home

Obama AWOL On FISA

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via TPMCafe:

[A] reporter asked specifically about Obama's position. "I better check on that. . . ," [Robert] Gibbs said. "I honestly -- that's what I need to work on, as well." It certainly is striking that Obama is now the leader of the Democratic Party, but he has yet to say anything on such a crucial public issue. Obama has in the past opposed lawsuit immunity for the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping, but neither he nor his campaign have commented on his position for the latest bill.

(Emphasis supplied.) I smell a "present" vote coming.

Speaking for me only

< Gallup: Obama 46, McCain 44 | Obama Vows to Fight to Remove Telco Immunity >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama AWOL On FISA | 196 comments (196 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Oh man. Incoming. (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    Guess he can't say he was campaigning in NH and didn't get the word on the vote until too late.

    I think NARAL should issue (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:16:14 PM EST
    a statement in support of Obama's strong, anti-immunity stance.

    Yep (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:17:04 PM EST
    You're on the money with the "present vote" statement. It's Obama's MO.

    Do you still think it's imperative that we win this election? Is it better to have a Dem with zero leadership qualities or a Republican who is hated by his own party? Frankly, this election is looking to be worse than 1988.

    Speaking for myself only.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    ...'68, '72, '76, and the ever-popular '80.

    Which is why I cannot do this again.

    Fifty-five years invested in the Democratic Party and THIS is what I have to show for it?

    ROI is pathetic.

    I'm thinking I'll head for Skid Road and drop some cash directly in the cup/cap of some half-drunk vet sitting on the sidewalk along with a sandwich or two and some fruit.

    Since I'm not counting on or tithing to the Democrats anymore, might as well give directly to the despised underclass.  At least then I'll know where my money went and what for...and in most instances, probably to a 'better class of people,' all things considered.

    [ Parent ]

    "ROI" is a terrific frame (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by lambert on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    Absolutely. Years of effort, and?

    [ Parent ]
    Thanx (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by mrjerbub on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    I could use the money.

    [ Parent ]
    And like I always say... (none / 0) (#96)
    by lambert on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:04:04 PM EST
    "Be sure to spend it on liquor!"

    [ Parent ]
    That's a pooor investment. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:16:50 PM EST
    can I interest you in the Carlisle Group?

    [ Parent ]
    Well.... (none / 0) (#161)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:27:18 PM EST
    I do have some Microsoft and Boeing stock but...Carlyle?  Nah...can't do oil altho it's really tempting.

    [ Parent ]
    For me, yes it is (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:17:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You certainly (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    have a right to your opinion. However, I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter so sometimes winning an election isn't all that great in the end.

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly, I think Obama (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    is a much smoother operator than Carter. Brooks has a point. (I wrote about this last night).

    [ Parent ]
    IMO (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    when we start quoting David Brooks we are really in touble

    [ Parent ]
    Well, he's usually a complete idiot (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:23:57 PM EST
    but in this particular column I think he's on to something.

    [ Parent ]
    Be very careful with that... (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:26:41 PM EST
    Brooks is a complete idiot.

    If I think he's onto something, I generally wonder what's wrong with the picture...and then I step back and look at it again.

    [ Parent ]

    I think what Brooks writes in that colum is fairly (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    undeniable. The question is whether we can predict future events.

    [ Parent ]
    Left my Magic 8 Ball at home (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    but given its past record, "Better Not Tell You Now" might could be the response.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry ... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    still an idiot.

    [Obama's] the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he's too intelligent.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama is smooth at protecting his (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    political reputation. So what?

    [ Parent ]
    So, in comparison to Carter, (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    that makes him an improvement.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not relevant to me, if he doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    put his reputation on the line. In fact, it could make for a worse Presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    or it means (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:45:17 PM EST
    he could be neither admirable or competent.  In the end its impossible for a job approval rating to dip beneath a certain point but I never had a doubt to carter's sincerity, his concern for humanity, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Carter was pretty lame and I voted for him (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:53:44 PM EST
    I was very disappointed in him and you know what my only defense of him was? It was he is such a nice man in a unlucky situation who is getting blamed for everything. We got him because we were coming off the Dick Nixon ugly years. He was for hope and change from the usual Washington insiders. But he did not know how to play the game and was for a lot of compromise. Per wikipedia

    He established a national energy and removed price controls from domestic petroleum production but was unable to make the U.S. less reliant on foreign oil sources.His return of the Panama Canal Zone to Panama was seen as a major concession of U.S. influence in Latin America. The final year of his presidential tenure was marked by several major crises, including the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Iran and holding of hostages by Iranian students, a failed rescue attempt of the hostages, serious fuel shortages, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
    He did good with the Camp David agreement though. That is because he is a compromiser. He should have been the UN Rep as he knows how to get countries together.He served one term.

    I don't believe that Obama would come out against the FISA treaty because that would be coming out against Pelosi. THAT is the compromise.That is why there are crickets. He does not want to make waves.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't see any evidence that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    can play the game of making actual change.
    Teddy Kennedy can.

    [ Parent ]
    Teddy can? Really? (none / 0) (#155)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    Then why don't we have universal health care?

    Instead he gave us No Child Left Behind.

    Great.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    Bush was also unqualified to be President and a smooth operator. How has that worked out? The one thing that I have seen that runs through all diastrous presidencies is lack of experience.

    [ Parent ]
    Were Bush's original supporters unhappy (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:59:45 PM EST
    with his Supreme Court picks? I mean, aside from Harriet Miers.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    we should get over our love affair with the supreme court and get back to basics. There aren't enough single issue supreme court voters to win an election. The GOP was happy with his supreme court picks of course. However, Obama's lack of spine tells me that if the GOP raises a stink about one of his, he'll cave.

    [ Parent ]
    The SC is enough for me (none / 0) (#100)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    Others will have to make their own decisions.

    [ Parent ]
    Harriet Miers (none / 0) (#145)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:19:54 PM EST
    would have been better than what we ended up with.  

    [ Parent ]
    oooh, I think you've got the unity VP pick (none / 0) (#150)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    right there. snark. Or is it a snark.

    [ Parent ]
    Im old enought (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    to remember the right wing (cold war at the time) visionaries who saw an electoral victory as a mandate-from-"the people" to continue to pursue their grand scheme whether that entailed spitting on the constitution and finagling and an end-run around congress or not.

    And we all know that many of the PNAC signatories have been to the mountain top and seen the light -- years ago. I doubt they're going to immediatly flag at the sight of a Demo congress.

    [ Parent ]

    But but but... (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:40:27 PM EST
    didn't they get the memo? I'm sure they got the memo...

    We're headed in a New Direction!

    (or so the email from Pelosi said...right before I deleted it)

    [ Parent ]

    Lucky lucky Obama won by a hair only ... (none / 0) (#190)
    by bridget on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    Only a hair and even that hair may not even be there at all. If Dean et al wanted Hillary to win (which they don't) the nom even now or next month they could easily make a case for it. I bet I am not the only one who thinks this primary was and still is in urgent need of a ghostbuster.

    ---
    "But I don't think you defeat Hillary Clinton with luck alone."

    Excuse me?

    You can easily defeat Hillary Clinton when the whole United States press, Big Dems and formerly considered smart people like Michael Moore overcome with emptyheaded nitwittery help you win 24/7 and wont say a peep no matter how wrong you are. No matter how much you bamboozle the public. Pathetic Moore on Larry King was so in love with the "movement" (which movement, he didn't have a clue - also read critical article on Counterpunch) and happily pointed out that Obama  had no proper Health Care program (guess Sicko was just a fashion statement for Moore) and Obama took big big money from corporations just like HC. Didn't bother MM at all.

    Anyway, I also would have won this election and beat Hillary Clinton under the same circumstances Obama so enjoyed in these upsidedown times. How much fun it would have been to debate Europe with him. Maybe in a couple foreign languages. Just to show how much we relate to the rest of the world? HAH! ;-)

    Remember Al Gore? Why do you think he lost the election in 2000?. If it wasn't for his negative press he would have run again. No doubt about it. But it would have been a waste of his time. Also See recent entry by Somberby who criticizes how the press responded to Al Gore's Obama endorsement. Gore may save the world today but He just can't win with the US media pundits.

    P.S. WHAT??? Even Bill Clinton wasn't smart enough? .....
    For heavens sake. I need another break from this constant bamboozlement. Now its Part Deux.

    [ Parent ]

    P.S. Obama AWOL On FISA (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by bridget on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:36:59 PM EST
    Of course, he is.

    What else is new?

    [ Parent ]

    Respectfully disagree-- pardon for veering (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by magnetics on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    off topic.  Carter was much better than given credit for.  Human rights policy, much derided, was an historic reversal of American slash and burn foreign policy in South and Central America.  Reagan had to start to the Contra war to re-establish business as usual.

    Also, Carter put up a solar panel on the White House; Reagan took it down.  Carter's 'syn-fuels' project would not have fixed global warming, but it would have vastly reduced our dependence on mid-East oil.

    As for his infamous 'malaise' speech -- he told Americans the truths they didn't want to hear -- like 'turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater.'  By contrast, Reagan's 'morning in America' was a shuck.

    Obama's admiring comments about Reagan are IMHO a major demerit, and his ties to the Pelosi branch of the party give me serious pause about what sort of president -- particularly how progressive -- he would be.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    I agree that Carter did some good things. There's no denying that. However, were those few things worth Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II?

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (none / 0) (#123)
    by Prabhata on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    Carter failed on his ability to sell his policies to the country, but his policies were excellent.  Moreover he took positions, like the human right issue, that went against popular sentiment.  Carter had backbone.  I don't see Obama having any backbone and no experience, a bad combination.  I'd rather have McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Your confidence is admirable. Wish (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    I shared it, although I will vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    It is a very weak confidence (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Where does that fall on a scale (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:24:43 PM EST
    from "tepid" to "full-throated."

    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    "tepid" is about right.

    [ Parent ]
    Kind of like when I call my dog back (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:30:22 PM EST
    from 50 yards away when he has scented a deer.

    [ Parent ]
    or a rabbit (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I would have NO confidence with a rabbit (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    I at least have weak confidence with a deer.

    [ Parent ]
    There are other alternatives (none / 0) (#193)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:40:16 PM EST
    It's not just Obama.  Yes, he's a "sell-out" but then, he always was as a politician.  I'm sure he's a fine person, just also a politician with an eye to where the money comes from, always, always, always.  That is his MO.  Had people bothered to check into his State Senate record, there would not be these little surprises now.

    But, back to my argument.  The system keeps rewarding guys like Obama who will sell out their policies to big money and special interests.  There are, however, other people running who are not in the pockets of special interests, which is why they are not in the mainstream of the media.  No profit to be made.  But, the only reason they are not getting enough votes to win is because WE ARE NOT VOTING FOR THEM, but rather, we are voting for the "sell-outs", then spend all out time trying to guess if they will continue to sell us out over and over again.

    We have stopped being able to imagine our world without corporate backed politicians who claim to be anything other than corporated backed, which happens to make them liars.  And, that first lie leads to all the rest.

    As an Independent, I'm no longer voting for the least of two bad choices.  I'm voting my conscience and my consciousness.  Not for Mr. Slick or Mr. Stuck.

    [ Parent ]

    I checked (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:51:35 PM EST
    into his state senate record and it's one of the reasons why I didn't support him in the primary and probably won't vote for him in Nov.

    I agree with you about the conscience issue. If I agreed with Obama or thought he would be a good president then I might vote for him. However, the only reason anyone can come up with is the supreme court. Well, the supreme court is gone and Obama's picks wouldn't make one iota of difference.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's state senate record (none / 0) (#198)
    by VicfromOregon on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:29:26 PM EST
    Then you did more than most Americans, including most of the media in terms of research.  I have come to very similar conclusions.  I can't vote for someone who knowingly and willingly lets poor old people freeze in the winter.  I just can't. I expect people who amass power and wealth to themselves to do something good with it more often than not. Now, should Obama publically apologize and make amends to these people, I might feel differently.  Giving back all $250,000 dollars of Rezko support rather than just the $65,000 NBC found out about, and so he gave back, would go well with me, too.

    But, I'm not the kind of person Obama is courting, so, I don't expect him to see my concerns as anything but trivial.  And, it seems, many Obama supporters don't have a problem with him letting poor old people freeze, or they actually don't believe he did just that (because they are not willing to do the research and assume, wrongly, that the MSM will do it for them, assuming further, that had he done such a callus thing, surely the MSM would have reported it [which, of course, they did in Chicago, but the national syndicates refused to pick the stories up]).

    Another urban myth is that liberals are pacifists, and therefore, assume, Obama will be, too (though, I believe a good argument could be made that he is not a liberal at all, though he has some liberal leanings).

    I just have to get back to developing my personal power, remembering few presidents ever initiated deep change without a populus movement girding them, and keep working towards raising awareness about the benefits of having more than a two party monopology on American politics.

    And, yes, it is very doubtful Obama will have an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, but he will be able to appoint lots of federal judges.  But, I don't think any argument has been put forth comparing the difference between likely appointments between McCain or Obama.  But, look to see Obama reward his Harvard friends.  He already is.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:17:17 PM EST
    He deserves the "present vote" joke right now.

    Is he even "present"? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    Where the heck is he, anyway? In the witness protection program?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm betting there will be a statement (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    ...around 4:00 this afternoon (for that important friday evening news cycle). The statement will proclaim Obama's committment to national security and to the Constitution and will oppose the FISA bill but not in a way that can be used agaisnt him by Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    His most (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    Ardent supporters will continue to argue that this issue is "old business" and that it would interfere with the 50 state strategy.

    [ Parent ]
    They'll turn somehow, but I don't know how (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    I've watched it on free republic a number of times.  Occasionally the Republican Party or Bush do something totally not conservative, and the true believers start to rant. The attacks on the party and/or Bush goes on and on for a while, but eventually somebody comes along and makes an excuse and they start arguing and eventually everybody comes to terms with the issue. This is where I got the idea that the right was using plants on web sites to spread defensive (as well as offensive) memes. The people who come in to sooth the waters are always calm and well-written, they always seem to have lots of time and they always seem to have facts and arguments at their fingertips. There are some people like that - but they don't usually hang out at free republic. It's more a site for panicked partisans.  And the "normal" pattern for unmoderated or self-moderated blogs/newsgroups is for arguments to grow into flame wars, not be tamed by a few calm, rational spokepeople with voices of Authority.

    Maybe I'm paranoid... but if I were running a party, I'd take advantage of the blogs to spread ideas out into the public realm. For virtually no cost whatsoever, you get to test ideas about how to neutralize negatives and promote positives AND you get to spread those ideas into the public realm in all 50 states at once.

    [ Parent ]

    I've always assumed it was a mass marketing tool (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    Instapolling and what not.

    [ Parent ]
    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:00:48 PM EST
    Announces "Obama coming up live," apparently to talk about his decision to opt out of public funding. We'll see what he has to say.  I'm not hopeful.

    [ Parent ]
    4:00 (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    As I said earlier, now is about when the statement should come out. He has missed any really important news cycles, but people who truly are watching the FISA closely are still watching and waiting for his comment.

    [ Parent ]
    He'll be taking (none / 0) (#86)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    "tough questions," according to Blitz.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, Tough questions. (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:06:38 PM EST
    They'll ask him something about Michelle campaigning.  

    That substitutes for a "tough question" these days...  

    [ Parent ]

    So much for that (none / 0) (#149)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:20:52 PM EST
    A bit of talk about oil drilling, answered a question about public financing, and CNN cuts away.  MSNBC is not covering the speech.  A nonevent, apparently.  

    [ Parent ]
    The Unity Tour (none / 0) (#92)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    with Hillary to be launched a week from today.

    [ Parent ]
    It's 4:05 ... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    is that the sound of Obama's statement or just more crickets?

    [ Parent ]
    hands wringing must sound like crickets (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:20:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    With Hillary, no doubt. ;-) (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Planning that Filibuster!!! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    I still have my dreams!

    [ Parent ]
    Filibuster plans: (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    1. they read from the transcripts of all 19 debates.

    2. they have the 20th debate

    3. They read a list of the names of Obama's 1.5 million donors and Hillary's 18 million voters.


    [ Parent ]
    Wait... (none / 0) (#36)
    by A little night musing on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:31:29 PM EST
    Aren't he and Hillary supposed to have a fund-raising event today? Is that today?


    [ Parent ]
    Can I also say (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:19:11 PM EST
    That I am laughing at self-important TINS, who threatened some Obama intern with his supposed importance and still got a BS answer.

    Heh... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    Didn't see that, but it certainly makes me smile to think of it happening.

    [ Parent ]
    See (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    here.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry.... (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    Gave that up for...ummm...(wish I could say Lent here)...well...allergic reactions.

    [ Parent ]
    I should know better than to click (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    Hopefully, this means good news and that the cavalry is on the way.

    Yes, I can see the little unity ponies now.

    [ Parent ]

    You go to the GE (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    with the candidate you've got, not the candidate you wish you had.

    ::sigh::

    OMG Kredwyn....that was priceless!! (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    This is SOP for obama...if anyone is looking for leadership, they will have to look elsewhere.

    Yesterday I asked, where are his backers, Kerry, Casey, McCaskill, Sebellius, etc. on this?  Haven't they given him their supposed sage advice on how to handle this?  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm afraid his inaction on this (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:20:16 PM EST
    will hurt his strong showing against McCain in the latest polls.

    Oh wait ...

    Never mind.

    Ha. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:21:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm at a loss here (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    I'm not sure WHICH Party I "belong" to anymore.  I come from a line of Democrats more than a few generations back, but ...

    Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer ... these aren't people I can (or will) support.

    [ Parent ]

    I checked (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:25:57 PM EST
    the vote of my Congressman and a couple of other Illinois Democratic Congressmen and they all voted yes. So if they were in step with the Obama people (which I would expect) it doesn't bode well for anyone to expect a battle from him in the Senate.

    I guess (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    leadership isn't part of the post-unity shtik. Feel the vapid!

    The only good thing... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by A little night musing on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    ... about today's pathetic performance by the "leadership" of the Democratic party, is that we get so many top-form BTD posts to read. (And some other bloggers have been busy little beavers too.)

    I'm tired of playing "where's Obama", or is it "waiting for Obama". Think I'll go work on something practical, like the dinner menu...

    waiting for Obama, MIA = waiting for Godot (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST
    Perhaps waiting for Obama,
    who is MIA on FISA,
    is like waiting for Godot ...

    Readers of talkleft may not be surprised by this, though others appear to be ...

    [ Parent ]

    ha. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:49:59 PM EST
    except, godot does show up eventually.

    [ Parent ]
    It would be refreshing to see just one dem (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by carmel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    stand up and show a strong backbone, take a stand, speak out, show a guiding moral compass on an important issue. That one dem would get my vote. Instead, we have a group of wafflers and jellyfish, led by the "present" button pushing biggest waffler of all. Let's see if he votes for the bill before he changes his mind and votes against it - that's if he shows up for the vote.

    I don't know if I have a backbone (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    but I have a brain.  

    That's why I Just. Can't. Vote. For this guy.  I can't trust him to say something and stick by it.

    That bugs me to no end!!  

    I don't want "Hope" and "Change"!  I want "Moral Values" and "Fighter"!    

    [ Parent ]

    since when? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:44:15 PM EST
    It certainly is striking that Obama is now the leader of the Democratic Party

    who proclaimed him leader of anything, much less the entire democratic party? what issues has he led on? as far as i can see, absent a sea change in him and his campaign, he's going to crash and burn come nov. with any luck, the "leadership" of the DNC will go down with him.

    that's not necessarily a bad thing: a pres. mccain, with a strong majority dem. congress, might well be the best outcome.

    The stench is overwhelming. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    You smell something more than a present vote coming.

    Hard to believe (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Lil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:54:14 PM EST
    he hasn't said anything really substantive one way or another on the issue. I would have thought that as a Senator, who also is a Presidential nominee would be forced to make a statement by the media or something. BTW, Kredwyn, your comment about the GE...very funny.

    he hasn't had general press avail. since last nigh (none / 0) (#73)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    and his staff is waffling for him. Disappointing - and as I said above, I'm a supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    He doesn't appear to really (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    like the press unless he can use them somehow.  There was yet another article in the NY Times yesterday (or today) on his campaign's attempts to "control the narrative" and "protect his reputation" -- and they do this by keeping the press out of it unless they want them involved.

    This is the same tactic GWB and Cheney used in 2000 and throughout their administration.  

    Frankly, I think it stinks to high heavens because the press represents the people.  Without a "free press," we are missing part of our Constitutional rights.  "Access Control" is the same as "Censorship" in my book.    

    [ Parent ]

    All campaigns do this (none / 0) (#185)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    Like so many things in the United States, the optimal relationship between the press and politicians is an adversarial one. All campaigns control access to their candidate - Obama's not special in that regard.

    I'm not sure where you get "the press represents the people", especially after folks on this site complained so bitterly about the press this primary season. Now that they want to ask Obama tough questions, they're the good guys?

    [ Parent ]

    just to throw this out there (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:58:14 PM EST
    hasn't obama already netted the votes of people who care about this and does this issue help him with any of the demographics he has a ptiblem with?

    Yes and no, respectively. (none / 0) (#77)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:59:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Is it safe to say (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:02:54 PM EST
    taking a stand here could hurt him with those demographic groups?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think so (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    One of Obama's biggest problems is that he comes off as weak and aloof. Taking a stand would be good for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Unless, of course (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:08:06 PM EST
    Obama really is fine with telecom immunity.  It strikes me, at least, as hilarious that people still think he is some kind of progressive...even those, like Andgarden, who claim to be only tepid supporters.

    I don't lump BTD in with them, though.  

    [ Parent ]

    How much money has Obama (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    collected from those with telecom interests?  

    You know what they say...  "Follow the money."  

    [ Parent ]

    possible (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    it might register on that level.

    It occurs to me this is mostly a creative class issue, and that because this class has already married itself to obama they have rendered themselves defunct in their actvist mode.

    Obama should at least reward their support here.  No one can ever say they werent truly devoted.  Even if that devotion was finely distilled CDS.

    Lastly, what if Clinton was still in the race and they were forced to play off each other to drive the issue.,.,

    [ Parent ]

    Don't you think (none / 0) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    this is all about pandering to republicans and independents by claiming he's not a terrorist appeaser?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't. (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:18:57 PM EST
    I take Obama by his actions.  He's not putting in any fight against it, which I take as he really is fine with telecom immunity.  Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the correct one.  

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:20:23 PM EST
    Your comment and mine are not mutually exclusive.

    [ Parent ]
    True. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    It's just that a lot of the A-listers, and some commenters here, are making the argument that even though they disapprove of Obama's pandering, they somehow know that Obama really doesn't support telecom immunity.  And that's dangerous.  They just refuse to accept that Obama is not a progressive.  And it's frustrating to me.

    [ Parent ]
    I see your point now (none / 0) (#172)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    And I agree.

    [ Parent ]
    The bloggers are not left wing either. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    They are ready to go along to get along.  At least we might see a sane Foreign Policy from Obama.  maybe.

    [ Parent ]
    The Age of the Anti-Cassanda... (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by lambert on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    ... as Krugman calls it.

    Let nobody say they weren't warned.

    I just didn't expect to be receiving material for the Department of Schadenfreude quite so soon.

    Loyal democrat (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by zebedee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    Obama is a loyal democrat who doesn't want to go against the real leaders of the Democratic Party, such as Pelosi. Let's hope this changes if he assumes the presidency.

    Being able to vote present looks tailor-made for his style.

    So... (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM EST
    Is Keith Olberhack preparing one of his "Special Comments" to skewer the Democratic Leadership and Obama on this?  I'm sure that he'll go after Pelosi because she has breasts and probably won't beat him up.  I hope whatever woman he's seeing (or paying) has brushed up on her safety words because I see a lot of cigar burns in her near future as he takes out his frustration.  After all, he called the most popular Democrat on Earth (on Mike and Mike this morning [sports show] they talked about a poll for the top ten celebrities, Hilary was second, Obama ninth) a racist would-be murderer, so you would think that maybe he would go after people destroying the freaking Constitution.  You'd think so, but I'm not betting on it.  My opinion of him would go up (Hell, it certainly can't go down from zero) if he did.

    Jackson

    Best comment of the day! (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    He truly is the worst kind of cowardly bully.

    [ Parent ]
    darn, now that he supports it (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    I guess I don't get my cookie since I guessed he would oppose it at the last minute for show. Darn.

    Of course, now that I think about it, I'll be he'll later be against it after he was for it, before he was against it. You wait and see.

    Don't worry, (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    you'll still get your cookie.  He's saying he's fot it, but against the retroactive immunity.  Then he's going to end up voting for it, saying he fought against the retroactive immunity, even though he didn't.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    of course with all of that, I don't think I'd be able to keep the cookie down.

    [ Parent ]
    During the primaries, those of us who (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    would take Obama to task for his tendency to offer up little more than "Me, too," to whatever Hillary was saying were told that we were being unfair, that Obama was a much better leader than we were giving him credit for.  Now that she is off the stage and he is standing alone, with no one else to crib off of, no one else to do his homework, no one else to deflect criticism, where is the leadership?

    Ahem.  [cough, cough]

    What say you now?  How do you feel now, seeing and hearing nothing from the man who wants to lead the nation?  Are you beginning to wonder if Obama's version of change is not the kind you were hoping for?

    Something is terribly wrong with the Democratic party, and Obama seems to be part of the problem and not the solution.  What we really need, more than we ever needed a compromising, faux progressive with a gift of gab, is a strong voice who knows how to work, but the party, in full dysfunctional mode, rejected the opportunity to have that strength.

    As angry and disappointed as I am in what has happened to the party, I feel even worse about what may happen to my country as a result.

    he's a pragmatic opportunist (none / 0) (#160)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    no wonder he appeals to centrist Republicans like Kos and brookes and what not.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's Statement on Fisa (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:17:02 PM EST
    on front page of Dkos.  Ugggh!

    can we impeach him before he's president? n/t (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:17:19 PM EST


    If a pol is a pol.... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Oje on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    Obama wants these intrusive powers for the same reason that Bush and McCain want these powers.

    J. Edgar Hoover/Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, McCain||Obama: the presidential architects of a post-Constitutional America!

    i'd divide the US into three historical (none / 0) (#164)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:28:45 PM EST
    segements.

    1st Repubulic (civil war) 2nd Republic (ww2)1st Empire

    [ Parent ]

    I was shocked, shocked (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:19:28 PM EST
    to see criticism of Obama at TPM. Is the honeymoon over already?
    I am actually surprised and I don't think the guy will be a leader or progressive at all. But to see the dissapointment at TPM, who had huge Hillary-hate start to reassess the choice?

    Enough Superdelegates switching and Edwards ending his suspension and claiming his delegates? We could have a brokered convention if Obama keeps being Obama.

    It's Not Obama, It's the Democratic Party (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Brownell on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:50:15 PM EST
    The thing is, Bill Clinton never represented himself as anything other than a Blue Dog Democrat from the South. Hillary Clinton has crafted a more interesting role for herself as a centrist who takes positions that start in the center and move leftward. Neither Clinton pretends to be a transformative miracle worker who will fix everything broken in our poor system. They are career politicians and take pride in their work.

    In contrast, from his first appearance in politics, Senator Obama has affected an oratorical stance of making great change while sticking to safe, politically expedient actions. He takes credit for the good works of others, and he represents sleazy political horsetrading as transformative change. He is first and last an ambitious politician. Get used to it.

    I continue to regret that the mandarins and "progressives" in the Democratic Party chose the party's bright prospects in 2008 as an opportunity to decisively defeat the populist wing of the party that, along with Democratic voters, supported Clinton. They chose a fancy untested celeb who advertised, as anyone who listened could hear, that he would as President concentrate on the "big picture" and "mobilizing the people" while the mandarins ran the country old-pol-style. And I regret that Obama supporters like the commenters on OTHER BLOGS chose to go along with "change because he says so," not taking the trouble to seriously check the facts behind the oratory. I am sorry if they are now feeling let down, but the problem is not Obama but the "progressive" wing of the party that should have resisted the chance to grab internal power and stuck to our issues - like FISA and telecom immunity. We can wail about the sellout, but we don't have a presidential vehicle to carry us forward.

    He's a lot savvier than you (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Jorsh on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    and doesn't want to play games on GOP turf.  Plus, as we are constantly told, he has only half the party and the Clinton wing loves this.  

    ok (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:18:52 PM EST
    so anyone checking w the obamablogs today?

    It started yesterday (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:28:13 PM EST
    A true Obama loyalist on Daily Kos front paged with a story on how he called Obama's office and spoke with a staffer who said that Obama was reviewing the bill at that very moment. The general concensus on the thread was that Obama was about to ride in on his white charger and rescue the nation from the nefarious and cowardly Dems who would vote for this bill. Seriously, some people said that Obama should use his newfound power to call Pelosi and tell her to stop this bill. They actually said that. I'm not kidding. Really. (Have I made the point that I am absolutely astonished at how politically naive many Obama supporter's are?).

    [ Parent ]
    Remember when it turned out that (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    Obama had had private meetings with Colin Powell?
    This was at the same time that Hillary was suggesting using Powell as some sort of ambassador.
    Well, one Kossack insisted, in all seriousness, that Obama was interviewing Powell with a mind towards
    war crimes prosecution later (of course without Powell's knowledge).

    [ Parent ]
    newsflash (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:42:55 PM EST
    There are crazy people on the internet

    [ Parent ]
    I don't believe you! Show me a link (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    to back up your assertion

    [ Parent ]
    try this: (