Hillary’s Voice

The Great Seal of Obamaland? (The Caucus, New York Times)

At a discussion with a dozen Democratic governors in Chicago on Friday morning, each of the governors was identified with a small name plate but Senator Barack Obama sat behind a low rostrum to which was attached an official-looking seal no one had seen before. It is emblazoned with a fierce-looking eagle clutching an olive branch in one claw and arrows in the other and is deliberately reminiscent of the official seal of the president of the United States… Just above the eagle’s head are the words “Vero Possumus,” roughly translated “Yes we can.” Not exactly E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), the motto on the presidential seal and the dollar bill. Then again, Mr. Obama is not the president.

Democrats Hoyer, Pelosi Hand White House Sweeping Legislative Victories (by Jason Leopold at The Public Record)
When Democrats regained control of Congress for the first time in 12 years nearly in November 2006, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi explained the significance behind the record voter turnout that helped shift in the balance of power in Washington. “People voted for change and they voted for Democrats who will take our country in a new direction,” Pelosi said during a victory speech in San Francisco on Nov. 8, 2006… In a one-two punch Thursday and Friday, Democrats, led by Pelosi, gave the Bush administration sweeping new domestic spy powers, immunized telecom companies that participated in possibly illegal surveillance of American citizens, and agreed to further fund the occupation of Iraq with a promise to the White House that the final bill would not include benchmarks or timetables for withdrawal.

Obama says he supports FISA compromise (War Room, Salon)
Barack Obama has … released a statement regarding his position on the controversial compromise reached in Congress on the president’s wiretapping powers, and clarifying his support for the compromise. The deal includes a provision that grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in warrantless eavesdropping; Obama says he opposes the provision and will work to have it removed. Separately, in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “I’m going to try — and I don’t know that I can do that — but I’m going to try real hard to have a separate vote on immunity and then vote on the legislation itself … It appears, with the action that the House has taken, that, probably, we can’t take that out of the bill. But I’m going to try because I am totally opposed to immunity.”
Oh, yeah, they’re trying REAL hard.  Or at least pretending to, so that they can have their cake and eat it, too.  This is the continuation of spinelessness.

Sistah Soljah’d ? (by digby)
There’s lots of blogospheric angst…, and for good reason, around this FISA legislation. Senator Obama’s commitment to support the “compromise,”(while promising to “work” to remove the offensive telcom immunity) is a big disappointment to many… [I] have no idea what his motivation is any more than the rest of the Democrats… [But] I do know this: they would not have made this “compromise” and then brought this to the floor without his ok, and probably without his direction. He is the leader of the Democratic Party now, in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign. If he didn’t come to them and say to get this thing done before the fall, then they came to him and asked his permission. That’s just a fact. They aren’t going to do anything he doesn’t want them to do. So, it’s not really a capitulation. It’s a strategy.

Obama’s support for the FISA “compromise” (by Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory, Salon)
In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen — in places where one would never have expected to find them — all sorts of claims about why this FISA “compromise” isn’t really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration — or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller — suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did… Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama’s indefensible — and deeply unprincipled — support for this “compromise.”…

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this “compromise” bill is the telecom amnesty part… The ACLU specifically identifies the ways in which this bill destroys meaningful limits on the President’s power to spy on our international calls and emails. Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill… [W]hat Obama did [Friday] is in clear tension with an emphatic promise that he made just months ago… [N]o good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values.

Why Obama’s Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer (by Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central)
One of the riveting things about Barack Obama’s candidacy is that since the outset of the campaign he’s seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country. Time and again, in his debates with Hillary, and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk “tough.” His candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security — that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong… If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation. And this time, he abandoned that premise.

FISA Capitulation: Bad Policy, Bad Politics (by Tim Lee at the Technology Liberation Front)
The fact that [Obama is] committing himself to support the overall bill whether or not it comes with immunity is proof that he doesn’t really care about getting rid of immunity… Not only have Hoyer, Reid, and company sold out our civil liberties, but they’ve angered their core supporters as well… But I think the even worse problem, from Obama, Reid, and Pelosi’s perspective, is that this means the return of the narrative of Democratic weakness on national security issues… We are, in other words, right back to the narrative where being “strong” on national security means trashing the constitution.

Compromising Our Rights (by Anglachel)
The problem with Democratic compromises is that they are over things that should never be bargained away, such as privacy, a social safety net, transparent government responsive to the citizenry, and other fundamental principles of liberal democracy. Compromises are for making choices between acceptable outcomes, but where one may be more to the liking of one party than the other choices. Our rights, such as freedom from unlawful search and seizure, are not on the table.

Sunday: The Freeper Infestation (by riverdaughter at The Confluence)
There is a lot of room here for negotiation.  The power is in the hands of Congress to compel the telecomms to compromise on more market competition.  If we punish the telecomms with class action lawsuits, the only people who will benefit will be the lawyers… BUT, what if you could force the telecomms to allow ala carte programming on your cable system or infrastructure improvements or mandatory guidelines for better customer service?  What if you could forbid big telecomms from bidding on newly available radio spectra or force them to open their networks to your favorite cellphone?  Wouldn’t this be better than decimating them and sending potentially thousands of their workers to the unemployment lines?  And so what if some of them *did* take a hit?  Wouldn’t their workers benefit from the increased competition as well by having more new start up companies to work for? Just sayin’

(If you want to know what Hillary has to say about FISA, … her last statements I could find on the subject [were] from back in February, 2008.  In summary, she co-sponsored Dodd’s bill and says she will support a filibuster if the bill that comes before her infringes on a citizen’s right to privacy and civil liberties.  This, more than preventing retroactive telecomm immunity, is the correct stance.)
But see, Riverdaughter, to do the kind of negotiating you suggest we’d have to have some leadership in the Democratic Party by some people who know when they have an advantage and how to press it.  We haven’t had that kind of leadership for eight years.  I didn’t see that kind of leadership in Obama as my senator, which is why I have opposed him, and of course I’m not seeing it now.

MoveOn demands a filibuster (by Ben Smith at Politico
Insisting on a campaign promise that Obama would filibuster any wiretapping bill that included retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that let the government listen in, Obama’s allies at MoveOn are asking supporters to “call Sen. Obama today and tell him you’re counting on him to keep his word.” Obama has said he’ll work in the Senate to strip that provision from the House bill, but stopped short of promising to filibuster the bill.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.  HA, ha, ha, ha, ha.  MoveOn, YOU HAVE NO LEVERAGE NOW.  You’re just as bad negotiators as the Democratic leadership.  If you had held back, instead of endorsing early, you’d have some leverage.  But you gave it all away.  For nothing.

“But it’s really GREAT shit, Mrs. Prezky!” (by lambert at Corrente)
[I]t does grate, immeasurably, when they feed us bull and tell us it’s candy [at the Obama 527 That Used To Be Daily Kos]… Feeling like that about the Unity Pony, Hunter? Tried to warn ya, but you guys purged me and a lot of others like me… NOTE I love the headline: “Even Barack Obama thinks you’re stupid.” What do you mean, “even”?

Gallows schadenfreude (by vastleft at Corrente)
With the shocking news (brace yourselves, folks) that Barack Obama is not at all a New-Politics Progressive Savior, we’re seeing some fellow Dems in the throes of buyer’s remorse… Now that you’ve noticed, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to petition your delegates to put a better candidate on the ballot? Are you going to look back and notice your condoning (or being one) of the blogospheric jerks who shut down honest debate about the candidates when we could have properly vetted them and made them compete for who was the most progressive?… Are you, by any chance, ready to notice that a good woman had her reputation trashed at every turn, even as she listened to her better angels and truly found her voice during a campaign that her opponent termed a “death march.”

Sure, I may wax a little schadenfreudish. But it’s no ordinary “I told you so” we’re talking about, it’s no delicious cold dish. Because it’s not just you that’s feeling the pain. It’s everyone who counts on and strives for a better America.

Obama’s Decision Threatens Public Financing System (New York Times)
From the moment that the public financing system was created in the wake of the Watergate crisis, it was viewed as an imperfect way to rid politics of the excesses of special-interest money. But now, with the decision by Senator Barack Obama to become the first presidential candidate to forgo public money, the system is facing the most critical threat to its survival… Mr. Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing — along with the ability of the Internet to let candidates raise large sums of money from small donors — may do more to shatter the system than all of the loopholes it has spawned.

The Two Obamas (by David Brooks)
Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes… Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck… I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

DIVVYING THE SPOIL$ (New York Post)

New campaign-finance filings reveal Clinton has even more debt than previously reported, while Obama’s fund-raising has stalled. He pulled in $22 million in May - a sharp drop from the $30 million to $55 million he got in each of the prior three months… Obama’s May haul lacked the big-bucks bang many had come to expect from the candidate - and he and Clinton are expected to discuss how to help each other financially at a Washington meeting Thursday. Clinton asked 100 of her biggest donors to attend. The unlikely duo will then campaign together Friday, but an Obama spokesman said there’s no specific plan to rescue Clinton from her debt.

We’re Green! (by Lynne in Lakeland at Liberal Rapture)

For Immediate Release

From Scarlett Johanson
Obama Headquarters
Chicago

We are going green…

All previous “policy” positions are now inoperable. We will be hanging them out on the line to die, whoa, dry. Fortunately there were not many and there will be no change to the important positions of Hope and Change…

Our biggest green push is for your money. Keep it coming. We had a bad May, our worst fundraising month in 2008. Send checks, credit cards, gold, oil, jewelry and antiques immediately. If you thought Freedom isn’t free you won’t believe the cost of Hope and Change. We will, of course, continue to blame Hillary Clinton for any deficits.

GORE ENDORSES OBAMA; DEAN AND PELOSI RELEASE TIPPER UNHARMED (by Tom In Paine at No Quarter)
I don’t know if Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and the DNC had gotten so desperate they kidnapped Tipper to get Gore’s endorsement, but they were probably close. Al Gore endorsed Barack Obama and most people yawned. So what else is new? It wasn’t anything that wasn’t expected. But what it is notable is that it came two weeks after Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama. There is no doubt that he was pressured heavily by Howard Dean, Pelosi the Axelrod of Evil and the DNC to come out and endorse Obama. Does anyone think he just forgot? The longer Gore waited the worse it looked for Obama and a lot of people in the Obama camp were wondering what he was waiting for… The real point about Gore’s endorsement is this: Since Hillary Clinton’s speech two weeks ago the choices for President looked like they had come down to either Obama or McCain. And for two weeks Al Gore couldn’t make up his mind.

PUMAS on the prowl. (by garychapelhill at The Confluence)
I just saw a really horrible video of a segment of the Situation Room on the CNN website.  Some of you may have seen it.  Wolf and “the best political team” were discussing an appearance by Obama in Florida where he insinuates that, if not McCain, than his supporters are racist.  Yep, its SC all over again, time to engage in a little race-baiting.  Speaking about his opposition, Obama said the following: “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me…He’s young and inexperienced and…and uh, he’s got a funny name.   Did I mention he’s black?  (cheers)”… He surely knows that when he says thing like that it gives his minions free reign to accuse anyone who does not support Obama as racist.
Just as they did with us Clinton supporters.

McCain Reports Largest Haul in May (Capital Eye)
John McCain’s campaign must have been eager to share the good news–one day before the presidential campaign finance reports were due, the presumptive Republican candidate officially disclosed that May was his most successful fundraising month. McCain started June with more than $31 million on hand after raising $21 million last month, according to the report he filed yesterday with the Federal Election Commission. The information was released on the same day that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, announced that he would bypass public funding in the general election. McCain has said he will accept the federal money, limiting how much he can spend and prohibiting him from raising money for the general election after this summer’s nominating convention.

John McCain may lag in money, but RNC out-raises the DNC by 5 times (Top of the Ticket, Los Angeles Times)
Led by chairman Mike Duncan, the Republican National Committee ended May with 13 times more money in the bank than its Democratic counterpart, and raised five times as much money in the same time frame. As The Times’ campaign finance guru Dan Morain points out, the sums are significant as presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain squares off against the far more richly-funded Sen. Barack Obama for the last 136 days of the general election campaign. Based on the numbers so far, the Republican Party appears poised to act as the financial equalizer in the fall campaign. The RNC disclosed that it ended May with $53.5 million in the bank, compared to $3.9 million for the Democratic National Committee, which is headed by Howard Dean.

MoveOn closes its 527 for good (War Room, Salon)
On Friday, Talking Points Memo’s Greg Sargent reported that liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org has decided to close its 527 group, the Voter Fund. This move, Sargent said, came “partly in response to the Illinois Senator’s insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election.”… [T]his move seems like a technical one, and almost entirely symbolic. As Sargent noted further down in his post, though the 527 has been open legally, it hasn’t really been operating for years… MoveOn will still work during this election year through its PAC. And, [MoveOn’s Ilyse] Hogue emphasized, 90 percent of donations to the group during its 10-year history have been under the $5,000 limit anyway.
Symbolic?  Trying to fool us, you mean.  Trying to make us think they’re helping to clean up politics by closing down something that hasn’t been very effective, anyway.

Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’ (Think Progress)
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected. However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran. “I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added.

Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be ‘Delighted’ (Think Progress)
This morning on Fox News, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton continued his drumbeat for war against Iran. Adopting Bill Kristol’s argument, Bolton suggested that an attack on Iran depends on who Americans elect as the next President: “I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I don’t think they will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it. And they’d have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor.”

Sparks Fly at Black Caucus Meeting (by Jake Tapper and Kate Snow, ABC News)
A Thursday afternoon meeting between Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus grew tense and emotional for a moment — perhaps illustrating that weeks after Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., suspended her presidential campaign, some nerves remain frayed… Sources at the meeting said that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, a Clinton supporter, expressed the desire that Obama and his campaign would reach out the millions of women still aggrieved about what happened in the campaign and still disappointed that Clinton lost… Obama then said, “…I’m running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it.” Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words — “Get over it.” She found them dismissive, off-putting… [T]wo sources at the meeting said that [Obama told them] he’d held his tongue many times during the campaign against Clinton in the interest of party unity and sensitivity.
Sure.  Like he’s the aggrieved one.  Like he never used sexism and racism to push hatred against Hillary and Bill Clinton.  And you can see below for just one example of the result.

Clinton Supporter Threatened After Olbermann Attacked Her (video)
Clinton supporter and her family were beseiged by threats after Keith Olbermann called her a racist on national television.

Lesson for the Day: Pumas Can Sneak Up on You (by Pat Racimora at No Quarter)

The DNC, Barack Obama, and his followers just don’t seem to get it. There are a lot of very upset people, and they are not about to fall into line all that easily. P.U.M.A. (“Party Unity My Ass”) is just one of scores of emerging groups that want far more satisfaction than a few nice after-the-fact words about their candidate and her campaign… Virtually all are concerned about the sexism (imagine strong-arming a candidate who got 18 million votes and more pledged delegates in the larger and swing states being complained about by old, grey, male candidates of yesteryear who went to the convention with far fewer delegates in their pockets), the undemocratic and flawed caucus system that suffered from numerous reported incidents of fraud, the Michigan and Florida slap in voters’ faces, the disrespect heaped on Hillary Clinton from so many within the party as well as the DNC, and the malevolent treatment of many of her followers by mean-spirited Obama supporters. Will the DNC pay attention in time to create at least a partial reversal of its lost party members?

Lots more really good stuff at MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com