Voted NO. Sometimes I really love being from Massachusetts

I work for a non-partisan non-profit organization. I know this to be the case because I am regularly told that I work for left-wing communist pinkos AND for jack-boot wearing fascists.

We perceive bias in anything swerves from our personal view.

This is psychological fact.

I am a leftist libertarian/bleeding heart objectivist. I see Fox, CNN and MSNBC as right wing tools of the administration (to varying degrees), and usually mistrust them as news sources.

I also acknowledge Salon, Slate and DailyKos as left leaning liberal venues, with which I more frequently (but not always) agree.

There are no truly objective media sources, only those which we agree with and those which we do not. Those who do walk the fine line tend to piss off everybody.

Keep the personal attacks coming. What this blog needs is some balance and I guess I'll be the token right-wing blogger for today. Take aim liberals, but be worned, I'm a hard target.

Baldie, you haven't said anything with any substance yet today. Just one attack after another. Yes, this is an old talking point that has been brought up today by who, you liberals.

Don't cheer prematurely. When everyone knows the vote is not close and the outcome is certain, congressman will vote Nay when if it were close, they might have voted Yea. You can't tell the true intentions of a vote without knowing the full context.

Glenn,

Wrote a short blurb today citing your post yesterday, with links to the ActBlue "Blue America PAC" donor portal.

Spammed it out to my friends and family.

If you Digg or Stumble, I'd love a thumb-up. Post here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/christopherneill/gG5hzt

Or click my name.

Have a great weekend,

If the government isn't spying on us, why not let our constitutional framework do its job and have the judicial branch rule on the legality of what actually happened in these cases? What do you fear about our system of checks and balances? WHY DO YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTION?

Authoritarian sheep like you are the true cowards. You'de sell the very thing that defines America for your pathetic soul.

"Despite a boost from Barack Obama — but not the absent Hillary Clinton — Democratic senators today failed to stop the Bush administration from winning legal immunity for telecom companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans.

Obama voted with 30 fellow Democrats to allow the telecom companies to face lawsuits, which civil liberties groups consider a crucial chance to unearth information on the administration's programme of wiretapping without a court warrant.

But the immunity survived, with 18 Democrats crossing over to support George Bush.

Clinton missed the vote on a day of intense last minute campaigning as Virginia, Maryland, and the capital all held presidential primaries. Whether her absence will spark criticism from liberal Democrats, who have made the fight against so-called "telecom immunity" a high priority, remains to be seen.

"

Elana Schor in Washington

"Obama Joins Dodd Filibuster of FISA Telecom Amnesty

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008

Posted on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 05:39:10 PM EST

Tags: (all tags) Share This:

Good for Obama:

Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it."

nice try gop. Not going to work this time. In the apst you may have divided us. We have a great equalier now. The internet. :)

Actually, they don't check out. A liberal source is not a credible source and neither is a conservative one. Keep looking.

I'm ashamed to be a Democrat today.

I learned politics as a boy watching the Watergate Hearings with my father. They were carried out here on KCET in the evenings. After a long day of work, rather than go in for "entertainment" of the networks, the topic was important enough to my father that it's what he would watch.

He was and is a life long Republican, but the "Rule of Law" was important enough to him that I *never* heard him utter a word of defense for Nixon. What was being looked into struck him as serious enough that Congress, the Courts and what was then a great Press should keep pushing until they got to the bottom of it. When the tipping points were reached that it was clear that the Administration and the President had acted criminally, he was firm in expressing his belief that the President had to go, and if he didn't want to go, that Congress needed to impeach him. This of a President that he voted for no less than four times: 1960 for President, 1962 for Gov of CA, 1968 & 1972 again for President. The Law, and the Rule of Law meant that much to him and were impressed on me right then at a young age.

35 years later, the party I've identified over all those years including the years before I could even vote, tell us yet again that the Rule of Law means nothing. If it's broken, even the Constituion itself, simply retroactively change the law.

On the cusp of what could be a victory the shifts the board like 1980, rather than wait for a President who would not sign such a bill, they rush it through now to protect a President and Administration of criminals. Why? Almost certainly because they know Obama will veto it.

I don't say that to praise Obama. This is a moment in history where he can show leadership be turning 100% of his campaign time into making this an issue, or more importantly heading back to Washington to build a coalition to keep this from getting 60 votes for cloture. He won't have my praise on the issue until he takes up that leadership roll.

The Dems who have voted for this should feel shame, Clearly those who voted for it don't, and those in the Senate that pass this won't as well.

Instead, I feel shame for supporting this Party.

John