Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jane Hamsher: Hillary Clinton, A Bundle of Telecom Money….And A Strange Silence

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 08:33 PM
Original message
Jane Hamsher: Hillary Clinton, A Bundle of Telecom Money….And A Strange Silence
Hillary Clinton, A Bundle of Telecom Money….And A Strange Silence
By: Jane Hamsher

Newsweek tell us that Bush and his Merry Bunch of Wingnuts are going apeshit about Dodd’s hold on the FISA bill:

As Democrats squabble, the administration and top Republicans are moving to exploit the issue. They accuse Democrats of sacrificing national security for short-term political gain. “Al Qaeda is not going to give us a break just because we’re having an election,” said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, who demanded last week that Dodd donate to charity any campaign money he raised as a result of his filibuster threat.


“Democrats in disarray” — yes, it’s always good for the Republicans isn’t it. Not quite clear on how getting a bunch of rich telecom executives out from underneath their lawsuits is going to make us all safe from Islamofacism, but that is in fact the hammer they will use to drive this home.

MoveOn claimed credit for the presidential candidates’ opposition to the bill. “This is a great example of progressive voters demanding boldness and principle from Democratic candidates and Democrats responding by being bold,” said spokesman Adam Green. But the maneuvering by the contenders—and the role played by MoveOn—also raised concerns among senior Democrats on Capitol Hill that presidential politics might impede efforts to reach a compromise on such a sensitive and important national-security measure. “We need to get things done on this bill,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Tuesday.


Oh yes, Senator Reid, you do. And while we’re at it, let’s discuss what the plan was — before Chris Dodd made his move.

The current FISA bill was due to sunset in February. The Democrats would make some unconvincing noise about concern for civil liberties, rule of law, yadda yadda yadda, but the only part of this bill that deals with national security — the updating of certain technology issues that allow for eavesdropping on foreign-to-foreign calls that are routed through the US — is something that everyone, even Russ Feingold, agrees needs to happen. Nobody is opposing that. A bill like that could pass tomorrow.

But George Bush won’t sign that bill. He’s made it clear he will only sign a bill that gives retroactive telecom immunity, and one can imagine that these telecom fuckers are going to be singing like a flock of canaries about those in the administration who induced them to commit these crimes if they can’t skate on their charges post haste. So they Democrats will argue up until the last minute, and then much like what happened in August, the whole “war on terror” meme will receive a serious right-wing flogging and the Democrats will cave. Or at least enough of them to get 60 votes, which should be no sweat, what with 49 Republicans + Slummy Joe + 6 Democrats on the Intelligence Committee who already gave it a Pasadena.

This isn’t some crystal ball I’m staring into, this is what we’ve been told. By Senate offices themselves. We were told we were just going to have to “live” with this eventuality. And it was all going to go quite smoothly, according to script, until Chris Dodd threw a monkey wrench into things.

more...

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/25/hillary-clinton-a-bundle-of-telecom-moneyand-a-strange-silence/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. hillary must protect her lobbyist friends. the drug and health care industry, telecoms, ect...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phen43 Donating Member (223 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Yup, Yup,Yup
AND Yup again!!B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. How is she protecting them...any proof? Or just more BS from you?
Answer me this...Why is Obama protecting The Bush Administration from prosecution if he's elected? Sounds like they have an "arrangement"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well is this the time for an Obama gay bash. You seem to be going
to town on Hillary. And then they knash their teeth and shit their pants when someone says something about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. I think the Obama crowd has taken to
wearing diapers when we point out Obama's Republithink... less laundry..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm really sick of this
the blind leading the blind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. Clinton on FISA
NBC/NJ's Athena Jones reports that Clinton said yesterday she could not support a bill to reauthorize Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in its current form and would support a filibuster if changes were not made. “I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by 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 and as matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently,” she told reporters during a brief news conference after a rally in Denver.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/24/428030.aspx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. And that's the statement Hamsher, along with others, is taking issue with.
This isn't just about Hillary; there are many Senate Dems who seem to want this issue to go away when they should have exactly the opposite reaction and should be trying to oppose it. I just want to know why and if it's because of money, as it usually is.


http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2067

Hillary Clinton on How to Make Nobody Happy
by: Matt Stoller
Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 15:41:27 PM EDT

Clinton's ridiculous statement on amnesty for telecom companies is generating mockery and disdain from all sides. Here's Glenn Greenwald, with whom I am obviously sympathetic.

Clinton's statement was just incoherent -- claiming first that she hasn't seen the bill (which has been available for many days now) and thus "can't express an opinion about it," then vowing (so inspirationally) that she is "going to study it very hard," and then surrounding her "support" for a filibuster with multiple conditions: "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.


And while the New York Daily News is an ideological travesty, they have a good point.

Others who should know better are going along for the ride, including Sen. Hillary Clinton. Asked about the compromise legislation, she said: "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, and as matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."


Let's see: Would-be President Clinton needs to read the bill before passing judgment. But, sight unseen, she'd back a filibuster. Beautiful.

Clinton is receiving mockery from both the right and the left for taking an ambiguous and ridiculous position on retroactive immunity. It was an off the cuff statement at first, so the campaign has had time to clarify it. I hope they do.

From 1978-2000, because of the way the political media was designed with direct mail allowing for different messaging for different audiences, and never the twain shall meet, you could cut the baby in half on a regular basis. But now? Not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Jane Hamsher didn't even mention Hillary's statement
Hamsher's editorial is very misleading.

The others are making predictions based on nothing but their opposition to Hillary. Hillary didn't say definitely, probably because a lot can happen. Dodd isn't saying definitely either, but gives a list of what he will do depending on outcomes.

Hillary is not the corporatist scoundrel the far left wants to make her out to be. So every time Hillary does something good, the far left has to deny and dismiss it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Dodd's and Clinton's positions
on this are very different. Dodd IS very definite about his position. He said that he considers the amnesty unacceptable, and clearly stated what he will do to oppose it. He was also the first to take a clear and vocal stand on this (except, in all fairness, Feingold and Wyden who voted against ut in the intelligence committee). Clinton's statement that she has not read the bill and therefore cannot take a clear-cut position on it as of now is nothing but the usual obfuscation. Why not simply read the damn bill BEFORE making a statement about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Hillary doesn't have time to read every bill right away
There is no "usual obfuscation." There is no reason to believe that Hillary's comments weren't sincere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Does not have time...?!? OK, then
she should not make a statement until she knows what she is talking about. And incidentaly, this is not just "any bill".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Being "on the road, campaigning" takes up alot of valuable "reading time."
And...who cares...the Lobbyists write the Bills, anyway. Our folks in Congress just quibble and sputter and then do what they are told to do in the end, anyway. The only REAL POWER IS THE P-RESIDENCY! BUSH MADE IT a MONARCHY! So...who cares about Candidates "reading bills." That's soooo Early American...and just not what is "acceptable" in these times. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. Whats the rush? The Bill doesn't sunset until February..There's plenty of time..
and Dodd has put a hold on it anyway. The Bill is going nowhere!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'll never forgive Hillary if she lets this one slip through her fingers.
Come on, what does her experience tell her? They blasted her and her husband when Bill was president. They played every dirty trick in the book and even came up with new ones. If Hillary gives the Telcoms carte blanche without allowing the American people a chance to see the level of abuses, it means her EXPERIENCE IS CRAP WORTHLESS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. OH...what number is this...of unforgiveables? I've lost track...is it # 3,789,000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Try to keep up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. Hopefully some of the ineffective Dems are being challenged in the primaries. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. This is a disturbing conflict of interest that deserves scrutiny.
This unholy alliance makes me very uneasy particularly in light of the now expanded presidential powers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC