Either You're For...

...the Constitution:

Senator Clinton votes NO on HR 6304, even voting no on cloture, meaning don't even bring this bloody mess to a vote.

Or you're against it:

Senator Obama votes YEA on HR 6304, standing in lock-step with the Republicans, said screw your bloody civil liberties, I want spy powers too! I guess protecting the current Administration's crimes is what he meant by standing up to the people in Washington (which never made any sense as he is one of those people) - he obviously will fight anyone in Washington trying to curb the abuses of executive power as he ponders the notion of his own executive powers. Of course, I recall his promise in the primaries that he would filibuster any attempt to bring this legislation to a vote. But these facts are trivial. Silly me.

It's worth noting that the other Senators who ran for the Democratic nominee also voted for the rule of law, to protect our civil liberties and to hold this administration accountable for their actions. They are Senators Biden and Dodd. The party establishment that selected Obama as the nominee for us clearly picked the wrong one. $$$ talks, as they say.

If the angle here is "I'm running a post-partisan campaign and the last thing I want is a fight with the Republicans this summer", then I say screw you, we need someone to fight them like hell, not capitulate again like he did with Wesley Clark. Can Obama fit anymore people under the bus? Why does bi-partisan have to mean the Dems cave? He's changed his stance on campaign finance, being the first candidate since it's inception not to accept public financing so that the sky will be the limit in fundraising, he's changed his stance on abortion, NAFTA, FISA, gun control and most importantly, Iraq, his claim to fame - or the fairy tale; Bill got that right. Should I mention his plan to expand George Bush's Office of Faith Based Initiatives? For someone who promised us no more politics is usual, I find it odd he is simultaneously the poster-child for it.

Some linky goodness: Slate asks if Obama needs to take the Constitution with him on his veer to the right. The NYT blogs on his FISA vote. Susie Madrak opines on the same. And add net neutrality to the list. And I thought we'd get healthcare this election, maybe next time.

Here's someone with leadership's take on FISA, demonstrating their courage in voting NO today on the bill, Senator Hillary Clinton (note how she "respects" those that voted differently, a party loyalist, trying not to embarass the presumptive nominee while still staying true to her convictions):

One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today's vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.

The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration's surveillance activities. Some of the legislation's provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration's surveillance activities.

While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President's power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government's targeting and minimization procedures.

But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.