thing standing in the way of the House bill being the passed bill.

    A prime example of a candidate supporter not caring about the issue but what it means for their favorite candidate. I hate that.

    Parent

    I hate it... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:10:09 PM EST
    when you post the comment with the point I'm making while I'm putting my comment together! :-)

    Parent
    What I still don't get (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    is why Obama has to wait until he is elected president to lead on these issues.  Is there some kind of magic change spell that only takes effect if one is in the Oval Office to cast it?

    Jay Rockefeller is, as far as I'm concerned, little more than an accomplice to the crimes of the Bush administration, and I look for him to back the person he thinks is least likely to hold him accountable for it.  

    Will Rockefeller now take up whatever the Obama agenda is?  Hell, I'm still waiting for Obama to do more than talk about it and when he does come down to rhetorical earth to talk about it, to say more than just "me, too" to whatever Clinton says.

    And Clinton-Feinstein? (none / 0) (#21)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    Feinstein supports telco immunity, too.  And endorsed Clinton this week.

    Is it fair to ask only of Obama: why he has to wait until he is elected president to lead on these issues.

    Can we ask that of Clinton, too?

    Sheesh . . . I see Obama/Clinton being fairly equal in this context.  Why is Obama getting the criticism here?

    Parent

    Actually it is (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:59:31 PM EST
    Because Jello is the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the driving force behind Telco immunity.

    Parent
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#34)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    Obama has told us many time, and again today, that he has the magic powers of unity and he can bring people together to lead the country in a way Clinton can't. I just don't see him doing that, ever.

    I don't want him to just tell me of his powers...I'd like to see him use them.

    Parent

    As a matter of fact there is (none / 0) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:43:17 PM EST
    Is there some kind of magic change spell that only takes effect if one is in the Oval Office to cast it?

    It's the magical power of addressing someone "Mr(s). President" rather than "Senator".  

    Parent

    Oh... (none / 0) (#37)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    so as soon as he's president congress will fall in line?

    Parent
    I have no idea (none / 0) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    but it is patently silly to suggest that there is no difference leading as President of the United States and leading as 1 of 100 people.

    Parent
    No, (none / 0) (#44)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:58:43 PM EST
    it shouldn't be that hard to lead when you're only leading among 100 people, 50 of whom are supposed to agree with you anyway.  THIS ISN'T SO HARD and I'm sick of both candidates not doing anything in the Senate.  The Senate isn't a freaking waiting room.

    Parent
    Here's The Thing... (none / 0) (#46)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:11:37 PM EST
    Obama, and his supporters, have been practically demanding, despite the whole concept of superdelegates, that the Supers should represent the voice of the people.  I thought CLINTON did really well in WV, so what gives??

    And see, this is just another of my (many) problems with him - his campaign is threatening and strong-arming the African American Congresspeople to "Line Up," as Jesse Jackson, Jr., said, and there are a BUNCH of petitions to make the superdelegates vote the way people in their district vote, yet I don't recall Obama ONCE saying he was not going to accept the endorsement of someone who was NOT representing the voices of the voters!!  

    I am pretty sick of these people jumping on this bandwagon, essentially making crap up to support this guy.  The question is, not what did he SAY he would do, BUT WHAT HAS HE DONE to garner this support?!?!

    Parent

    I think the idea is (4.00 / 3) (#15)
    by sancho on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    that Rockefeller and the Republicans already agree on most otherwsie divisive issues. After he's elected President, Obama plans to join them.

    My answer: no, based on (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    recent FISA votes.  Many of those who endorsed Obama  voted the opposite of the way he voted.

    I noticed that (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    and wondered why his unity dust was not working. Does his ability to lead and bring people together only kick in after he becomes president?

    Parent
    Keeping his powder dry I guess. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:22:38 PM EST


    Parent
    What does everyone think? (none / 0) (#3)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:16:35 PM EST
    Do you think this adds to Sen. Obama's foreign policy gravitas? Sen. Rockefellar is the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
    Um no (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:18:12 PM EST
    Jay Rockefeller is a buffoon, and I would say so no matter who he endorsed.

    Parent
    Hmm... (none / 0) (#6)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    Yea, but is that's not how the media will cover it.

    Parent
    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:21:51 PM EST
    Endorsements are pretty meaningless in the best of circumtances, Jay Rockefeller's is more meaningless than most.

    Parent
    Is he a super delegate? (none / 0) (#22)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    That means a little something.

    Parent
    yes he is (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:08:52 PM EST
    all elected congressfolk are, and govs and more...

    Parent
    His vote is a vote (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    His endorsement is meaningless.

    Parent
    I'll give you that (none / 0) (#30)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    but that makes five Obama has picked up today.

    Parent
    Five today? (none / 0) (#36)
    by sar75 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    Who are the others?  From Minnesota I hear?

    That puts him within what, 40 of Clinton?

    Parent

    I disagree. For those watching the phone ad (none / 0) (#50)
    by halstoon on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:18:57 PM EST
    today, having the Intelligence Chair speak to his credibility in answering the phone will matter, at least on some level.

    So, in the sense that Jay Rockefeller endorsed him, no, it won't matter. But in the sense that the chair of Intelligence endorsed him, people may hesitate before assuming only Hillary can pick up the phone at 3 am.

    Parent

    Not for notnin' is he known as (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    Jello Jay.  The man has no spine.

    And, he's deep in the pocket of the telecoms - they've filled him up with campaign contributions this year.

    Frankly, if WV needed a new senator, I'd say Christy Hardin Smith (ReddHedd) over at FDL would be a huge improvement on Jello Jay.

    Parent

    He has no credibility. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by LadyDiofCT on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:44:39 PM EST
    Whatever happened to phase II of the Iraq Intelligence report that the new chairman, jello jay, was supposed to produce, regarding prewar intell? His first priority as the Intelligence committee's new chairman in 2006? He has no credibility. We'll see if the Obama supporters on the Obama sites find new respect for jello Jay over this.

    Parent
    More Obamabots. Not nice. (none / 0) (#49)
    by halstoon on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:15:50 PM EST
    I feel a backlash coming on....

    Halstoon anbd Obamamania (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:16:43 AM EST
    Suspended for the weekend. All you comments will be deleted.

    Parent
    You are so incredibly petty. (none / 0) (#52)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    You want civility, yet when I point out clear attacks on Obama supporters, you get upset at me. Could you be more inconsistent? Could you be more immature? Well, shill for Hillary all you want, bash Obama all you want, that won't make her the nominee.

    Parent
    Rockefeller Endorses Obama: Now About Telecom Immunity | 41 comments (41 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment