Hillary Clinton

In Plato's Republic, the question is put to Socrates, "Who will watch the watchers?" or, "Who will protect us against the protectors?"

Today there were more Senate votes seeking an answer to that ancient question. Here are a few notables:

• (Dem) Russ Feingold's S 3913: Prohibits the government from getting around FISA's court order requirement by wiretapping an individual overseas when it is really only listening in on a person in the U.S. with whom that "supposed foreign target" is communicating.

  Aim: Watches the watchers. Failed: 38-57.
  (Democrats voting nay - Inouye, Pryor and Salazar [Lieberman])

• (D) Feingold's S 3915: gives the FISA Court discretion to impose restrictions on the use of information about Americans that is acquired through procedures later determined to be illegal by the FISA court.

  Aim: Watches the watchers. Failed: 40-56
  (Democrats voting nay - Rockefeller, Johnson, Bayh, Inouye, Pryor and Landrieu [Lieberman])

• (R) Kit Bond's S 3941: Extends from 30 to 90 days the window of time that wiretaps can continue without any ruling from FISA court before the telecoms can petition for removal of the tap.

  Aim: Give the watchers more power.  Passes: by voice vote.

• (D) Ben Cardin's: 3920 To modify the sunset provision from 6 years to 4 so that the next president can amend, and so FISA can keep up with technology.

  Aim: Watch the watchers. Failed: 48-46 [needed 61 to override the GOP defacto filibuster]
  (Clinton not voting)

Plato's answer to this is that "They will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a noble lie. The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege, they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it."

Plato was overly naive. That's why a system of separation of powers, checks and balances, was devised.

That mechanism ended in America under this President Bush and this generation of Democrats.

Shame.

The word is that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be present in the Senate this afternoon to vote against cloture on the SSCI bill.

Clinton's campaign told Jane Hamsher that she would be in the Senate today. Shortly after that, the Obama campaign finally announced that The Great One will be in attendance, too. Note to Obama and Obama fanboys: it's not leadership when someone else does it first.

Basically they're doing their jobs today, but making no sacrifices from a campaigning standpoint to do it because they'll both be in DC for the State of the Union. I'm sure we can expected Clinton and Obama's absenteeism when it comes to protecting the Constitution to resume promptly at the start of business tomorrow.

If Obama and Clinton wanted to actually lead on this issue, as opposed to do the minimum required to not incite a burning torch and pitchfork march on their campaign headquarters by the Democratic base, there are still ways for them to lead. From The Nation:

1. Use their influence and political capital to recruit two more votes for the Leahy bill. That's all Leahy, Feingold and Dodd need to keep their fight alive under the current rules. Obama and Clinton were endorsed by a total of seven senators who voted the wrong way last week [Actually, eight as Howie Klein notes that Bill Nelson will endorse Clinton tomorrow]. As DFA explains, "if these presidential hopefuls bring along the support of these senators, they can sustain a planned filibuster [and] defeat any cloture vote."

2. Use their influence and political capital to press Reid to run the floor for the Leahy bill, instead of the Bush-Rockefeller bill. This is is tough for several reasons, but there's an opening now that Bush has essentially slapped Reid around and drawn some rhetorical pushback.

3. Rally the Democratic Congress to confront Bush's veto threat. Send the one-month bill to his desk and let this unpopular president remind the entire country of his irresponsible, cynical approach to governing. Maybe his approval ratings will drop into the teens like his Vice President. (I personally favor this third option the least, since it involves gamesmanship instead of a long-term policy, which Leahy's bill offers.)

Or they could channel Harry Reid, complaining about Bush while essentially allowing him to win again.

Somehow I think the last line is what we'll get. But, hey, Clinton and Obama could always prove me wrong. Right? Right?

The NY Times endorsement of Hillary Clinton includes this eyebrow raising paragraph:

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.

If not casting a vote in the Senate to uphold the Constitution yesterday was a qualification for President, I'd be just as ready to lead as the top two Democratic candidates. I imagine the same could be said about every single person reading this blog.

If "equally dedicated" means anything, it's quite clear that they are both not dedicated enough to defending the rule of law.

The Clinton campaign was up front about Clinton choosing campaigning over doing her job to protect the Constitution. Obama was simply absent without addressing yesterday's FISA votes, preferring (to borrow the Times' word) "talk" on the campaign trail over actually doing his fucking job.

The opportunity for Senators Obama and Clinton to live up to the Times editorial board's description of them will be there on Monday, when the Intel bill faces a cloture vote at 4:30PM. The vote is after the South Carolina primary and before the State of the Union address, at a time when neither candidate has any excuse to miss it.

So I'm sure they'll be there and I'm sure they'll vote the right way in a piddling expression of their dedication to civil liberties and the rule of law. And unlike the Times' editorial board, I won't construe their talk, their posturing, and their political cowardice in the face of a real national need as leadership. I don't expect anyone else who knows what's happening to their country will, either.

The FISA Bill is on the Senate floor now, complete with retroactive immunity from the U.S. Constitution for spying telcos as well as for the Administration that broke the law all those months that they bypassed the FISA court.

The current bill also contains new invasive warrantless eavesdropping powers including datamining. Harry Reid wants to pass it ASAP so the Senators can go to Davos, Switzerland.

The Administration wheeled out Darth Cheney, of all people, to wag his finger at Democratic members of Congress about partisanship.

"We’re asking Congress to update FISA and especially to extend this protection to communications providers alleged to have given such assistance any time after September 11th, 2001. This is an important consideration, because some providers are facing dozens of lawsuits right now. Why? Because they are believed to have aided the U.S. government in the effort to intercept international communications of al Qaeda-related individuals.

[snip]

This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians. And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome should not be in doubt. We will do our part to keep this nation safe. We will press on despite any difficulty. And we will prevail."

Shorter Cheney: If those pro-law Democrats will only transcend their petty party partisanship and side with the pro-me Republicans, and do 100% of what we want done, then WE will prevail.

No shit you will.

Why would the GOP get the person least willing to cooperate with Democrats, the person who single-handedly could eliminate the legal problem they allege the telecoms have, and the person who stands to benefit most from an immunity provision for telecoms, to head out to pressure Congress? Did the GOP really think this would work to persuade Democrats to put aside all the troubling legal issues to grant him er his funders immunity?

Of course not. The point is merely a dog whistle to the GOP caucus to protect Cheney, and a silent "go fuck yourself" to the Democratic caucus.

And if that's not pathetic enough, consider this: rather than laughing at Dick's little self-serving temper tantrum, as the Dems should, they'll probably cow to him and pass Cheney's immunity.

Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for not joining Dodd and Feingold. Obama especially, talks constantly about his leadership but when the chips are down he does squat. Nothing. Coward.

Forbes' headline: "The Incredible Shrinking Energy Bill" says it all.  The Senate conservatives killed one of the last good parts of the formerly lauded Energy Bill - the section that gave tax credits to renewable energy investment. 

Democrats were forced to drop a provision that required utilities to obtain at least 15% of their electricity from renewable resources, such as wind and solar power. These industries have now suffered another blow because the production tax credit for wind and the investment tax credit for solar, which both expire at the end of 2008, still don't have the funding to extend them.

Did you think conservatives would be in favor of tax credits? Not if it's a tax credit that liberals want.  You follow?

Conservatives are good at politics. Politics is trench warfare - you win with defense: Don't let your opponent score.

Memo to Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama: Conservatives don't defend any principle, such as reducing taxes: they fight liberals.

How does anyone think that a Democratic President or Majority leader can honestly negotiate with these people? Once America again has a Republican Party with principles, then we can negotiate.

Until then, we have a Republican Party and a conservative movement whose one over-arching goal is the destruction of liberals.

Faced with stiff Republican opposition that is backed by Bush's veto threat, Democrats made misstep after misstep in trying to pass this energy bill. It was too ambitious. It tried to force utilities to increase production of renewable energy in the face of fierce opposition by the utility industry group, and it included a tax package that the White House has long indicated it would not support.

Fine. You dickhead.

1. Make him veto it. 
2. Explain to the tee-vee that what Democrats want is what America wants.  Say what it is.
3. Explain that the reason America doesn't have these good things yet is because of Republican obstructionism in Congress and a obstructionist Republican President. 

How hard is that!? Dodd for Senate leader.

Once you whittle down the bill to something passable, pass it and assign good cop/bad cop roles -- individual members can talk about the good parts of the bill but the leader should talk only about what the GOP cut out. The leader assigns blame.

Reporter: What do you think about this Energy Bill you just passed?
Leader: I can't believe Republicans forced us to give subsidies to Oil Companies.
Fezzik: Wha? You're not happy? You've been mostly dead all day, you just moved your finger, doesn't that make you happy?
Leader: Sure, we Democrats insisted on some good provisions in the bill, but come on! Since when do billion dollar industries need corporate welfare? Republicans think welfare is okay if it's giving handouts to oil companies, but it's terrible if it's giving a hand-up to poor people. This bill could have been much better.
Reporter: If?
Leader: If we had more Democrats, this bill could have been great.

Reporter: What do you think about this Energy Bill you just passed?
Dem: It's good, we've raised fuel efficiency standards for the first time for 30 years. I would have liked to include measures for renewable energy but... well, CAFE standards are a nice start.
Reporter: What happened to renewable energy measures?
Dem: Republicans love oil, I guess.

This post isn't really about leadership, but this crap is so hilarious, I just feel the need to bring it to your attention.

A deputy campaign manager from Hilary's campaign, tech wizard Bob Nash, apparently learned about technology from a Nigerian Prince who needs your help transferring some money and will gladly give you some of it if you help him. Check out the style of his muck raking email:

From: Bob Nash
To:
Sent: Sun Dec 09
Subject: BARACK

HOW ARE YOU ?? I AM FIGHTING HARD >

SECOND ARE YOU PEERSONALLYAWARE OF TH EWORK BARACK DID ON THE SOUTH
SIDE WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION S , ETC ./. BOB

WHAT DI DHE DO AFORE HOW LONG AND WITH WHO ??

PLS TELL BOB HELLO BOB

Bob J Nash
Deputy Campaign Manager
Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee
4420 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203

If you supply him with information he will transfer a lump sum into your account TODAY! PLZ SEND CONFIRMATION!

It boggles the mind that in this day and age, this guy is actually in charge of making actual decisions at the Hilary Camp. Clinton would be wise to put him on a small bus back to DC.

I'm aware that the rough and tumble of campaigns can make the varying candidates hostile towards one another, that they occasionally must go negative, in order to help themselves and hurt others. It's a cut throat business. I ain't gonna judge a campaign for going on the attack. That being said, it seems Hillary's team has plagiarized a story from the Onion for their latest attack.

Twice in One Day: Senator Obama Tries Rewriting History, Again Claims He Hasn't Been Planning White House Run

At an event in Boston this evening, Senator Obama claimed for the second time today that he is "not running to fulfill some long held plans" to be elected President, contradicting statements his friends, family, staff and teachers have all made about him.

"Senator Obama's relatives and friends say he has been talking about running for President for at least the last fifteen years. So who's not telling the truth, them or him?" Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

In Boston this evening, Senator Obama said: "I'm not running to fulfill some long held plans or because I think it's open to me." In Iowa earlier today, he said: Senator Obama said: "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."

But that's not what Senator Obama's teachers, family, classmates or staff say:...

...In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.' "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]

Someone has lost their mind at the Hilary campaign. This is just straight up crazy. Please, just stop, before you really hurt yourself.

UPDATE: It was all a joke! Mark Penn said, "At the end of a long thing as a joke, the campaign put out that he always wanted to run from Kindergarten. It was a joke!...at the end of a very serious and long release." Right, except right before the end of a long and serious release, you also call him out for wanting to be president in Third Grade. I left out the two other attacks in it, but 50% of this long and serious release is apparently a "joke." Stay out of comedy buddy, it ain't your strong suit.

Mrs. Clinton took a page from the Bush/Rove staged event handbook and decided to rig their public events:

He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it. "The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. " It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."

While this doesn't shock me, I wonder if the media will use it to knock the Hillster down a few pegs in the polls. The Clintons hate the media (and rightfully so, after the shellacking they took during the Clinton years) and will use every means necessary to make sure their flawless message doesn't show any chinks in the armor. However, using this strategy is gonna bite them in the ass big time.

First, a note to our stupid Senators: Movement Conservatives hate liberals and everything liberals stand for. There is no middle ground to be found with Movement Conservatives. A compromise-minded Senator can only temper the speed at which Movement Conservatives fight to turn back the clock to before the 20th Century. Back to before unions, before civil rights legislation, before the women's rights movement, before international cooperation, a time of monopolies, child labor, wage slavery. The bad old days. They want it back.

They call the struggle to get it back a "culture war." They are fighting it in a very real way. They curse and damn the culture of liberals including nearly all intellectualism. In this war there are coded symbols designed to only be noticed by friendly troops. Dog-whistles.

Why would California Governor Ronald Reagan announce his candidacy for the White House in 1980 from a tiny town in Mississippi? Well, it was the same little town where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence.

A Californian saying he supported 'states rights' in that town was a ringing declaration of his support for resistance to black advances... this was clearly understood by white Southern voters. "States' rights" = dog whistle politics.

In this war, they also fight to establish legal precedents that nullify a century of progress. They fight to remake the courts into places that protect big business sued for poisoning people against the complaints of the poisoned people.

Another battle in the war movement conservatives have waged to radically remake the federal judiciary into the court of 1888 was won last week and it happened because of the acquiescence of the Senate Majority Leader and the rank cowardice of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.