i hate to say i agree with everything he said but i agree with everything he said.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
So much for taming the beast:
The National Rifle Association plans to spend about $40 million on this year’s campaign, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Barack Obama as a threat to the Second Amendment rights upheld last week by the Supreme Court.
“Our members understand that if Barack Obama is elected president, and he has support in the Senate to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, [the District of Columbia v. Heller decision] could be taken away from us in the future,” Chris Cox, head of the NRA’s political arm, told Politico.
Looks like Big Oil and their Wingnut Minions are going to go after obama too.
For years John McCain’s environmental agenda highlighted his independent streak, and angered conservatives in the process. Yet the right showed little ire when he aired an ad last month touting his environmentalist bona fides: "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming five years ago."
That’s because the day before that ad went up, McCain offered an energy plan that called, among other things, for a repeal of the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling—a reversal of his previous position on the subject. It’s an idea that big oil companies eager to gain access to new potential reserves have backed for years and that had emerged over the preceding weeks as a cause célèbre for conservative activists and bloggers.
No desert for people who spit on the plate they have been feeding from!
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
He better wake up and realize he needs all the friends he can get.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Dead on. I won't be giving Obama money and have decided not to vote for him. Hopefully Jesse Johnson gets the Green Party nod. I understand the ramifications of my actions. If things need to get worse for the Democratic Party to move to the left, so be it. We cannot continue on this path. And I won't vote for anyone who won't support the Constitution of the United States.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
It's the Kerry Campaign all over again. I blame the DNC.
KerrynowCampau
· 1 year ago
I am going to vote for Obama, but my dollars go to progressive groups
cnnyc
· 1 year ago
The last couple of weeks have been very dispiriting. Markos omitted to mention Obama's endorsement of the Scalia and Thomas death penalty jurisprudence, and today's endorsement of the Bush Administration's faith-based initiatives. I nearly maxed out donating in the primaries and was planning to take a leave to volunteer for the campaign in September and October; that no longer will happen. Not only is he diluting the intensity of his support, but as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, he's tarnishing his brand as a change agent and coming across as defensive and cowardly.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
First off, I have pulled all of our money from his campaign, not that is amounts to a whole lot BUT it was a regular donation and the kind that he depends upon. His behavior over the past week plus has been not only disappointing, but disgraceful. I don't look kindly upon reversals of opinion when it comes to protecting my Constitutional rights or when my candidate suddenly decides that Bush's policy of giving support to FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS is a good IDEA for OUR collective dollars.
Obama is beginning to look just like any other politician and perhaps it is my fault for believing that he was different in the first place. Perhaps I am the one at fault for giving this man a real chance at proving that he is the kind of politician that I have been waiting for and perhaps that person merely lives in Disney World, BUT I would add that you shouldn't sell yourself as someone you have no intention of becoming
Obama has been great at showing us how we as a nation can be better than we have been and how we all can work together to bring our country back to a place where we can once again be proud of what we are, BUT this last week has not done much to prove any of that.
And yes, there are many Democrats who don't want to hear any criticism of our candidate, BUT tough, when they deserve the heat, they should get the heat OR we will end up with someone just like Bush (shudder).
IF Kos is right and Obama is saying that he doesn't need us to win, well then I say he is no different that Hillary! It was Hillary and Bill who kept reminding us all how we don't matter; be it because we are part of the netroots, or because we are from a certain state or part of a caucus or because we just don't agree with them on issues. Obama is proving himself to be more like Hillary by the day and I for one, loathe that behavior! I am still holding out hope that he will change his ways...
Will Obama change these sudden swings to the RIGHT (he's way past going to the center)? I dunno, but I DO know that I will NOT be there to give him money in the process as my patience is waning daily. Will I still vote for him? Yes, but my heart is no longer in it... .
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
Polly, I have read and agreed with your posts for over a year now. Do you realize everything you have said you cared about, everything that you fear in the GOP leadership is at stake? If you and others do this you are betraying yourself. The only alternative we have is McCain and that is too frightening to imagine. Pull back off this. I know you are upset but what you are doing is helping our worst nightmare come true.
jeffg166
· 1 year ago
Obama is doing some disappointing things for sure. That said, he has to get elected first, before he can truly put forth what he wants to do.
When Bush was appointed president in 2000 I thought, "How much damage can he do in 4 years." Now we all know only to well what he did in his first term. The second he built on the disaster.
I don't have any expecting of Obama strolling up and down the surface of the reflecting pool at night in Washington. My hope is he's only half as incompetent as Bush. That would be a big improvement.
moreleesafer
· 1 year ago
Sadly, Bush has greatly lowered the bar for presidential standards. anyone who can correctly pronounce "Nuclear" and speak in a full sentence is considered an improvement.
Karma
· 1 year ago
I concur completely.
Nigel Elliott
· 1 year ago
I don't get Markos. He claims his blog is a "Democratic blog" whose purpose is to elect Democrats. Markos won't let Cindy Sheehan post diaries there any longer because she's running against Pelosi, who voted for FISA immunity AND took impeachment off the table.
In 2004, I chose Wes Clark, in 2008, I preferred Chris Dodd, now I support Barack Obama because if he doesn't win, we'll have another Bush term that will begin WWIII.
warsaw
· 1 year ago
Marcos writes: "Now I know there's a contingent around here that thinks Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well fuck you! I respect the sentiment, but will respectfully disagree. We're allowed to do that here. But fair notice -- I will never pull a Rush Limbaugh and carry water for anyone. Not for the Democratic Congress, and not for our future Democratic president. When anyone does something I don't care for, I will say so. I've never pulled my punches before, so why start now?"
This is not the first time Marcos has blasted Obama and the last time he (Marcos) also told this critics to go fuck themselves. I usually agree with Marcos and because of that I feel comfortable saying to him "fuck me?!? Fuck you!" This is the general election and Obama is running for President of all the people not just those who vote for him. Obama is making very calculated decisions, some with knife edge nuance. In some of these I'm not always in full agreement but I'm willing to consider the hair-breadth distinctions Obama is making and I'm trying not to take it personally if he goes slightly in a direction I wouldn't. I see no instance where Obama is betraying any of his core positions, (Except with FISA, and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is hesitant to start an intra-party war 7 weeks before the convention. I'd rather Steny Hoyer and Nany Pelosi get some of the blame.) Puritanism in politics can cause schisms which can be deadly in a close election. Marcos will come off of his shit-fit just as he did last time. I happen to admire Obama more both as a centered moralist and as a political and intellectual force for the good side of things. Not that Marcos isn't good, just not as good.
grandma
· 1 year ago
Warsaw...This is the general election and Obama is running for President of all the people not just those who vote for him. Obama is making very calculated decisions, some with knife edge nuance. In some of these I'm not always in full agreement but I'm willing to consider the hair-breadth distinctions Obama is making and I'm trying not to take it personally if he goes slightly in a direction I wouldn't. I happen to admire Obama more both as a centered moralist and as a political and intellectual force for the good side of things.
Some of the calculations the Obama camp are making, imho, are based on the FRAMING done by the corporate media. For one, I think it was probably good for Obama to stay out of the Gen Clark mess even though I understand AND agree with Clark. Look what the MSM has done with this non-story!
Look what the corporate media did with the flag pin non-story.
Look what they do to Democrats time after time on issues of National Security and (soft on ) crime. I do not like it, but I cannot change how the msm covers Democratic candidates. I can only hope it will change when Rupert Murdock kicks the bucket and all the other stations stop parroting the FOX model.
scooter in brooklyn
· 1 year ago
i've been disappointed with fisa/death penalty/etc..., but after reading markos' post i went and kicked in another $25 to obama. the alternative is simply too frightening to contemplate.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
I think all this kerfflufle about FISA is a bit pre-mature. No vote yet, no splitting of immunity form the bill yet....etc.
I continue to support Mr. Obama. He will not disappoint always.
After the past 8 years, I think any Democratic candidate at least deserves the symbolic 'voting against that loathsome McCain';. a protest vote that would have some meaning.
RecoveringTexan
· 1 year ago
Agree with Kos wholeheartedly. In my native Texan parlance, "You should dance with the one who brung ya." That was the parting shot I sent to the Obama campaign unsubscribing me from their deluge of donation solicitations today in which I mentioned, in particular, his FISA betrayal.
I'll no longer contribute (I've sent him several hundred already) but will vote for him as the lesser of two less-than-stellar choices (I wanted Edwards).
ClintonHater
· 1 year ago
Didn't Edwards vote for the Iraq War when it was politically expedient?
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
I was an Edwards supporter, but yes, he did even though he did say later on that his vote was a mistake.
ClintonHater
· 1 year ago
And I guess that makes everything all right then.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
I think that making a mistake is something that we all are guilty of and admitting same makes you a bigger man/woman than most. So was I pleased how he voted? Heck no, but at least he was one of the few who has admitted he was wrong.
ClintonHater
· 1 year ago
So if Obama says sorry about voting for FISA or supporting the faith base bull shit then that makes everything peachy keen by your standards right? Especially since the War was far more devastating on our nation.
Andrew
· 1 year ago
I have to agree with Markos as well as his outlook on the eventual outcome of the election. It was regretable that Obama took the position that he did regarding FISA. But look deeper. He came out with his remarks after he met not only with Hillary in Chantilly VA, but with the worlds movers and shakers from the Bilderberg group. If I were a fly on the wall at this most secretive of meetings, I could hear the chorus now. Yes Senator Obama, we believe that America can accept someone of color, but we're not quite ready to allow our breatheren in the telecom industry or our NSA and CIA to be taken to the financial cleaners over a little thing like spying on citizens without a warrant. Play ball by modifying all your talk about Constitutional values and your a done deal. If necessary, we can even rig electronic voting machines in your favor just as we did in Ohio and Florida. If this is truely what politics has come too, then all we are ever living through are continuous cycles of good cop ( Democrats ) bad cop ( Republicans ). The game is the same. The Republicans carry a big stick but the Democrats can screw you just as well but in a kinda gentler way. I have stated this before and see nothing different at this point in time. There is no difference between the parties as they are both controlled by powers with money. Big money. Obama told us he was an agent of change. Sadly, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The only difference is the way the little guy is screwed as ultimately the power brokers make the final decisions as to how societies are to live under the guise of the rule of law.
If you are still having trouble getting your head around this, just remember…
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” – James Paul Warburg, whose family co-founded the Federal Reserve - while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 1 year ago
Totally right on Andrew. They got to him. "Yeah we'll let a black guy go for this with the following rules that WE the rich white guys put forth." It's the same ole same ole. I could puke I am so pissed off today.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Interesting that the IMF is now INVESTIGATING the Fed for the first time in history.
On the condition that the investigation concludes only when Bush is out of office. So they did get one important demand concerning the IMF investigation. Why this particular one, thoough, is the question. It smell really, incredibly rotten.....
mirth
· 1 year ago
He sez it for me, too.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Some time in the last couple of weeks was the day the music died.
usagi
· 1 year ago
That pretty much covers it in full, including and especially the pearl clutching by the site's rank & file over "You're supporting McCain!" "The alternative is too horrible to consider!" etc. Personally, he lost me at McClurkin & doesn't get a do-over after that. As you commented at the time, that was a wholly foreseeable outcome, and as Kos said, they worked out the trade off (at least one hopes they did) and did it anyway.
Andrew
· 1 year ago
Macdaffy....it would be a breath of frsh air if for once in a lifetime, we actually had a candidate that would live up to the rhetoric without having to modify it along the way. I'm not looking for a cup of coffee, but I am looking for someone who believes that our country can live under the law. If the President of the United States can't do that as we've seen for the last nearly eight years, it makes no difference what type of gift wrap you use as your getting screwed either way. The Constitution is what matters, not what a group of monied interests want.
misterorff
· 1 year ago
Seems like a lot of people are getting mad about a politician running for office. The man is running for president of the United States. Not President of the Blogosphere.
Fact is, you can't please everyone all of the time.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 1 year ago
Actually you are quite wrong...he IS running for the president of the blogosphere in the sense that the trends now are the ones getting out to vote are the youth who are connected to their news from YouTube and blogs vs McCain who is connected to feeding tubes and MSNBC, watched only by old farts.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
I didn't realize the president of the blogosphere had a say in FISA. "Not pleasing everyone" has nothing to do with undermining the Constitution.
I keep hearing this point made and it is patently ridiculous and a tad arrogant.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
Expecting our Democratically elected representative to uphold our Constitutional rights is ARROGANT?
Wanting our candidate of choice to listen to their constituents and respect their 4th Amendment Rights is RIDICULOUS?
I would hate to live in your world... . (By the way, I see that you have already stated that you will NOT be voting for Obama, so much of this is moot.)
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Right. We're making the same point, so back down tiger.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
LOL!
Andon
· 1 year ago
A few more of these opportunistic Obama lurches to the right and he will lose his leverage in the Rest of the World before he even attains office. He is already half way there with the ridiculous pro-Israel rhetoric, apparent support for a huge domestic surveillance apparatus, acceptance in principle of public funding for paleolithic christian proselytizing organizations, and a reactionary position on international trade. If he keeps up the current reactionary tack to the right he may well then come into office next year and face exactly the same climate of mistrust and skepticism which his odious predecessor now enjoys. In the long run, this would be very damaging to the vital interests of Americans since it would then be clear that regardless of which institutional party is in control, the apparatus of the US government is aligned in opposition to progressive people the world over, a short term Republican-specific judgment at the present time. You simply can't afford to play the mean black sheep of the world much longer.
Ruslanchik
· 1 year ago
I am very disappointed in Obama's recent actions, but I can't say I'm surprised. He is not really a progressive and the juxtaposition with Hillary Clinton made him look a lot better to me during the primaries than he really was.
That said, his campaign is historic and has the opportunity to be a real step forward for our country so he is not losing my support. I will just offer it a little less enthusiastically than before.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
right on. gotta do what ya gotta do. I called BOs people last week to complain and removed myself from their mailing list. He may have oodles of money now, but I was hoping the drive to get more people involved who have not voted in the past would continue. But, hard to do that w/o grass-roots support he has alienated.
ClintonHater
· 1 year ago
News Flash: Most people in America are ignorant bigoted conservative hicks. Obama shouldn't have to give them any respect by telling them the truth. Here is my advice to Obama lie and flip flop your way to the presidency because that is the only way a liberal can win in America.
Sticking to his liberal principles won't get him elected in a right of center nation. The last Dem to get elected was a conservative hick, Bill Clinton. Liberals don't get elected president in this country, so the only way he can get elected is to lie to the American people (who are a bunch of bigoted conservative hicks). You guys need to realize that.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
By Kos' standards, FDR would fail the test of leadership. Kos needs to read a bit more history.
DougStamate
· 1 year ago
And just what sort of "liberal" principles will that person have left after they have sacrificed all of them to get elected?
ClintonHater
· 1 year ago
Just because you say something during a campaign does mean you'll actually do it or follow through on it when you get in office. If a Democratic Congress votes down a faith base bill Obama can say, "Oh well I tried" and not push it any further.
bumpkis
· 1 year ago
KOS..."I've never pulled my punches before, so why start now?" He's got a point there, no punches pulled...but any article critical of AIPAC is written in disappearing FONT on that site....those get "pulled". Alot of "followers" over there..KOS opinions matter not to me.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
I think he is important, but not indispensible.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
He also rejects any discussion about 9/11 as an inside job. Wouldn't want to upset his corporate advertisers.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
I saw a guy from pakistan this am on democracy now and he mentioned BOs now-famous quote about unilateraly attacking them and he said it was widely commented-on in pakistan and no one likes it.
sazerac
· 1 year ago
I've given less than a crap about what Markos says ever since he noisily wrote off the whole state of Louisiana and discouraged people from spending their money there (in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and the Federal Flood when overwhelmingly Democratic New Orleans was really hurting) because then-governor Blanco signed an anti-abortion bill after being backed into a corner by the state's appalling legislature (Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, sheesh.). He's welcome to contribute or not contribute to whomever he wants, but his all-or-nothingism is ultimately self-defeating.
Obama's not a perfect candidate -- I criticize him when it's warranted and yes, I've been disappointed the last couple of weeks too -- but right now he's the best we've got. A "protest vote" for the Greens or Nader? Have you not noticed where that sort of thing has gotten us over the last eight years? And yes, the alternative IS unthinkable.
Oh, and Markos ... fuck you too, pal.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Sometimes I think Kos believes he owns the only definition of Progressive.
sazerac
· 1 year ago
Sometimes I think Kos will be a victim of his own hubris, too.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
If enough of Kossaks follow his lead and McCain wins we will all be victims.
lynn47
· 1 year ago
It is certainly interesting how everyone seems to have forgotten our Troops in the line of fire right now. Taking any chance that might let McWar kill more of our young people is unforgivable. I suppose since the MSM that the blogs so detest are'nt showing it anymore it doesn't really matter. I wonder if there was a draft and Markos had children eligible would he still be holding back his $2300.
misterorff
· 1 year ago
Sadly, I think more people care about gas prices then troops. Friend of mine is about to go back to Afghanistan... not by choice...
JennieB
· 1 year ago
As usual, the progressive wing of the Democratic party are having a hissy fit because Obama dares to be inclusive and doesn't march in lockstep on every single issue with them. Well guess what, I'm a liberal Democrat and I don't either. Obama is a politican, and he never claimed otherwise. In fact, he's a brilliant politican and a true Democrat. We've seen our candidates swiftboated by Republicans since I can remember -- heck, they even swiftboat their own candidates -- and Obama is doing what he can to take nullify the issues with which the the Republican will try to swiftboat him. Give the man a little credit -- he knows what he's doing.
It boggles my mind that Democrats -- especially progressive Democrats -- can be so exclusive. They're wetting their pants right now because Obama wants a Faith-based Community Outreach program. I think it's an outstanding idea -- just as I did when Clinton and Gore supported it. If it's done right -- and it will be by a Democrat -- there will be no infringement on the separation of Church and State.
Geeze, people. Do you want to win or do you want to be swiftboated again and end up with 3 more Antonin Scalias?!
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Yes he knows what he is doing on FISA and he is knowingly abandoning the 4thAmenemtn for purw unadulteraed cowardice at best.
I* can live the the faith based programs, though I do not like the idea. I cannot and no should allow the 4thAmendment suffer at the hand of an oppressive and overreaching government fueled by Obama's cowardice and lack of leadership and principle.
Obama has fucked up FISA and he cannot be and will never be forgiven. Hillary's Iraq = Barack's FISA = albatross.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
You are wrong in your assumption about FISA. The new bill does return oversite of FISA by the court. That was Obamas main goal, oversight of this program.
So, if the bill passes the abuses of the past will end. They will have to get warrants, just like they should, to wiretap-it is specific.
If the telecom immunity is still in the bill, then there are remedies in criminal court. So you have a period of what, 6 or 7 years where the Bush administration was wiretapping without warrants. Bush is the one who caused the overreaching and oppressive break of the 4th Amendment by the government.
Bush gets some of what he wants-lack of civil prosecution for the telecoms.
Obama gets most of what he wants-court oversite of the program and criminal prosecution of law breakers.
It seems Obama is getting this Bushian ship of fools turned around. You cannot see this for some odd reason.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Have you read and do you understand the legislation? I sound as if you are in clear error. My assertion that in the future the telcos can turn obver requested data to the executive branch wiuthout a warrant is not an assumption. The legislation provides, on a forward looking basis, that the telcos can hand over requested information to the executive branch without a warrant so long as the executive makes certain certifications, which do not require a current warrant issued by the FISC based upon probable cause. The executive branch then gets the information without a warrant and is not required to return the info to the telcos.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
You have not read and do not understand the legislation. You simply take marching order and spew them out like a robot, nnot too disimilar to those that have swakllowed GW's and Rove's load.
With respect to any criminal prosecutions, GW simply can in his sole and unfetrtered discretion wipe these matters away for ever with a simple swoop of the pen when he issues numeroud pardons in December of this year. What happens then? Obama FISA supporters holding rthemselves looking befuddled and betrayed.
So how does a criminal prosecution occur under the new legislation when the telcos hand over information to the executive branch pursuant to warrantless request from the executive branch with the appropriate executive certifications and the executive branch never thereafter obtains a wartrant? Answer: it does not occur. Moreover, nothing occurs civilly either. The point is the executive branch has no indeonedent oversight to its requests and the telcos just have to have a letter from the same executive branch to hand over the info. I guess a limp-dicked response of a sycophant would be that they will trust Obama. I do not trust Obama. But more than that, what if McCain wins wioth this power? What about subsequent administrations?
If you trust Obama, why not urge that nothing gets done on FISA until 2009 when Obama, in all his wisdom and with a complicit Congress, can get FISA exactly as he wants? Why the rush? Aside from his clear Constituional error, he is simply on the wrong side of this issue politically speaking.
With all of the FISA apologists I now think the telco are making some of their slaves post here.
Tossing away concepts of sound Constitutional government and critical analysis in furtherance of continuing to support a candidate at all costs, no matter which candidate you support, is offensive to reason and thought. Some day people must question what people tell think for themselves. Until that day occurs, bad government will follow from all of those swallowing the load (see those lock in step ignorant and shameless repubs that still follow GW and Rove).
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Oh please, I am taking John Deans evaluation. Which was done with a group of Law experts, not just your opinion fueled by outrage on Obama. There are other legal presidents that need to be evaluated in conjunction with the writing of this law. They did so and came to this conclusion.
1. The new FISA law requires court oversite. Strengthening the 4th Amendment protections.
2. Criminal liability is not ruled out for law breakers. Even the Republicans agree on this point.
Do you have a law degree? Maybe you should take this up with Dean and his group of legal experts and give them your take on the matter.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Yes I do. You did not answer my questions.
I know the answers and I do not rely on John Dean solely for a law I can look up and read. Do you?
tbhull
· 1 year ago
I am comfortable with my conclusions. You sound like you need to go run to someone else for guidance so why don't you pose my questions to those that you trust and let's hear the specific answers, not some non-specific regurgitated from others generalization.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
While I certainly appreciate John Dean's efforts, he is not a lawyer. He once was but an attorney but was disbarred following his felony conviction for obstruction of justice. Maybe you can convince me further with a brief penned by now disbarred or soon tobe disbarred Ivy league law grad Scooter Libby, as I heard he knows a thing or two about these matters.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
OK, tbhull,
What other case law must be referred to when looking at this FISA bill?
Precidnets in law are what determine the outcome. Give me the legal cases which you are using as precidnets for your conclusions.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Precedents.
I look at the text of the law first.
If you want written legal advice then engage me.
If you want to talk about a law read it and understand it on your opwn b
tbhull
· 1 year ago
to finish the prematurely sent message below:
I say this not to be offensive, but if one wants to talk about a law and criticize another's position regarding what the law says, then one must first read it and understand it on their own; otherwise, an intelligent discussion would proceed more efficiently without an uncritical opinion.
Lastly, one need not be a lawyer to read the law and opine on the same, as John Dean proves this axiom.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
JennieB,
"As usual..."? Well doesn't that say one heck of a lot before you even continue your sentiment. Yes, Obama is a politician but you are wrong when you say he never claimed different. He has represented himself as the CHANGE candidate, the one who WILL do a different kind of politics, one where the issue of division is set aside where we try to unite as a nation. So yes, he has claimed he is a DIFFERENT kind of politician.
Next, we ARE giving him a chance, lots of chances as most of us are solidly behind this man, BUT he is letting us down in the most dastardly manner; he is turning his back on our Constitutional rights, the 4th to be exact.
We progressive Democrats might be "wetting our [collective] pants" as you suggest, but we are doing so for very good reasons, he is going back on many of his promises. Promises and policies that he has assured us he would keep.
And by the way, giving OUR monies to a Bush initiative of FAITH BASED groups is against the very notion of the separation of Church and State and is not something that many of us liked when Bush started it, much less now.
So yes, we DO want to win, but to win we need to know what we are FOR. Any criticism is meant to help and correct, to have none is to be missing the very essence of democracy.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
If you are wetting your pants now, I shudder to think of the mess you'll make watching McCain take the oath of office. Put a diaper on if need be and get in the game. Political campaigns are like high stakes poker. Obama has already beaten Goliath. Now he has to pivot to nullify the Neocon darling. The election has to be so much of a blow out that the GOP run states can't Deibold the results. The NRA just announced a 15 million ad buy to smear him, while our little bed wetters on the left stomp our foots and with hold our money. Christmas has come early for the GOP, courtesy of a bunch of idiots on the left.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Yep, I agree with you Sara. The 'purist' Dems will cut their nose off to spite their face.
They dont realise we always need to win by +5 points to overcome Diebold.
(and they always forget Bill Clinton did not have to get over 50% of the vote because of Ross Perot siphoning 10% of the Conservative voting block)
McCain=WORSE than Bush. period.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Oh, no, we do get the Diebold situation. But we believe that a move to the far right (which is what this is) will only lose votes. Since the 2006 election, over and over, Dems have picked up seats in Republican strongholds by running against things like FISA.
So, the evidence is against you.
But, keep up the good work.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Those Dems that got elected are why FISA is going to pass.
If we had a real Dem majority insted of a third Republican lite Dems,
The one vote Obama can give-even if he votes no-FISA will pass anyway....
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Oh. Thanks for the brilliant post. Listen, some of us think his move not only undermines his base, but also is counterproductive in terms of gaining votes. So, try acting like we are adults. We think you are wrong. Try wrapping your brain around that, instead of repeating that we don't get it.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
I don't want McCain as my President and because you seem to be OK with that, f*ck you. 100 years in Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran plus a destroyed economy is what we KNOW we will get with McCain. Obama has said over and over he will fight to strip the immunity language from the bill. Why not act like an adult and help him do that instead of undermine his chances? Oh yeah, you'd rather wail and gnash your teeth. How very grown up of you.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Oh,WOW! He'll FIGHT to strip immunity from the bill - but vote yes if he can't. BOLD. POWERFUL. LEADERSHIP. His opportunity to re-frame this issue has passed. He took the cowardly and most destructive path. This was the only opportunity to find out the truth. Obama could have been a leader in the Senate - others would have followed.
I also find it fascinating that so many of you see this as anger, or throwing a tantrum. When, in truth, I am just standing by my belief system. I believe the Constitution of the United States should not be undermined. For that, I am called a child, angry, on and on. Rather hilarious, considering your stance. You believe it is okay to toss out the 4th amendment. How very grown up of you.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
The 4th Amendment has a lesser reach in high schools.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
My sentiments exactly, Jennie.
Bobby
· 1 year ago
I want to win, but I don't want a candidate who sells out all our principles in the process!
warsaw
· 1 year ago
Am I wrong in thinking that a lot of these guys here are drawing too many lines around their candidate and not willing to allow him to make his own informed decisions? I' haven't seen such huffy turncoating since the 1968 election when the progressives went into paroxysms of moral indignation and EVERYONE tried to throw everyone else under the metaphorical BUS. Chill, children. Trust your candidate. He's smart and principled and watch him do the right thing. It's way too early to be getting hot flashes. Obama has been way ahead of us from the beginning.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Trust him? Believe Obama is using political tactics now that he will abandon once he is inaugurated?
But wait....
He is saying he agrees with the FISA bill and he supports the work and goals of AIPAC and he will continue Fed $ to "faith-based" organizations.
So are you saying Obama is lying now and will, once elected, state his actual positions on these three incredibly important issues?
Or do you agree with these stated opinions and that's why you don't have a prob with them now?
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Well, this year Arizona is a swing state. McCain is up on Obama by 10%,
but 34% are UNDECIDED.
This is why I think it is a calculation for the Obama camp.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Yes, Warsaw, we shouldn't have to be madly in love with a Perfect Candidate.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
His move to the center will win 0 votes, not to mention it's a betrayal of what is right. Democrats who vote republican-lite never win, centrists and republicans will just vote republican instead. It's happened over and over and over. His strength lies in 2 places: small donations and rallying/registering the <50% of people who don't vote. Both of those have been damaged for nothing. No, this is not a smart move. At all.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
I disagree. His move to the center WILL win votes, but the question remains will they equal more than he will lose.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Excellent question. It's the problem all candidates have to face and solve.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Recent history indicates it is a bad move.
Andrew
· 1 year ago
A little off topic, but if anyone here is interested in stripping telecom immunity out of the FISA bill, Chris Dodd is asking for our help. Either go to his site or use the link at sign up to get there.
For the last nine months, when retroactive immunity has surfaced, we have been able to delay its passage. We were able to stop it in December because I had an army behind me. Two months later, it stalled again -- this time in the House. And last week, we managed to delay action one last time. But when the Senate returns from the July 4th recess, we will vote on FISA legislation that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that may have illegally helped the Bush administration spy without warrant. t's a bad bill and we need action to stop retroactive immunity from becoming law. I've introduced an amendment with Senator Feingold to strip immunity from the bill. This amendment has the support of Majority Leader Reid and Senator Obama, but it needs 51 votes to pass.
Will you sign on as a citizen co-sponsor of our amendment?
Sign on now!
Together, we can prevent this assault on our Constitution.
Let's do it one more time. With your help, we can stop the further erosion of the rule of law.
I think this is a very worthy pursuit. I have already contacted my representatives re voting no on immunity.
Upland_Oddball
· 1 year ago
My concern is not that Obama changes position on this or that issue. Although some of his flip-flops have really burned me good. What bothers me is that Obama is drifting into Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry territory, and is letting his campaign be taken over by retrograde campaign tactics that always end up helping the Republicans. Has he taken on former Clinton advisors, or Bob Shrum? It seems so because he has become almost anal in his drive to be reactive, instead of proactive, with the GOP and triangulationg vis-a-vis his base.
I know that George Lakoff sent him a copy of his book on how Republicans "frame" issues in a way that gets million of voters to vote against their self-interest again and again while Democrats stupidly expect voters to "get it" without any framing whatsoever. I heard Lakoff say so in an interview with L.A.'s own Ian Masters. But it seems that Obama didn't even bother to crack the cover. If he had, he would know how vitally important it is, right now if not yesterday, to cut off at the knees John McCain's attempt to turn his problmatic way record into his argument and justification for being the only candidate who is fit to command in dangerous times. Rather than to engage in a lengthy critique of his record, Lakoof recommended going after his argument that somehow, being a POW who was torturred ipso-facto qualifies him to be president. This is done by framing the issue with mental images and a somewhat melodramatic appeal to principles and values most voters understand. Think of it this way. Nelson Mandela was able to frame his stint on Robbin's Island by reminding voterrs and the world time and again that he was imprisoned because of his principles, and that if he had renounced his commitment to full racial equality, he could likely have secured his early release. The image created by his sticking it out is "brave, principled, self-sacrificing, a natural leader and visionary. A Gandhi, not a Mugabe." There is no way McCain can do the same with his stint in Hanoi unless Obama lets him get away with it.
I'm sure that Obama will win anyway. But if he persists on following the usual, bankrupt approach, he will have breathed new life time and agian into the rotting corpse of the GOP, and forego the across the board transformative election that he promised to give us.
Upland_Oddball
· 1 year ago
oops....meant to type 'war record," not "way record" in my fourth sentence, second paragraph, of my previous post.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
Sokay, I think we figured that out.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Just my opinion: FDR, who moved the country quite a bit to the left, was an artistic pragmatist. A progressive asked him once to get behind some liberal program, and FDR replied that he agreed with the program and that persons who wanted it should force him, FDR, to support it. The job of progressives, in my opinion, is to force their representatives to support their programs, not to complain about how centrist the elected is. Electeds are supposed to represent all of their constituents, not just the progressives.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
Progressives are PART of that constituency...
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Who said they aren't?
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Thje Consitutuion is neither progressive nor conservative, it is the social contract that has embodied and bound Americans together in this great experiment. It is our social contract and FISa fucking violates that contract.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
You go girl/guy!
tbhull
· 1 year ago
And no amount of cowardice, capitulation and your continued inanity on the subject will solve the problem of Obama's failure on this most important issue, a failure joined in by many others.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Name calling won't solve anything.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
I've totally had it with Kos and all of you "activists" who agree with him in bashing Obama's move to the center. According to Kos, moving to the center is "bad behavior." Uh-huh. Well let's see, the last Democrat to win -- the last one we've had in the past 30 years -- was Bill Clinton, who spoke of the "vital center" and moved to it aggressively. And guess what, people -- he WON. That's how you do it in this country, you win in the middle. Why is this so hard for activists Democrats to understand? How many times must we lose before they learn this?? Beats the hell out of me. They forget -- every four fucking years they forget -- that most voters in this country are either conservative and/or dumb as doorknobs, and the MSM is pathetic, complacent, lazy, and sound-bite happy. You want Obama to carry his primary message into the general? He'll lose. You want him to stay pure and vocal to progressive ideals? He'll lose. You want to trash him every time he back-peddles and withhold your money to keep him honest? He'll lose. Your "activism" and your principles don't mean shit -- they go nowhere -- without the power to back them up. You may enjoy your academic debates on progressive policy, but during a general election, that's all they are: academic. If Obama loses, then your precious principles will stay strictly academic, with no chance of ever seeing the light of day. Reagan campaigned toward the center to pursue an aggressive ideology. Fuck, even that dumb-ass, George W. Bush, knew enough to campaign to the center, and then pursue his bat-shit crazy agenda. Wake the fuck up, people, and learn how to fucking campaign and stop losing!!
tbhull
· 1 year ago
The 4th Amendment is not a left issue. It is a center issue and Barack moved to the right away from voters, but more importantly away from the Constitution.
I can put up with movement on the faith based programs and his comment on the death penalty, but the 4th Amendment is too important and Barack does not have a correct feel of the majority ofmthe electorate on this one. The internet savy voters no how large the violations have been and will continue to be under the atrocity that is FISA.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
...voters know ...
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
The vast majority of voters have no idea what FISA is about, and they don't care. I'd bet my life on it.
Barack went along with the House Dems' sell-out to take it off the table as a campaign issue. If he had criticized it, he would've given easy ammunition to Republicans to label him soft on terror and to the left of most Democrats on the Hill.
If you help him WIN, I'm sure he'll revise FISA.
Here's the thing: you have to trust that he's still a progressive who's just trying to do what he thinks he needs to, to win. I do trust him and I trust his campaign tactics. He can't always be right in his tactical calculations, but the guy is brilliant and he took down the mighty Clintons, after all, so he's earned my trust. But maybe not yours.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
I am sure he will not reverse FISA.
Answer this simple question: When has the federal government given up a power when it grabs it, no matter how unconstitutional the grab may have been.
I do no trust governemt. I am not alonme today or with others in the past. That is why we have a Constitution so the government knows it role and its LIMITS. Maciavellian rationalizations that allow evisceration of an amendment to the Constitution is not too dissimilar to a whore negotiating whether the whore will take it in the ass for $50 or for the $40 some client is offering, for either way in the ass it will go and at best all that the whore has for it is $10, that is if the whore wins the negotitaiton.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
OK, so that's where you and I really disagree -- I trust Obama and you don't.
I also trust the fluidity of government, when you don't. In my opinion, legislation is always fluid and subject to revision, especially when there's a will (and a broad party majority and electoral mandate) behind it. Legislative history has more than one example of government first grabbing and later ceding power, with many ups and downs in-between. To answer your question, the whole history of Civil Rights, from the founding fathers through the Civil War through Jim Crow through the Voting Rights Act and onward, is perhaps one of the finest examples.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
The government never took these rights away, as they were never there in a real sense until Amendments 13-15. The Civil Rights Acts are just a furtherance of these amenments which limited government power.
Can fathom that in almost real time the government without a warrant can read every e-mail you type send or receive, listen to every call you are on? Do you think they will let this power go? Does thi bother you in the least?
Quit fooling yourself. Once the government steals the protections provided by the 4th Amendment (est. circa 1787) they will not give them back? If Barack intends to give them back then he needs to vote noon FISA now.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
I don't get your logic -- government circumscribed civil rights from the get-go, then slowly backed off its severe limitations through the amendments.
As I've said before, FISA is not the real threat to the 4th Amendment, and it does allow for criminal prosecution in case you didn't know that. Your insistence that Obama vote against it now reminds me that we are hopelessly talking past each other. No, I have no problem with his position, at all, because I trust him to change it when he's elected. My campaign politics is not my policy -- I hate the crappy bill -- but you refuse to recognize this point that I'm trying to make. So I'll stop talking to you now.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
Just scanned some of the archives and guess what? tbhull is a troll. The kid is good, I'll give him that.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the heads-up, but actually he's not that good. His logic is poor and his knowledge seems sketchy.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
DoctorJ, are you employed by the Obama campaign to soothe over his cowardice? I knew paid Clinton campaign sycophants that frequented this blog when Clinton was getting a daily lashing here.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
So, are you paid by the word or are you just naturally "chatty"?
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Naturally chatty, like many here.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
But in my profession I do get paid to be chatty.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
Agreed, but the kid gets points for his rapid response LOL. Knowing the GOP- the pay has got to suck! :)
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Not many repubs where I live.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
LOL, true he's rapid all right!
He'd better get paid for all his time spent shoveling crap.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
No need to type here to communicate with Sarah, just stand up to look over the wall of your cube and speak to her.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
I have no idea what the definition of a troll is, but if it anything short of supporting Obama no matter how bad a position he takes then I am a troll. You can go into the pre-FIUSA fold archives and find my strong support for Obama and his fine defeat of an inferior candidate Clinton.
However, FISA and the ever expanding role of government is my biggest issue, bigger than health care, the war, SC Justices, whatever. So when Obama came out against FISA in one of the debates and in several speeches earlier this year he soldified my support for him. He is still a much better candidate than McCain, but he failed miserably on FISA and I will not let it go because the issue is entirely too important.
Do you have any idea how pervasive the intrusions can be when is come to digital traffic? it is frightening. And because of this, FISA (questionable in the first placxe) needs to make someone accountable for warrantless searches by the government. Just because the president says so is not enough.
By the way, I would wager this boy is old enough to be your father.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
The government whole heartedly supported treating blacks like 3/5th a person at best until the Civil War and the resulting amenments (13-15). These amendments were not self-enforcing and took away a way of thinking. The Civil Rights Acts were were made in furtherance of these amendments and were not the result of government giving up a power it had previously taken away. In the case of FISA, the 4th Amendment limits government activity. FISA eviscerqates the 4th Amendment by ok'ing warrantless searches on a grand scale. If FISA (a mere law that gets trumped by the Canstituion if it violates the Constituion, and it does) passes the government, Obama led or not, will not give up the unconstituional power grab.
As for criminal prosuctions for past FISA violations, GW can simply pardon these matters away with unfettered discretion and impunity in December of this year.
Government, no matter who is at the helm, is not worthy of trust.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
On the trust issue, if you democrat in 2006 and contributed consistent with this vote did you trust that dems would change things in Congress if they were elected? If so, how did that trust thing go?
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
Oy, you exhaust me.
That's easy -- Congress is one thing, the executive is another, when the two are held by the same party then things can really get done. Not otherwise. Dems can have both this year, which is a whole new ball game.
I'm out.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Exactly.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
I forgot about all the great things Bill Clinton brought about with his "centrist" move:
- NAFTA
- gays in the military
- DOMA
- Welfare "reform"
There's so much more I missed, I'm sure. All the "great" things he did. Uh huh.
He "won" - oh yeah, he "won" - that's all I should care about, throw that US Constitution out the window.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
The last winner of a Presidential election is the one who threw out the Constitution. Because he could. Because he WON.
But Obama isn't Bill Clinton, and he sure as hell isn't George Bush. I trust what he'll do as President -- that's the bottom line here. But maybe you don't. Then vote for McCain.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Doctor J, I am with you on this, and all your points should be read seriously by the bloggers....
I, too, trust Mr. Obama. And I hope he can win without the spoiler Bill Clinton had in Ross Perot, and in spite of the Rovian caging lists, and Diebold, and FOX. Our last Democratic winner did not have any of these obstacles to contend with.
Yea, I WANT Obama to win. We have gone through two crushing defeats in presidential politics since 2000. I do not think I could stand one more.
McCain=worse than Bush.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the support. And you're right that in some ways the electoral obstacles are even higher now. If eight years of disaster won't unify Democrats then I don't know what will.
fredndallas
· 1 year ago
Clinton did not win only because he "ran to the center." He won because of Ross Perot. Gore did not play Clinton's triangulation "run to the center" game and he won on his own merits. I think if you evaluate the facts you will see that Americans want to elect Presidents who stand for something. Obama might still win with this sell-out nonsense but he is SERIOUSLY ruining his chance to LEAD -- something that an arrogant egotist like him should be very concerned about. I damn sure am.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
Sorry, but Gore did not win, last time I checked.
You talk as if Obama has sold out on everything. The contrasts between Obama and McCain's core policy positions remain stark -- Obama is sticking to major health care reform, taxing the rich, getting out of Iraq, pursuing an aggressive policy of energy independence, and bolstering education funding. These are core progressive positions that you could never call conservative or even centrist.
I guess we have different ideas about leadership.
fredndallas
· 1 year ago
The only thing Gore did not win was a rigged Kangaroo Kourt hearing. Truly I think triangulation days are over and Obama has based his ENTIRE campaign and commitments on that point.
If you feel that "leadership" is a manipulative, clever con game, then we DO disagree, but our objective is the same: to WIN and to have winning be worth something in the end.
I believe leadership in politics is breaking through the media monopoly, REACHING the low-info voters, alerting them, teaching them, persuading them that fear accomplishes nothing and that their constitution is worth fighting for in EVERY way. (We've given Obama plenty of support to accomplish that. He appears to be the weakling who is not up to it.)
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
Who ARE you?
On second thought, no, don't answer that. I've got to get out of here, I feel my IQ dropping every time I read one of these things... Adieu.
fredndallas
· 1 year ago
Ahhh. Now, good doctor, we can plainly see why you are so dismissive of Obama's recent behaviors ....
you obviously share a "leadership" philosophy with him: when things get challenging, cut and run with a tude of superiority and arrogance.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
include cowardice.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Okay, so don't get so upset when we bail. Seems just as obvious of a point. We are sticking to our beliefs. Deal with it.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
Then stop whining when your progressive agenda goes nowhere year after year. In the meantime, who do you vote for when you bail?
All I'm saying is, give Obama the CHANCE to disappoint you in real terms, in the real world, by getting him elected.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
No. I won't vote for someone whose job is to uphold the Constitution, who undermines it before he even gets elected to office. That's absurd. You can accept the low threshold set by Democrats, I will not. I won't join them on their reckless and thoughtless train wreck.
I have never whined. You sound more like the one whining. I am sticking to my principles. The choices you are offering are to support the candidate who will obliterate the Constitution or the one who will allow it to be obliterated. Pass.
Jesse Johnson, Green Party.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
politics is a dirty game and the one who wins played the game better. Tracking to the center is a strategy that works. The FISA bill has a huge gapping loophole in it that can strip the immunity out of it, which Obama has said he would do. You're refusal to consider Obama's position as tactical in the larger sense reveals how little you know about this game. Do you want to win? If so, let Obama play the game to win. The man beat the most feared family in the Democratic party. He knows what he's doing.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Supporting FISA is not tracvking to the center. The center oposed wholesale warrantless grabs of ALL american phone and e-mail traffic! Barack moved off center to the right to be wrong on this issue. Michelle is married to a weak kneed bitch coward!
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
What part of Obama saying he will fight to remove the immunity language from the bill don't you get? It also was so poorly written that it is still possible to file crimminal prosecution cases against illegal wiretapping, so get off your hysterical soap box. This is not near the tragedy you think it is. Now, a McCain administration WOULD be a tragedy. I'm beginning to think that is what you actually want.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Have you read all of the bill? What about future warrantless grabs of information? Any chance of telco immunity there if they hand over info the government requests without a warrant? No.
This is not a soap box. This is a fact you must face: Obama cowered like a pussy ass whimp on this most important issue and criticism will not be spared for his cowardice. Just get fucking used to it for I will be here 24/7 reminding ObamaFISA apologists of this failure whether they fucking like it or not. If they leave I will go to my friend at the FBI and find out their e-mail addrees and phone number and continue to remind them of Barack's cowardice on a daily if not hourly basis (just kidding)
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
Yawn.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
If immunity stripping fails then Barack should vote no for FISA with immunity. Will he?
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
FISA is not what truly undermines the Constitution, it's the Patriot Act. But I don't expect you to know the ins and outs of the issue -- I'm not sure I fully understand them either. But I trust the Constitutional scholar to navigate -- and rectify -- this minefield better than you or me. Which is a big part of my point -- FISA raises a hornet's nest of issues that is impossible to parse in any way that benefits its critics in an election full of low-information voters. But silly me here I am discussing campaign tactics again while you stick to your high-horse principles that will surely go nowhere as a member of the Green Party. Sorry, but the truth hurts. And you're not really listening to what I'm saying. I'm making a distinction between your principles and the exigencies of campaigning, but you don't want to hear that.
And you'd be shocked to hear that my principles probably line up very much with yours. Maybe the only difference between you and me is, I'm tired of losing.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
We can "deal with it", alright. But I hope you're prepared to "deal" with President McCain.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
I am. Things obviously need to get a lot worse before they get better.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
Thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth. Obama has to win before anything can be accomplished. I am saddened to see how quickly the blog community demonstrates what poor poker players we are. We don't need the Republicans to cheat- we fold before the game even heats up.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
Thanks, SarainKC. I'm exhausted from already rebutting many commenters who don't listen and keep missing the point. I'm actually very liberal politically, but I'm extremely fed up with losing and with watching this country go to pieces.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
I'm pretty worn out too. I feel like I'm arguing with a dumbed down FOX viewer who refuses to acknowledge the loophole in the bill that allows for criminal prosecution and Obama's insistence that he will fight to have the immunity pulled from the bill. It's like they have this bone to get themselves worked up over and no amount of logic will walk them back of the ledge. And to think Rove made tens of millions of dollars getting credit for beating Democrats. What a joke. We beat ourselves.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Your arrogance certainly helps.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
Your ignorance doesn't.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Wooosh.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
A very insightful and witty one, indeed.
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
Well said!
SociologistTina
· 1 year ago
Extremely well said, DoctorJ! Thanks!!!!!
johnosahon
· 1 year ago
hopefully this is the last time we hear of his whining ass till january. three weeks into the general election and the fool has already given up, idiot.
as clinton said, "if you cannot stand the heat, get out the kitchen"
as least i agree with him on this, he is irrelevant.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
I'm still at a lost ... why would Obama talk about "CHANGE" and get everyone excited and enthusiastic about his candidacy (heck it even got me, an Edwards supporter on board), but then start pandering to the few that DO NOT MATTER?
It is simple math: why go for 1 extra voter (actually it's a "maybe" 1 voter) and lose say 2-3 voters from the progressive base because you go against the US Constitution with his FISA stance (& other anti-Democrat stances)?
I was so excited to be part of his campaign and yes giving money. But now I am holding back.
I am sick and tired of the phrase "Democrats eat their own - while republicans support their candidates all the way".
If Obama loses, it will not be the fault of the MANY voters who he allienates (who were once all excited about his "CHANGE" vision). The fault will lie on Obama for ignoring We The People and in effect giving the presidency to McCrazyCain.
Obama still has a opportunity to "CHANGE" and go back to rallying the troops in the Democrat Party this 4th of July weekend. I really hope he does.
The more Obama takes us, We The People, for granted, the more he will lose us.
johnosahon
· 1 year ago
you are really funny, if Obama loses, he goes back to the senate as the first black presidential candidate, with lots of books to write, and money to make, while YOU continue to face the real problem that mcSAME will continue to give you.
this is looking like gore vs bush again.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Arizona:
McCain up by 10% BUT
34% UNDECIDED.
Used to be a ruby Red state!
Obama is not taking you for granted, he is trying to win! And that means not letting the MSM frame the Democrat, yet again, as soft on National Security and crime.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Which they will do anyway. We know this because it has been a repeating pattern now for 5 years. Dems cave, then are called soft.
This is ridiculous that you people actually believe this still. How many times do you have to be slapped in the face to wake up?
shanobama
· 1 year ago
It may take a grapefruit smashing in the face, the tang of the juice helps.
But I still want to win. I will love seeing all those white crackers and religious bigots cringe on inauguration day. The whole world will dance in the streets.
Obama '08 former Dodd '08 go Chris! Yeah! former Edwards '08
McCain=WORSE than Bush
fredndallas
· 1 year ago
I totally and comprehensively agree and for the very same reasons -- except maybe I am a bit LESS forgiving than Kos.
Obama's sell out and betrayal on Constitutional Rights is gigantic for me. Notice, as it should be, every oath in this country pledges UNCOMPROMISED support to the CONSTITUTION. It does not get any more basic than that. When a professor of constitutional law who has made a return to absolute focus on constitutional rights a pivotal point in his campaign of being a DIFFERENT KIND of leader, absolutely sells out 4th Amendment rights within weeks of becoming the Presidential nominee -- something is very rotten!
I've withdrawn my support and have told them why.
There is still time for Obama to wake up and rediscover character, but the clock is ticking.
PS: I swear you can't trust any of them. Hillary totally morphed during the primary to the fighter for the middle class. Hello? Unless that was a sincere CONVERSION (how much would you bet?), it was outrageous. Edwards (who was my guy) suddenly dropped out, less than 24 hours from soliciting money because he was pledged to "go all the way". And now this crap with Obama. Not much to make you proud to be American when these are our "leaders".
Rab
· 1 year ago
Obama can do all that moving to the center shit but come time when he is elected its open warfare on repugs. Failure of the Dems to do that will mean a quick end to their power. I won't support Dems that won't stand up and kick repugs in the balls, plain and simple. They had their 8 years its time for the revenge.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Do not count on it. I do not expect Obama to tell in advance that those that clearly broke the law will be in the cross-hairs of his AG, but a first step in signaling that he might uphold the rule of law would be not supporting a compromise that basically eliminates the 4th Amendment as it relates to electronic searches of ALL e-mail and phone traffic.
Rab
· 1 year ago
I agree and the Dems in Congress better get with it too.
Captain_America
· 1 year ago
Voters can sense a whiff of deuchebaggery from candidates. If Obama wants this mantle of change, he has to continuously push and create a certain level of "controversy" in the librul media. If he appears to just take middle-of-the-road let's-not-do-anything-to-upset-the-villagers approach, then he is full of hot air. Obama needs to set the the tone for now and for a year from now. If not, he clearly doesn't need my money. I do agree with Markos -- I won't reward ridiculous behavior with cash.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
I disagree with Markos. I don't think it is "rewarding good behavior" I think it is called blackmail. It is the same old shit of "do what I say or lose my support". The right wing religious whackos have this down to a science and now the netroots are doing the same thing. Obama did not sell out the constitution, he agreed with the imperfect FISA bill BUT stated he would seek to bring those with immunity to justice. For god's sake, is any candidate allowed to be his own man OR is he going to have to kowtow to every damn special interest group?
Obama won a hard and long battle to be the candidate. For ONCE, can the Democrats stand behind their candidate instead of tearing him to death?
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Please explain how upholding the 4th amendment is a "special interest group."
Thanks.
mirth
· 1 year ago
DAinLA,
I have enjoyed and agreed with your comments today. What we are witnessing on these threads regards Obama and "faith-based" Fed $ and his other disappointing actions and statements of the last two weeks, is the split(s) in the Dem party. Some of us cling to the liberal principles of the party and some are more comfortable under the Clinton-inspired Centrist segment of the Dem umbrella. And there are the inbetweens. I'm actually shocked by many of the comments today from people I have admired. After what we have experienced for the last 7 1/2 years, for them to write that we should trust that a candidate will say one thing during his campaign, because he needs to get elected, and then suddenly he will hold different views once elected is...stunning, to say the least.
But our principles are worth fighting for, so thank you.
mirth
· 1 year ago
I see now that you are with the Green Party, rather than the Democratic Party, but my points remain the same.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
Actually, I'm a Dem. But I'm tired of the party. The move to the right seems permanent.
mirth
· 1 year ago
"Centrists" still control the Party, just when we thought their grip had loosened.
But we must continue to fight for our liberal values, which include adherence to the Constitution.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
I thought we buried the DLC with Clinton. I was wrong. Obama's moves have DLC written all over them.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Harold Ford, Jr. for VP next?
mirth
· 1 year ago
tbhull, I'm glad you dropped here so I could say I don't always agree with you and sometimes what you write makes me cringe, but I love your comments and keep 'em coming.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
I appreciated that and yes I have filter problems sometimes as my language and images get out of control. I cannot apologize but I will try to exercise discretion.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Promise not to change too much.
:)
mirth
· 1 year ago
DLC thinking was thought dead with Hillary's defeat, but, judging from these threads today, NEO Dem principles still prevail.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Lets channel the NADER supporter in 2000, mm m'k?
No difference between Bush and Gore, right? Wow, were those Nader people right on, man! right on! We stood up for principals!
No dif between a McCain administration and an Obama administration NOW, thats fur sure.
doods! History is repeating itself, yeah!
mirth
· 1 year ago
You address this snark to me. Have you ever read that I see no differences between McC and Obama? If DAinLA has written that s/he sees no difference between McC and Obama, then I totally missed it.
If you are just being insulting without cause, then you need to chill.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Been staying in the guest house at Wonkette!
we might need to look for our sense of humour in all this. good for the soul and all....levity can bring some clarity, imho
not meant to be insulting.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Ah. Then no insult taken and I'm glad we're ok. :)
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
Mirth, I've always admired your comments, but not today. Here's the deal. We have a choice. Obama or McCain. That's it. I know your views and I think I know McCain is an unthinkable choice for you. So, why are you so dug in to help him beat Obama? Why can't you accept that Obama has to appear to the center of some of our issues in order to win? Regarding the FISA bill, why won't you believe him that he will work to strip the immunity language from the bill as he has said over and over? Why don't you take solace in John Dean's assessment of the bill that leaves a glaring loophole for criminal prosecution for wiretapping? Why are you so willing to give up on Obama than fight to work with him to get our goals accomplished. Do you think punishing him now and helping to elect McCain is really worth it? I am really disappointed in you.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Forget for now the constitution-based disagreements I have with Obama's recent actions and statements.
It is my opinion that Obama is making a strategically wrong decision in veering to the Right to get votes he does not need to win the election, and in this he is alienating his base and betraying his promise of Change, change that the majority of this country is crying for and believed that he would bring.
I know he has campaign workers who reads these threads and I want them to know my opinion. I hope that adding my opinion to those of others who disagree with Obama will cause him to re-evaluate his current campaign decisions and to reinforce our demand that the principles of the constitution guide him to the White House and this country out of the abyss we teeter at the edge of.
My question to you is: When did my opinion become less valid than your opinion?
Likewise I usually admire and agree with your comments. Your scolding today of me and others is the only exception I recall.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
My question to you is: When did my opinion become less valid than your opinion?
When your opinion helps McCain get elected.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Your insults to everyone who disagrees with you are hardly helping party unity for an Obama win.
Tell me, Sara, regarding FISA, are the opinions of Senators Dodd and Feingold also helping McCain to get elected?
You stay in lockstep if that is the most comfortable place for you, but those of us who are determined to hold Obama to his promises and to his potential and, regardless who is president, to hold government accountable to the will of the people and to the principles of the constitution, we will continue to question.
SociologistTina
· 1 year ago
Sara in KC, I STRONGLY agree with you. I think it's really too bad that other progressives can't recognize the mere validity of your position. Obama's shrewdness on these issues does NOT detract from his principles, but one needs a keen eye to recognize this fact.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
It isn't and I am sorry you missed my point. So the candidate doesn't do what you think is right OR doesn't do what you want, so you withdraw your support? Hey, we are not going to like everything Obama says or does BUT he is the candidate that many of us chose, he is he democratic candidate for president. You want to criticize him, fine, but withdrawing support only gives McCain more clout.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
You're missing my point. This isn't his faith based funding, or a stance on Social Security. It is the Constitution, the foundation of our country. That is not an "issue." It is the whole ball of wax. You either back it up and protect it, or you are, quite simply, un-American.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Well put.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Imiagine that Alabama (a state, like mine, so full of Old South crackers fearing Obama) passed a law that blacks could not vote in the 2008 election. Surely McCain's silence would show his support. Then Barack, cowered by the thought of offending other crackers in other states he may actually have a chance, opposes a federal law in opposition to Alabama's action, replying that he will surely support any post election legisalation that makes any and all appropriate adjustments to Alabama's law when he President in 2009.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
No, I got your point. I don't care about the immunity. Sure, I wish those companies could be penalized and maybe they will be BUT for right now I want a Dem to win in November. The Constitution has been so damn battered that this one issue isn't going to change much. Correct me if I am wrong, but several polls taken months ago said Americans in general did not care about this issue. The netroots, while strong, isn't going to reach a lot of those people.
We either back our candidate or we don't, it is that simple. You want 8 more years of the same or give Obama some leeway?
tbhull
· 1 year ago
It is not just retroactive immunity for pastr warrantless data gathering of the government provided with the able assistance of the telco, it is also and propably more importantly the future conditions under which the telcos can hand over info to the executive branch without a warrant and eswcape liability.
It is clear a direct cause of action against the government allowed some to get civil damages against the government. We have not had that much luck lately with the government applying criminal laws to itslelf. Criminal liability against a ceorpoation like AT&T is no big deal. The best way to insure the governemtn does not get this info is to create staggering potentialcivil liability for the telco that particpate wiothout a warrant. That is what the old FISA tried to do and that is not, on a forward looking basis, what this FISA capitulation does.
In the absence of staggering potential liability for the telcos that control this information, how do you make sure an opporessive and overreaching executive does not say FY to the 4th and demand and get this information? So what if they cannot use it in a later prosuction. Hell, 99.9999% of the information the government has obtained and is obtaining without a warrant on ALL americans has nothing to do with criminal activity. If they can get it they can also create it. Who can call their bluff? No one!
The possibilities, probalities and realities for an all knowing government are limitless and the rest of all the issues are bullshit if the government can create its own reality.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
2nd paragraph correction:
It is clear a direct cause of action against the government is never been on the table and therefore no one can civil damages against the government for FISA violations....
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
The Constitution is subject to interpretation, and that's why we have courts, judges, lawyers and law schools. You're expressing your opinion, not fact.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Genrally speaking you are correct. But the FISA fold cuts any level of review out. How will we ever know if and to what extent the government is collecting information without a warrant under the FISA capitulation in violation of the 4th Amendment? Which lawyers, what court, which judges will have a look see to make sure the executive branch has complied with the 4th Amendment??????
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
I have not read the bill, but I have heard three "experts" on MSNBC say that left in the bill is the provision that the court(s) will review.
DAinLA
· 1 year ago
No. The courts will not review. The AG has all the power under this bill. If he tells the court to end the case, the judge is forced to. The plaintiff and their lawyer will not be told why the case was shut down. It's just over. I'm sure that won't be exploited.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
You need to read it and understand before agreeing or disagreeing with anything any says about. This is ione isswue that is way too important, more so than health care, the war or any other for if the government can look into all e-mail with absolute privacy and impunity then they control everyone and all debate all the time everywhere.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Just imagine you are in a lawsuit, criminal or civil, and you communicate with your lawyer by e-mail or by cell phone. Well Captain the government can and WILL know everything.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Or you are communicating with your priest, your mother whoever, they can get their eyes and ears on these communications in real tie 24/7.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
We need a democratic candidate that can stand strong for the right issues instead of betraying those that got him where he is because of pure fucking cowardice! Yes Michele, your husband is weak and he is a fucking capitulating coward!
HelenaMontana
· 1 year ago
Through the primaries I believed Obama would be president. Now however, I am getting exactly the feeling I got from the Kerry campaign. Only a worse feeling, actually, because I never had any hope that Kerry could win--he was such a gratuitous phony. Obama, at least, was believable in the beginning.
From the FISA "compromise" to faith-based welfare to his repudiation of Wesley Clark to draping himself in American flags, Obama's taking very Republican positions. I really can't see all that much difference between Obama's and McCain's positions. Oh, yeah, Obama's not a homophobe. As far as I know. That's about it, as far as I can tell.
I have a sad feeling that by this time next week, Senator Obama will have spoken out in favor of torture and tax breaks for the wealthy. The differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are getting more and more difficult to discern, and Obama is an excellent example of this.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
No matter how much Obama tacks to the right, pussies out, or dances to Sista Souljah, one fact remains: there are 4 intellectually bankrupt troglodytes on the Supreme Court. There will be more if John McCain is (s)elected.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
I do not want a SC Juastice that cow tows with Obama's FISA approval.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
Oh give it a rest. Go vote for McCain because that is exactly the alternative to your upset feelings.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
No, Obama can change his position on FISA.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Then work to change his mind. You haven't changed mine. Join PDA or DFA and work with them to keep Obama's feet to the fire. Or, vote for McCain and the spying that is going on now will continue. No amount of any kind of legislation will halt a rogue government's spying. We have to trust in new, good leaders bringing about good government. Obama has to win the election. Then he can work on cleaning up the mess. And that's all I will have to say on this subject.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
I am trying and not here.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
I just want to trust that the government will not run afoul of the 4th Amendment and giving the government a coloravle argument that iobvious unconstitutional action is somehow tolerated by FISA.
This is not the approach that was taken during the Civil Rights momvement. Everyone knew that the rogue George Wallace of Alabama and the governmor of Arkansas were going to one way or another try to maintain segregation but Congress did not poass a law recognizing their unconstituional acts were ok because they were ineveitably going to occur. No, right thinking men and women sttood on principles and the Constitution and the is the laws promulgated in furtherance of the same won the day. By the way Barack owes his current success to this principled stand in large measure.
I will never vote for McCain, but I will also never stop criticizing Obama until he changes on FISA.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
retry: I just want to trust that the government will not run afoul of the 4th Amendment and do not want to give the government/telcos a colorable argument that obvious unconstitutional actions are somehow tolerated by FISA.
KISSman
· 1 year ago
But that's the position that a great many of us don't enjoy being in. We supported the guy, becomes the nominee and now he can say anything he wants because he'll always be better than McCain. Well whoop-dee-doo! That doesn't mean that it doesn't suck of him to become a moderate centrist overnight.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Yes, Mrs LR, you are correct!
KatherineHepburnEyes
· 1 year ago
It matters what the former republican Kos says? Stop overreacting.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
Reading this thread makes me want to cry. I see a lot of familiar names but the words attatched to them seem most unfamiliar. I remember a lot of those names saying how they wanted someone to fight against the republicans and that is exactly what Obama IS doing. He is going into THEIR turf and trying to pilfer THEIR voters. He won't get many but he will get some. Enough to turn the election and actually win the damn thing perhaps. Isn't that the point? You can't win sitting up on your high horse now can you? So get off of it already! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST PEOPLE!!! I swear it seems like some democrats want to keep on losing. It's easier to lose and bitch about the winners than to win and actually work to make things better.
mirth
· 1 year ago
So Obama's support of AIPAC, his FISA stand in disregard of the 4th amendment, his vow to continue "faith-based" Fed funding which solidifies a religious involvement in our government...these don't matter to you as long as he wins?
I'll agree with one thing you write: He won't get many of their votes -- because there aren't many to get. He is pandering to a minority and turning away from the majority who believed his promise of change.
I think we are seeing Clinton campaign influence and it is as wrong for Obama as it was for her.
KISSman
· 1 year ago
Throughout the primary season, Barack Obama really inspired me. Now, though, not so much.
I actually felt inspired to read what Markos said. While I don't have $2300 to give to Obama, I did have had $30 to spare so I could have gotten that nifty white shirt they were offering. However, I didn't give Obama a nickel because, at this point, I wouldn't feel great about wearing the shirt. If Obama thinks he can take the same folks who put him in the position where he is today for granted, well, then let his new supporters keep him afloat.
As much as some of us are not enjoying Obama's move to the middle and truly becoming the candidate of change -- change of positions, that is -- it doesn't mean that we aren't going to vote for him in November. But damnit, it's a lousy feeling when you were once REALLY excited about a presidential candidate and now all you care about is making sure the other guy loses.
switched
· 1 year ago
As much as I want to be a one issue voter the FISA problem and where Obama stands on it isn't going to turn me against him. The improvement in his position on Clark's comments (he called them inartful today vs. his campaign rejecting them yesterday) is encouraging. The overwhelming improvement he would make in Washington is still winning with me. If he must annoy me with various tactical moves to the center in order to fend off the NRA, etc I'm fine with it. And I did donate the $30 yesterday for the t-shirt as I'm still confident that Obama is far and away the best choice to begin fixing the mess Dubya created and McCain would continue.
I do hope Wes Clark continues to stick to his position as it is absolutely correct.
In_Seattle
· 1 year ago
We should have chosen Hillary instead of giving her so much grief. At least we would have known what we were getting and it wasn't so bad.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
KISSman, I'll tell you what, I don't buy this tack to the middle as being his actual views or positions anymore than I believed his tack to the left during the primaries. He has always been a politician, not the atheist Jesus I'd like him to be. He is doing what it takes to win. Period. I know you'd like someone to believe in, so would I but I know better than to look for that in a politician. To look down that path is to spend a lifetime being disappointed. Yeah, it sucks.
Mirth, there is only one person I agree with 100% of the time, ME! :) Sadly I am not running for the job this year so I have to choose the best candidate among those who are running. That is always the case with me and this time I'd like the best candidate to actually win. Do I like hearing some of the things he is saying RIGHT NOW? No, some of it makes me cringe but I KNOW that he is in large part saying them to win, not because the "real" Obama is coming out. It is a say anything to win kind of system we have. I don't take what he is saying RIGHT NOW as having any more bearing on what he will do once in office as I did with anything he said during the primaries. All this righteous indignation coming from those who supported him against hillary is going to lead to one thing. President McCain. I'll take door number 2 please.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Hmmm. I feel the same way about my opinions :)
We know his campaign staff are aware of what we say on blogs. One of them even thanked us ABers for our support.
So if we write "Whatever it takes to win, no matter how pandering" instead of "You promised us change, in the way campaigns are run and in the way government is run, and if you want our support then it's change we want to see," then what good are we doing him or our country? We owe it to him and to ourselves to speak our disagreements.
As it is, he has turned HUGE enthusiasm into HUGE disappointment and that is a HUGE mistake.
If no more bombshells strike, then I'll vote for him, but until he keeps his promise to us, no more $ from me. And if he continues his shift to the right, then my vote becomes very iffy.
PS: You have been missed here.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
Thank you Mirth! :) Missed being here but work has kept me on the run lately.
I take your point about his staff reading our comments. Obama campaign staff? DON'T READ FURTHER! :)
I don't like him saying some of the things he has been saying but I feel like he has to. The reason is this: The majority of Americans are still right-center unfortunately. How else can it be explained that McCain has even a snowball's chance in hell come November? After all Bush has done, there are WAY too many people willing to give McCain a chance and that is even so when they believe he is too much like Bush which I believe an earlier post demonstrated. The pendulum is swinging left, I truly believe that but we are not there yet. If Obama gets successfully painted as a "radical liberal" like the right is trying to do, it will cancel out the McCain is Bush thing and we will end up with McCain as president. NOT GOOD!!!! Once Obama wins, he can be whatever his true self is. I don't believe it will be a radical redirection for the country but it will be turning the right (or should I say left!) way. That is going to have to be good enough because that's all we're getting.
mirth
· 1 year ago
I don't believe the majority of the country is center-right, not now and certainly not when young voters turned on by Obama are factored in - young, idealistic voters who will turn off if Obama continues with his latest crap. There are no trustworthy polls to prove this belief, but even biased polls suggest it and the awesome #s who turn out for Obama speeches are pretty good proof of the desires for the change he promises. I don't know many conservatives, but of the ones I do know, including my fundy-conservative brother, all say they will vote for Obama and would never vote for McCain.
But most of all we are, I believe, projecting our hopes onto Obama when we think what he says now is not what he really intends to do when elected. We have NO reason to believe it. If he isn't a leader now, why should we believe he will become one then?
Good to talk with you, Luna.
dad
· 1 year ago
while turning me off a bit is he turning someone new on a bit?
Melanie_Denise
· 1 year ago
l agree completely. It doesn't matter if he's "selling out" the left because he IS a politician and he IS doing what he can to win. Do I agree with some of his recent decisions? Most definitely not. It started with his AIPAC pandering that had me hollering at the computer (I refuse to watch the garbage the MSM pretends is news on television) and bitching to my friends and family.
All Comments
The National Rifle Association plans to spend about $40 million on this year’s campaign, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Barack Obama as a threat to the Second Amendment rights upheld last week by the Supreme Court.
“Our members understand that if Barack Obama is elected president, and he has support in the Senate to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, [the District of Columbia v. Heller decision] could be taken away from us in the future,” Chris Cox, head of the NRA’s political arm, told Politico.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11452...
For years John McCain’s environmental agenda highlighted his independent streak, and angered conservatives in the process. Yet the right showed little ire when he aired an ad last month touting his environmentalist bona fides: "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming five years ago."
That’s because the day before that ad went up, McCain offered an energy plan that called, among other things, for a repeal of the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling—a reversal of his previous position on the subject. It’s an idea that big oil companies eager to gain access to new potential reserves have backed for years and that had emerged over the preceding weeks as a cause célèbre for conservative activists and bloggers.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11436...
No desert for people who spit on the plate they have been feeding from!
Obama is beginning to look just like any other politician and perhaps it is my fault for believing that he was different in the first place. Perhaps I am the one at fault for giving this man a real chance at proving that he is the kind of politician that I have been waiting for and perhaps that person merely lives in Disney World, BUT I would add that you shouldn't sell yourself as someone you have no intention of becoming
Obama has been great at showing us how we as a nation can be better than we have been and how we all can work together to bring our country back to a place where we can once again be proud of what we are, BUT this last week has not done much to prove any of that.
And yes, there are many Democrats who don't want to hear any criticism of our candidate, BUT tough, when they deserve the heat, they should get the heat OR we will end up with someone just like Bush (shudder).
IF Kos is right and Obama is saying that he doesn't need us to win, well then I say he is no different that Hillary! It was Hillary and Bill who kept reminding us all how we don't matter; be it because we are part of the netroots, or because we are from a certain state or part of a caucus or because we just don't agree with them on issues. Obama is proving himself to be more like Hillary by the day and I for one, loathe that behavior! I am still holding out hope that he will change his ways...
Will Obama change these sudden swings to the RIGHT (he's way past going to the center)? I dunno, but I DO know that I will NOT be there to give him money in the process as my patience is waning daily. Will I still vote for him? Yes, but my heart is no longer in it...
.
When Bush was appointed president in 2000 I thought, "How much damage can he do in 4 years." Now we all know only to well what he did in his first term. The second he built on the disaster.
I don't have any expecting of Obama strolling up and down the surface of the reflecting pool at night in Washington. My hope is he's only half as incompetent as Bush. That would be a big improvement.
In 2004, I chose Wes Clark, in 2008, I preferred Chris Dodd, now I support Barack Obama because if he doesn't win, we'll have another Bush term that will begin WWIII.
This is not the first time Marcos has blasted Obama and the last time he (Marcos) also told this critics to go fuck themselves. I usually agree with Marcos and because of that I feel comfortable saying to him "fuck me?!? Fuck you!"
This is the general election and Obama is running for President of all the people not just those who vote for him. Obama is making very calculated decisions, some with knife edge nuance. In some of these I'm not always in full agreement but I'm willing to consider the hair-breadth distinctions Obama is making and I'm trying not to take it personally if he goes slightly in a direction I wouldn't. I see no instance where Obama is betraying any of his core positions, (Except with FISA, and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is hesitant to start an intra-party war 7 weeks before the convention. I'd rather Steny Hoyer and Nany Pelosi get some of the blame.) Puritanism in politics can cause schisms which can be deadly in a close election.
Marcos will come off of his shit-fit just as he did last time. I happen to admire Obama more both as a centered moralist and as a political and intellectual force for the good side of things. Not that Marcos isn't good, just not as good.
I happen to admire Obama more both as a centered moralist and as a political and intellectual force for the good side of things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I whole-heartedly agree....
Some of the calculations the Obama camp are making, imho, are based on the FRAMING done by the corporate media. For one, I think it was probably good for Obama to stay out of the Gen Clark mess even though I understand AND agree with Clark. Look what the MSM has done with this non-story!
Look what the corporate media did with the flag pin non-story.
Look what they do to Democrats time after time on issues of National Security and (soft on ) crime. I do not like it, but I cannot change how the msm covers Democratic candidates. I can only hope it will change when Rupert Murdock kicks the bucket and all the other stations stop parroting the FOX model.
I continue to support Mr. Obama. He will not disappoint always.
After the past 8 years, I think any Democratic candidate at least deserves the symbolic 'voting against that loathsome McCain';. a protest vote that would have some meaning.
I'll no longer contribute (I've sent him several hundred already) but will vote for him as the lesser of two less-than-stellar choices (I wanted Edwards).
If this is truely what politics has come too, then all we are ever living through are continuous cycles of good cop ( Democrats ) bad cop ( Republicans ). The game is the same. The Republicans carry a big stick but the Democrats can screw you just as well but in a kinda gentler way. I have stated this before and see nothing different at this point in time. There is no difference between the parties as they are both controlled by powers with money. Big money.
Obama told us he was an agent of change. Sadly, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The only difference is the way the little guy is screwed as ultimately the power brokers make the final decisions as to how societies are to live under the guise of the rule of law.
If you are still having trouble getting your head around this, just remember…
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” – James Paul Warburg, whose family co-founded the Federal Reserve - while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950
On the condition that the investigation concludes only when Bush is out of office. So they did get one important demand concerning the IMF investigation. Why this particular one, thoough, is the question. It smell really, incredibly rotten.....
Personally, he lost me at McClurkin & doesn't get a do-over after that. As you commented at the time, that was a wholly foreseeable outcome, and as Kos said, they worked out the trade off (at least one hopes they did) and did it anyway.
Fact is, you can't please everyone all of the time.
I keep hearing this point made and it is patently ridiculous and a tad arrogant.
Wanting our candidate of choice to listen to their constituents and respect their 4th Amendment Rights is RIDICULOUS?
I would hate to live in your world...
.
(By the way, I see that you have already stated that you will NOT be voting for Obama, so much of this is moot.)
That said, his campaign is historic and has the opportunity to be a real step forward for our country so he is not losing my support. I will just offer it a little less enthusiastically than before.
Sticking to his liberal principles won't get him elected in a right of center nation. The last Dem to get elected was a conservative hick, Bill Clinton. Liberals don't get elected president in this country, so the only way he can get elected is to lie to the American people (who are a bunch of bigoted conservative hicks). You guys need to realize that.
Obama's not a perfect candidate -- I criticize him when it's warranted and yes, I've been disappointed the last couple of weeks too -- but right now he's the best we've got. A "protest vote" for the Greens or Nader? Have you not noticed where that sort of thing has gotten us over the last eight years? And yes, the alternative IS unthinkable.
Oh, and Markos ... fuck you too, pal.
It boggles my mind that Democrats -- especially progressive Democrats -- can be so exclusive. They're wetting their pants right now because Obama wants a Faith-based Community Outreach program. I think it's an outstanding idea -- just as I did when Clinton and Gore supported it. If it's done right -- and it will be by a Democrat -- there will be no infringement on the separation of Church and State.
Geeze, people. Do you want to win or do you want to be swiftboated again and end up with 3 more Antonin Scalias?!
I* can live the the faith based programs, though I do not like the idea. I cannot and no should allow the 4thAmendment suffer at the hand of an oppressive and overreaching government fueled by Obama's cowardice and lack of leadership and principle.
Obama has fucked up FISA and he cannot be and will never be forgiven. Hillary's Iraq = Barack's FISA = albatross.
So, if the bill passes the abuses of the past will end. They will have to get warrants, just like they should, to wiretap-it is specific.
If the telecom immunity is still in the bill, then there are remedies in criminal court. So you have a period of what, 6 or 7 years where the Bush administration was wiretapping without warrants. Bush is the one who caused the overreaching and oppressive break of the 4th Amendment by the government.
Bush gets some of what he wants-lack of civil prosecution for the telecoms.
Obama gets most of what he wants-court oversite of the program and criminal prosecution of law breakers.
It seems Obama is getting this Bushian ship of fools turned around. You cannot see this for some odd reason.
With respect to any criminal prosecutions, GW simply can in his sole and unfetrtered discretion wipe these matters away for ever with a simple swoop of the pen when he issues numeroud pardons in December of this year. What happens then? Obama FISA supporters holding rthemselves looking befuddled and betrayed.
So how does a criminal prosecution occur under the new legislation when the telcos hand over information to the executive branch pursuant to warrantless request from the executive branch with the appropriate executive certifications and the executive branch never thereafter obtains a wartrant? Answer: it does not occur. Moreover, nothing occurs civilly either. The point is the executive branch has no indeonedent oversight to its requests and the telcos just have to have a letter from the same executive branch to hand over the info. I guess a limp-dicked response of a sycophant would be that they will trust Obama. I do not trust Obama. But more than that, what if McCain wins wioth this power? What about subsequent administrations?
If you trust Obama, why not urge that nothing gets done on FISA until 2009 when Obama, in all his wisdom and with a complicit Congress, can get FISA exactly as he wants? Why the rush? Aside from his clear Constituional error, he is simply on the wrong side of this issue politically speaking.
With all of the FISA apologists I now think the telco are making some of their slaves post here.
Tossing away concepts of sound Constitutional government and critical analysis in furtherance of continuing to support a candidate at all costs, no matter which candidate you support, is offensive to reason and thought. Some day people must question what people tell think for themselves. Until that day occurs, bad government will follow from all of those swallowing the load (see those lock in step ignorant and shameless repubs that still follow GW and Rove).
Which was done with a group of Law experts, not just your opinion fueled by outrage on Obama. There are other legal presidents that need to be evaluated in conjunction with the writing of this law. They did so and came to this conclusion.
1. The new FISA law requires court oversite. Strengthening the 4th Amendment protections.
2. Criminal liability is not ruled out for law breakers.
Even the Republicans agree on this point.
Do you have a law degree? Maybe you should take this up with Dean and his group of legal experts and give them your take on the matter.
I know the answers and I do not rely on John Dean solely for a law I can look up and read. Do you?
What other case law must be referred to when looking at this FISA bill?
Precidnets in law are what determine the outcome.
Give me the legal cases which you are using as precidnets for your conclusions.
I look at the text of the law first.
If you want written legal advice then engage me.
If you want to talk about a law read it and understand it on your opwn b
I say this not to be offensive, but if one wants to talk about a law and criticize another's position regarding what the law says, then one must first read it and understand it on their own; otherwise, an intelligent discussion would proceed more efficiently without an uncritical opinion.
Lastly, one need not be a lawyer to read the law and opine on the same, as John Dean proves this axiom.
"As usual..."? Well doesn't that say one heck of a lot before you even continue your sentiment. Yes, Obama is a politician but you are wrong when you say he never claimed different. He has represented himself as the CHANGE candidate, the one who WILL do a different kind of politics, one where the issue of division is set aside where we try to unite as a nation. So yes, he has claimed he is a DIFFERENT kind of politician.
Next, we ARE giving him a chance, lots of chances as most of us are solidly behind this man, BUT he is letting us down in the most dastardly manner; he is turning his back on our Constitutional rights, the 4th to be exact.
We progressive Democrats might be "wetting our [collective] pants" as you suggest, but we are doing so for very good reasons, he is going back on many of his promises. Promises and policies that he has assured us he would keep.
And by the way, giving OUR monies to a Bush initiative of FAITH BASED groups is against the very notion of the separation of Church and State and is not something that many of us liked when Bush started it, much less now.
So yes, we DO want to win, but to win we need to know what we are FOR. Any criticism is meant to help and correct, to have none is to be missing the very essence of democracy.
They dont realise we always need to win by +5 points to overcome Diebold.
(and they always forget Bill Clinton did not have to get over 50% of the vote because of Ross Perot siphoning 10% of the Conservative voting block)
McCain=WORSE than Bush. period.
So, the evidence is against you.
But, keep up the good work.
If we had a real Dem majority insted of a third Republican lite Dems,
The one vote Obama can give-even if he votes no-FISA will pass anyway....
I also find it fascinating that so many of you see this as anger, or throwing a tantrum. When, in truth, I am just standing by my belief system. I believe the Constitution of the United States should not be undermined. For that, I am called a child, angry, on and on. Rather hilarious, considering your stance. You believe it is okay to toss out the 4th amendment. How very grown up of you.
Obama has been way ahead of us from the beginning.
But wait....
He is saying he agrees with the FISA bill and he supports the work and goals of AIPAC and he will continue Fed $ to "faith-based" organizations.
So are you saying Obama is lying now and will, once elected, state his actual positions on these three incredibly important issues?
Or do you agree with these stated opinions and that's why you don't have a prob with them now?
but 34% are UNDECIDED.
This is why I think it is a calculation for the Obama camp.
For the last nine months, when retroactive immunity has surfaced, we have been able to delay its passage. We were able to stop it in December because I had an army behind me.
Two months later, it stalled again -- this time in the House. And last week, we managed to delay action one last time.
But when the Senate returns from the July 4th recess, we will vote on FISA legislation that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that may have illegally helped the Bush administration spy without warrant.
t's a bad bill and we need action to stop retroactive immunity from becoming law.
I've introduced an amendment with Senator Feingold to strip immunity from the bill. This amendment has the support of Majority Leader Reid and Senator Obama, but it needs 51 votes to pass.
Will you sign on as a citizen co-sponsor of our amendment?
Sign on now!
Together, we can prevent this assault on our Constitution.
Let's do it one more time. With your help, we can stop the further erosion of the rule of law.
We'll be in touch soon.
Chris Dodd
http://advomatic.bm23.com/public/?q=landingpage...
I know that George Lakoff sent him a copy of his book on how Republicans "frame" issues in a way that gets million of voters to vote against their self-interest again and again while Democrats stupidly expect voters to "get it" without any framing whatsoever. I heard Lakoff say so in an interview with L.A.'s own Ian Masters. But it seems that Obama didn't even bother to crack the cover. If he had, he would know how vitally important it is, right now if not yesterday, to cut off at the knees John McCain's attempt to turn his problmatic way record into his argument and justification for being the only candidate who is fit to command in dangerous times. Rather than to engage in a lengthy critique of his record, Lakoof recommended going after his argument that somehow, being a POW who was torturred ipso-facto qualifies him to be president. This is done by framing the issue with mental images and a somewhat melodramatic appeal to principles and values most voters understand. Think of it this way. Nelson Mandela was able to frame his stint on Robbin's Island by reminding voterrs and the world time and again that he was imprisoned because of his principles, and that if he had renounced his commitment to full racial equality, he could likely have secured his early release. The image created by his sticking it out is "brave, principled, self-sacrificing, a natural leader and visionary. A Gandhi, not a Mugabe." There is no way McCain can do the same with his stint in Hanoi unless Obama lets him get away with it.
I'm sure that Obama will win anyway. But if he persists on following the usual, bankrupt approach, he will have breathed new life time and agian into the rotting corpse of the GOP, and forego the across the board transformative election that he promised to give us.
FDR, who moved the country quite a bit to the left, was an artistic pragmatist. A progressive asked him once to get behind some liberal program, and FDR replied that he agreed with the program and that persons who wanted it should force him, FDR, to support it.
The job of progressives, in my opinion, is to force their representatives to support their programs, not to complain about how centrist the elected is.
Electeds are supposed to represent all of their constituents, not just the progressives.
I can put up with movement on the faith based programs and his comment on the death penalty, but the 4th Amendment is too important and Barack does not have a correct feel of the majority ofmthe electorate on this one. The internet savy voters no how large the violations have been and will continue to be under the atrocity that is FISA.
care. I'd bet my life on it.
Barack went along with the House Dems' sell-out to take it off the table as
a campaign issue. If he had criticized it, he would've given easy ammunition
to Republicans to label him soft on terror and to the left of most Democrats
on the Hill.
If you help him WIN, I'm sure he'll revise FISA.
Here's the thing: you have to trust that he's still a progressive who's just
trying to do what he thinks he needs to, to win. I do trust him and I trust
his campaign tactics. He can't always be right in his tactical calculations,
but the guy is brilliant and he took down the mighty Clintons, after all, so
he's earned my trust. But maybe not yours.
Answer this simple question: When has the federal government given up a power when it grabs it, no matter how unconstitutional the grab may have been.
I do no trust governemt. I am not alonme today or with others in the past. That is why we have a Constitution so the government knows it role and its LIMITS. Maciavellian rationalizations that allow evisceration of an amendment to the Constitution is not too dissimilar to a whore negotiating whether the whore will take it in the ass for $50 or for the $40 some client is offering, for either way in the ass it will go and at best all that the whore has for it is $10, that is if the whore wins the negotitaiton.
don't.
I also trust the fluidity of government, when you don't. In my opinion,
legislation is always fluid and subject to revision, especially when there's
a will (and a broad party majority and electoral mandate) behind it.
Legislative history has more than one example of government first grabbing
and later ceding power, with many ups and downs in-between. To answer your
question, the whole history of Civil Rights, from the founding fathers
through the Civil War through Jim Crow through the Voting Rights Act and
onward, is perhaps one of the finest examples.
Can fathom that in almost real time the government without a warrant can read every e-mail you type send or receive, listen to every call you are on? Do you think they will let this power go? Does thi bother you in the least?
Quit fooling yourself. Once the government steals the protections provided by the 4th Amendment (est. circa 1787) they will not give them back? If Barack intends to give them back then he needs to vote noon FISA now.
get-go, then slowly backed off its severe limitations through the
amendments.
As I've said before, FISA is not the real threat to the 4th Amendment, and
it does allow for criminal prosecution in case you didn't know that. Your
insistence that Obama vote against it now reminds me that we are hopelessly
talking past each other. No, I have no problem with his position, at all,
because I trust him to change it when he's elected. My campaign politics is
not my policy -- I hate the crappy bill -- but you refuse to recognize this
point that I'm trying to make. So I'll stop talking to you now.
and his knowledge seems sketchy.
He'd better get paid for all his time spent shoveling crap.
However, FISA and the ever expanding role of government is my biggest issue, bigger than health care, the war, SC Justices, whatever. So when Obama came out against FISA in one of the debates and in several speeches earlier this year he soldified my support for him. He is still a much better candidate than McCain, but he failed miserably on FISA and I will not let it go because the issue is entirely too important.
Do you have any idea how pervasive the intrusions can be when is come to digital traffic? it is frightening. And because of this, FISA (questionable in the first placxe) needs to make someone accountable for warrantless searches by the government. Just because the president says so is not enough.
By the way, I would wager this boy is old enough to be your father.
As for criminal prosuctions for past FISA violations, GW can simply pardon these matters away with unfettered discretion and impunity in December of this year.
Government, no matter who is at the helm, is not worthy of trust.
That's easy -- Congress is one thing, the executive is another, when the two
are held by the same party then things can really get done. Not otherwise.
Dems can have both this year, which is a whole new ball game.
I'm out.
- NAFTA
- gays in the military
- DOMA
- Welfare "reform"
There's so much more I missed, I'm sure. All the "great" things he did.
Uh huh.
He "won" - oh yeah, he "won" - that's all I should care about, throw that US Constitution out the window.
Constitution. Because he could.
Because he WON.
But Obama isn't Bill Clinton, and he sure as hell isn't George Bush. I trust
what he'll do as President -- that's the bottom line here. But maybe you
don't. Then vote for McCain.
I, too, trust Mr. Obama. And I hope he can win without the spoiler Bill Clinton had in Ross Perot, and in spite of the Rovian caging lists, and Diebold, and FOX. Our last Democratic winner did not have any of these obstacles to contend with.
Yea, I WANT Obama to win. We have gone through two crushing defeats in presidential politics since 2000. I do not think I could stand one more.
McCain=worse than Bush.
obstacles are even higher now. If eight years of disaster won't unify
Democrats then I don't know what will.
You talk as if Obama has sold out on everything. The contrasts between Obama
and McCain's core policy positions remain stark -- Obama is sticking to
major health care reform, taxing the rich, getting out of Iraq, pursuing an
aggressive policy of energy independence, and bolstering education funding.
These are core progressive positions that you could never call conservative
or even centrist.
I guess we have different ideas about leadership.
If you feel that "leadership" is a manipulative, clever con game, then we DO disagree, but our objective is the same: to WIN and to have winning be worth something in the end.
I believe leadership in politics is breaking through the media monopoly, REACHING the low-info voters, alerting them, teaching them, persuading them that fear accomplishes nothing and that their constitution is worth fighting for in EVERY way. (We've given Obama plenty of support to accomplish that. He appears to be the weakling who is not up to it.)
On second thought, no, don't answer that. I've got to get out of here, I
feel my IQ dropping every time I read one of these things... Adieu.
you obviously share a "leadership" philosophy with him: when things get challenging, cut and run with a tude of superiority and arrogance.
In the meantime, who do you vote for when you bail?
All I'm saying is, give Obama the CHANCE to disappoint you in real terms, in
the real world, by getting him elected.
I have never whined. You sound more like the one whining. I am sticking to my principles. The choices you are offering are to support the candidate who will obliterate the Constitution or the one who will allow it to be obliterated. Pass.
Jesse Johnson, Green Party.
This is not a soap box. This is a fact you must face: Obama cowered like a pussy ass whimp on this most important issue and criticism will not be spared for his cowardice. Just get fucking used to it for I will be here 24/7 reminding ObamaFISA apologists of this failure whether they fucking like it or not. If they leave I will go to my friend at the FBI and find out their e-mail addrees and phone number and continue to remind them of Barack's cowardice on a daily if not hourly basis (just kidding)
But I don't expect you to know the ins and outs of the issue -- I'm not sure
I fully understand them either. But I trust the Constitutional scholar to
navigate -- and rectify -- this minefield better than you or me. Which is a
big part of my point -- FISA raises a hornet's nest of issues that is
impossible to parse in any way that benefits its critics in an election full
of low-information voters. But silly me here I am discussing campaign
tactics again while you stick to your high-horse principles that will surely
go nowhere as a member of the Green Party. Sorry, but the truth hurts. And
you're not really listening to what I'm saying. I'm making a distinction
between your principles and the exigencies of campaigning, but you don't
want to hear that.
And you'd be shocked to hear that my principles probably line up very much
with yours. Maybe the only difference between you and me is, I'm tired of
losing.
don't listen and keep missing the point. I'm actually very liberal
politically, but I'm extremely fed up with losing and with watching this
country go to pieces.
as clinton said, "if you cannot stand the heat, get out the kitchen"
as least i agree with him on this, he is irrelevant.
It is simple math: why go for 1 extra voter (actually it's a "maybe" 1 voter) and lose say 2-3 voters from the progressive base because you go against the US Constitution with his FISA stance (& other anti-Democrat stances)?
I was so excited to be part of his campaign and yes giving money. But now I am holding back.
I am sick and tired of the phrase "Democrats eat their own - while republicans support their candidates all the way".
If Obama loses, it will not be the fault of the MANY voters who he allienates (who were once all excited about his "CHANGE" vision). The fault will lie on Obama for ignoring We The People and in effect giving the presidency to McCrazyCain.
Obama still has a opportunity to "CHANGE" and go back to rallying the troops in the Democrat Party this 4th of July weekend. I really hope he does.
The more Obama takes us, We The People, for granted, the more he will lose us.
this is looking like gore vs bush again.
McCain up by 10% BUT
34% UNDECIDED.
Used to be a ruby Red state!
Obama is not taking you for granted, he is trying to win!
And that means not letting the MSM frame the Democrat, yet again, as soft on National Security and crime.
This is ridiculous that you people actually believe this still. How many times do you have to be slapped in the face to wake up?
But I still want to win. I will love seeing all those white crackers and religious bigots cringe on inauguration day. The whole world will dance in the streets.
Obama '08
former Dodd '08 go Chris! Yeah!
former Edwards '08
McCain=WORSE than Bush
Obama's sell out and betrayal on Constitutional Rights is gigantic for me. Notice, as it should be, every oath in this country pledges UNCOMPROMISED support to the CONSTITUTION. It does not get any more basic than that. When a professor of constitutional law who has made a return to absolute focus on constitutional rights a pivotal point in his campaign of being a DIFFERENT KIND of leader, absolutely sells out 4th Amendment rights within weeks of becoming the Presidential nominee -- something is very rotten!
I've withdrawn my support and have told them why.
There is still time for Obama to wake up and rediscover character, but the clock is ticking.
PS: I swear you can't trust any of them. Hillary totally morphed during the primary to the fighter for the middle class. Hello? Unless that was a sincere CONVERSION (how much would you bet?), it was outrageous. Edwards (who was my guy) suddenly dropped out, less than 24 hours from soliciting money because he was pledged to "go all the way". And now this crap with Obama. Not much to make you proud to be American when these are our "leaders".
Obama won a hard and long battle to be the candidate. For ONCE, can the Democrats stand behind their candidate instead of tearing him to death?
Thanks.
I have enjoyed and agreed with your comments today.
What we are witnessing on these threads regards Obama and "faith-based" Fed $ and his other disappointing actions and statements of the last two weeks, is the split(s) in the Dem party.
Some of us cling to the liberal principles of the party and some are more comfortable under the Clinton-inspired Centrist segment of the Dem umbrella. And there are the inbetweens.
I'm actually shocked by many of the comments today from people I have admired. After what we have experienced for the last 7 1/2 years, for them to write that we should trust that a candidate will say one thing during his campaign, because he needs to get elected, and then suddenly he will hold different views once elected is...stunning, to say the least.
But our principles are worth fighting for, so thank you.
But we must continue to fight for our liberal values, which include adherence to the Constitution.
:)
No difference between Bush and Gore, right?
Wow, were those Nader people right on, man!
right on! We stood up for principals!
No dif between a McCain administration and an Obama administration NOW, thats fur sure.
doods! History is repeating itself, yeah!
Have you ever read that I see no differences between McC and Obama?
If DAinLA has written that s/he sees no difference between McC and Obama, then I totally missed it.
If you are just being insulting without cause, then you need to chill.
we might need to look for our sense of humour in all this. good for the soul and all....levity can bring some clarity, imho
not meant to be insulting.
Then no insult taken and I'm glad we're ok.
:)
It is my opinion that Obama is making a strategically wrong decision in veering to the Right to get votes he does not need to win the election, and in this he is alienating his base and betraying his promise of Change, change that the majority of this country is crying for and believed that he would bring.
I know he has campaign workers who reads these threads and I want them to know my opinion. I hope that adding my opinion to those of others who disagree with Obama will cause him to re-evaluate his current campaign decisions and to reinforce our demand that the principles of the constitution guide him to the White House and this country out of the abyss we teeter at the edge of.
My question to you is: When did my opinion become less valid than your opinion?
Likewise I usually admire and agree with your comments. Your scolding today of me and others is the only exception I recall.
When your opinion helps McCain get elected.
Tell me, Sara, regarding FISA, are the opinions of Senators Dodd and Feingold also helping McCain to get elected?
You stay in lockstep if that is the most comfortable place for you, but those of us who are determined to hold Obama to his promises and to his potential and, regardless who is president, to hold government accountable to the will of the people and to the principles of the constitution, we will continue to question.
We either back our candidate or we don't, it is that simple. You want 8 more years of the same or give Obama some leeway?
It is clear a direct cause of action against the government allowed some to get civil damages against the government. We have not had that much luck lately with the government applying criminal laws to itslelf. Criminal liability against a ceorpoation like AT&T is no big deal. The best way to insure the governemtn does not get this info is to create staggering potentialcivil liability for the telco that particpate wiothout a warrant. That is what the old FISA tried to do and that is not, on a forward looking basis, what this FISA capitulation does.
In the absence of staggering potential liability for the telcos that control this information, how do you make sure an opporessive and overreaching executive does not say FY to the 4th and demand and get this information? So what if they cannot use it in a later prosuction. Hell, 99.9999% of the information the government has obtained and is obtaining without a warrant on ALL americans has nothing to do with criminal activity. If they can get it they can also create it. Who can call their bluff? No one!
The possibilities, probalities and realities for an all knowing government are limitless and the rest of all the issues are bullshit if the government can create its own reality.
It is clear a direct cause of action against the government is never been on the table and therefore no one can civil damages against the government for FISA violations....
From the FISA "compromise" to faith-based welfare to his repudiation of Wesley Clark to draping himself in American flags, Obama's taking very Republican positions. I really can't see all that much difference between Obama's and McCain's positions. Oh, yeah, Obama's not a homophobe. As far as I know. That's about it, as far as I can tell.
I have a sad feeling that by this time next week, Senator Obama will have spoken out in favor of torture and tax breaks for the wealthy. The differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are getting more and more difficult to discern, and Obama is an excellent example of this.
Join PDA or DFA and work with them to keep Obama's feet to the fire.
Or, vote for McCain and the spying that is going on now will continue.
No amount of any kind of legislation will halt a rogue government's spying. We have to trust in new, good leaders bringing about good government.
Obama has to win the election. Then he can work on cleaning up the mess.
And that's all I will have to say on this subject.
This is not the approach that was taken during the Civil Rights momvement. Everyone knew that the rogue George Wallace of Alabama and the governmor of Arkansas were going to one way or another try to maintain segregation but Congress did not poass a law recognizing their unconstituional acts were ok because they were ineveitably going to occur. No, right thinking men and women sttood on principles and the Constitution and the is the laws promulgated in furtherance of the same won the day. By the way Barack owes his current success to this principled stand in large measure.
I will never vote for McCain, but I will also never stop criticizing Obama until he changes on FISA.
I just want to trust that the government will not run afoul of the 4th Amendment and do not want to give the government/telcos a colorable argument that obvious unconstitutional actions are somehow tolerated by FISA.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST PEOPLE!!! I swear it seems like some democrats want to keep on losing. It's easier to lose and bitch about the winners than to win and actually work to make things better.
I'll agree with one thing you write: He won't get many of their votes -- because there aren't many to get. He is pandering to a minority and turning away from the majority who believed his promise of change.
I think we are seeing Clinton campaign influence and it is as wrong for Obama as it was for her.
I actually felt inspired to read what Markos said. While I don't have $2300 to give to Obama, I did have had $30 to spare so I could have gotten that nifty white shirt they were offering. However, I didn't give Obama a nickel because, at this point, I wouldn't feel great about wearing the shirt. If Obama thinks he can take the same folks who put him in the position where he is today for granted, well, then let his new supporters keep him afloat.
As much as some of us are not enjoying Obama's move to the middle and truly becoming the candidate of change -- change of positions, that is -- it doesn't mean that we aren't going to vote for him in November. But damnit, it's a lousy feeling when you were once REALLY excited about a presidential candidate and now all you care about is making sure the other guy loses.
I do hope Wes Clark continues to stick to his position as it is absolutely correct.
Mirth, there is only one person I agree with 100% of the time, ME! :) Sadly I am not running for the job this year so I have to choose the best candidate among those who are running. That is always the case with me and this time I'd like the best candidate to actually win. Do I like hearing some of the things he is saying RIGHT NOW? No, some of it makes me cringe but I KNOW that he is in large part saying them to win, not because the "real" Obama is coming out. It is a say anything to win kind of system we have. I don't take what he is saying RIGHT NOW as having any more bearing on what he will do once in office as I did with anything he said during the primaries. All this righteous indignation coming from those who supported him against hillary is going to lead to one thing. President McCain. I'll take door number 2 please.
We know his campaign staff are aware of what we say on blogs. One of them even thanked us ABers for our support.
So if we write "Whatever it takes to win, no matter how pandering" instead of "You promised us change, in the way campaigns are run and in the way government is run, and if you want our support then it's change we want to see," then what good are we doing him or our country? We owe it to him and to ourselves to speak our disagreements.
As it is, he has turned HUGE enthusiasm into HUGE disappointment and that is a HUGE mistake.
If no more bombshells strike, then I'll vote for him, but until he keeps his promise to us, no more $ from me. And if he continues his shift to the right, then my vote becomes very iffy.
PS: You have been missed here.
Missed being here but work has kept me on the run lately.
I take your point about his staff reading our comments. Obama campaign staff? DON'T READ FURTHER! :)
I don't like him saying some of the things he has been saying but I feel like he has to. The reason is this: The majority of Americans are still right-center unfortunately. How else can it be explained that McCain has even a snowball's chance in hell come November? After all Bush has done, there are WAY too many people willing to give McCain a chance and that is even so when they believe he is too much like Bush which I believe an earlier post demonstrated. The pendulum is swinging left, I truly believe that but we are not there yet. If Obama gets successfully painted as a "radical liberal" like the right is trying to do, it will cancel out the McCain is Bush thing and we will end up with McCain as president. NOT GOOD!!!!
Once Obama wins, he can be whatever his true self is. I don't believe it will be a radical redirection for the country but it will be turning the right (or should I say left!) way. That is going to have to be good enough because that's all we're getting.
But most of all we are, I believe, projecting our hopes onto Obama when we think what he says now is not what he really intends to do when elected. We have NO reason to believe it. If he isn't a leader now, why should we believe he will become one then?
Good to talk with you, Luna.
What it comes down to is Obama MUST beat McShame.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
No need for warrants so says the government. Obama and other FISA backers would be proud.