In April of 1964, a first-term Senator from Massachusetts took the floor of the Senate to make his first speech in that chamber. Edward M. Kennedy rose in support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the defining pieces of legislation from the JFK-LBJ era. The speech itself was purely symbolic, in that the opinion of the late President's younger brother really didn't matter all that much. He (Teddy) was one of the safe votes, and Majority Leader Mike Mansfield's task was to assemble the 60 votes needed to halt the filibuster being waged by Southern senators.
Still, Kennedy stood up and spoke for the bill. That's what leaders do.
Unfortunately, neither of the two Democratic frontrunners for President did as much for the FISA bill.
(more)
Obama supporters are all over the community today, trumpeting the fact that their guy showed up for work and their opponent didn't. Yes, Senator Obama showed up and voted, and Senator Clinton did not. However, sitting at one's desk like a well-behaved backbencher is not leadership.
But let's not ignore Senator Clinton's performance today. Obama supporters are correct in pointing out that she didn't even show up for work today. Her supporters will spin this as a lot of crying over nothing, since Clinton's missed vote was not the sole reason for the bill's defeat.
Leaders don't spin. They Lead.
Neither the heir apparent to the Kennedy legacy nor his opponent exhibited much in terms of leadership on this issue. What if one of them had stepped up?
The 24/7 news meat grinder is all about the Clinton/Obama horse race right now. Had either one of these Senators risen in opposition to Telco Amnesty, all three of the news networks would have cut in and gone live to the Senate. It wouldn't have had to be a long, speech, either, just a simple statement in opposition to the amnesty provisions. All the networks would have then brought out their talking heads to explain Telco Amnesty. They would have had little talking-head debates about the merit of amnesty or lack thereof. Instead of being simply an esoteric provision in an intelligence/terrorism bill, amnesty would be front and center. I don't know how Jon Stewart would be able to joke about it on The Daily Show, but you can bet that his writing staff would be working on it (well, when they go back to work tomorrow, anyway).
While it would have been better for Senator Clinton to have spoken against the bill in the Senate today, she still could have taken time out on the campaign trail and talked about it. Her supporters and surrogates will spin this as much-ado-about nothing, talking about how important it is to the campaign for her to be talking to voters, not Senators. They will praise her pragmatism, noting how her experience gives her the wisdom to know which votes to show up for and which to miss.
Yet she didn't speak. Neither did her husband.
Trying to discern a reason for the collective silence on FISA from both camps is interesting. The most cynical amongst us will say that they both need campaign money from the telco industry to continue the slog to the convention. A denial of this accusation begs the question of why the silence. Then there's the "don't look weak on terror" argument. There's some merit to this, given that Saxby Chambliss pretty much handed Max Cleland his ass in 2002 by beating the terror drum. Even though the Republican position is considerably weaker now than in 2002, it doesn't take much to crank up the Mighty Wurlitzer. It's the sort of argument that you'd hear Clinton supporters praise their candidate for making, while they're being shouted down by Obama supporters, claiming that this is a non-progressive "50 percent plus one" style of victory. Unfortunately, Senator Obama's silence cuts the legs out from under this attack.
The bar has been lowered so far today that we're seeing arguments that one candidate is better than the other because he showed up for work.
Leaders don't simply show up. They lead.
Senator Obama failed to come anywhere close to the hype of him being a progressive agent of change, and Senator Clinton equally failed to be the experienced leader her supporters claim she is. Both are disappointments.