Well.....that's a start.

Hold it until next November and then I'll be impressed.

Good for Senator Dodd. At least he's trying. More than I can say for the rest of the Democratic Senate. He stepped up for us. We should as least tell him we appreciate that.

Dodd has quietly been showing the most integrity of all of the candidates for President. He's eloquent and seems principled.

I'm starting to get impressed.

This is, by my reckoning, the first politician to meaningfully stand up to the criminal gang. He's got my vote.

Kudos to the Senator. He's just gained one more supporter.

JQP @ 12:

Kudos to the Senator. He's just gained one more supporter.

ditto and ditto.

Amazing. We have, what, at least three other Senators vying for the Democratic party nomination for President and Dodd is the only one actually demonstrating leadership in the Senate on things that matter. Predictably, the media has him pegged in the lower tier.

I like Edward's issues, but he seems to be in the same camp as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, and most of the rest of the veteran Democrats... let things stay awful the next year-and-a-half and we'll have a Democrat in the White House. The run-out-the-clock strategy is not only likely to blow up in their faces, but I fear what's left of this country will swirl down the giant toilet flush that is the Bush Jr. Administration while they do nothing.

Dodd Is getting to look better all the time, he has shown time and again to be on the correct side of issues as well as calling out right wing pundits and their rhetoric from ending the Cuban embargo, getting out of Iraq, defending YearlyKos against the O'Reilly smear campaign among other things...

Off topic, but "Obama: What, me worry?" The liberal media at its finest.

So we're going from lapel-pin-gate to big-ears-gate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_el_pr/obama_leno_2

Bluesman,

I agree with just about everything except I'm a bit more pessimistic to believe that their simply running out the clock - I truly believe they are just as interested in allowing these abuses and are even actively involved in changing policy with the Republicans and the administration. It will only mean that when they do get the presidency they too can leverage unchecked power for the benefit of their big-money buddies. I have real difficulty believing that the majority of the Democratic leadership is as blatantly incompetent, spineless and pathetic as they've appeared to be this past year of ineffectual majority leadership.

There is a word that accurately describes this action by Senator Christopher Dodd... It's called GUTS!!! Nancy and the rest of em, should check into that... They desparately need some...
Thank you Senator Dodd..............JD

There is so much bitching and moaning about the dems never doing anything and now when one steps up and gives it a shot, he gets doubts and disbelief. Is it a lose/lose situation?

Good!

great news, but can someone explain what he means by putting a "hold" on the bill?

and if any senator can do this why haven't they put a "hold" on so many other horrible bills?

Damned straight, Jack Damage! He is showing guts and isn't that all we've asked for, for such a long time now?

I was all over the place about who I wanted to support. I was a Dodd fan before he said he would run. But then the Hillary/Obama/Edwards train rolled in and I sort of deserted Senator Dodd. Now I'm back!

Lollimom @ 31:

Only when citizens are ready to face the corporations in this country will this idiocy of corporate rule STOP.

No amnesty for any of them.

NO SPECIAL RIGHTS for corporations.

We have to unseat the corporations from having a place at the government table.

Hear hear.

Isnt it damning that we even have to say something like this?

In fact we could simply say - end fascism.

"I have real difficulty believing that the majority of the Democratic leadership is as blatantly incompetent, spineless and pathetic as they’ve appeared to be this past year of ineffectual majority leadership."

I don't have any difficulty believing this actually.

Not all Democrats on the Judiciary Committee appeared to share Leahy’s concerns. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sits on both the Judiciary and Intelligence panels, signaled she was likely to support the bipartisan approach.

“At this stage, it is a bipartisan bill,” Feinstein said. “I’m absolutely convinced that the only way we can legislate on this is on a bipartisan basis. This bill so far is bipartisan — that’s good news.”

Feinstein can shove that bipartisan bullshit up her bipartisan ass. How is it bipartisan to give them what they want again? She is saying the only way they can legislate is to cave in on this fake bipartisan bullshit. What kind of lawmakers give immunity for crimes they aren't sure of?

YES!! GO SENATOR DODD!!

Hey someone found a pair in the Democratic Party - Who would have thunk it????????

Yahoo!!!!!
*

pissed off patricia @ 23:

Please go to his website linked in the post and thank him for what he's done. If he had done something we didn't like we would let him know, right? He needs our support on this. Finally a candidate who, when someone asks me what that person has done for me, has given me something to say.

Ditto that plus sent off copies to my email contacts list.
Even sent one to Broder that wise ole washington piss ant. Ha!

Democrats Get Balls! **
http://demballs.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

[**put down your drink before clicking link. Not responsible for your keyboard]

Janet, I just followed that link and read about what Feinstein said. I couldn't agree with you more. Who the hell thinks making nice is more important than being legal? To hell with her opinions.

Let's not say that Senator Dodd grew a spine or grew a couple, let's say he took a stand for the Constitution. It sounds so much more respectable and he sure does deserve our respect right now. :)

I can't seem to wrap my head around this immunity. If the act wasn't illegal at the time it was committed no immunity is necessary. And if it was illegal at the time it should be sanctioned accordingly, no law should work retroactively either for prosecution or immunity.

right on! @ 17:

Way to go Senator Dodd!!! About time someone said NO!!!!

Those telephone companies handing over private information should be challenged in court. They don't get to pretend they did nothing wrong. What they did was and is against the law and the CEO and senior management staff belong in jail for their participation.

There is that, but that isn't even the most important part. Suing the telcos is the only avenue left for the public to seek a judicial ruling on whether or not Bush's surveillance practices are legal, because any attempt to go at the source is automatically shut down with the predictable "state secrets" and "executive privilege" defenses. This is Bush's open fly and he knows it, which is why he's desperately trying to zip it up by protecting the telcos against lawsuits.

Way to go, Chris Dodd. Thank God we have even a single senator willing to stand up to the GOP and go to bat for the Constitution. I don't even mind if you're doing it in part to get votes. You might just have succeeded. ;)

pissed off patricia @ 51:

How about a Dodd/Feingold ticket? That would so work for me.

Hmmm...I've always leaned Edwards but I have to admit that ticket sounds intriguing.

Good grief, I'm so giddy at this tiny bit of good news I can hardly spell correctly...............(sigh)... JD

I know, Jack Damage. This is almost as good as an ice cold martini, for a buzz. Almost ;)

In my wet dream he drives a truck load of emails supporting his hold into the capitol and dumps them on top of all the traitors.

Its about damn time, I was seriously depressed to see that they were going to pass that bill with the immunity. It was starting to look like something out of a bad novel.

After seven damn years of having bills and legislation rammed down our throat why should be HAVE TO BE BIPARTISIAN...I remember that fat asshat from Wisconsin Sennesbutt going to a conference room where democrats were meeting, taking the mike and turning off the electricity and then calling the police to have them thrown out.

I would go after this common ass piece of republican crap every single time he did anything. AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD I BE BIPARTISAN. If the republicans won't vote for a bill, the democrats are as spineless as crap not to go before the press and tell the country just what they are doing.

What the hell are they afraid of. That republicans won't vote for a bill, hell that's what they are doing now and making the democrats look bad for not passing anything. Seems to me their plans are working a heck of a lot better than the democrats. Kick ass and forget them.

Called it. Got a machine and left a message asking for imuunity for a bong hit in college. Said I'm sure it's a simple process compared to the stuff the phone companies did.

Chris @ 63:

Call (202) 224-6472, and say: "Hi, is this the number I call to get retroactive immunity for my past illegal acts?"
http://www.correntewire.com/call_202_224_6472_and_say_hi_is_this_the_number_i_call_to_get_retroactive_immunity_for_my_past_illegal_acts

Jack Damage @ 56:

Good grief, I'm so giddy at this tiny bit of good news I can hardly spell correctly...............(sigh)... JD

I called Feinstein's office and raised some hell! I don't care where you are call one of the Intelligence Committee members offices and do the same!!!!

Your spelling is fine Jack!

from Glenn Greenwald regarding the immorality of the retroactive-immunity FISA bill:

...Just think about what is really happening here. AT&T's customers sued them for violating their privacy in violation of long-standing federal laws and for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. Even with the most expensive armies of lawyers possible, AT&T and other telecoms are losing in a court of law. The federal judge presiding over the case ruled against them -- ruled that the law is so clear they could not possibly have believed that what they did was legal -- and most observers, having heard the Oral Argument on appeal, predicted that they will lose in the Court of Appeals, too.

So AT&T and other telecoms went to Washington and -- led by Bush 41 Attorney General (and now Verizon General Counsel) William Barr, and in cooperation with their former colleague, Mike McConnell -- began paying...government officials such as...Jay Rockefeller, to pass a law declaring them the victors in these lawsuits and be relieved of all liability -- all based on assertions that a court of law has already rejected. They are literally buying a judicial victory in Congress -- just like Carothers warned that third-world countries must avoid if they want to become functioning democracies under the "rule of law"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

Obly @ 52:

right on! @ 17:

Way to go Senator Dodd!!! About time someone said NO!!!!

Those telephone companies handing over private information should be challenged in court. They don't get to pretend they did nothing wrong. What they did was and is against the law and the CEO and senior management staff belong in jail for their participation.

There is that, but that isn't even the most important part. Suing the telcos is the only avenue left for the public to seek a judicial ruling on whether or not Bush's surveillance practices are legal, because any attempt to go at the source is automatically shut down with the predictable "state secrets" and "executive privilege" defenses. This is Bush's open fly and he knows it, which is why he's desperately trying to zip it up by protecting the telcos against lawsuits.

The metaphor is disturbing, but you're exactly right. Who knows what the telephone companies will reveal about the scope of the wiretapping if they have to testify under oath.

Feinstein is either a moron or corrupt to use this bipartisan crap as an excuse. When there is a right side and a wrong side of an issue there is no meeting the wrong side half way. I am so sick of everybody preaching that there are two equal sides to every issue. Hey here's an idea. . . lets come up with a bipartisan consensus on murder being legal. Lets come up with a bipartisan form of rape. Lets do bipartisan adultery. Maybe the Senator needs a bipartisan slap upside the head? Do you think she would see that as a positive thing?

bipartisan does NOT mean give the repugs what they want.

someone should also put a hold on the media consolidation bill as well.

Paul in LA @ 77:

Plisko @ 74:

Feinstein is either a moron or corrupt

YES.

Multiple choice? I choose CORRUPT.

Meanwhile, Pat Leahy throws Rockefeller under the bus — where he belongs — for letting things get so far down the road that this became necessary…read on

THANK GOD FOR LEAHY, TOO!

Paul in LA @ 81:

hope @ 78:

Paul in LA @ 77:

Plisko @ 74:

YES.

Multiple choice? I choose CORRUPT.

Then you are half-right. Would you like to try for 100%?

EXTREMELY CORRUPT?

When is someone going to take Diane Feinstein aside and remind her she's a freakin' Democrat? She appears to have taken up the reins of Lieberman prior to his turning "independent," pushing through the most outrageous bills in her committee and calling it "bipartisan."

It ain't "bipartisan," baby, it's CAPITULATION TO A DESPOT.

Medford Tim @ 84:

When is someone going to take Diane Feinstein aside and remind her she's a freakin' Democrat? She appears to have taken up the reins of Lieberman prior to his turning "independent," pushing through the most outrageous bills in her committee and calling it "bipartisan."

It ain't "bipartisan," baby, it's CAPITULATION TO A DESPOT.

It doesn't benefit her husband if she actually is a Democrat.

Medford Tim @ 84:

When is someone going to take Diane Feinstein aside and remind her she's a freakin' Democrat?

She is a Lame Duck, doesn't have to worry about reelection until 2012, and will probably retire (at 79). She has NEVER voted with the Dems on a partyline vote, but ALWAYS rolls over for his friends (who are mostly Republican and war- and corporate-rich like her).

She won't vote to convict Bush even if he strangles his wife on television.

Paul in LA @ 85:

Peace @ 70:

from Glenn Greenwald regarding the immorality of the retroactive-immunity FISA bill:

I am waiting for Greenwald to clarify his past statements about how Speaker Pelosi was laying down for Bush, when the FISA RESTORE Act does NOT.

He can also correct his LIE that Pelosi didn't go to YearlyKOS because Bush told her not to.

This is NOT "Congress." This is a handful of DINO Senators -- the same ones AS ALL THIS TIME.

And STILL there are leftists willing to trash the Speaker of the House over the idiotic claim that these DINOs or the Republicans themselves, will change their votes for conviction of THEIR Boy Wonder (and his keeper).

We have twenty-five good Democratic Senators, Dodd among them. Their votes are mostly good, all this time.

Lumping everyone in with the DINOs is bad politics, slander, and hysteria. It's a handful of people, but the US Senate is NOT some converted body as a result of 2006, and will not be a converted body in 2007, though we will have more of a majority to work with. So you might want to cut Leader Reid some slack, since he's not somehow magically able to change DINO or R Senators into puppies.

There are plenty of parlementary maneuvers that the leadership can use to stop anything they decide to stop. I don't think "not having the votes" is enough of an excuse. You can not have the votes to put something through. . . but, if I understand congress correctly, the leadership can stop anything at any time and they can replace anybody they want on any committee. You may be cutting them too much slack.

Medford Tim @ 84:

When is someone going to take Diane Feinstein aside and remind her she's a freakin' Democrat? She appears to have taken up the reins of Lieberman prior to his turning "independent," pushing through the most outrageous bills in her committee and calling it "bipartisan."

It ain't "bipartisan," baby, it's CAPITULATION TO A DESPOT.

She should have been Lamonted or Liebermaned, however you want to put it, in 2006 but instead faced no opposition. I've read that California does have a recall process for the Senate so unless she is recalled, you are stuck with her for another five years. And even if she is recalled, would there be a special election or would Schwarzenegger be able to appoint a Republican to serve out her term? She may have us all over the barrel and know it.