It seems to me

You've lived your life

Like a finger in the wind

Never knowin'

just what issue

will bring the voters innnn . . .

He lays out how Clinton's and Obama's commitments to filibuster are hollow. Maybe they will filibuster, but they left themselves lots of room. In fact, Clinton says she's unfamiliar with the legislation and what's at stake, which is bullshit given that any thinking person knows that she has already been lobbied by the telecom companies, which give her lots of money.

Even though Clinton and Obama may or may not be completely committed to the remarks that seem to put them in favor of a fillibuster and against the wholesale whitewashing of Bush's illegal spying....still...it's more than we've been getting.

Even lip service gets some attention and raises the interest level of more people.

Sad, but at this point, lip service is better that out-and-out sellouts, because it leaves a sliver of hope. And when that last sliver of hope disappears, too many people will stop calling and writing their congressperson and standing on street corners with signs.

Now if Harry Ried can come to his senses we might have some fun. Robert Kennedy is rolling over in his grave on this one. What hubris from Rockefeller. Bought by the telecoms for $42K.

What a loser. And, by the way Rockey, where's the info on the pre-war intelligence usage that was to be forthcomming when you took over as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Comittee? Double loser that guy...

The phrases: "In its present form" and "as it currently stands" indicates that Obama and Clinton aren't against the idea of immunity for giant corporations who break the law AND give them lots of money.

But really, since the Dems can't or won't do anything about the Bush admin which was the driving force behind the crimes for which the telcos require immunity, is it even really fair to hassle the telcos? Its ok Dems, we KNOW as a group you're completely spineless, you don't have to try to convince us anymore.

Anyway, seems to me that since the telcos were lead into breaking the law by the government, they could claim entrapment anyway!

But I really had hoped for more from Obama.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Well - I think those words have come true - I really don't care about the color of his or any of the candidates skin, but I am deeply concerned about the content of his or any of the candidates character...

and most of them ain't cutting it.

Looks like my donation to Chris Dodd wasn't a waste after all.

Trying to glean some sort of leadership or moral fortitude out of anything Clinton or Obama say is a waste of time. Both are "supporting" Dodd's actions with fingers crossed behind their backs. These two murky, meaningless statements are the most we'll get from them...unless senate Democrats flock to Dodd, then those two cowards will slink allong the baseboards and join in once its safe.

Right now the most important thing is to make sure neither of them gets the nomination.

I sent various letters into the Obama campaign on this issue Sunday and Monday. I'm sure plenty of other people did the same. I'm glad someone actually listened -- but this was a no-brainer to begin with.

What law have the telecom companies broken? They are definitely guilty of scuzzy behavior and screwing over their customers, but can someone tell me what specific laws?

The telecom companies can argue that they were merely complying with requests from their government in a time of war. They should have requested the supporting documentation for the records. They didn't, which was a betrayal to their customers.

Don't get me wrong. The telecom companies should not be given retroactive immunity. Unless maybe they can give us some actionable evidence against the Bush Administration. Giving the companies immunity would be a slap in the face to the companies that had the guts and good sense not to release customer records without a warrant.

I'm furious at the companies for not protecting the privacy of their paying customers--the ones to whom they should be first beholden. I'd just like to know the law and potential charges for their shoddy behavior.

As Glenn Greenwald aptly points out elsewhere on this site, both Obama's and Clinton's declarations are hedged with loopholes one could drive a truck through. In effect, they have both said, 'if the filibuster happened right this second I'd support it...oops! second over.' One presumes any decision awaits 'further information' (Clinton). No bill, as GG points out, ever makes it to the floor 'in its current form' (Obama). The question isn't whether these candidates are being asked, absent other information, in another form would you support this bill? It's will you allow retroactive immunity for a gross violation of basic civil liberties? Can you stick your neck out far enough to answer that basic question?

Both statements were (at best) shining examples of Beltway equivocation. Check out Glenn Greenwald's post on the topic. He explains it much better than I'd be able to...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

http://www.eff.org/cases/att

This is only the beginning

I agree with other commenters that Obama has been too cautious lately. However, let's take a look at who our choices are on the Democratic side. The smart money would bet that the Borg Queen is our next president. Obama is the strongest challenger and, while not perfect, comes without Hillary's baggage. But he needs to start punching and we need to support him.

If we deride both of them, Hillary wins anyway. Then we can probably look forward to another 4-8 years revisiting such memories as Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm billing records, Whitewater, and Hillary's prowess as a commodity trader. And, as Carl Bernstein pointed-out, we will never know what happened in the Bill Clinton Administration as she would surely renew the classification of government information that was passed under Bush II.

We've suffered this long national nightmare, in part, because a small number of Democratic voters went with their "principles" and pulled the lever for Ralph Nader. Let's not make the same mistake in 2008. Let's vote for the better candidate and not hold out for the "perfect" candidate.