Per former Dodd staffer, Tim Tagaris, Hillary Clinton will not be showing up in the Capitol to help Chris Dodd. Therefore, her stated opposition to teleco immunity is worthless. I have no definitive word on Obama, yet. Could they both be useless tools? We shall see.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
34 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 45: I Explain Trumpism to Justin Trudeau
- Day 43: The #TrumpRussia Conspiracy Goes Mainstream At Last
- Day 40: Republicans Contemplate Giving Up On Deficit Control Forever
- Progress Pondcast Episode 22 With Bill Hangley Jr, on DOGE and U.S. Alliance With Russia
- Day 37: The Last Bulwarks Protecting the Merit-Based Civil Service
Recent Comments
Say it aint so!
Perhaps the ‘Tools’ could get a lift from:
Probably writing silly, meaningless speeches about how only they can bring Change TM and Experience TM to Washington.
at least the e/m and telephone campaign yesterday appears to have convinced edwards to issue a statement:
he doesn’t call out clinton and obama directly though, so it’s not as forceful as l had hoped.
l find all of this to be increasingly demoralizing.
lTMF’sA
Somebody walk me through the downside of Obama showing up for this. I didn’t like his missed vote on Iran, and another missed opportunity to do the right thing is not what he needs right now.
If he stops campaigning now, even for a second, he may not win the nomination.
If he wins the nominations, he will have the power to revisit FISA in a big way.
Every day in a campaign is like a year elsewhere – if you lose it, you can’t get it back. It would take him nearly a day to get to the airport, go through security, get on the plane, fly, disembark, take a car from the airport to the hill, and then reverse all that.
If his vote would not be the one that tips it, it’s simply not worth the time, in campaign terms. He can’t afford to show up just to make a statement. But if it made the difference, then maybe it would be worth it. He’s up about 12 points in South Carolina now. But he may be in Minnesota, or CA, for all I know. He’s got a lot of ground to cover before Feb 5. Unless his vote would make the difference I’d be advising him against this.
Where have I read this book before?
Cave in to Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans today and then at some point in the future we can really vote the way we want and get something done.
Only that that day of reckoning always seems to be around the corner and all we end up with is capitulation for capitulation’s sake.
I take your points, but would he not have benefitted from some differentiation in their positions right now? They’re being portrayed as the same from a policy standpoint, this could have been useful to him.
you can’t lose a year when campaigning. And seriously, a day is like a year. I’m not kidding.
so much for learning to hope again, eh?
So let me see: the three front runners are:
Thank heaven we voted for the Democrats in 2006. I had had enough of those Bush enabling Republicans.
As Johnny Rotten (a personal role model since 1983) once said, “Ever got the feeling you’ve been cheated?”
I thought I was harsh. That’s harsh. But I still like you.
Harsh times call for harsh comments. And believe me, that doesn’t begin to account for I’d LIKE to say, the kind of comments and references to violence that would probably get me banned (and with good reason).
I wish I was a Christian, because then I’d have a reason to believe that the subhuman vermin that represent us would be tormented for eternity in the afterlife. Unfortunately, I am an atheist and resigned to the fact that not only will none of these people ever pay for their crimes, they will probably be lauded as great americans, and at worst forgotten.
Good. Good! Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.
Oh my goodness. It’s Senator Lieberman… or is it Palpatine? It’s so hard to tell the difference.
Either way, it’s about an angry white guy.
I certainly hope that’s snark, because there is no way you can actually be suggesting I forgive these people or extend to them feelings of love and fellowship.
Tenia un sueno, pero el Congreso y el pResidente lo destruyeron. (i don’t know how to get the accents in there)
brendan, everything I say is snark.
Except that.
And that.
And that.
And that.
And that.
…
You’re in Nevada right? Where? I’m in Reno. I would like to meet you sometime if it’s convenient.
brendan is not in Nevada. If he were, it’s likely that you would be well aware of it.
I thought from previous comments of his that he was in Nevada. Maybe I’m mistaking him for someone else.
one of my best friends is in reno.
Hillary is OWNED by telcos. And if she’s elected Prez, forget about Net Neutrality or changes in media ownership. Just forget it.
Obama… I’m not sure, but I don’t think he has much influence from the telcos and cable companies. He is strongly FOR Net Neutrality and strongly FOR breaking up the big media companies in favor of diverse private ownership.
But the campaign trail is tough and asshole Bill Clinton is in SC trying to make Obama’s life hell right now while the wicked witch Hillary flies around the country telling women that she “hears their voice.” Excuse me while I puke.
Personally, I think Obama could earn some serious points by showing up with an awesome prepared speech on the Senate floor and make a campaign commercial out of it. Especially if Dodd is successful with Obama’s support.
Yes, Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton and net neutrality. I forgot all about that. It looks bleaker by the minute. Obama is very ambiguous, a bit too sneaky, I suspect. John Edwards for president.
Obama has been abundantly clear on his positions relating to all matters FCC. He is determined to break up big media and protect net neutrality. That is absolutely clear. I think Edwards is too, by the way. But we know The Witch wants communications controlled. She doesn’t like people being allowed to talk behind her back. It’s just against her nature to not have control. And she is OWNED by these corporate interests who also want to own our online communications and the rest of the TV and radio media.
John Edwards or Barak Obama for president.
Mr. and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton NOT for the co-presidency.
Good statment Obama could earn some serious points by showing up with an awesome prepared speech on the Senate floor and make a campaign commercial out of it. Especially if Dodd is successful with Obama’s support.
BOTH Hillary and Obama are being funded by the same group of people. The Democratic Tsunami 2006 Election made the Financial Establishment very, very nervous. In normal times the entire groupd would back Hillary. Because of the populist uprising and the mood for change in the country, the Money People made a calculated decision to fund not only Hillary, but another Candidate who could appear different.
Enter Obama in December 2006, with a very well prepared Power Point presentation. After a little further vetting of Obama, the money guys decided to fund TWO candidates this year. Hillary got those over 50 years old. The younger ones drew Obama. With TWO candidates, Hillary the publically recognized Establishment Candidate, and Obama, the New guy not yet recognized as being connected to the movers and shakers. In this manner the Money Establishment insured that their comfortable merger between government and Business would continue.
Money Chooses Sides from New York Magazine in April 2007, explains the story.
The Clintons had POWER of the White House before their uneasy alliance was made with money. This gives the Clintons a bit more freedom and flexibility in setting the agenda. To the money guys she is a known quantity, and therefore their risk on investment is low. In financial terms they will need less interest/expectation of favors.
The a bigger story is that Obama, with very little money and at a standing start in December 2006, built a fund-raising apparatus as powerful as Clinton’s in unheard of short order. Obama required the money peopleto get started. With his speaking skills, Obama could gloss over populist/progressive issues. Read Social Security on Obama’s Web Site and you will see Privatization. Obama cannot promise to Uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law as some of their current and/or former associations would likely become public.
Obama being a new brand is considered High Risk.As a result of the increased risk to the Money people, a greater rate of return/favors are expected. To ensure the `safety’ of their investment in Obama, the Financial people placed current or former Lobbyists in high level positions for each of Obama’s State Campaigns.
To further cloak their manipulations from becoming public, The Money People turned to the MSM, which they ultimately own. It was off to the races, with Hillary being the known Establishment Candidate and Obama, being a new brand was diabolically labeled the Change Candidate. Both these labels were meant to re-enforce the mood of new and young voters with perceptions garnered from the 2006 exit polls. The main MSM stories all year, have been mostly about the size of the crowds each candidate drew, and the amount of money they raised. This tactic prevented any close look at issues, or in depth vetting of candidates. A quick comparison between Obama’s and Hillary’s VOTES will show very minute differences in their policy positions. Controlling the story was a brilliant and successful ploy on the part of the Money people to obfuscate that fact that issues were not being examined.
Media coverage was also deliberately designed to assist in eliminating Net Neutrality. By creating superficial stories that focused almost solely on personality and popularity, they drove people into sharply divided camps. By expending a few more dollars on servers, and having people sign up as new members of popular blog communities, they were able to create an almost cult like veneration of Obama, that has played out so shrilly and nastily over at the Great Orange Satan. Destroying the largest Progressive Blog’s credibility, Net Neutrality becomes much easier to eliminate.
No, it was not by accident that Biden, Richardson and others were knocked out so early in the Primaries. As they say , “Other states vote; New York invests.”*
Thanks for that info. I read somewhere else (can’t remember where) that behind Hillary, he receives the largest amount of money from the insurance industry. That does not bode well for much improvement in our healthcare situation.
Hillary has never been my candidate of choice and honestly, Obama makes my gut sense “pre-paid” corporate asset. I want to like him. I want to get behind his candidacy, but I just don’t feel like I can trust him to undo the damage that’s been done.
And I honestly hope, every day, that my pessimism will make me a laughingstock in a few years, but I doubt it.
Have you gone to “Open Secrets.Org”? If you put in the Candidates name, and then go to Industries on the side tabs, it will provide the top 20 industires for each candidate you ask about. Further playing with the tabs on the top and sides give more detailed information in different ways.
I truly hear and heart your dilemma. I too am in a quandary. I KNOW what Hillary is. Obama’s falsehoods and Pretensions turn me off.
So I am left with conundrum of violating my own ethics and principles, or just writing in the candidate of my choice for the General and essentially ‘wasting’ my vote. What to do, what to do……
John Edwards should go to the Captiol and ask where Barack and Hillary?
P>S he should “present” and then “i’m ready to lead this country on day one.”
As a former Senator does Edwards have the right to at least enter the Senate? He could sit in the gallery, right?
To me it seems like a no-brainer for him to deliver a real stemwinder of a speech in Washington somewhere, and sit in the gallery or otherwise offer support for Dodd. He should indict Hillary and Obama and point to himself as the only real Democrat willing to fight.
This just reaffirms my belief that the whole Democratic party lost its way. This is why Kucinich was the only viable Democratic candidate. He’s the only one that would have fought for Democratic beliefs. The Democrats should be willing to lose a few battles–if they don’t stand up for something soon there will be nothing left to stand up for ever.
As a former Senator, I think he has the right to walk on the Senate floor and talk to anyone he wants. He’s not restricted to the gallery. But I don’t think he has the right to take the floor and speak.
What’s really more important, mincing words with your primary rival(s) or addressing large-scale corporate criminal activities?
Oh, we all know the answer to that, unfortunately.
Hillary and Barack.
They’re both dead to me if they don’t show up.