I really wish that Hillary would use this opportunity -- grab the issue of telecom immunity, say that Obama opposes it, and in the name of 'party unity' Democrats need to support the filibuster... (throwing in an implied threat that if there isn't 'party unity' on telecom immunity, she'll 'unsuspend' her campaign, and make 'leadership' an issue....)

Did you read his statement from yesterday? Not only did he not utter the word filibuster, the thought never crossed his mind. We already know his commitments can not be trusted from the last week or so of his actions.

Read his statement from yesterday. He is not talking about putting and end to this bill. He will vote for the bill that is clear - much to the dismay of the Feingold's et al. All Obama said is that he will "work" to get immunity taken out of it. He won't. His words are a charade and you should know that by now.

Judge:  Got a note from your mommy?
Telcom:  Yes, sir.
Judge:  Ok then, case dismissed.

Therefore no one can protest that the telcoms are being immunized.

It's starting to look to me like Obama has a fairly pathological need to be liked by everyone, hence his pattern of watching and waiting to see which way the wind is blowing on issues where he must register and actually vote, and his habit of saying whatever people want to hear even if what he says is different from venue to venue; his reluctance to buck "the plan" as cooked up in Congress and offering only lip service to the American people should appall everyone.

This is not leadership in any way, shape or form, so if this man is elected, prepare to see a whole lot of stalling, waffling, indecision while situations that would best be handled by quick and decisive action are allowed to fester.

No, Obama has no intention of getting in the way of stopping this bill.  To be a little fair, a big chunk of the blame goes to the so-called leadership in the House and Senate, which never had to bring this issue to the floor, but for the fact that they deemed short-term electoral concerns more important than the long-term health of the democracy.  It's pretty pitiful, don't you think, that the only way Democrats believe they can show strength on issues of national security is to offer up Constitutional principles for sacrifice?  That means no one is really minding the store, which is more frightening to me than the possibility of another terrorist act.

Maybe the worst part is that they aren't paying the least bit of attention to what must be an avalanche of negative response from constituents - is there a worse way to say they really don't care what we think or what we want?

Thinking promises mean something is so, well, old Democratic Party.

There's been Change! Get on board or get under the bus: It's a new party, the Obama Party. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

I do not think Obama will filibuster; I do not think Obama will "work" his supporters to vote against this beastly bill. I do not think Obama will change this legislation in any meaningful way. Remember, he's not all that sure Net Neutrality is such a good idea.

I think he sees advantages for a President Obama in having the powers in this bill fall to him.

Someone somewhere said all that's left is for the Left/Libs/Progressives to take over the Republican Party--and make it the party of the people.

This person felt the Democratic Party has been bought out and subsumed already. Leveraged buyout, hostile takeover? Heh, not sure which, but I'm not recognizing a lot of what's going on in this party, starting with the backroom deals on Roolz and the sudden move to Chicago. And maybe machinations earlier which are still in the fog.

For those who accuse us of having a pre 9-11 metality, let me remind them that July 4 1776 was pre 9-11.    Heaven help us the day that those values are shucked aside."

Discussions are at hand between the West and Iran about it's nuclear program.

The story reads, "Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said Tehran was ready to start negotiations "based on a win-win principle," official media said. Saeed Jalili was also quoted as saying such talks represented a "golden opportunity" to strengthen peace.

But Iran "will not bow to any illogical demands that would deprive it of its rights to continue with its peaceful nuclear activities," he said.

The United States says it is focusing on diplomatic pressure to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions but has not ruled out military action as a last resort."

Iran is denying a nuclear weapons program.
It is welcoming talks.
The US is talking about military action as a "last resort". (Where have I heard that before?)

Reportedly, Israel is cranking up some military exercises that suggest military action.

My point is, I wish our candidate would speak out on these issues NOW. I assume him to be the peace candidate as opposed to the bellicose Mr. McC. But Obama has had bellicose statements to say about Iran also - indicating his acceptance of the possibility of "surgical" strikes.

We are what we repeatedly do. Aristotle

Look into the lives of all politicians, the great and the mediocre.  An individual without character does not become great because the people elect him/her.

I don't expect Obama to stick to his word because he is not a man of his word.  If you don't know that by now, you've not paid attention.