WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH HILLARY AND OBAMA? WHY CAN'T EITHER OF THEM JUST ANSWER A STRAIGHT FORWARD QUESTION?

Yesterday Chris Dodd came over to Firedoglake to talk with the community about his plans to oppose-- really oppose-- the heinous plans worked out between Bush and a gaggle of bought-off senatorial whores to grant retroactive immunity to top executives/campaign contributors at telecom conglomerates who cooperated, illegally, with Bush on spying on American citizens. You can watch Senator Dodd on this video:



Polling shows that "a majority of likely voters in the U.S. oppose giving immunity to telephone companies who sold customer information to the government." Although 31% of Americans are fine with all the wiretapping that Bush wants to do and all the retroactive immunity the regime wants to grant its lackeys, "according to the ACLU survey of 1,000 likely voters, 59% were either opposed or strongly opposed to the idea of giving companies that sold such information to the government civil or criminal immunity, even if that information was used to 'investigate terrorism.'"

You may already have gotten an e-mail from MoveOn yesterday asking you to consider signing a petition to congressmembers urging them to oppose immunity. It's really important that senators absolutely refuse, the way Dodd, Feingold and even Biden, have said they will, to sanction Bush's demands for immunity-- any immunity. After Bush's fingers off over the levers of power, Americans are going to expect a great deal more accountability than has ever been seen before in terms of a former administration. There is no place for immunity for any Bush cronies or their allies. Don't the Democrats ever learn?

I've seen two statements from Democratic front-runners Hillary and Obama. Hillary first:

"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. But I don't trust the Bush Administration with our civil rights and liberties. So I'm going to study it very hard. 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."

What the hell does that mean? Is Dodd, Feingold and Biden are filibustering Bush's attempt to retroactivley immunize executives who have helped him make a sham out of the Constitution. Where does Hillary stand? Is she committing to a filibuster? I read her statement a dozen times and I still don't know. I read Biden's and Feingold's and Dodd's and I do know.

Obama had a spokesperson send out a carefully hedged statement that says "if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form [whatever that means; bill's never come to the floor it their "current" form] he would support a filibuster of it." Since then he released an even more hedged statement:

"I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal-- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity-- is not the place to start."

Jesus Christ... has he been hanging around with the wrong people or something? Or just paying too much attention to the way Hillary doesn't commit to answering a straight forward question?

All Americans are asking them to do is agree to what Dodd, Biden and Feingold agreed to-- filibuster any bill with any retroactive immunity for any telecoms that did anything illegal? How hard is that? Are they on our side or the side, ultimately, of the big money interests that have turned Democrats like Jay Rockefeller into useless, pitiful whores? Didn't Obama accuse Hillary of being that already. What is he doing-- trying to follow suit... already? Maybe you'll have better luck asking than the rest of us. Here are there phone numbers. Ask them-- as well as your own senators-- to oppose amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms:

Hillary- 703-469-2008 (or her Senate office: 202-224-4451

Obama- 866-675-2008 (his Senate office: 202-224-2854

Call 'em. I can't guarantee, of course, that the telecoms aren't tapping... so be polite.


UPDATE: BLOGGERS ARE ASKING HILLARY AND OBAMA TO TAKE A STAND

Many of my favorite bloggers have started asking the same questions-- although I guess most of them are more polite than I am. Damn, why am I such a jerk? I need to spend more time on the phone with Christine Pelosi; she is such a good influence on my better side. Maybe I can take that training of hers. Does that make you a nicer person? Anyway... Jane, as always, is brilliant and the picture of diplomatic sweetness. And Atrios-- right to the point, just as you'd expect. John Amato must be really worked up because he's done an opus instead of a normal Crooks & Liars paragraph. Glenn Greenwald, wraps it all up nicely in a neat pacakge-- with a lovely ribbon (over at Salon). And Matt at OpenLeft is very concise and very precise. I can't wait to see if Digby weighs in on this. I bet she does.

MINI-UPDATE: Digby's been busy over at Common Sense explaining why Democrats never fight back effectively. But she rushed back to her own site and-- POW!-- laid out an incredibly well-reasoned piece about why we need an paddle-- Not A Tough Call. Also well worth reading: Taylor Marsh and Ian Welsh.


UPDATE: OBAMA GETS CLEAR

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

OK, was that so damn hard? Hill?


UPDATE: AND AT THE END OF THE DAY?

A big thank you to Chris Dodd, doing what a real Democrat should be doing! Tomorrow, we'll try to get an answer out of Harry Reid