She voted against the bill, Obama voted for it, and McCain didn't vote, but supported it. Her speech follows. I disagree with her that it is a 'difficult issue,' but we all know why she said it. Here's her statement.
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.
I don't think her denunciation was as strong as it ought to have been, but at least she spoke against it. At Open Left, Matt Stoller sheepishly can't quite bring himself to praise her stance except with faint damns. Instead he finds it 'ironic.'
I wonder why she did this. It's possible she voted this way to embarrass Obama, though it's more likely she just believes that this is a bad bill. Maybe it's heralding a new Clinton who is less cautious and more willing to fight for liberal principles.
Eh, I don't know, but kudos to Clinton. It's ironic so far I suppose that Clinton is of late a more reliable ally than Obama, at least on this issue.
The Talking Dog likewise wants to believe that Clinton would have voted the same way as Obama to avoid looking 'soft on terror.' Um...what? Then why feel outraged over the bill at all? Just see it as part of Obama's winning strategy.
I join myiq2xu at The Confluence in spluttering with incredulous laughter that even when Hillary does the right thing, she can't get any credit for it. After all, as the piece points out: Occam's Razor. (Things That Make You go WTF?) Methinks a number of my fellow Dems are desperately fending off 'buyer's remorse.' The way things are going, I can't say I blame them. They should probably keep it up as long as they can. McCain, after all, whatever you think of Obama, is even worse.
And Taylor Marsh explains what FISA shows about Obama:
That Barack Obama voted with the Republicans should put to rest any idea whatsoever of his...his ability to stand up to knee jerk charges that inevitably come at Democrats. The fact that he likely voted the way he did in order not to be tagged as being "weak on national security" actually illustrates his vulnerabilities more than prove his strengths. Because you can't posture that you're strong on matters like these, you either are or you aren't.
As an aside, it also proves that on Iraq, if Obama had been in the senate, he'd likely have voted for the AUMF, just like Hillary and all the other Democrats. But that's moot now.
At Lawyers, Guns, and Money, Scott Lemieux poses the musical question: 'Are You Tough Enough?' and responds:
No. (...."Step 2! There's so much we can do! To capitulate to Bush and expand arbitrary executive power!")....And all due credit to Clinton.
Check out the video here.
As Pamela Leavey says as The Democratic Daily, this cave in is particularly hard on Dems who wanted to see Clinton chosen as the presumptive nominee.
But will the FISA cave really help Obama be perceived as strong on security? And will McCain's absence from the vote give him a comeback? The McCain camp is betting 'no.'
"Charting Barack Obama's reversals on this issue reads like a road map to political expediency," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said Wednesday. "When he was trying to earn votes from the liberal left he made promises that he was quick to dispense with - and it shows that his word is a political tool, not a principled commitment. On the other hand, John McCain has stayed the responsible course on this issue, it's well understood and consistent." (The Swamp)
In other words, McCain's people are arguing -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that people should vote for McCain because he is consistently wrong, whereas -- as to FISA, anyway -- Obama goes back and forth, inconsistently. Sigh. Why should it always come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils? The campaign isn't only about FISA, and I remain on Obama's side of the fence. But I am longing to feel better about him as the nominee, and this isn't helping. More blogger reaction here.
RELATED POSTINGS
FISA: How They Voted and What it Means
Those 300 Economists Who 'Support' McCain's Economic Plan
McCain to Balance the Budget And Spin Gold Out of Manure
Spitefulness Towards Obama: Some Reflections
Tracking the Course of the Bush-Cheney Juggernaut As It Lurches Toward Iran
The Economy: There's Really Nothing Anyone Can Say
How Uninformed is John McCain About the Economy?
Chairman of Joint Chiefs Recommends a Cautious Approach in Iraq; Other Nations Try for Diplomatic Solutions
I actually agree with the McCain camp rhetoric - the FISA switch doesn't help Obama. That's what makes this episode seem so strange to me - there wasn't even a real clear-cut strategic imperative. Obama has been winning hearts and minds by communicating a clear distinction on issues of Iraq and national security, not by offering process criticism and token resistance like Kerry did in 2004. It's an extremely risk-averse strategy, and I can only hope that the only fallout from it is the passage of a terrible piece of legislation.
I disagree with Taylor Marsh, though. The FISA switch is the exception, not the rule. Obama has stood up to Republicans on a variety of issues, including some (the Roberts nomination and the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment, to name two) that saw lots of other Democrats bow to the pressure. One capitulation, no matter how disappointing, does not make a pattern. None of the other supposed "shifts" of late (the non-change on Iraq, the revelation of support for faith-based initiatives, the strategic move to refuse public financing) reveal much of anything about Obama's willingness to stand up to Republican pressure.
Posted by: Adam | July 14, 2008 at 05:54 PM