It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.
 | Hillary Clinton Breaks Promise, Abandons Rule of Law, Loses My Big Fat Ohio Vote |
You know, here I was in the state of Ohio, sitting on the fence, undecided, still willing to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama… until this morning. This morning, Hillary Clinton knocked me off the fence. I am no longer undecided. Unless something major happens to change my position, I will be voting for Barack Obama. Here’s why:
| Hillary Clinton’s Promise:
“Several provisions - including those which would have a profound impact on the civil liberties of Americans - need to be the subject of careful deliberation. For example, the bill under consideration gives telecommunication companies blanket retroactive immunity for their alleged cooperation in the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. I continue to believe that a grant of retroactive immunity is wrong, and I have cosponsored Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove that provision from the bill. The Bush Administration has blatantly disregarded Americans’ civil liberties over the past seven years, and I simply will not trust them to protect Americans’ privacy rights. With the temporary Protect America Act set to expire on February 1st, I strongly believe that we need to pass balanced legislation that protects our civil liberties and the rule of law while giving our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our country.” |
Barack Obama’s Promise:
“I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law. It’s time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.” |
| Hillary Clinton’s Action:
FAILED to show up as promised to her job in the SENATE |
Barack Obama’s Action:
SHOWED UP as promised to his job in the SENATE |
Senator Hillary Clinton talked a good talk, but she didn’t do what she promised to do. She failed to oppose the FISA Amendments Act. She failed to show up for her job.
Senator Barack Obama made a promise to defend the rule of law in this country. He kept his promise.
When Ohio holds its election on March 4, my vote will go to Obama.
Contact Us
So Obama shows up to vote for something he knows isn’t going to pass. Kind of like Ron Paul putting his pet earmark appropriations into a bill he knows will pass and then voting against it so he can claim he opposes taxation.
But finally an honest admission of who you are endorsing. Your bias has been evident for quite some time.
Comment by Iroquois — 2/12/2008 @ 1:49 pm
No, it’s nothing like what Ron Paul does, because Obama has never been for telecom immunity. Get your analogies straight.
You’re projecting. You’re a Clinton supporter, and you’ve let that determine the character of everything substantive you’ve been writing for months.
I was really on the fence. Really. Truly. Clinton knocked me off that fence. I was headed to a local endorsement press conference down at the Westin at which former Senator John Glenn endorsed Hillary Clinton, at 12:45 pm. I was going to do a writeup and everything. And I really didn’t know how I was going to vote. But then Hillary Clinton goes and engages in her violation of a promise and of her oath of office, and I no longer care that former Senator Astroboy is giving her his endorsement. You want to complain to somebody about the fact that I’m not going to vote for Clinton? Complain to Clinton, because SHE DIDN’T SHOW UP TO DO HER JOB, KEEP HER PROMISE, AND DEFEND THE RULE OF LAW.
Don’t whine at me for noticing.
Comment by Jim — 2/12/2008 @ 1:54 pm
Hillary Clinton just lost the presidential election.
Shame on you for excusing her apathy in the face of Big Brother, Iroquois.
Comment by Patricia — 2/12/2008 @ 2:11 pm
Well, Patricia, I disagree with you there. I mean, yes, on the presidential election — I’ve learned not to believe in my predictions there — but I was talking about #2. If Iroquois doesn’t care about constitutional standards of law, then that’s her right, and I’m not going to play the shame game there.
I’m more focused on our elected officials and candidates. Hillary Clinton deserves the call of “shame” for writing of her commitment to the constitution and the rule, promising to take action against the FISA Amendments Act broadly and the telco immunity provision particularly, and then failing to follow through on that promise. It tells me that she’s willing to give up on the constitution and the rule of law in the future. I will not support a candidate who is willing to do that.
Comment by Jim — 2/12/2008 @ 2:36 pm
1) I have not said who, if anyone, I support, so stop claiming I support anyone. For all you know I might be for McCain, a social progressive, but hawkish on foreign policy. Maybe I don’t like the Bobbsey Twins ignoring the real threat of terrorists and telling al-Qaeda in Iraq ahead of time nothing bad will happen to them if they continue to blow up Iraqi civilians.
2)Your claims are dishonest. You really believe every senator needs cancel all their engagements, jump on a plane, and burn up all kinds of fossil fuels every time there is a vote on one of dozens of minor amendments that don’t even have enough general support to pass? Do you really think the majority whip has not got an accurate tally of who will vote for what?
It’s absolutely ridiculous to say the senator has changed her position on FISA. You have public statements, and public votes. Remember that vote against closure where the senator did cancel all her engagements, and go rushing back to cast that “no” vote that you guys were so clamoring for. Quite frankly, I think the only thing that would really satisfy you is if she gave up campaigning completely. Or maybe you’re just such control freaks that every time you blog about her you expect her to read your blog and obey your orders.
While we’re talking about throwing away votes, let’s talk about that closure bill that the blogosphere was so successful in getting the Bobsey twins to rush around for-of course they were already both in town for the state of the union address. Let’s see, what was that vote about? It was about cutting off debate to vote on the FISA bill, right? If you can’t get the votes to end debate, you can’t vote on the bill. And the Dems didn’t have enough votes to pass the bill they wanted, but they did have enough votes to block the bill they didn’t want, by not voting to end debate. You need, what, 80 votes to cut off debate. So it doesn’t matter if a senator casts a no vote, or just doesn’t vote, the effect is the same. The thing that really matters is getting those 80 “yes” votes.
So the effect of Obama and Clinton rushing back to vote “no” was exactly the same as the effect of McCain who stayed in Florida campaigning and didn’t vote.
Now I understand the propaganda value of a vote like that. A “no” vote sends a clear message to the voters that McCain’s disappearing act didn’t send. McCain didn’t vote, so he passively let the FISA act expire and can still claim to be tough on terrorism. Oh, I forgot to mention, the “no” vote sends a clear message to voters….unless you’re female. In the case of being female a vote means nothing at all, because, you know, female.
You progressive types do the nation a disservice by continuously making a litmus test out of every piddly amendment that comes along. The public is going to get issue fatigue, and after following you blindly down all these blind alleys, they are going to be too tired to be up in arms when a real vote that really does affect telecommunications immunity comes along. You can declare that you are mad at some particular candidate because you don’t understand the legislative process, and decided to take your ball and go home. But maybe your readers are also getting tired of your constant hyperventilating.
Notice the use of the word “whine” here. Why is it the writers here never apply that word to anyone male?
Comment by Iroquois — 2/12/2008 @ 3:07 pm
Iroquois, Hillary Clinton didn’t need to jump on a plane. She was campaigning in easy driving distance from the Senate. She walked away from her duty that she swore in an oath to uphold the Constitution, even though it would have been easy for her to do her duty.
Having the government send out spies to watch our every move on the Internet, listen to our telephone calls, read our emails is not “piddly”.
How low your standards have gone, Iroquois.
Count me as proud to be among those “progressive types” that actually expect the government to be accountable to the people.
Comment by J. Clifford — 2/12/2008 @ 3:12 pm
You are not connected with reality. We use the word whine for males, including ourselves. Some examples:
“George W. Bush whines, “I’m the Decider! Gimme Cookie!†All hail the Toddler in Chief.”
“Should I just yap yap yap and whine whine whine?”
“It’s almost as if the people at the American Family Association are only willing to whine about public displays of sexuality…”
“Hoosier…Next time you want to whine, pay attention.”
“When President Bush’s mouthpieces can’t deny the truth of the criticisms his opponents make, they whine about style. “This is political hate speech!” frothed Republican National Committee Ed Gillespie…”
Deal with the fact that Hillary Clinton has abandoned the rule of law and her own promise today however you wish to. But pulling out the “sexism” card to try to get me to shut up about this is clearly not going to work, especially when the claims you make are careless not not connected with reality.
Comment by Jim — 2/12/2008 @ 3:26 pm
Oh, great, you’re using the same level of vitriol with me as you do with George Bush, the American Family Association, and various assorted internet trolls. But not the other IT writers and not even those posters who come on here and say the world is going to hell in a handbasket and it’s way too late to do anything. Oh, no, they’re not whining. On the other hand, I have disagreed with you, again I’m afraid, but politely and with reasons and examples, just like they teach you in English composition class. Instead of addressing the issues I have raised, you snark at me “don’t whine”. Well, if I only rate an ad hom attack, I guess my reasons and examples have hit home.
Comment by Iroquois — 2/12/2008 @ 3:37 pm
No.
Comment by Jim — 2/12/2008 @ 3:41 pm
Oh, I still love you, don’t worry, hee hee. But it looks like Dodd, who promised a filibuster, is himself giving up the fight. Here’s a rundown of the various amendments and vote tallies, this blog is also printing the text of Dodd’s remarks. A final vote on this bill is expected tonight, it will be interesting to see if Hillary makes it, especially after the remarks about Obama voting “present” on those abortion bills–isn’t she scheduled to appear on some TV show tonight?
http://holdfastblog.com/2008/02/12/fisa-vote-tallies-part-ii/
Comment by Iroquois — 2/12/2008 @ 5:19 pm