The apparently inevitable confirmation by a Democratic majority of a man whose honor and trustworthiness diminished radically over two days of questions should be enough to have us at the barricades. The news that Democrats had engineered their own acceptance of immunity for telecoms should provide us with plenty of ammo. The unwillingness of lead presidential candidates to deal with issues of executive power and constitutional integrity -- this should be enough for wide defections from the Democratic party.
At this point, the emergence of authenticity and real populist energy in a candidate is refreshing, to say the least. Thus, Chris Dodd.
Glenn Greenwald writes:
Dodd is not the planet's greatest orator and is never going to be. But he has something, at least right now, that is far more important: authenticity and passion about defending the Constitution and the rule of law, along with the resolve to accompany those convictions with action...
Chris Dodd? Is he going to turn out to be a top tier candidate? Maybe. In the meantime, a speech and follow-up questions have put him in the spotlight. Close attention to Chris Dodd began with his threatened filibuster.
...He believes that restoration of our constitutional framework and the rule of law is the matter of the greatest urgency, and recounted why those values are inculcated in him, as they are in many -- I'd say most -- Americans. I think Dodd's authenticity and passion -- undoubtedly bolstered by the tidal wave of encouragement he received last week from tens of thousands of American committed to these issues -- is evident from how he is he speaking and the commitments he is making.
Contrast Dodd's leadership and conviction on this matter with the complete passivity and invisibility of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both candidates finally issued statements last night purporting to set forth their views on telecom amnesty and the FISA bill -- but did so only because they were forced to, after they learned that several blogs, in conjunction with MoveOn, intended to launch efforts to today to pressure their campaigns to say where they stood on the Dodd filibuster.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are emerging as followers, not leaders, Greenwald says. Chris Dodd is looking more like a leader. He may well never see the presidency, but we can't say we didn't have the opportunity to nominate a candidate who doesn't have to be pressured to stand up for the Constitution.
Obama said only that "if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it" -- a transparent hedge given that it is virtually certain that the bill (being marked up this week by the Senate Judiciary Committee) will not come to the floor in its "current form." That makes Obama's statement virtually worthless, filled -- as intended -- with plenty of room for him to vote for amnesty if and when the Senate votes on it.
Clinton's statement was just incoherent -- claiming first that she hasn't seen the bill (which has been available for many days now) and thus "can't express an opinion about it," then vowing (so inspirationally) that she is "going to study it very hard," and then surrounding her "support" for a filibuster with multiple conditions: "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."
These statements are just manipulative and woefully insufficient. Leadership is about standing and galvanizing support for fundamental principles. And there just is no more fundamental issue than the rule of law...
Can't argue with that.
