THE BODACIOUS POLITICS OF SENATOR CHRIS DODD
Glenn Greenwald has had a flurry of great guest posts. One that caught my eye sums up my current frustrations with Democratic politics:
Barack Obama, last night:
Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill . . . 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.Hillary Clinton, last night:
I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven't seen it so I can't express an opinion about it. . . . As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently.Chris Dodd, yesterday:
You don't decide to keep to something in a bill that's dreadfully wrong because the president threatens a veto. If it's dreadfully wrong, as this is in my view, to provide retroactive immunity, here, then you strip it out of the bill, and do everything you can to achieve that. The President vetoes it, you send it back that way again. You don't put, the constitution should not be monkeyed around with because you're afraid of a veto. That's the worst thing you could do, when it comes to that document.
That all speaks -- loudly and clearly -- for itself.
By the way, Dodd and Obama are on track with Cuba, and Clinton is triangulating. I'm glad Bush is 'doing something', even if it is not the engagement that is required; because it seemed to me that Castro might go by, without ne're a word from stuck-in-a-rut Republicans.
Couldn't we make the case that, once he's gone, the battle-of-wills with this one man who has so angered so many can finally mutate into a ... policy that might, like, actually DO something?
