Sorry Mr Olbermann your defense of Senator Obama doesn't fly with me. Senator Obama wants to be the leader of my country and that means he needs to show leadership.

curmudge:he needs to show leadership.

So, does that mean he needs to buy a baseball team or lose millions in the oil business?

curmudge:Sorry Mr Olbermann your defense of Senator Obama doesn't fly with me. Senator Obama wants to be the leader of my country and that means he needs to show leadership.

What would you suggest?

thamike:curmudge:Sorry Mr Olbermann your defense of Senator Obama doesn't fly with me. Senator Obama wants to be the leader of my country and that means he needs to show leadership.

What would you suggest?

Authoring and cosponsoring the best ethics reform bill passed in the last 40 years sound good? Yeah, Obama did that.

cameroncrazy1984:Yeah, Obama did that.

Oh YEAH. *forehead smack* I completely forgot about that. Did you forget about that too, Curmudge?

Any conservatives on hand to explain the whole FISA thing ? I'm a little rusty on what exactly happened and what the issue is all about.

Please, spare no details.

Well, he had arguments (not particularly good ones) for doing this, one which may or may have not been in Obama's thinking is that this kills (or at least strongly hurts) McCains newest talking point about how his bipartisan efforts have been more independent and maverick than Obama's because he broke with the GOP. Well, after the flaming Obama's gotten from this and the realization that McCain has a 97% record in voting with the GOP in the last 2 years... I think that talking point is dead now

/the new one is that Obama is a politician
//really... a politician running for president... how surprising!

Mordant:Any conservatives on hand to explain the whole FISA thing ?

Not a conservative, but basically there's discussion on changing the law (FISA) that governs secret wiretapping on US persons. The Republicans scream "national security, terrorism terrorism terrorism!" while the Democrats mumble "rule of law, constitutional rights of US Citizens, liberty for temporary safety gets neither." The kicker is that the White House is demanding retroactive immunity for the TelCos for any wiretapping that was done when the White House said "forget the warrants, just shut up and do it".

Obermann's pointing out the law is only for civil immunity, not criminal, so as soon as there's a change in administrations, the Telcos can be prosecuted. What he doesn't seem to address is the nasty habit of outgoing Presidents from throwing out a whole lot of pardons.

Also, since it looks like a lot of House Dems flipped positions recently after Telco contributions, you may color me "unimpressed".

The last person who relied on John Dean for legal advice had to resign in disgrace. Just sayin.

abb3w: . . . Also, since it looks like a lot of House Dems flipped positions recently after Telco contributions, you may color me "unimpressed".

This!

abb3w:What he doesn't seem to address is the nasty habit of outgoing Presidents from throwing out a whole lot of pardons.

How do you pardon someone that hasn't been charged with a crime yet? It'd be pretty tough for Bush to pull that one off...

--------------
As for this bill, Obama gets railed on for either being soft on national security and terrorism or for compromising his position and giving those mean nasty TelCos immunity.

bulldg4life:How do you pardon someone that hasn't been charged with a crime yet? It'd be pretty tough for Bush to pull that one off...

Those who do not study their history....

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

abb3w:bulldg4life:How do you pardon someone that hasn't been charged with a crime yet? It'd be pretty tough for Bush to pull that one off...

Those who do not study their history....

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

If Bush to pardoned the telecoms it would be admitting that they broke the law which would mean admitting that he broke the law. On the other hand, I know he would do anything for his rich buddies and I'm sure he thinks no one can touch him once he's out of office.

McCainDemocrat:The last person who relied on John Dean for legal advice had to resign in disgrace. Just sayin.

Not only that, he's a snitch.

Remove all Republicans:I suspect there will be so many pardons that something like this will pass by. Besides, it's not like the press has going out of its way to call out the administration.

Riiiiiight....

I don't love it, and I don't think Olbermann is right. I think he's looking for some way to let Obama off the hook.

Oh well.

DamnYankees:I don't love it, and I don't think Olbermann is right. I think he's looking for some way to let Obama off the hook.

Oh well.

To be fair, nobody in D.C. wants to give up the ability to impose unrestricted wiretaps on anyone in the country. Politically speaking, that's a wonderful tool for control.

Of course, it's a rather horrific abuse of our civil rights but when has that stopped anyone before? And a lot of voters actually don't seem to mind the creepy levels of control exhibited by our less than ethical law enforcement folks. Just so long as nobody gets in the way of their sports shows or sit-coms.

Until/unless this crap starts visibly affecting huge swathes of the middle class, nobody is going to say or do anything about FISA violations or the loss of our 4th and 5th amendment rights. In fact, the voters will probably actually cheer it on.

CravenMorehead:

If Bush to pardoned the telecoms it would be admitting that they broke the law which would mean admitting that he broke the law. On the other hand, I know he would do anything for his rich buddies and I'm sure he thinks no one can touch him once he's out of office.

One day in 2010...

"HEY BUSH, THINK FAST!"

Mordant

Here's an article from Richard Posner, one of the deans of the conservative judiciary, explaining issues with FISA and what he believes could fix it. Link (new window)

At the end of the day, the main conservative issues with FISA as I understand them are that FISA was enacted in the late 70s, when the concern of the government was monitoring known terrorists, not discovering and thwarting new ones. There's no way to get probable cause for a warrant if you don't know who you need to be tapping.

Does anyone care that Obama PROMISED to filibuster any bill that had retroactive telecom immunity in it? And now he is not only failing to fulfill this promise, but ACTIVELY SUPPORTING a bill with retroactive telecom immunity in it. Even worse, pretending that it doesn't say that.

If Obama is only this good on keeping to his campaign promises NOW, what will he be like if/when he gets to the White House?

/Hillary supporter, was happy with Obama winning but now disappointed.

I'm an Obama supporter, but the guy could murder a puppy on live television and Olbermann would find a way to explain why it was okay. Then he'd probably look steadily into the camera and deliver a rousing attack on the media for making an issue out of it.

/His name might as well be Obamamann...

AntiNerd:Does anyone care that Obama PROMISED to filibuster any bill that had retroactive telecom immunity in it? And now he is not only failing to fulfill this promise, but ACTIVELY SUPPORTING a bill with retroactive telecom immunity in it. Even worse, pretending that it doesn't say that.

If Obama is only this good on keeping to his campaign promises NOW, what will he be like if/when he gets to the White House?

/Hillary supporter, was happy with Obama winning but now disappointed.

Just remember, John McCain would be worse.

/Just keep telling yourself that
//Everything will be just fine
///Black personz in teh White House! Lolzorz!

Weaver95:To be fair, nobody in D.C. wants to give up the ability to impose unrestricted wiretaps on anyone in the country. Politically speaking, that's a wonderful tool for control.

I'm not sure its that. I think its that the Dems are covering their own asses. During the post-9/11 patriotic fervor, the Dems just did anything Bush wanted them to, in fear of looking unpatriotic. So they went along, some out of conviction and some out of political expediency. And now, 5 years later, Bush is hated and its easy to denounce him from the outside. But the people in Washington are the same folks who kowtowed to Bush years ago, and they are just as guilty for this shiat as he is.

So I don't think the current Dems are voting for this out of a desire to keep wiretapping people - I think they are doing it out of self-preservation, and realizing if Bush goes down, a lot of Dems are going down with him.

clgrin:Well, he had arguments (not particularly good ones) for doing this, one which may or may have not been in Obama's thinking is that this kills (or at least strongly hurts) McCains newest talking point about how his bipartisan efforts have been more independent and maverick than Obama's because he broke with the GOP. Well, after the flaming Obama's gotten from this and the realization that McCain has a 97% record in voting with the GOP in the last 2 years... I think that talking point is dead now

/the new one is that Obama is a politician
//really... a politician running for president... how surprising!

I agree with your assessment but disagree with your Meme. It's Obama's The Same Old Politician.

Hope and Change

FTFY

Even if he is being pragmatic about it, changing his stance after promising to filibuster just opens him up to the Republicans' favorite smear: Flip Flopping.

kerpal32:Olbermann should take his own advice and "Shut the hell up!!"



I see you your picture and raise you mine.

What Olbermann said before...

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an Ex Post Facto law, which could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.

"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America." Believed?

Don't you know?

Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you?

Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here?

If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business - come out and say it!

There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.

You're a fascist - get them to print you a t-shirt with "fascist" on it!

What else is this but fascism?

What Olbermann says now...

Thus, as I phrased it on the air tonight, obviously Obama kicked the left in the teeth by supporting the bill. But anybody who got as hot about this as I did would prefer to see a President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally, instead of seeing a Senator Obama engender more "soft on terror" crap by casting a token vote in favor of civil litigation that isn't going to pass since so many other Democrats caved anyway.


/politics of change my ass, more the politics of expediency

V. M. Molotov:Just remember, John McCain would be worse.

I haven't forgotten. I will still be voting for Obama and it irks me that there is no other choice. If it makes the Hillary-haters here feel any better, I can say as a Hillary supporter I don't think she would have done any better in this situation.

Just disappointed, that's all.

cameroncrazy1984

Authoring and cosponsoring the best ethics reform bill passed in the last 40 years sound good? Yeah, Obama did that.

Regarding that ethics reform bill ... evidently the bill was to remove all ethics from CONgress ... for reference, see:

William Jefferson - LA
Christopher Dodd - CT
Kent Conrad - ND
Laura Richardson - CA


Where was the reform? (HINT: They're all Democrats and they're all still in office ... evidently the reform is only for the competing party?)

You've never hidden your rabid Obama-niac slant ... so if you return, we'll certainly see your snarky, ad hominem debate style in retorting these incidents of poor ethics since this glorious bill was legislated ...

Any more CHANGE from Obama and he will end up being a Republican.

Remove all Republicans:He has. Obama's for change, unlike McSame. What's so hard to understand about that?


CHANGE CHANGE CHANGETY-CHANGE. CHANGE! CHA-CHA-CHA-CHA CHAYAYANGE (turn and face the strain) CHA-CHA CHANGE-HAY-HEZ

DON'T GO CHANGIN' YOUR OPINION ABOUT CHANGE. CHANGE!

CHANGE!

/hitler offered change, too. is it change for the better, with Obama?

//pinhead. stop getting your politics from soundbytes and bumperstickers.

Party Boy:Greenwald's retort to this

Greenwald should get his own show - he's usually spot on. Personally, I don't mind Olbermann, but defending Obama on this one is partisan hackery.

Until Obama actually casts a vote for or against the FISA bill, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I still think he's trying to run out the clock.

Mordant:Any conservatives on hand to explain the whole FISA thing ? I'm a little rusty on what exactly happened and what the issue is all about.

Please, spare no details.

How about a liberal that is part of the industry?

A couple of years ago (as memory serves) an engineer at AT&T noticed a new room being built in the middle of a data center that nobody had access to. As the construction finalized a ton of very sophisticated equipment was installed to do snooping on the internet/telecommunications backbone.

This engineer brought his story along with some supporting evidence to the EFF who examined the evidence and then filed suit (new window).

Remember this was at the time when President Bush was saying (new window),

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

To make a long story short, there are two components to this situation, a criminal one, where the administration pressured the ILECs (industry term for the big telephone companies) to let them tap everybody's everything. One ILEC held out, Quest, and the Quest CEO was promptly railroaded through the courts in no time. Amazingly, every one of the ILECs expressed reservations about allowing the federal government access as their lawyers has told them it was patently illegal.

The second component is a civil one.

When you sign up for phone service (back when, I'm sure it has been changed now) you agreed to a contractual Terms of Service agreement which clearly stated (by federal law) that your information would not be given out without a warrant.

As a little parting gift the Feds rewarded the ILECs with a few small contracts and magically the FCC at about the same time seemed to loosen some of the restrictions that the ILECs had been asking for even though the FCC had always maintained that would never happen.

This rabbit hole goes way down.
Seriously.

AntiNerd:Does anyone care that Obama PROMISED to filibuster any bill that had retroactive telecom immunity in it? And now he is not only failing to fulfill this promise, but ACTIVELY SUPPORTING a bill with retroactive telecom immunity in it. Even worse, pretending that it doesn't say that.

If Obama is only this good on keeping to his campaign promises NOW, what will he be like if/when he gets to the White House?


Ever wonder why some conservatives think he's okay? Because they meet him and realize that he is malleable and they're confident they can sway him to their way.

Change? Sure, just like putty.

Wow, Olbermann suggests that finally, cunning and long term planning have entered into American politics. Still, the media (like this thread?) are arguing the merits between not doing anything at all (voting for FISA) and rushing into powerlessness with a false display of leadership. I've said it before differently, but I'll say it again: it seems like a society that largely disparages reading Shakespeare, or taking as many History classes as possible, is getting the election it deserves. (If only the US voters could get the election they need).

/Poor Harold Bloom tried to warn us all!
//Take the degree that makes money! = Sacrifice a little freedoms for a little security!
///slashies!

Does it have anything to do with Olbermann giving a free pass to Obama no matter what? He has spent so many years being "regular guy fed up with Bush" he turned himself into a Democrat Zealot. Not it is not just "Bush is wrong always wrong" but "Obama is right, always right."

Sad really, he used to rock on Sportscenter. Now he is just another political talking head who can get his base rilled up so they post youtube videos.

soy_bomb:Any more CHANGE from Obama and he will end up being a Republican.

Zing!

Number41:Greenwald should get his own show - he's usually spot on.

Hell yes. Theres a few people Id like to see on television. If only they'd let me run a 24 hours news channel

Number41:he's usually spot on.

Plus, I agree with the usually. Theres a few times I'm saying WTF, why skip that, Greenwald?

soy_bomb:Any more CHANGE from Obama and he will end up being a Republican.

Well, at least then you would have one electable candidate.

Well, if Obama wins we'll see of Olbermann challenges him on prosecuting these cases. Until then, please stand down, freepers.

And if he doesn't, include me in the chorus of folks asking ol' Keith, "WTF?"

Random Reality Check:Well, at least then you would have one electable candidate.

oh snap (nsfw)

guess fark didnt like that link and dumped it

/snap

Mentat:Until Obama actually casts a vote for or against the FISA bill, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I still think he's trying to run out the clock.

It doesn't work that way.

The reason for the filibuster was to force a compromise. There are enough votes to make this bill pass as it is written, now that the telecoms made a few donations to the pool.

Since the filibuster has been voted down the vote will go forward and the bill will pass - even if our brave Senator Obama votes against it.

Get it?

He tanked the filibuster he promised to support which was the last practical chance to get this bill amended or scrapped.

Of course Olbermann made some excuse not to go after Obama on that. You don't question the Messiah's actions, you just nod your head and agree.

The kicker is that the White House is demanding retroactive immunity for the TelCos for any wiretapping that was done when the White House said "forget the warrants, just shut up and do it".

Not all Telcos. Verizon and ATT elbowed each other out of the way like two fat frat boys at an all you can drink keg bar to help Bush with the warrantless wiretapping.

Qwest, on the other hand, their CEO stood up in committee as well as wrote public opinion this was illegal and his company would have no part of it.

The FISA bill and "telecom immunity" gives companies that chose to break the law to suck up to Bush a free pass from prosecution for breaking the law, or at least, from being sued over it in civil court, if John Dean's reading of the law is to be believed.

// I work in Telco, Qwest's CEO's stand was something of a surprisingly heroic stance, the Telco executive is normally not your most "free speech / individual rights" stalwart. But even in the world of Telco, Verizon and ATT were just ridiculously facilitative in assisting Bush / Cheney and their goals. Like they expected political reward for doing so.

submitter:Olbermann explains why he hasn't nailed Obama on his FISA stance

He does? All I read was: I like John Dean, I really like John Dean, McCain sucks, I haven't read Greenwald's piece but it's simplistic and childish.

No wonder Greenwald called it "substance-free invective" (new window).

Random Reality Check:Since the filibuster has been voted down the vote will go forward and the bill will pass - even if our brave Senator Obama votes against it.

Get it?

No, I'd rather make silly strawman arguments and mention that everyone who votes for Obama believes he's the messiah.