Chris Dodd at the movies

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Last August, retiring Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said he would not become a lobbyist.

Yesterday, it was announced that former Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd will be the next chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, a high-profile lobbying position that will bring in an annual salary of about $1.2 million.

It must be nice when you can cash in like that, when you can use your "public service" to make millions. But of course he was always more lobbyist than lawmaker anyway. Much to his discredit and shame.

But... the MPAA? What the hell does Chris "Big Insurance" Dodd know about the movies?

Dodd, for his part, said in a statement Tuesday he was "excited about representing the interests of the industry." He added, "Protecting this great American export will be my highest priority."

"In several important ways, taking this step represents a continuation of my work in the Senate, from advancing the interests of children and families and creating and safeguarding American jobs to the protection of intellectual property and the expansion of international trade," Dodd continued.

Like Biff Tannen, Dodd is covered in a truckload of manure -- but his own. I realize that heading the MPAA is different than, say, actually making movies (or caring about film), but does he really view American movies as exports rather than art? Sure, there are important issues like intellectual property rights, and Hollywood is very much about making money overseas (given dwindling revenues domestically), but come on. Couldn't he at least have pretended to be something other than a money-obsessed shill?

And what's with the nonsense about "advancing the interests of children and families"? Is that code for Lieberman-style censorship?

I love film, including some of what comes out of the Hollywood cesspool, but I generally dislike Hollywood, whatever its political leanings.

It just got worse.

(photo)

Shameless

By Creature

I would usually reserve that word for Republicans, but Chris Dodd's working overtime for Wall Street these days in trying to keep Elizabeth Warren from the consumer agency job so the shoe fits. Dude, you'll get your payday when you leave regardless. Why must you hurt the rest of us on your way out the door?

Interim head

By Creature

With the news today that Elizabeth Warren can be named interim head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as The Huffington Post headline screams, there really are no excuses for not naming her. That being said, with Dodd's insider-balloon now busted, I fully expect more excuses.

Wall Street reform

By Creature

Dodd keeps talking the talk but I'm still waiting for the walking part. Too-big-to-fail forever.

Dodd's financial reform proposal

By Creature

Not very far reaching, but it's a "foundation." To say I'm sick of foundations and prefer the whole damn house gets built at once is an understatement.

Sen. Byron Dorgan announces retirement

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) has announced that he will not stand for re-election this year, "creating a major pickup opportunity for Republicans," as Chris Cillizza puts it.

North Dakota is a solidly red state, after all -- despite Dorgan's solid hold on the seat since '92 -- and whoever the Republican nominee is (probably Gov. John Hoeven) will be a heavy favourite to be Dorgan's successor.

So is this "un-spinnably bad news for the Democrats," as Nate Silver puts it? It's hard to think otherwise at this point.

And with a loss likely, Democrats will just have to look elsewhere to pick up a seat to maintain the status quo.

**********

Dorgan isn't the only Democrat stepping down this year. As Cillizza is reporting, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd is "expected to announce he will not seek re-election" at a press conference later today.

The difference here is that the Democrats should hold the seat, with State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal Dodd's likely successor. (Given Dodd's deep unpopularity in his home state, Blumenthal should be a stronger Democratic candidate anyway.)

**********

But back to Dorgan. Through my connections at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, I published two guest posts by him this past fall, and I encourage you to check them out:

-- Inspector General to investigate Army's response to exposure of U.S. troops to deadly chemicals in Iraq; and

-- Senators answer video questions on health insurance reform.

He was at times too centrist and Republican-friendly for my liking, but he was solidly liberal on many of the issues that really matter, and his retirement will be a loss both for the Senate and for the Democratic Party.

Don't blame Dodd, revisited

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Does Sen. Chris Dodd's admission that he was, as CNN put it, "responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money [e.g., AIG] were honored" change matters? That is, given this mea culpa, is Dodd the one to blame for the AIG bonuses?

No.

Because it wasn't an admission -- and certainly not a mea culpa.

"The administration had expressed reservations," he said. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely." In other words, it was the Obama Administration -- Geithner and Summers -- that pushed for the loophole, not Dodd. "I agreed reluctantly," he added. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent."

Earlier today, I linked to, and quoted extensively from, Glenn Greenwald's post on the matter, a post that rightly credited Jane Hamsher, who has done some exceptional investigative work here, with exposing the shenanigans behind the loophole, and with pointing the finger directly at the Obama Administration. Glenn has updated his post in light of Dodd's "admission":

I explicitly wrote that it was Dodd who, after arguing vehemently against this provision, ultimately agreed to its inclusion. And the statement from Dodd's office that I quoted above included the same series of events ("Because of negotiations with the Treasury Department and the bill Conferees, several modifications were made, including adding the exemption"). That's exactly what Dodd said today on CNN.

The point was -- and is -- that Dodd was pressured to put that carve-out in at the insistence of Treasury officials (whose opposition meant that Dodd's two choices were the limited compensation restriction favored by Geithner/Summers or no compensation limits at all), and Dodd did so only after arguing in public against it. To blame Dodd for provisions that the White House demanded is dishonest in the extreme, and what Dodd said today on CNN about the White House's advocacy of this provision confirms, not contradicts, what I wrote.

*****

It was the Treasury Department -- at least according to a Treasury official granted anonymity for the extremely compelling reason that he "asked not to be named" -- that pushed for the carve-out, and did so over Dodd's objections. That was the point from the beginning. That's precisely what made it so outrageous that the administration was trying to blame Dodd for a provision which Obama's own Treasury officials advocated, pushed for and engineered.

Now, there may be a Treasury (and Geithner/Summers) side to this that hasn't yet been effectively articulated. Perhaps, just perhaps, "the limited compensation restriction" was the best that could have been achieved. But I suspect not. And what is simply revolting -- if not nearly as revolting as the AIG bonuses, of course -- is the campaign of blame that has been waged against Dodd, an avoidance of responsibility on the part of the administration along with an assault, of sorts, on a loyal Democrat and one of the key figures in the Senate on the bailout issue.

Glenn is right. This is "dishonest in the extreme." And, as far as I can tell, it's simply indefensible.

Don't blame Dodd

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Another must-read, an extremely important one, from Greenwald:

There is a major push underway -- engineered by Obama's Treasury officials, enabled by a mindless media, and amplified by the right-wing press -- to blame Chris Dodd for the AIG bonus payments. That would be perfectly fine if it were true. But it's completely false, and the scheme to heap the blame on him for the AIG bonus payments is based on demonstrable falsehoods.

Jane Hamsher has written the definitive post narrating and indisputably documenting what actually took place. The attempt to blame Dodd is based on a patently false claim that was first fed to The New York Times on Saturday by an "administration official" granted anonymity by Times reporters Edmund Andrew and Peter Baker (in violation, as usual, of the NYT anonymity policy, since all the official was doing was disseminating pro-administration spin). The accusation against Dodd is that there is nothing the Obama administration can do about the AIG bonus payments because Dodd inserted a clause into the stimulus bill which exempted executive compensation agreements entered into before February, 2009 from the compensation limits imposed on firms receiving bailout funds. Thus, this accusation asserts, it was Dodd's amendment which explicitly allowed firms like AIG to make bonus payments that were promised before the stimulus bill was enacted.

That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.

In this case, I fear, the Obama Administration has no one to blame but itself.

For more on the appalling AIG bonuses, see Steve Benen and, on Geithner and Summers, Chris Bowers. It's linked above, but make sure to read Jane Hamsher's brilliant post.

(Note that the right -- notably, Fox Business -- has picked up on the anti-Dodd smear, as Glenn mentions.)

Tuesday at the bar

By Carol Gee

My Glass Runneth Over with blog material today. The Tuesday's-about-Congress blog theme often makes for a slow party at my keyboard. But not today. I have more than I can manage and the nation's road ahead is slick, so a "digest" will have to do.

United States Senate

Former Senator Barack Obama will make a fine President of the United States, with great potential to restore civil liberties, to restore checks and balances, and to restore the rule of law. One of his most admirable themes is bipartisanship, already cautiously welcomed by the GOP leadership. According to a Yahoo! News story:

The Democratic-dominated Congress convenes Tuesday to confront perhaps the worst Great Depression and to grapple with a hugely ambitious agenda set by President-elect Barack Obama.

. . . This year, . . . with the economy in a worsening recession, Democrats are promising swift action on an as-yet-unveiled $775 billion economy recovery program that is the first order of business for the Obama administration.

. . . With their numbers bolstered by last fall's elections, congressional Democrats are well-positioned to dominate the session.

Senator Joseph Biden may not have cast his last Senate votes, despite his being the vice president-elect due to take office January 20. And he is taking advantage of the expertise available by raiding Rep. Steny Hoyer's staff for his legislative affairs director.

Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid is just too weak to fill his job description. He drives many in the blogosphere virtually "to drink," though I have no clue as to what to do about it.

Senator Hillary Clinton will make an excellent secretary of state, a shoo-in for confirmation, will be strong enough to fill the job description.

Senator Chris Dodd will be a very, very busy chairman of the Senate's Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in the 111th Congress, looking to assist the auto industry and the financial and housing sectors of our ailing economy.

Senator Al Franken will have to wait to be sworn in as the Democratic Senator from Minnesota, though he has won the race. Even though his opponent, Norm Coleman, will challenge the results in court, Franken will be the 59th Democratic Senator, bring the body close to a tantalizing "filibuster-proof" majority.

Senator Roland Burris (he says) will also be sworn in at some point, speculates Politico, and I agree. Yahoo! News says, "Senate Democratic leaders need to work out a looming confrontation with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who faces charges of having attempted to sell the seat." And I believe he will run for reelection in 2010.

Senator Ken Salazar's successor, "unknown" Michael Bennet from Colorado, was an early Obama supporter. Bennet has headed the Denver school system, will probably do well enough to get reelected in 2010 as well. Salazar has been tapped to be the new secretary of interior.

Senator Diane Feinstein has no standing to judge Leon Panetta, according to The Reaction's "Creature." And I heartily agree. Nor does Senator Jay Rockefeller, nor Senator Kit Bond, because of their record of caving in time after time to the Bush administration's unlawful and unconstitutional demands regarding warrantless wiretapping, military tribunals, etc. Must the CIA be headed by a spy? Can the director of national intelligence be an ex-admiral? CQ's Jeff Stein, who writes the blog "Spy Talk," makes a very powerful and reasoned argument that Panetta is an excellent choice to lead the CIA, headlining that he "could be the cure for the CIA's ills."

Senator Patrick Leahy, D-VT, will be the very capable chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It will be this committee that holds the hearings to confirm President-elect Obama's top nominees for key Justice Department posts. McClatchy reports that the naming of the most recent nominees (David Ogden, Elena Kagan, Tom Perelli and Dawn Johnsen) signals "An End to Bush Terror Tactics."# To quote:

President-elect Barack Obama signaled that he intends to roll back Bush administration counterterrorism policies authorizing harshinterrogation techniques, warrantless spying and indefinite detentions of terrorism suspects. The most startling shift was Obama's pick of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to take charge of the Office of Legal Counsel,

. . . Obama said that he hoped that the four appointees would restore "integrity, depth of experience and tenacity" to the lead federal law-enforcement agency, which has been battered by scandal.

"This is a superb set of appointments," said [Walter] Dellinger, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel from 1993-96 and then served as U.S. solicitor general. "These four are highly accomplished in the profession and bring a stature to the job that will allow them to say no to the president when no is the correct answer."

United States House of Representatives

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is strong enough to fill her job description, and she will have the help of a 20 seat Democratic gain in the House to move legislation forward quickly. According to Yahoo! News, "'We will hit the ground running ... to address the pain being felt by the American people,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., promised Monday as she welcomed Obama to her office."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has done a good job since his election to that post, and even though he was always a strong conservative, he is also a realist.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) plans to introduce a constitutional amendment to curtail presidential pardon powers, according to TPM Muckracker.

Rep. Charles Rangel's ethical problems remain, leaving the door of his powerful committee chairmanship a bit up in the air. House Democrats are contemplating a set of rules changes, strongly opposed by the GOP, that will have the effect of markedly consolidating their power to legislate, as well as keep Committee chairs in their seats without term limits.

"Cleaning up the mess" is what we elected Barack Obama to do. But it is also the job of Congress. We cannot let them off the hook, expecting that President-elect Obama will "come in on a big horse" and clean up the town gone bad. Our entire economy has gone bad and it is rapidly getting worse. Upcoming issues are serious and imminent. Legislation will be required in addition to executive orders and leadership. Hearings cry out to be held, bipartisanship is yet to be learned. We look to the individuals named in this post, along with many others not named, to step up and do their jobs.

Reference: A look at the work of the 110th Congress -- Congressional Quarterly (12/30/08)

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

FISA bill signing: post mortem

By Carol Gee

7/18/08 -- Because I have been travelling, my posting here at The Reaction has been lacking. Today I am posting something I did on the 12th at South by Southwest that never made it over here. I do this because I am "still smarting" about this disaster, and wanted to share my "take" on it as I wrote it at the time -- for whatever it's worth. The post follows:

How did the courage of Congressional Democrats die, when it comes to protecting our citizens' civil liberties? What happened to their oaths of office in the face of OCP's (our current president's) massive assault on Fourth Amendment privacy protection. First, please look at WaPo transcript of what OCP said as he signed the new FISA bill: Bush remarks on signing of FISA bill. Here is an excellent article headlined, "Bush Signs Spy Bill, ACLU Sues" by Ryan Singel at Wired: Threat Level. To quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit Thursday over a controversial wiretapping law, challenging the constitutionality of the expanded spy powers Congress granted to the president on Wednesday.

The federal lawsuit was filed with the court just hours after Bush signed the bill into law.

Civil liberties advocates have not laid down and died, however. Read this excellent piece regarding what one of the key longtime advocate organizations thinks about the current moribund situation, etc.: "Interview with ACLU re: constitutional challenge to new FISA law," by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com. To quote:

. . . the extraordinary fact that the surveillance program implemented by Congress yesterday does not merely authorize most of the President's so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" that gave rise to this scandal in the first place, but is actually much broader in scope even than that lawless program, because there is not even any requirement in the new FISA law that the "target" of the surveillance have any connection whatsoever to Terrorism, nor is there any requirement that the Government believe the "target" is an agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization, or even guilty of any wrongdoing at all.

. . . Sen. Chris Dodd -- whose stalwart, relentless efforts to stop this law were nothing short of heroic, as those efforts often provoked substantial hostility among many of his colleagues -- sent around the following email today to his mailing list highlighting the positive aspects of the battle:

Yesterday was a sad day for the United States Senate.

It is my hope that the courts will undo the damage done to the Constitution.

But let us stand tall, knowing that by working together we were able to make wiretapping and retroactive immunity part of the national discourse these last number of months.

We came together – all of you, Senator Feingold, bloggers like Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald, organizations like the EFF and ACLU, and untold hundreds of thousands of Americans who simply wanted to make sure that this one, last insult did not happen with ease.

I'm sorry we weren't successful.

I just hope I'm lucky enough to have you by my side in the next fight, whatever that may be.

Thanks for all you've done.

Chris Dodd

. . . the only people outside the Executive Branch who have any real knowledge at all of how these illegal spying powers were exercised are a small number of Senators on the Intelligence Committee who have been briefed by Bush officials, but they are barred by law from saying what they know. Nonetheless, here is what one of those members -- Sen. Russ Feingold -- said during his remarks on the Senate floor regarding the new FISA bill, as highlighted by Howie Klein. In a minimally rational world, these revelations from Sen. Feingold would be major, major news:

I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure.

Important details about the ACLU lawsuits: Blogger emptywheel at Firedoglake discussed a number of and ideas about what might happen next to revive the question. To quote:

. . . one of the article's most intriguing elements: we have worked single mindedly under the assumption that, while many parts of the FAA might could be reversed or minimized through subsequent legislation with a new Congress, the retroactive immunity portion was irrevocable and final. That may, and I emphasize this is a tentative and weak may, not necessarily be the case.

If Congress could not do its job of checking an out of control executive, then there is only one branch left to do it, the judicial. I have not permanently given up hope, but it will be a long tough fight to revive it. The USA is a very sick patient now. We still need to work to save it.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Congress' July 4 recess -- Implications for FISA

By Carol Gee

Congress will be away from Washington for a time to celebrate our nation's birthday. Given the manner this congress has been operating, it is often a good thing for our senators and representatives to be out of the city. Less mischief happens that way. As my regular readers know, much mischief has happened regarding the erosion of citizen privacy over the past few years. And Congress has aided and abetted that assault on the Fourth Amendment. The current fight is over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the "FISA" bill set for revision. The best post on the current and future situation regarding the FISA bill, as yet unresolved by Congress, was put up about a week ago by -- guess who -- my favorite, Glenn Greenwald, writing for Salon.com. Another of his excellent posts sets the stage for what is likely to happen to the FISA bill when Congress comes back from its July 4 recess. To quote (includes his links):

UPDATE: Two Democratic Senators actually fighting against the FISA bill -- Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd -- succeeded in blocking a vote in the Senate until after the July 4 recess (the vote is now scheduled for July 8). Jesselyn Radack -- the DOJ lawyer who became the whistleblower concerning the Bush administration's treatment of John Walker Lindh -- writes here about this success. It's only a temporary reprieve, but delays of this sort can enable further opposition to build and/or allow unanticipated events to intervene.

There is a surprisingly vigorous feud among three of my favorites over the future of FISA. Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann are going at it over Senator Barack Obama's unwelcome support for a bad FISA bill. Former White House Counsel John Dean is also in the middle of it. In my opinion, the disagreements are not so much over the back and forth criticisms between Greenwald and Olbermann over Obama's FISA stance, as they are about a general frustration due to the country's inability to stop the FISA bill's apparent momentum to passage. Empty Wheel weighs in with some helpful insight into this whole bizarre controversy. We all want the same things out of Congress on this matter; we just disagree on how to get there. Congress needs to exercise vigorous oversight over a law-breaking Executive. It needs to defend the Constitution. And it needs to stop caving in to the nasty tactics of Republicans.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Dodd and Feingold to filibuster FISA capitulation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Senators Chris Doss and Russ Feingold announced yesterday that they will filibuster the FISA bill (and Harry Reid will support them). This is from their statement:

This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called 'compromise' legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

Here are two Democrats who are not willing to capitulate -- unlike some Democrats and almost all Republicans (who of course don't see it as capitulation) -- and who are prepared to stand up for the basic constitutional right of Americans to be free of unwarranted government surveillance and against the corporate enablers of Bush's culture-of-fear-based police state.

Dodd and Feingold are absolutely right -- and they deserve our appreciation, admiration, and support.

(For more from us on the disgusting FISA capitulation, see the very fine posts of Carol, Creature, Fogg, and Libby.)

Richardson endorses Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Clinton campaign (in the form of Mark Penn, among others) is trying to downplay it, and understandably so, but make no mistake about it, Richardson's endorsement of Obama (see video below) is big. Indeed, Clinton wanted it, badly, and it does matter -- The Trail's Dan Balz says there are five ways it boosts Obama:

1) Good timing: "Richardson has ridden to Obama's rescue during what has been the roughest stretch of his candidacy."

2) Message to superdelegates: "Richardson sends a signal to superdelegates that they too should back Obama."

3) Support from a Clinton friend: "Richardson is close to both Clintons."

4) Foreign policy credibility: "Richardson implicitly helps Obama answer questions about his readiness to be commander in chief."

5) The Hispanic vote: "Richardson's support could help Obama improve his standing with Hispanic voters."

All good points.

To which I would add this: While many superdelegates remain uncommitted, that is, have yet to announce their support for either Obama or Clinton, many of the top Democrats have taken sides, including Bill Clinton (of course), John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy. Prior to his endorsement, Richardson was one of the leading uncommitted Democrats, along with Al Gore and John Edwards. Gore likely won't endorse and Edwards seems to continue to be unsure of what to do. After Edwards, who was third behind Obama and Clinton when he dropped out of the race, the contenders for the nomination were Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich. Dodd has endorsed Obama, and Biden and Kucinich are uncommitted (though Kucinich may be leaning to Obama). Richardson's endorsement is far more significant than Dodd's, given points 1-5 above, and would be far more significant than a Biden endorsement, also given points 1-5 above, including foreign policy credibility (Richardson's is, I would argue, more significant than Biden's).

All of which is to say that, if Gore and Edwards remain uncommitted, Richardson's was pretty much the biggest endorsement left. So, if I may:

6) A big name.

7) Positive media coverage.

It has indeed been a difficult week -- a difficult few weeks -- for Obama. But his brilliant speech on Tuesday was well-received, Clinton was unable to score any major points, and now, with Richardson's key endorsement, Obama could be getting just the sort of boost he needs. He has been in the lead all along, of course, but he needs a boost to get out of this period of difficulty, much of it driven by Clinton's dirty campaign, the Republican smear machine, and generally negative media coverage. (It helps to have accurate reports like this new one, from The Politico: "One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.")

John Dickerson: "The Democratic race is like a CD stuck on a scratch, just waiting for the superdelegates to give it a kick and put it back on track. Bill Richardson took his shot. Now Obama has to hope that the other superdelegates hear the music and join in."

Yes, let's hope so.

The Coming Showdown -- 2: The latest on FISA intel

By Carol Gee

FISA today -- The United States Senate will take up the "modernization" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act again in a few minutes. A cloture vote on further debate and action is scheduled for 4:30 PM, ET. I posted about the first FISA showdown last week and often about civil liberties and intelligence in the past. And there is some very good news:

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton To Vote “No” On Cloture Tomorrow UPDATE: Barack Obama Will Be There Too, this from Firedoglake (1/27). From the same source you can see a "Thank You Senator Dodd video," a NY Roots project effort here.

This entire controversy is extremely complicated. Today's post is my attempt to consolidate some of the best references on line. Excellent reads helped fill in the latest for me on the news and issues: Glenn Greenwald's well-written column, Saturday 1/26 is called "More disruptions to the Cheney/Rockefeller plan." EmptyWheel at Firedoglake's column on "Bush's Secret Cyber Initiative" came out on 1/26. And from 1/25 you should also read: "How to Lead: Chris Dodd Edition" and "Reid on FISA, It's up to the President."

Friday I took some action via Jane Hamshire's "Take Action Today" post, below. Using the 800-numbers provided, I talked to the offices of Senators Milulski, Johnson, Landrieu, Nelson (Neb.), Salazar, McCaskill, Specter, and my own senators, Hutchison and Cornyn. Today I talked to the offices of Senators Inouye, Baye and Carper. I asked each staff member to urge their senator to vote against the cloture motion this afternoon. There is still time for you to make some calls, too.

Action Central Resources:

• Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake -- "Take Action Today." This includes a wonderful list of Capitol "1-800" phone numbers where you can reach your senator with a free phone call.


• Stop the Spying! -- Speak out against telecom immunity with your photos, videos and phone calls!


• Electronic Frontier Foundation -- NSA Spying Overview, excellent! This organization has gone to court on our behalf.


• American Civil Liberties Union "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" Safe and Free, restore our constitutional rights.


• Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com -- Just the best; check him our regularly if you can only read one!


• empty wheel at Firedoglake -- Among the most knowledgeable on the subject!


• 
  
• Know Your Enemy: Senator Christopher Bond's arguments against civil liberties -- "The Facts Strike Back on FISA" (13 p. pdf)

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Tomorrow will be the first day . . .

By Carol Gee

. . . of the rest of the U.S. presidential candidates' political lives. The much awaited Iowa caucuses will happen in each of their 99 counties. Over 100,000 Iowa political junkies like me will go to a home, a church , a fire hall or somewhere else. They will eventually stand in a corner in support of someone who very much wants to be our next president. This is the first time in over fifty years that the race is completely open. None of the candidates is an incumbent or former Veep. And it seems very exciting to a lot of people.

Therefore, because I am on hold until the caucus results come in, I am posting today related bits and pieces of stuff I wrote in the past for South by Southwest that never made it to The Reaction. It is sort of like cleaning out the 2007 files.

"In Search of Excellence" (1/2/08)

Tomorrow in Iowa starts the search for an excellent new president. It will be a long time before we finish the election process, but it will be worth all the work. We have seven years years of governance behind us that stand in stark contrast to anything beginning to resemble executive excellence. Leadership excellence is hard to describe. But, if you look closely, you know it when you see it.

These are the leadership traits that make it for me -- authenticity, wisdom, honesty, accountability, self-awareness, intelligence, ability to articulate, toughness, stability, capacity to hold onto the big picture, empathy, world view based on experience or background, and a good self-deprecating sense of humor.

I have been catching up with my favorite bloggers this morning and remembered once again why they are all on my favorites list. I present them in no particular order and with no specific definitions of why they show excellence. Just read their stuff and you will understand.

1. "The Brzezinski Challenge for Presidential Contenders in 2008," by Steve Clemons of The Washington Note. The post contains several interesting Z. Brzezinski doodle/drawings.


2. "9/11 Commission: Our investigation was obstructed," by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com. Just the best investigative journalist around.


3. Authors "Lapopessa" and "Buckarooskidoo," blog at Make it Stop! Make it Stop! Features an important editorial and a great best-worst list.
   


4. "Today I'm burning despair's chair," by "txsharon" at Bluedaze. Passionate and personal from a warrior woman.
   

"Grabbing the News Isn't That Simple" (12/12/07)

Staying informed and in the know is not easy for a news junkie like me. I watch some television, mainly C-SPAN, but I find myself missing the pleasures of well written words. My local newspaper changed hands and changed format, so I rarely read it any more. That leaves me, like many of you, to reliance on the Internet for news.
The latest news via RSS feeds is the way many of us go on line to get our current events info. Bloglines is where I get my 111 feeds. Signing up for that many stories every day was just crazy. MSNBC claimed in 2004 that about 50 such feeds would be the average for a typical user of the RSS method. There is no way in the world that I will be "well read" as a result of my scanning marathons. And with Bloglines, I only have room for 200 items from any one subscription. So unread, they just stacked up and quit - getting stale as the days passed.

So my next project will be to delete at least half of my feeds. Those I keep will be based on several factors. I want to read well written and accurate material. I want to read the latest important news. I want viewpoints from around the world. I want to keep up in my special areas of interest. And I want to read regularly from familiar writers.

My folder categories will eventually include the only the following:

1. My Favorites -- These are my "blog friends." I try to visit these writers almost every day. These writers always have something interesting to say, or lead interesting lives that they share openly and authentically with their readers. I have been reading some of them for years.
   


2. Essential U.S. Newspapers -- The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the LA Times. Others will have a different list, perhaps one that includes their hometown newspaper.
   


3. Essential News Services & Magazines -- McClatchy and Reuters news services, as well as Slate Magazine and US News & World Report. The news services often have a breaking story first. Notice that I do not subscribe to Google or Yahoo! news, nor to USA Today or any television feeds.
   


4. Recognized Blogs -- Glenn Greenwald @ Salon is my intelligence specialist. Steve Clemons @ The Washington Note works at a Washington think tank and mingles with important politicians here and abroad. Juan Cole @ Informed Comment is my Middle East specialist. Andrew Sullivan @ The Atlantic is a thoughtful and articulate Conservative. The Mahablog is done by a full time blogger who is fierce and prolific. Steve Benen @ The Carpetbagger Report is a very trustworthy progressive who writes very well. Empty Wheel just got launched after beginning at Firedoglake. Over the years I have come to trust what these folks post.
   


5. "Big" Progressive Political Blogs -- Firedoglake, Politico.com, Talking Points Memo, DailyKos, and the Huffington Post. I read these important blogs to keep up with the latest inside stuff as well as to (naturally) reinforce my own progressive biases.
   

"Southwest Politics -- Flotsam and Jetsam" (12/17/07)

Because Texas is located in the Southwest certain issues are more predominant than others with us.

The Southwest in 2008 -- Given the abysmal reputation of our current president, it may be forever before another Texas Favorite Son will be elected. The Iowa Independent writer Douglas Burns thinks that the Southwest will decide the presidential election, however. He may be right if you include the West also, because Colorado and Nevada are technically Western States. Here is what he said with his Obama vice-presidential musings:

Dodd, a U.S. senator from Connecticut, and Obama clearly have respect for each other.. . . Dodd is simply a classy senator who can answer questions with reliable competency. Yes, the Southwest likely will determine the 2008 election, and sure, a Richardson vice presidential nomination makes sense because of this. But Dodd is fluent in Spanish as I saw firsthand when Lorena Lopez of La Prensa and I conducted a joint interview with him. If Obama gets the nomination Dodd complements him in a number of ways as a running mate -- including his ability to campaign in Spanish.

Dodd won't make mistakes out there and with his reassuring white hair, the elder statesman would be a nice balance for Obama. Youth and wisdom. Age and experience.

"About Spinning" (12/02/07)

One of the most frequent modern meanings of "spin" is associated with news and politics. As a modern-day blogger, my biases will inevitably put a spin on what I write. Occasionally I might label such a view as a bias or speculation if I can catch myself.

What do we mean by spin? Dictionary.com carried these pertinent "spin" definitions:

7. to produce, fabricate, or evolve in a manner suggestive of spinning thread: to spin a tale of sailing ships and bygone days.

11.	Slang. to cause to have a particular bias; influence in a certain direction: His assignment was to spin the reporters after the president's speech.

–verb (used without object)
16. to have a sensation of whirling; reel: My head began to spin and I fainted.
22. Slang. a particular viewpoint or bias, esp. in the media; slant: They tried to put a favorable spin on the news coverage of the controversial speech. . .

Bloggers sometimes choose an image of self that is not actual, and thus not literally accurate. My Blogger profile image is actually "Woman with a basket of spindles," painted in 1517 by Andrea del Sarto, a lesser known contemporary of Raphael. The painter's subject does reflect my self-image as a writer with which I am comfortable (my spin): I am lesser-known, I come prepared, and I am older. I am sort of serious, I work hard and am just a bit formal. My S/SW Intro (above) reads: "IDEAS & REFLECTIONS - my observations and commentary on people and events that affect the USA or the rest of the world."

Wikipedia used this image to illustrate its "Weaving" entry. The image label reads,

"Andrea del Sarto's iconographic choice evokes the womanly link between the two worlds."

. . . In later European folklore, weaving retained its connection with magic. Mother Goose, traditional teller of fairy tales, is often associated spinning.^[1] She was known as "Goose-Footed Bertha" in French legends as spinning incredible tales that enraptured children.

I have no magical powers, I must admit. I call myself a "little" blogger, amongst thousands of others, trying to weave the day's news into a pattern that readers can see as coherent and authentic. This is, among other things, what I am willing to reveal "About Me" in my profile:

* Gender: Female
* Astrological Sign: Gemini
* Industry: Non-Profit
* Occupation: Retired Clinical Social Worker
* Location: Southwest : United States

A retired counselor, I am equal parts Techie and Artist. I am a Democrat who came to the Southwest to attend college. I married, had kids and have lived here all my adult life.

. . . For me the antidote to spin in this post was authenticity. There is precious little of that during this campaign season. Republican retirement is widespread these days but even that does not cure the spinning habit. Karl Rove wins the spin medal for this one about who wanted to go to war the worst before the invasion of Iraq. In very stark contrast, retiring Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) would win the authenticity medal from me for this (from The Swamp). To quote:

Hagel: Bush White House 'arrogant, incompetent.'Of course, many others would say I am totally biased. I guess this is politics, for better or worse.

And now, on to Iowa!

Iowa's brand of democracy

By Edward Copeland

The Iowa caucuses are a strange beast in general, with multiple locations where Iowans brave whatever winter weather might be occurring to stand in a room and publicly declare their support for a candidate. However, what's not so well known is Iowans who work night shifts are disenfranchised BY STATE LAW. Their employers are not required to let them off to go vote. From the Des Moines Register story:

Ruth Kennedy's boss won't let her take time off from her night-shift job so she can caucus. She's not alone — emergency workers and other Iowans on the night shift will miss the marquee political event in Iowa.
Three weeks ago, Kennedy asked to leave her customer service job at Mediacom at 5:30 p.m. on Jan. 3 so she could caucus for Democrat Hillary Clinton. She said her supervisor waited until Christmas Eve to deny the request, saying that they couldn't spare her, that they hadn't had such requests before and that one fewer person at the caucus wouldn't make a difference anyway.
"It made me so furious," said Kennedy, who lives in Des Moines. "I raised such a fit I'm surprised they didn't send me home."
Nothing in the law requires Iowa employers to give workers time off so they can stand up for the presidential candidate of their choice.

In something that's certain to hurt Dodd, emergency services in Des Moines are fully staffing firefighters and then some for caucus night, meaning the union that endorsed him will have a lot of members unable to caucus.

Like an oasis in the desert

By Carol Gee

It was an amazing thing to watch, this strange thing called "leadership." But there it was, this cool guy from Connecticut, his face getting red, saying "No, not this time!" He was saying it on the floor of the Senate In Washington.

And a few of his friends stood up for him -- Senators Kennedy, Wyden, Nelson and Feingold, particularly, but generally he was on his own.

The opposing Republican Senators he faced yesterday got really red in the face, too. Their arguments for the bill were absurd distortions of the issues, avoidance of the truth about the illegality of the actual warrantless wiretap program, etc. The most absurd was the one accusing us "conspiracy theorists" of being fear mongers, trying to make people fear their own government, of all things. Talk about pot and kettle!

His compatriots were in Iowa, gathering next year's votes. Senator Dodd managed to gather some votes that truly mattered to our country's future today. Our public pressure appeared to aid this courageous man in one of the biggest fights of his career, because Senator Reid pulled the bill from the floor until next year.

If it had not been for this one man who exercised leadership at a critical moment, I might be writing a lament tonight. But I am relieved. I am no longer undecided. You have my vote, Senator Dodd, whether you have the required "electability quotient" or not.

Bravo. You are like a cool drink of water in the desert to us.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Dodd debunks McConnell

By Libby Spencer

Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, National Minister of Disinformation, writes a disgustingly self-serving op-ed for the NYT today but Chris Dodd is right on it. He's a lot more polite than I feel like being about it.

In what has become a sad pattern, Mr. McConnell, like many in this Administration past and present, tries to convince the public that we must abandon the rule of law to protect the telecom industry from being held accountable if they broke any laws. He writes, "[I]t is critical for the intelligence community to have liability protection for private parties that are sued only because they are believed to have assisted us after Sept. 11, 2001."

Mr. McConnell is flat wrong.

To suggest that the telecoms are being sued "only" because they assisted the government after September 11th is disingenuous at best. Companies like AT&T and Verizon find themselves in court today not because they assisted the government by handing over their customers' personal and private information - but because they appear to have broken the law by doing so. The telecoms are being sued because they did not receive a warrant - yet they went ahead and helped the Administration anyway.

The closing graf is a great one. If ony we had a president who spoke like this.

I believe we can't protect our country if we fail to protect our Constitution and the rule of law. It is precisely by upholding our rights that we become safer and more secure at home. The opposite path is fundamentally flawed, inherently dangerous, and, apparently, embraced by our Director of National Intelligence. Given all that this Administration has done to trample our Constitution, it may not be surprising - but it remains disappointing.

It's a shame Dodd doesn't get more respect, and by that I mean press coverage, from the establishment media. If more Americans had easy access to his message, I'd guess he would be the frontrunner right now.

Meanwhile, McConnell is trying to spin the telecoms as having willingly broken the law out of some kind of patriotism. What a steaming sack of cow pucks. Maybe he thinks we don't know they received millions of tax dollar's worth of contracts in order to do so. Of course the GOP has had this problem confusing greed with good business practices for a long time now.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

On debates and drivers licenses

By Creature

I watched last night's Democratic debate in its entirety. While it was more lively than previous debates, I hate to say, at times, it became more background noise as the ideological spin combined with the hoots, hollers, and honks of an East Village evening. X has a good round-up at SotD, but my quick impressions are as follows:

Biden, once again, had the best line of the night with his Giuliani attack. Biden snarked, "There are only three things he mentions in a sentence... A noun and a verb and 9/11. He is genuinely not qualified to be president" [Video here]

Edwards won me over with his criticism of Hillary's support for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. Edwards slammed it saying it was "written in the language of the neocons... [and it] gave Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted."

Obama did nothing to impress me. If anything he lost more ground with his wishy-washy opening line about how the media has "over-hyped" his statement regarding going after Hillary more aggressively and then proceeded to frame Hillary as a flip-flopper. I thought his tone there smacked of Kerry '04 and it just didn't sit right. Lastly with Obama, and I realize this isn't Last Comic Standing, I thought his Rocky joke fell flat, almost embarrassingly so.

Hillary, under fire all night, held her own. She continued to give non-answers, but her non-answers contained just enough substance to where she comes off sounding knowledgeable and competent. And, while Chris Matthews hammered her for wavering on the NY Governor's proposal to give drivers licenses to illegals--a proposal, BTW, he has now watered down and backed off of, for which the NYT yesterday correctly took him to task --i t was Dodd's unequivocal negative response to the Governor's proposal that soured me on him, not Hillary (though she will have to answer to the Right for her pro-immigrant response).

Dodd called Spitzer's plan "troublesome" and went on to say that a drivers license is a "privilege, not a right." I'm sorry, but that's enough to knock Dodd out of contention in my progressive book. To some a drivers license is a necessity, it's a means to feed a family, and granting them without prejudice is smart policy. Dodd showed a bit of Dobbs there and I did not like it one bit.

Overall, I may be back on the Edwards bandwagon.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

A debatable presidential primary turning point

By Creature

The Dems take the stage to debate tonight in Philly. If my numbers are right this is debate number 712 and with 65 days to go before the public gets to cast their first vote tonight's Democratic battle is shaping up to be a do-or-die event for Obama and Edwards in their quest to bump Hillary off her inevitable throne.

Obama, grasping for an issue that will stick, will go after Hillary on Social Security--much to the chagrin of progressives everywhere since this was an issue the Dems had successfully put to bed years ago.

Edwards, who has not been lacking the will to attack Hillary directly, will continue beating his special-interest drum, with, hopefully, a bit of free trade thrown in to boot--a winning issue for Edwards.

Personally, my Constitution-loving sights will be set on Senator Dodd. After a strong few weeks fighting against telcom retroactive immunity and now standing tall against the Constitutionally-confused attorney general nomination, Mukasey, Dodd is poised to make a move from the basement to hopefully Richardson territory--and, yes, how irrelevant has Richardson become lately.

Overall, for the first debate in a while, I'm looking forward to seeing the Dems together on stage tonight. Not only for the punches I hope they throw at each other, but, as TPM reader KB astutely suggests, for the punches they should all begin to throw at the war-mongering GOPers on the other side of the ticket.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)