home

Obama's Statement On Today's Habeas/Gitmo Decision

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:41:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Link:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.

[More...}

We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.
< Obama On SCOTUS Justices | McCain on Habeas Corpus >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Statement On Today's Habeas/Gitmo Decision | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sounds great (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:56:18 PM EST


    Editing (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. I wish he had said "...and respecting the Constitution." I doubt most of the electorate really understands what habeas corpus means, but they would identify with upholding the Constitution. When this gets excerpted and soundbited by MSM, it won't mean as much to them.

    Reading just the statement (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:38:37 PM EST
    on the Obama site that the Link above provides isn't nearly as informative as making sure you open the nearly 800 comment thread to see what his supporters are saying about it :)

    Parent
    I went (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:18 PM EST
    at your suggestion. Only skimmed, but the highlight for me was the poster whose name is "meri who loves writing haiku about obama." Haiku?? Really??

    Parent
    How far down would I have to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:55 PM EST
    go before I found a comment that related to the blog post? I felt like I was reading the entries at a middle school myspace page. I did get a kick out of Donna Brazile for Secretary of State, though. She is definitely material for our #1 Diplomat.  I guess they weren't very interested in what Obama's thoughts on the SCOTUS decision are.

    Parent
    Yes! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:06:55 PM EST
    She will send nasty e-mails to foreign leaders.

    Parent
    Funny how I was thinking the same (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:05:30 PM EST
    thing. Also, I've heard him speak, this doesn't sound like him at all (his speech pattern).I'd like to see the rough draft in his handwriting> Sorry.

    Parent
    It's a movement (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    I swear his most active supporters really don't understand the man is running for POTUS, not an MTV music award.


    Parent
    Good (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:06:22 PM EST
    I believe that this is the Obama who will be appointing John Paul Stevens's replacement.

    Hope you're right. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:07:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I hope he/she is not! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:13:42 PM EST
    This press release isn't about the Constitution!  It's about how to effectively convict these "terrorists"!

    Parent
    Would you prefer he have said (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:14:58 PM EST
    that he thought the decision was bad?

    Parent
    I would have preferred that (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:18:50 PM EST
    he'd said the decision was right and that the "war on terror" he's so enthusiastically supporting here is what led to something more than just flawed legislation, but a violation of the fundmental constitutional principal that you do not deprive people of life and liberty without due process of law even during a war on terror and even if you think they're terrorists.

    I would have preferred that he had said that the Military Commissions Act was flawed NOT because it didn't get any convictions, but because it was set up exactly in order to get convictions and fundamental rights be d*mned.

    Parent

    He's being cautious (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:21:59 PM EST
    Unnecessarily so, in my opinion. but liberals never held his feet to the fire, so he has no reason to pander now.

    Parent
    Good read. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:22 PM EST


    Parent
    His followers maybe, but (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:16:52 PM EST
    he made sure the other half of the democratic party knew he didn't care what we thought.

    Parent
    Is this (none / 0) (#30)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:21 PM EST
    criticism, justification, or excuse?

    Parent
    Criticism of liberals, and justification (4.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
    for Obama. Excuse? That's for you to judge.

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:38:09 PM EST
    think it's a very good justification.  "I won't have a strong position for constitutional principles unless somebody forces me into it."

    Obama's positions are up to him, not me. In fact, I have NO ability to "hold his feet to the fire" if I'm required to vote for him just because he's the Dem candidate.

    Parent

    I'm wondering if Tribe and Sorenson (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    wrote this.  It is pretty good as political campaign press release.  Says Obama is just as strong on war on terrorism as Bush and McCain combined, he'll just go for the correct targets and, meanwhile, support habeas rights for enemy combatants.  

    Parent
    Yeah, I'm pretty satisfied (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:35:14 PM EST
    with O's response.  He got to flash some of his fancy law school perfesser side, while getting in a few political digs at the Constitution -trashing  Junior/McCain.

    And I have no problem with O daring to actually use the term "habeas corpus".  After 800 yrs or so of it being a bedrock principle of western law, you'd think the concept would have sunk in with more people.  Could be that our educational system just doesn't teach it or the Constitution right.

    (nitpick:  Ted SorensEn -- sorry, just looking out for Ted's interests ... )

    Parent

    You'd think I'd remember how to spell his (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:41:52 PM EST
    name.  I read his Kennedy, pub. 1965, much to my very Republican father-in-law's disgust.

    Parent
    Yes. Thank you. (none / 0) (#49)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    You are so right.

    Parent
    There seem to be so many versions (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:55:40 PM EST
    of Obama, I don't know how you can be sure "this" is the one who will be nominating SC justices.

    He certainly manages to hit the right notes in speeches and prepared statements, but there isn't much to suggest he understands that action consistent with that rhetoric must follow - or it renders the rhetoric little more than meaningless pandering.

    Parent

    Because in Democratic Presidential Politics (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:25:10 PM EST
    you must be pro choice. Its a non-negotiable position. Any nomination to the contrary would lose 75% or more of the Democratic base.

    Lets assume you are correct, Obama is just another self serving pol. No self serving pol wipes out 75% of his base. Not. Gonna. Happen.

    Parent

    Given the cavalier way he has (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:35:53 PM EST
    ignored, dismissed and disrespected people who always thought they were that Democratic base, I don't know why anyone can be confident that not offending the base would be high on his list of things to be careful about.

    I don't know who he is, what things are sacrosanct for him, where he draws the line, if he draws the line, what determines if there even is a line.  I don't know whether he seeks to serve the public or his own ambition.  I don't know if what he says today he will support tomorrow.

    When all is said and done, if people don't know what someone stands for, it is very hard to trust them, and harder still to vote for them.

    Parent

    But how is this unusual? (none / 0) (#161)
    by holi0023 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    How many presidential candidates haven't waffled or changed positions on something?  (except fringe candidates, perhaps)  And as for not knowing whether candidates seek to serve the public or their own ambition: doesn't this apply to all of them?  Isn't it safe to assume there's a mix of both motivations in all politicians?  These seem to be extraordinarily high standards to hold a presidential candidate to.

    Parent
    Almost all candidates (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:55:33 PM EST
    waffle on some things, but few waffle on everything.

    Parent
    Are you suggesting... (none / 0) (#179)
    by holi0023 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:51:24 PM EST
    ...that Obama waffles on everything?  If so, I'm not persuaded.

    Parent
    I think the most famous (none / 0) (#166)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:56:02 PM EST
    example of changing positions that I can think of was the first George H.W. Bush and his "Read my lips.  No new taxes."  

    And then, of course, there were new taxes.  ;-)

     

    Parent

    Maybe not 75% (4.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:38:19 PM EST
    but 50%, sure.

    Parent
    If I'm reading you correctly, I suspect (none / 0) (#131)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:45:53 PM EST
    your comment is flying high above a few heads in the vicinity.  Or else it just flew over mine, LOL.

    I wanted to ask Molly Bloom if she meant he wouldn't turn off 75% of the 50% of the base that is left, or if the dividing line between maintaining self-respect and losing it was beyond the 50% point.

    Parent

    I mean for 75% or more (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:05:46 PM EST
    of the Democratic base pro choice. He needs every Democratic voter he can get. I think that is simple enough.

    Look its clear you don't think much of Obama. Fine. You think he is just another self serving pol. Again fine. How many self serving Pol writes off 75% of their potential voters? Not gonna happen.
    Being pro choice is non-negotiable in Democratic presidential politics.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#136)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:50:01 PM EST
    You read correctly.  And are better at math than me, because I didn't even think of 75% of 50.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#108)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:28:38 PM EST
    In fact, the pro-lifers are gonna go on the attack to paint him as a pro-choice radical based on some IL senate votes.  He'll be taking a lot of hits for being pro-choice.

    Parent
    He will not upset his latte liberal supporters (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:57:41 PM EST
    by nominating a conservative to the court. That's basically all we have to go by now.

    Parent
    So Far Nothing Has Upset His Latte Liberal (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    supporters. They have been able to find ways of rationalizing everything he has done to date. Why would this be any different? A more conservative choice would somehow become the most brilliant move evah.

    Parent
    I wouldn't be so sure about him not (4.66 / 3) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:08:03 PM EST
    upsetting the latte liberals - if there's anything people should have learned in this election season, it's that Obama regards everyone as expendable.

    His VP pick will tell us a lot about where he might go with a SC justice; if he wins, and if he wins PA, it would not shock me in the least if he nominated Bob Casey.  And for all those who have been nagging us about needing to elect Obama to protect Roe v. Wade from the anti-choice leanings of John McCain, that would be pretty ironic, don't you think?

    Parent

    Bob Casey is never going to be on (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:11:53 PM EST
    the Supreme Court. Governor maybe, but not Supreme Court justice.

    And FYI, Casey would be unacceptable to many centrists: he's actually a big government liberal and proud of it (when it comes to economic issues).

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:38:19 PM EST
    she was talking about Casey as VP.

    Parent
    A democratic Congress (none / 0) (#12)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    will appoint him.

    Parent
    Um, wrong. (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Right. Just the Senate. (none / 0) (#19)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:22:33 PM EST
    Filibuster-proof democratic majority.

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:23:30 PM EST
    The President always appoints, even if his party controls every seat.

    Parent
    Nominates, subject to advise and (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:25:08 PM EST
    consent of the Senate.

    Parent
    Okay. Not final (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:27:21 PM EST
    until it's approved.

    Bork.  Harriet Miers.


    Parent

    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:29:28 PM EST
    You're becoming tiresome, so I'm going to ignore you now.

    Parent
    Pssst. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:30:42 PM EST
    Be polite.  

    Parent
    With you oculus, I will always endeavor to. (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:32:02 PM EST


    Parent
    And I appreciate your efforts. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:32:49 PM EST


    Parent
    oculus...I'm trying... :) (none / 0) (#128)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:43:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:46:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Advice and consent. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:00 PM EST
    Why are you getting nasty?

    Parent
    Here. (none / 0) (#34)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:35:20 PM EST
    He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court...

    Parent
    Thank god. (none / 0) (#104)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:27:02 PM EST
    Molly Bloom gave you a 5.  

    Parent
    Roberts, Alito (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:48:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Isn't "nominates" a better word? (none / 0) (#23)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:28:40 PM EST
    Whether it's correct or not?

    Parent
    Probably a mod-lib like Cass (none / 0) (#56)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    Sunstein for his 1st appointment, is the usual thinking.

    The 2d, perhaps he'll be bolder and be able to go more progressive.  A true liberal jurist, like the solid but not radical Arthur Goldberg.  He'll probably even get a 3d pick, even in his first term.

    But I hope he avoids these soft centrist, nontransformational types that Bill was compelled to offer up.  

    I want at least one big bold paradigm-shifting lib out of those 3 picks.  And let 'em all be under age 55.

    Parent

    Cass Sunstein would be a great choice (3.00 / 3) (#175)
    by sher on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm not crazy about Sunstein (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM EST
    I thought it was funny that he said Obama was qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. From the New York Times, May 28:

    Cass R. Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and an Obama adviser, said in an interview that because Mr. Obama had taught constitutional law for 10 years at Chicago, "he is immersed in these issues."

    "The first thing to know," Professor Sunstein said, "is that he knows this stuff inside and out, and he has the credentials to be easily appointed to the court himself."



    Parent
    Er, I don't think Cass Sunstein (none / 0) (#61)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:54:44 PM EST
    qualifies as a mod-lib.

    Parent
    Sunstein seems rather difficult (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    to easily pigeonhole.  He has characteristics of a sane libertarian, liberal and centrist.  He clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall and writes for TAP, but also for Volokh's blog, iirc.  Of course he's written a ton, and I've only read a few ounces (one book to be precise) of his overall oeuvre.

    Interesting thinker.  Against the internet (too socially isolating and tends to make people seek only places and people with whom they agree).

    Parent

    Who does? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:57:35 PM EST
    And why not Sunstein?

    Parent
    I think he's too liberal to be (none / 0) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:40:12 PM EST
    mod-lib.  Unless he's taken a turn to the conservative recently.  I haven't read him lately, so it's certinaly possible.

    Parent
    Info On Cass Sunstein (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM EST
    He has publicly supported various of George W. Bush judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts. Sunstein on Roberts per BTD post "Sunstein: The Legal Academy's Broder"

    Sunstein suggested last year that John Roberts would be the quintessential legal craftsman, and thus a judicial minimalist. Conservative to be sure, but carefully so. And what has happened this year? Roberts marching in lockstep with Scalia, Thomas, and the other radicals. You might think that this has given Sunstein second thoughts. But no.

    In The New Republic, he acknowledges

        It turns out that with stunning regularity, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are indeed voting the same way as their conservative colleagues." But he insists that there is a divide, because Roberts and Alito do so on narrower grounds. . . . Here, in a nutshell, is the division between the Court's conservative minimalists and its visionaries," Sunstein proclaimed.

    Sunstein on privacy Roe v Wade:

    Roe vs. Wade, decided in 1973, was founded on the right of privacy in the medical domain, but the court's argument was exceedingly weak. The Constitution does not use the word "privacy" anywhere, and, in any case, the idea of privacy seems to describe a right of seclusion, not a right of patients and doctors to decide as they see fit.

    Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism

    Their anti-conservative, yet also anti-liberal stance is well-expressed in the concurrent belief of many minimalists that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by its overly liberal court, but also that modern conservatives who either sit on or influence the Supreme Court of the United States are wrong to try and overrule that case at one fell stroke, its effect on the law having become a stable precedent. Depending on the minimalist's particular preferences, a minimalist on the court would be likely to either very slowly bolster or chip away at abortion precedents rather than proclaim a lasting ban or legalization on abortion via Constitutional rulings.


    Parent
    I must admit (none / 0) (#119)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:37:37 PM EST
    This was a good statement, a tad too "tough on terra" for me, but well worded for a candidate in a general election.    

    Parent
    Um... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:10:30 PM EST
    Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.

    Talk about saying all things to all people.  Did he have to use the Bush phrase there?

    Justice has not been done for those detainees.

     

    Obama - what is he saying? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:21 PM EST
    As usual, you think Obama is saying one thing, but then you wind up not knowing what he is talking about because he is playing to all sides.

    In this case, it seems to me that the smoke is aimed at the liberals.
    He seems to be saying that the constitution protects those accused of a crime and that is a good thing. OK.

    But what comes roaring through is his desire to pose as the next crusader against terrorism.

    The phrase that turns my stomach is, "Bringing these detainees to justice is too important..". Blah blah blah. "Bringing someone to justice" is a loaded phrase. It implies the guilt of the accused.
    It means, in common parlance, that you will be punishing the gulity.  A civil-libertarian would have said that giving these people who have been held without a charge a chance to defend themselves in a court of law is a core American value. It should be protected. Period.

    For the conservatives, he is offering the reason for supporting the pursuit of justice as being that the suppression of the rights of the accused hasn't resulted in any convictions. And if they had, then  what Mr. O?

    Parent

    bringing someome to justice (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:52:54 PM EST
    implies guilt?

    HUH?

    Thats a pretty odd view of justice.
    Justice is the discrimination between guilt and innocence. Bringing someone to justice means establishing the truth of their guilt or innocence.

    At least in the English language that I use.

    Parent

    Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:22:24 PM EST
    When Bush says 'bring to justice' he means hunt them down and kill them and ask no questions.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:34:00 PM EST
    So when Bush talks about bringing bin Laden to justice, he's saying we need to adjudicate his guilt or innocence?

    Bringing to justice is a euphemism, in the English language I use.

    Parent

    Actually it does NOT mean determining (none / 0) (#167)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:56:20 PM EST
    guilt, it means establishing it---in ordinary English, anyway.
    You pick strange nits.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:20:11 PM EST
    He has bought into the framing of the 'war against terrorism'. That is scary to me.
    I would have preferred if he spoke about holding suspected terrorists accountable while granting them their rights.

    Parent
    Terror - Schmerror (none / 0) (#196)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:28:13 AM EST
    If a car bomb is "terror"
    what was our delightful display of "shock and awe"?

    Answer:

    One kills innocent civilians.
    The other only kills people identified as "collateral damage".

    Another important distinction:
    The terrorists are unrepentant.
    But the families of those killed as collateral damage are offered a heartfelt apology.

    Parent

    He has to look tough on terrorists (none / 0) (#83)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:08:24 PM EST
    or McCain will paint him as a wimp.

    Parent
    Bush owns the term "terrorist act" (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    really? Do you think any liberals died in 9/11? Do you think any of their relatives are waiting for justice for the true culprits?

    Give me a break. Terrorism exists, and Dems need to address that. The difference should be that we go after the right people, not the most politically expedient ones.

    Parent

    Terrorism exists? (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:24:28 PM EST
    In this country, the terrorists are white, dude.

    Parent
    it's not either, or (none / 0) (#111)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:30:49 PM EST
    sorry, try again.

    Parent
    Either or? (none / 0) (#129)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:43:44 PM EST
    You won't like it.

    White terrorists aren't called terrorists.

    9/11 is a failure of the Bush administration.

    Parent

    by whom? (none / 0) (#141)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:00:50 PM EST
    I call them terrorists. So did Bill Clinton.So will Obama.

    But you basically said that there were only white terrorists in America, and that is factually false.

    Parent

    Okay, who do you think they are (none / 0) (#110)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:30:47 PM EST
    and what makes you think democrats haven't addressed terrorism?

    Who are the true culprits?

    Parent

    Let me clarify: (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:35:48 PM EST
     I remember Bill Clinton specifically speaking about Osama bin Laden WHILE A PRESIDENT.

    In other words, liberals DO attack the problem, it's the perception that we don't that drove people into Bush's arms in 2004. (and some people, like the guy above, refuse to admit that terrorism exists outside of Tim McVey, but I cannot speak to whether that poster is actually a liberal).

    Does that make more sense?

    Parent

    I repeat... (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:45:07 PM EST
    it's the perception that we don't that drove people into Bush's arms in 2004.

    9/11 was a failure of the Bush administration.

    Parent

    No DUH!! (none / 0) (#140)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:58:55 PM EST
    I saw "The man who KNEW" I listened to Clinton's counterterrorist expert try to get Ms. Rice's attention I know about the daily briefing.

    I am talking about perception. If everyone knew the 9/11 was Bush's failure and the they CONTINUE to fail every day...Bush would not now be president.

    I am talking about Obama shouting out the fact that Dems will be tougher, no, MORE EFFECTIVE against terrorism than Bush was. Obama needs to say that Dems WERE more effective than Bush....Remember the terrorist attack that wasn't during Clinton? Remember Y2K?

    So when you say that Obama is using Bush's rhetoric by talking about terrorism I say BULL. It is our issue too, and we are better on it, and we need people to know that.

    Parent

    I have a dream... (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:07:23 PM EST
    [sorry about that!]

    But I do. I have a dream that Obama, or some Democrat dagnabbit, points out that if Al Gore had been in the White House on 9/11...

    well...

    think of Al Gore's SNL intro, but not as a joke.

    Can we, pretty please, be proud of our Democratic heroes? Can we make Bill Clinton our Reagan? Can we please stop being our own worst enemies?

    ...OK, that felt good. I'll stop now.

    Parent

    Yes, please (none / 0) (#152)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:26:03 PM EST
    hear, here!

    Parent
    We didn't convict anybody. That's bad. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:11:47 PM EST
    I don't like the emphasis on "Gitmo is bad because it hinders the war on terror!"  The Military Commission Act was "sloppy", it keeps us from "getting tough on terrorism", its poor drafting undermines the fight against terror, convicting these people is "too important" for this flawed approach which has failed to get any convictions.  

    Oh, and BTW, some core values have been violated, but I won't tell you which.  YOU pick the ones that are important to YOU and fill it in.  War on terror?  Great.  National security through military action?  Wonderful.  The right of habeas corpus?  That's good, too.  Whatever you want.

    Hmm (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with anything he said, but I read it as a lawyer who has a full understanding of the issues involved.  From the perspective of the general audience, it sort of seemed like he spent too much time trying to prove "you can support this decision and still be tough on terror!" that he didn't really find a punchy way to explain the stakes at issue.

    The heart of the issue here is that we've been holding these people for over 6 years in some cases, and the likelihood is that some of them are completely innocent.  That, and not a dusty old English legal principle, is the most compelling reason why we urgently need to implement a procedure that will sort out the guilty from the innocent.

    Obama remains afraid of the terror card (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:40:25 PM EST
    It's depressing to reflect on that as I read Chris Bowers suggesting that Obama attack McCain at the convention. Sorry Chris, but you chose the wrong Democrat for that mission.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:45:54 PM EST
    There's a speech that didn't get given here, something about how giving a fair hearing even to people we believe to be our terrorist enemies is the sort of thing that sends the right message to the world.

    I think most Americans, certainly most Americans who would consider voting for a Democrat, strongly want us to set a moral example for the world.  The idea that granting habeas corpus rights to people we've had in a hole for 6 years makes us look weak is something that shouldn't even be seriously engaged.

    Parent

    That would be the change I was looking for, (none / 0) (#142)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST

    I think most Americans, certainly most Americans who would consider voting for a Democrat, strongly want us to set a moral example for the world.  The idea that granting habeas corpus rights to people we've had in a hole for 6 years makes us look weak is something that shouldn't even be seriously engaged.


    Parent
    Just for starters, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:40:54 PM EST
    The heart of the issue here is that we've been holding these people for over 6 years in some cases, and the likelihood is that some of them are completely innocent.

    We've set something up, that the US government is going to want to keep in place.

    I hate saying that.  Believe me.

    Parent

    What do you mean? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:42:52 PM EST
    Can you explain?

    Parent
    Just this. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:48:29 PM EST
    Like Iraq, the organization is in place.  The US has allocated billions of dollars and military personnel (and "others") to the effort.

    I find it hard to believe that it's all just going to go away because a dem like Obama is elected.

    Parent

    The machinery of power (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    as well as the machinery of the abuse of power is very difficult to dismantle.

    Parent
    I thought he struck (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:43:43 PM EST
    about the right balance.  Protective and in support of defendants' const'l rights, while at the same time protecting himself politically from charges of being soft on terra.

    We are in a political year, and pols are going to do what they have to do not to be painted in certain ways by the mischievous Rs.  

    O's statement hit the right notes both legally and politically.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM EST
    Instead of reacting defensively to the idea of being called soft on terror, how about a proactive explanation of why giving rights even to those we believe to be our enemies isn't soft?

    One problem I constantly find myself having with Obama supporters, and your post is a good example, is that the existence of a political reason for doing something always seems to become a justification in and of itself.  Since politicians rarely do anything unless they have reason to perceive some political benefit in it, it's a good all-purpose excuse, but it tends to leave me cold.

    Parent

    Ultimately, this is who Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:53:23 PM EST
    He doesn't want to fight the political fights of our times, so he'll do what he can get away with.

    Parent
    Politics is about timing (none / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:25:31 PM EST
    and the better time to fight for the title of America's Finest Civil Libertarian is after winning the election.

    But even better than temporarily placating a certain segment of the left with some gratuitous and unwise political rhetoric, the way to stake a claim to Civil Libertarian Extraordinaire is to put people in the AG post and on the Court and all the fed bench who will reflect that progressive pov which respects criminal defendants' and all citizens' rights.

    Parent

    oh how badly mistaken you are! (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:41:44 PM EST
    the day is when you step into the politcal arena. it is when you arrive to vote. present doesn't cut it by the way. it ivolves actually standing up to war in iraq while you are in the senate and not before. it involves running a campaign with respect for women and not distain, demeaning, and dismissal. try those on for size. and platitudes about what he'll do after being elected? heck, he never even had a meeting of the plum committee he was given. so don't try and hand me that blather about after he is elected.

    Parent
    I'm sure that's what Obama is thinking (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    But remember, there is always another election around the corner.

    And this is one of those issues where I feel certain, as Steve M suggests, that there is a way to be right on the issue, strong, and to win politically. Do you see how lilly-livered McCain's statement is? This was Obama's issue to own, and he didn't even try.

    Parent

    Remember the rules (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:34:18 PM EST
    no name calling. lilly-livered really wasn't necessary to make your point.


    Parent
    Understand the rules. (3.00 / 2) (#155)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:37:13 PM EST
    "Lily-livered" was describing McCain's response. not McCain.

    Therefore, not name-calling.

    Parent

    JavaCityPal (none / 0) (#200)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    Why the troll-rating? Do you have a problem with being corrected? You don't seem to have a problem "correcting" others - when you're wrong.

    Parent
    And it has eerie echoes of (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:53:25 PM EST
    parents asking their children whether they'd jump off a bridge just because all their friends were doing it.

    If folks don't notice they're projecting their own values onto a blank slate, then our next president will be ... a blank slate.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Belswyn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:01:11 PM EST
    What exactly is your point here? In one sentence you're talking about Obama supporters and in the next about politicians, apparently conflating the two.

    On the statement itself, Obama isn't reacting to being called soft on terror. He's supporting the Supreme Court's decision and giving a cogent explanation of why it's a morally correct decision, as well as distinguishing himself from the Bush/McCain position. Do you have a problem with that?

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:07:13 PM EST
    See, I had two paragraphs.  One was talking about Obama's statement, the other was talking about why I found brodie's justification for Obama's statement to be unsatisfactory.  That's not conflating, that's  being able to convey two thoughts at once.

    If you disagree with brodie's claim that Obama's statement was nuanced in order to protect him politically from charges of being soft on terror, I guess you should take it up with him/her.

    Parent

    If O had been quite less forthcoming (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:05:59 PM EST
    in his press release about standing up for basic defendants' rights, I'd be a little more inclined to go along with you, but he wasn't soft on the Constitution, au contraire.

    And politics is politics, especially for the WH.  And in this game, unless the Dem in question has squarely established himself in the public mind as tough as nails on tough guys and terrorists, too much rhetoric that pounds the table about defendants' rights will get the guy labeled the wrong way for our interests.

    I want to win, not back another Adlai/Dukakis loser type who wants to prove to everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's the World's Most Committed Civil Libertarian.

    (Btw, for the record, I was a Hillary backer (since Nov 04).  I've now shifted to the GE mode.  I'm a Dem first and will back the Dem nominee even though I strongly favored his opponent.  Nothing is going to happen to change the O nomination, barring the classic Edwin Edwards scenario, or an Eagleton revelation, or a personal admission of Alien Abduction.  So I am posting now in favor of the Dem.  Period.)  

    Parent

    Well, no fighting Democrat is Obama (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:45:46 PM EST


    Parent
    I am secretly hoping Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:52:35 PM EST
    will issue a succinct, spot on summary from wherever she may be lurking.

    Parent
    he should (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:44:41 PM EST
    hire you to write his statements. You make it a lot clearer than Obama does.

    Parent
    "Failed to convict" (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:44:08 PM EST
    Sounds like he's chastising them for not being efficient enough, as opposed to being unconstitutional and in violation of human rights.

    Sigh.  I'd love to know what 'our core values' are.

    that's not how I read it at all. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:54:20 PM EST
    if you followed this at all, you know that the goal was endless incarceration without trials. But the Bushies always argued that they were guilty. So what happens when there was the rare trial...failure to convict. It's a sham. Obama is pointing it out. He just needs to be more concise in his delivery IMO.

    Parent
    If you read your own interpretation (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:02 PM EST
    into what he said, then that's not what he said.  It's WORM.  Or what you hope he means.

    But whatever it is, it isn't an indication of what he'll actually do.

    There's a reason he avoids conciseness.  

    I noticed a long time ago his responses tend to be much more lawyerly than leaderly.

    Parent

    Stay tuned, I guess. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:50:26 PM EST


    Parent
    On an earlier comment on TL (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:03:58 PM EST
    "Lurking behind all the Unitary Executive and "judicial modesty" bullcrap has been, since minute one, an attack on the role of the Courts as enunciated in Marbury - "to say what the law is".  Every one of Bushie's signing statements, decisions that he can waive or not enforce or disobey laws, etc., is predicated, at its core, on his being able to say what the law is, rather than having to let the Courts decide".

    Why has the media and Obama ignore this aspect of the ruling? If this is true, I think it as important if not more than GITMO. It clearly pulls back the over reach of the exec. branch.

    Angel...yep...most of them saying they (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:06:24 PM EST
    liked Hillary, yadda, yadda, yadda, but you don't have to be a brain surgeon to know where they are coming from.  Since obama, the selectee, was announced, they must have joined his anti-smear machine....you know pointing out where he flip-flops, exaggerates, makes things up, etc.  I am sure we have lots of this to look forward to.

    Oh please (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    I make a reasoned criticism of Obama's statement that you're free to agree or disagree with, and instead you choose to take a cheap "there's nothing he can do to please these Clinton supporters" shot at me?

    Unless there is nothing Obama can say or do that would DISPLEASE you, I'd appreciate you addressing the substance of my point, rather than trolling around like this.

    Because... (4.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:19:32 PM EST
    ...it is constant parsing, looking for flaws.  Always. It isn't that you disagree with Senator Obama, it is that you are looking for flaws.  All the time.  

     There was nothing objectionable about this statement, politically or legally.  But it is something that "bothers" you nevertheless: that politicians are politicians.  And so you look for hidden errors.  

    Parent

    You sound like the people (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:23:12 PM EST
    who used to defend Bush in 2000-2005, before there was no one left who would defend everything he did.

    Parent
    Please, in your opinion, there is (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:25:51 PM EST
    nothing objectionable about his statement. If he said the world was flat and some of us said, we think the world is round, you would be accuse us of being anti-dem. You can agree or disagree on someone's opinion, and, it isn't that we look for "hidden agendas" it's that you don't. What he says is, and there is no room for dissent. Sorry, I don't want to be in that place.

    Parent
    Gosh (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:27:29 PM EST
    There was nothing objectionable, because you say so.  Gee, thanks for the well-argued response.  I won't bother to document all the times I've stuck up for Obama or argued his side of an issue; clearly you have no interest in finding out whether they exist.

    The fact that you have such a serious problem with my extremely mild criticisms of this statement is indicative of a little too much protectiveness of your candidate, in my opinion.  I hope that someday we can return to the days when it's okay to expect something better from our Democratic leaders than what they choose to give us.

    Parent

    Yes It Was Pretty Good (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:28:28 PM EST
    But not perfect, for me. I do not like the fact that the most Americans, and their pandering candidates, have swallowed the WOT hook line and sinker.

    We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism....

    I wish that the Dems would drop that idiotic meme, even if it sells soap by the truckload.

    Parent

    Oh Alec82, I, for one, have missed (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:18:11 PM EST
    your tone today. Some vote candidate, some vote party, and some vote country and each of the some take all the factors into consideration and then rejoice that the constitution, and democracy, which Obama referenced today, work. If I vote differently or even the same as you, it is my right, it is your right. We have the same right, we are equal...

    I hear you Alec, but this thread's not as bad as (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:24:16 PM EST
    others have been.  It's taking time, but maybe Obama's statement today helps these well educated people think of him as a tiny bit more than just an empty suit.  (Just don't go to the comments section of the other blogs, it's painful.)

    Seems pretty evenhanded (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:24:48 PM EST
    Can't say I'm surprised that the various Obamaphobes are criticizing his statement.  Had he been more critical and sharp they would have said that he was naive and foolish for giving the Republicans an easy shot at him and that this, once again, shows a lack of judgment.

    A Presidential nominee doesn't get elected President by being a firebrand.  People may remember your Cross of Gold speech for a 100 years but you still come in 2nd.

    Obama's biggest priority right now is to separate the War on Terror from the Bush Administration.  He CANNOT cede that issue to the Republicans.  So with this statement he says that he strongly supports the SCOTUS defending the Constitution AND he criticizes the Bush Administration for poorly executing the War on Terror AND he says that he believes we must continue to PROPERLY prosecute the War on Terror.

    It's a good statement for him. Not a home run.  Not earth shattering.  But a good statement.

    Obama MUST appear strong with regards to terrorism.  It is his Achilles' Heel.  

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:32:15 PM EST
    Obama MUST appear strong with regards to terrorism.  It is his Achilles' Heel.  

    Obama MUST appear strong with regards to terrorism.  It is his Achilles' Heel.  

    Then he must have five or six feet, because that's the least of his probelms, AFAIC.

    Parent

    Man (5.00 / 7) (#115)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM EST
    When this many Obama supporters are engaged in the soft bigotry of low expectations, I know that I had a point in saying that Obama's statement struck me as a little weak.  Now the prevailing wisdom is that you don't get elected President by making strong statements!

    I wonder which Democrats it was that didn't get elected by being a firebrand.  Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, they were all milquetoasts I guess?  I guess that was John Kerry's mistake, in retrospect.  He was just too much of a firebrand, he was way too clear about where he stood!

    I happen to feel strongly about the importance of today's decision, as should all progressives.  The notion that a stronger statement from Obama would have inspired criticism is certainly silly as it pertains to me, although I can't speak for others.

    Parent

    This is why I love (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    that Chris Bowers stepped out of line by calling for a Convention attack on McCain. Does he have any idea who we just nominated?

    Parent
    Were those three (none / 0) (#124)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:39:53 PM EST
    pandering to republicans (now with the fundamentalist flavor) to this extent?

    I doubt it.

    Parent

    Well, Steve (none / 0) (#144)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:05:00 PM EST
    Conventional wisdom is that you run to the base in the primary, and to the center in the general election.  The weak link for the Democratic Party is national security.  I've not been shy about saying that I would vote 3rd party as a protest, but I think this was a good statement, geared toward the mushy middle.  I am willing to give Obama credit when it is due, and I think this is a good centrist statement.  

    Parent
    I pretty much agree with this: (none / 0) (#147)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:09:15 PM EST
    I think this was a good statement, geared toward the mushy middle.  I am willing to give Obama credit when it is due, and I think this is a good centrist statement.  

    Now suppose you went over to Daily Kos and said the same thing?

    Parent

    I don't know what would happem (none / 0) (#168)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:56:36 PM EST
    I used to read the FP, but I was never a poster at DK.  I haven't been there in 3 months, because it was obvious that no dissent would be allowed.  (I hope I haven't made a fool of myself by posting a sincere answer to snark.)  I don't know--you are more familiar with the site than me, what WOULD happen?  I am really asking an honest question.  

    Parent
    You would be called a troll (none / 0) (#169)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:58:59 PM EST
    and attacked for daring to say anything negative about St. Obama.

    Parent
    ROFL! (none / 0) (#173)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:21:09 PM EST
    I thought that was what you were saying, but you can't be too sure these days!

    Sigh--what happened to my party?  We used to be able to discuss ad nauseum the many grey areas.  Now it's all starkly black and white, and we can't even agree on what's black, and what's white.  

    Parent

    I disagree... (none / 0) (#182)
    by holi0023 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:03:05 PM EST
    ... with the characterization of Daily Kos above.  Yes, there are a lot of Obama supporters there who have responded very rudely and irrationally to Clinton and her supporters, and who fail to see the flaws in their chosen candidate.  However--and I say this as someone who spends a considerable amount of time at DK--there are many, many posters there who are much more respectful and rational.  Many of us, like me, would gladly have supported either Clinton or Obama; indeed, many of us started off supporting one of the other Democrats in the race.  And many of us have been sharply critical of those Obama supporters on the site who have engaged in bashing Clinton or her supporters.  

    Parent
    I was there for a long time (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:05:17 PM EST
    and watched the place degrade. I think you are absolutely wrong.

    Parent
    Prove me wrong then. (none / 0) (#187)
    by holi0023 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:16:37 PM EST
    There are my own comments on DK, for starters.  I haven't been as active a commenter as many, but I did engage in a fairly heated debate with one Obama-supporting diarist who (several weeks back) felt it was important to explain why she would never vote for Clinton.  And I was far from alone.

    Also, I believe there's also been a considerable change of tone on the site ever since the primaries ended.  For instance, there was a lot of positive response (including my own) to this diary from a Clinton supporter who said explicitly that s/he doesn't like Obama: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/9/204346/8388/356/515265.

    Before declaring me to be absolutely wrong, I encourage you to take another look around the site.

    Parent

    I think any discussion of daily kos (none / 0) (#189)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:20:42 PM EST
     must include its recent history and certain other issues that I'm sure Jeralyn would not like discussed here.

    Since we are going way off topic, I will leave it at that.

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#193)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:29:51 AM EST

    FDR rand as a moderate who would bring sanity to the White House.  He had no interest in big socialist change.  

    Truman ran on the legacy of FDR. To suggest that he EVER advocating change in the system is to defy reality.

    JFK was certainly a crapshoot for his time.  But he was hardly a fighter.  He spent most of his time saying that he and Nixon largely agree on things.

    NONE of them were defenders of the faith.  They were people who achieved power and then used that power to forward a progressive message.

    BTW, the last Progressive President was Wilson.


    Parent

    "These are unlawful combatants. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:32:11 PM EST
    They are not American citizens."

    OMG, I just can't wait until November...

    No Republicans Left Behind in 2008

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:41:42 PM EST
    There's a fundamental assumption there that I'd like to see challenged head-on, which is the notion that these are all unlawful combatants or enemy combatants or terrorists or whatever.

    Odds are that some of the people at Gitmo are dastardly terrorists.  Odds are that some of them were simply picked up for the wrong reasons and aren't guilty or anything.  And I'm sure you agree, it's shameful that six years after the fact we still haven't implemented some kind of fair process to sort out the guilty from the innocent.

    We have no way to be confident that innocent people aren't locked up at Gitmo.  If we care about justice as a nation, we need to care about whether we're keeping innocent people locked up for years and years.  The failure to challenge the assumption that all of these people should be presumed guilty is the thing I find lacking in Obama's statement.  It's not just a matter of going through the motions so we can bring all these dirty terrorists to justice.

    Parent

    The problem is that the Patriot Act (none / 0) (#180)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:59:31 PM EST
    allows our government to lock up regular old Americans like you and me in places like Gitmo.  And now we have some new contracts with companies in Israel to set up camps if they're needed.  My worst fear is that Bushco intends to use his Continuity of Federal Government presidential directive to extend his stay in the WH and stick reporters and dissenters in detention camps.  At least now we have one more check against that strategy.  

    It's a good day for America.

    Parent

    Just in case it's not clear, (none / 0) (#181)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    these are McSame's words, not mine.

    Newt

    Parent

    This is exactly the point: (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:46:58 PM EST
    "Seriously, you have no idea what he will or won't do, neither do I "

    No one knows.  Because his record is so thin and changing, no one can look to his actions to see where he'll stand.  His words, besides being just words, run one way one day and another the next.

    So in absence of any reason to think he will do X, why are so many certain he will in fact do X?

    Here's what I like: (none / 0) (#153)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:31:51 PM EST
    He marched publically against the war, he marched for gay marriage rights, he has reasoned opinions, he was a con law professor and a community activist for the poor.

    I wish he had more experience, but you don't do those things as a closet Conservative...those things aren't "popular" and those things don't win elections.

    He is a damned good speaker, and he isn't afraid of the GOP machine. He isn't afraid to approach Republican constituents to speak to them about issues that are close to Dem hearts.

    I like that because I think some of those Republicans will listen and think " that's not what I thought Democrats stood for, perhaps I'll give them a try".

    Don't get me wrong, I really liked Hil for different reasons, but Obama is worthy.

    Parent

    Actually, in his Chicago district (none / 0) (#171)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:01:40 PM EST
    all those things are popular.  As was his one speech against the war.

    Parent
    It was like coming out in favor of good weather (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:40:45 PM EST
    Obama's apologists have some nerve comparing that to the situation Senators who were given fraudulent intel during a nat'l crisis by a crooked Bush admin to ram through a pre-existing plan to invade Iraq.

    Yet again, Obama risked nothing by doing what most of the population -- hell, the world -- was doing at the time.

    Were he Teh One his movementarians pretend, even as an activist and organizer, he'd have been known nationally as THE voice of the anti-war movement.

    There's no way he should still be eating lunch off his speech that shook his shoes.

    Parent

    Marching with gays (none / 0) (#185)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:06:36 PM EST
    is NEVER popular.  

    Hillary has even taken hits for saying the word gay.  There's a right wing video of her saying "gay, gay, gay" about twenty different times in different situations.  

    Until straight Americans demand equal rights for gays, our leaders who stick their necks out will continue to be attacked for their good work.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:06:50 PM EST
    I would say that he has a fear of the GOP attack machine. The way he handled the Johnson incident had the GOP doing high fives all over the blogosphere. I think he's pretty naive when it comes to that since he's never run a hard race.

    Parent
    he may be naiive (none / 0) (#197)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:32:56 AM EST
    I concede that.

    But he isn't too green to win against Hil, apparently.

    Parent

    Well (3.25 / 4) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:59:49 PM EST
    this statement sounds like he really doesn't have an opinion or it's something that a college professor would write when dissection an opinion with a few political jabs thrown in for good measure.

    The statement sounds really circular to me. Does anyone else get this impression?

    Re: Well (none / 0) (#74)
    by Belswyn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:04:06 PM EST
    Hi, can you elaborate on why it sounds circular?

    Parent
    he uses (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:55:16 PM EST
    too many words. He needs to be more plain spoken. You get completely lost in what he is trying to say here.

    Parent
    Color me jaded....don't take much stock (2.50 / 8) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    in what obama says as it will probably change tomorrow.

    oh my trolls out in force....thanks guys (3.00 / 2) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:03:31 PM EST
    coigue, jgarza, pb, tben...I am not like obama, I stick by what I say.

    Parent
    thanks and shout out to pegasus too... (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:22:27 PM EST


    Parent
    I've been here longer than you (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    and you are the troll here. You completely degrade the quality of conversation with your myopia.

    Parent
    /sigh (2.00 / 2) (#134)
    by phatpay on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:47:15 PM EST
    While I do think it's imperative that no pol get a free ride, the criticism of O tends to smack a lot of, "Woe unto you who refused to vote for St. Hillary!"
    It's foolish to think that Hillary would take a more leftist approach towards this decision.
    And while I'm firmly on the left myself, I do think that we need to be led, presidentially, more moderately and from the center. This is an enormous nation, with a giant economy. We are a nation of hundreds of millions that is in dire need of responsible stewardship. Regardless of what side of the political fence we reside.
    I may not agree or like a lot of U.S. citizens, but I will fight for their rights.
    Shock/horror at a centrist statement from a presidential nominee in an election year?
    Gimme a break.
    I think his statement was pretty spot on, politically.
    He managed to applaud a judicial break from the status quo while tying his opponent to the status quo.
    Here's a hint, phatpay (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:21:20 PM EST
    If you want to gain any support for Obama from Clinton supporters, do not slap us in the face with your first sentence.  Although I do not agree that a president has to lead from the center, I do believe that a Democratic presidential candidate cannot veer very far from the center when the issue is national security.  

    I believe that Obama's statement was very good, but you're making it difficult for me to support it with your broad brush disdain of Clinton backers.  You are doing your candidate no good with this approach.  

    Parent

    Thanks for the hint. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by phatpay on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:44:45 PM EST
    I was not trying to garner support from Clinton supporters with my post. Merely scratching my head at how every minutiae from Obama is countered here with, essentially, "Hillary would've done that better!"
    That serves what purpose exactly vis a vis political discourse?
    If you want to knock Obama for what he's doing, do it. Contrasting what he's doing with what Hillary would have done is an exercise in futility. And it will only prolong the hurt that Clinton supporters are going through.
    For the record, I caucused for Edwards.
    For the record, I thought it was unwise for the DNC to proffer a female or an African-American. Not in these dire times.
    Not when the U.S. still suffers tremendously from sexism and racism.
    Not when, for me at least, the most crucial aspect of this election is that the right not remain in control of the WH.
    I would vote for a one eyed squirrel if that ended up being the Dem candidate.
    I have nothing against Clinton. I do view her as less of a "change" than Obama. I have no real love for Obama, other than a respect for him as a charming political animal, evidenced by his win of the nomination.
    He's not "my" candidate. He's the Democratic Nominee.
    I have no disdain for Clinton supporters. I truly hope that Hillary is allowed to roll call her supporters at the convention. Or allowed to make some such gesture that will demonstrate just how successful she was. I believe that is very important.
    I do have weariness with the internet second guessing.
    I believe we are playing right into the Republicans hands by refusing to unite. They have to be loving this. McCain isn't even liked by them. Yet we'll cut off our nose to spite our face and vote for him because American politics at the presidential level got ugly.
    News flash: American politics, especially at the presidential level, is the very definition of ugly. Your fooling yourself if you think any of these candidates have truly clean hands.
    "Politicians are like diapers. They need changing, often, and for the same reason."

    Parent
    I was also an Edwards supporter (none / 0) (#192)
    by stxabuela on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:53:09 AM EST
    who picked Clinton because I thought her stand on health care was closer to mine.  (I want universal, single-payer health care.)  I, too, hope that there will be a roll call vote in Denver.

    You sound like a person who has based your decision on logic rather than emotion, and you would support the Democratic nominee, no matter what.  Therefore, you should try to garner support from Clinton backers.  Both sides should try to scale down the emotions.  You put it well--political discourse becomes impossible.  You had some very good points, which I recognized once I got past the first comment.  You know the old saying, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.    
         

    Parent

    Gracias, Abuelita (none / 0) (#195)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:02:49 AM EST
    Logic and resignation.
    Logic as I could never vote Republican. At least not in the way that party's politics have evolved.
    And resignation in that I'm resigned to vote for the Republican's major opponent.
    This bothers me about our political system, the power of the 2 major parties. Other candidates (often more politically aligned with our personal ideals) only end up swinging elections to the major parties.
    I believe that it is imperative to choose the candidate that is going to do the least amount of damage to our country.
    When you consider the economy, the situation in Iraq, and the Supreme Court nominations that will be upcoming, voting for McSame is ill advised.
    Sitting out is childish.
    Voting for a 3rd party candidate will be, unfortunately, the same as voting for McCain.
    Doing anything but voting for the Democratic Nominee (selectee) out of emotion is absurd. You mentioned health care. It's my understanding that Hillary's proposal will be a plank in Mr. Obama's platform. And you'd better believe that Big Pharm will be funding McSame.
    I'm not going to try and Garner support for Obama from the Clinton supporters. He will be doing that. As will Hillary herself. I'm going to illuminate that choosing McCain out of spite is tragically stupid. There is just too much at stake.
    I understand the old saying... but this is "teh intarwebz", mi amiga. Y, el opuesto es el modo mas mejor para attencion aqui. Salud!

    Parent
    So, did the Washington Post reporter (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:52:02 PM EST
    edit Obama's initial statement or is this a more fleshed out version?

    Good for him ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:55:26 PM EST
    I guess.

    But his press team needs to get a little punchier in their releases.

    This was fairly yawn worthy.

    Sounds more like something released from a Senate office, than the press release of a man running for president.

    Query (none / 0) (#63)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:55:42 PM EST
    Has Senator Clinton issued a statement on the habeas decision?  Does anyone have a link?

    Try googling.... (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:08:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Why would she (4.75 / 4) (#80)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:07:30 PM EST
    unless all of the other senators are issuing statements.  What Senator Clinton thinks is no longer an issue, is it? What has Senator McCain said? That's what you should be making comparisons to.

    Parent
    Right on SamsMom....Hillary isn't in the mix (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:11:19 PM EST
    anymore, isn't that right?  What difference would it make what she had to say?  :)

    Parent
    you know there are millions who are (none / 0) (#163)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:55:10 PM EST
    interested in what hillary has to say. i respect her opinion. so please refrain.

    Parent
    I'm interested in what Senator Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:03:54 PM EST
    has to say, too, but she has been asked to clear the stage for Senator Obama to become the presumptive nominee.  If we keep asking her to comment on things, then she will be accused of not letting him assume center stage.  I want the Obama folks to stop using her to rant against and for Obama to succeed or fail on his on merits.  I think you and I are on the same side.

    Parent
    thanks for your response. (none / 0) (#198)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    i took at look at your other comments and saw you supported hillary. sorry!

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#194)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:44:24 AM EST
    A Google search has found no mention of any statement by Clinton supporting Boumediene or habeas corpus,and certainly no statement saying that civil liberties should take precedence over the so-called war on terrorism.  Dodd, Kennedy, Leahy, Cardin, Kyl, McCain and Graham all have issued statements.  Given how important the case is to constitutional liberties, how important it is to speak out loudly and clearly on this issue, and that Clinton is a leader in the Senate, I thought she'd lend her voice in support of liberty.  

    Parent
    I like it (none / 0) (#68)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:42 PM EST
    he did good.

    Good enough (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:46:22 PM EST
    for a statement only the political junkies will ever read.

    Heh (none / 0) (#170)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:00:02 PM EST
    It's obvious that you have no clue how the phrase is used.  Try googling "bring to justice," and you know what you'll find?  A whole bunch of people demanding that the GUILTY be "brought to justice!"

    You don't say that people whose guilt is in doubt should be "brought to justice."  Well, maybe you do, but none of the rest of us do.

    Obama's Statement On Today's Habeas/Gitmo Decision | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment