home

Why We Fight

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Glenn Greenwald:

The excuse that Obama's support for this bill is politically shrewd is -- even if accurate -- neither a defense of what he did nor a reason to refrain from loudly criticizing him for it. Actually, it's the opposite. It's precisely because Obama is calculating that he can -- without real consequence -- trample upon the political values of those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that it's necessary to do what one can to change that calculus. Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

(Emphasis supplied.) Hear! Hear!

Speaking for me only

< Denver Paper Asks Obama to Chip In for Convention | A California Cap on Prison Nation? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why We Fight | 214 comments (214 topical)
    So the question arises: (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM EST
    What now is our leverage? Maybe money, finally. Obama has a huge burn rate, and didn't raise as much last month as he has recently. He's got about a $10M COH advantage over McCain right now, but is that really enough?

    I think he needs our money.

    He'll have plenty of money. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:34:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But he won't get any of mine....he appears (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    to be willing to finish the job, that bush started, of bringing America to it's knees.  Those are NOT democratic values.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    sure about that? It seems lots of Dems just really aren't interested in ponying up money for Obama. Or at least you could read that into his last 2 fundraising months.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary was still raising money in those months. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    Now he'll tap into her fundraising aparatus.  He's also told his funders not to give to independent groups.  He'll do that with Hill's funders too.  

    [ Parent ]
    And we'll (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by suisser on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:53:01 PM EST
    listen?
    Really?

    [ Parent ]
    Not "we". Major donors who (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    want influence.

    [ Parent ]
    I world really appreciate (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by suisser on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    someone showing me exactly how they know that Obama's money is all from small donors while HRC's has been from the fat cats. I do not see that when I look at Open Secret. I'd like to resolve this myth once and for all.

    [ Parent ]
    They claim that most of the donors (5.00 / 14) (#106)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    are small donors, but what they don't say is that most of the money comes from bundlers, not small donors. So they have more small donors who donate a little bit of money, so they claim that most of their money comes from small donors. This is not true, most of their money comes from special interests. See here for details. They seem to be able to claim that their small donors are giving more than they are because there are so many of them. But most of the small donors give $25-50 once or twice, the bundlers just keep on giving. Most of his donations come from special interests, such as banking, communications, energy and Wall Street. So you figure out whose side he will be on when push comes to shove. Not the small donors, that's for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by suisser on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:48:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ding! (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:41:27 PM EST
    I, too, suspect the "small donor" story is a myth and want to see firm, reputable documentation of where Obama really is getting his money.

    [ Parent ]
    i am not so sure that the small donors (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST
    and big corporations will drown him in money. i think the democrats may not only be scaring just the core democrats. the big corporations will throw some some money his way. they always do. but i don't think he'll be king of the checkbook. please remember the dnc is cash strapped. why is that do you think?

    [ Parent ]
    Does that scare anybody else... (4.78 / 14) (#53)
    by sj on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:16:18 PM EST
    ...as much as it does me?  That he's told his contributors not to give to anyone but him?

    [ Parent ]
    yep (5.00 / 9) (#101)
    by cawaltz on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:32:18 PM EST
    Consolidation of power is problematic from where 'm sitting. Particualrly when the "brand" is not exactly what I prefer but am supposed to be settling for.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    But, well, what else do we have? Not voting for him is, for me at least, not an option at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    Seeing no alternative (5.00 / 11) (#43)
    by kmblue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    to voting for Obama is what he and his crew
    are counting on.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, and they can count on my vote (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:10:21 PM EST
    because I won't assist the Republicans. In November we have a binary choice.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, that's noble. I disagree. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    I have no dog in this race.

    [ Parent ]
    you have made it binary. that just isn't the (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    case. you can give your vote real value here. give to those who deserve it. there is no case or holding your nose.

    [ Parent ]
    No we don't just have a binary choice (4.76 / 13) (#90)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    It is not just about Obama or McCain. More importantly it is about the future of the Democratic Party as I have stated here many of times. If you don't think about that hard and long then you are not thinking about the long term future of the Party and by extinction the country.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    You have expressed exactly how I feel.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you mean (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by tree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:29:21 PM EST
    "by extension"? I agree with your point, just wondering if "by extinction" wasn't a Freudian slip, or are we really that far gone?

    [ Parent ]
    ha ha! (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:57:27 PM EST
    Yes "by extension".

    Actually it was a spell checker error. But maybe the spell checker know more that we do!

    [ Parent ]

    You can either write in Hillary or (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    leave the top spot blank. You don't have to vote for anyone.

    [ Parent ]
    And let a more conservative candidate win? (2.33 / 3) (#114)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:43:13 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, I get labeled naive.....

    Well, naivete is assuming you get a candidate that you agree with all the time.

    The Left is always cutting off its nose.....

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (5.00 / 13) (#135)
    by cawaltz on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    The left is always being asked to capitulate by its leadership. We appear to have the craven leadership we deserve if we continue to show "brand" loyalty to a group that continually throws us under the bus. It isn't any wonder they continue to cave when they know that when push comes to shove folks will vote "bad"(Democrat) instead of "worse"(Republican).

    [ Parent ]
    "If thine eye offend thee pluck it out" (5.00 / 8) (#140)
    by Calvados on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:29:20 PM EST
    seems to be the closer analogy to (at least my) reaction to Senator Obama than is the suggestion that not to vote for the presumptive nominee in November would be to cut off the nose to spite the face.

    Given his actions of the past few days, in re-branding, in not fighting for what he vowed to fight for, inter alia, I have nothing new to make me believe that he is what people hope he would be.  What I do have is more evidence that an Obama administration could be as disastrous for the Democratic Party as the Bush administration has been for the Republicans.

    Ought we destroy the face to give the nose a chance to shine?

    Perhaps someone can raise money to support the convention in Denver, given on the condition that there be a non-staged actual vote by all the delegates.  One can only hope that the succession of gaffes (or political calculations) has affected many pledged and automatic delegates as negatively as they have affected me.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama will be the nominee (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    Do you think that the delegates are going to switch their votes over the FISA bill?  

    How many Democrats are voting for that bill....

    Do you really think Hillary will vote against the FISA bill?  She is a hawk.....

    [ Parent ]

    So you keep saying. (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:57:55 PM EST
    And Obama is a chickenhawk.

    How do you like them apples?

    A dove will not win the presidency in the present climate, and you know it.  So stop pretending that her "hawkishness" bothers you.

    [ Parent ]

    pie, I don't pretend (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:02:33 PM EST
    Hillary's hawkishness does bother me....

    I have a long explanation for why that is true....Short version:  I lived in Guatemala during the civil war.....

     

    [ Parent ]

    How is what happened (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:11:15 PM EST
    then tied to her?

    [ Parent ]
    I do not like war (1.16 / 6) (#168)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    Hillary is too quick to go to war....

    It is that simple....

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry. (5.00 / 8) (#175)
    by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:18:42 PM EST
    You're wrong.

    And you have no idea what Obama would have done if he had been a senator thinking about a presidential run back in 2002.

    Nor do you know what he might do as president.  There's no way to know.

    Hope is not a plan.  And faith-based endorsements can only lead to grief and disappointment.

    So far, he's been a huge disappointment.


    [ Parent ]

    That's the most likely outcome (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Calvados on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    Obama probably will be the nominee.

    I doubt that the superdelegates are any more committed to defeating the expansion of warrantless wiretapping than they appear to be in Congress.  I doubt there is much that could move delegates to change their intended votes.  On the other hand it's conceivable, and if we do not use what's available, whether it be a filibuster or working to change the minds of delegates, then we're sitting back and letting those whose interests are contrary to ours win.

    I do think that people are going to need more than vow-breaking, self-anointment, and compromise that gives up core beliefs to see how Senator Obama will be anything other than a disaster for the Democratic party should he be elected in November.

    [ Parent ]

    But do you think Hillary will vote for the FISA (none / 0) (#165)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:08:10 PM EST
    bill?

    [ Parent ]
    i don't think you or i are going to affect (none / 0) (#187)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:37:59 PM EST
    these so called super delegates. they strike me as having a herd menatility and in this case over the cliff.

    [ Parent ]
    Problem I find with Obama (4.91 / 12) (#116)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    is that whatever he said before does not matter now.  He said one thing about FISA and the Telecom immunity in April and now he says something else.  So I am suppose to believe he will keep his word about anything.  Sorry no credibility, he may turn out to be worse than another Bush how can I know since he just keeps changing.

    [ Parent ]
    Aha! FR... (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:02:27 PM EST
    So NOW we know what Obama means by 'change you can believe in!'

    [ Parent ]
    You think Obama will be more (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:57:08 PM EST
    conservative than McCain?  Really?

    The funny thing is I could better live with McCain than most here, and his capitulation to the Right is ongoing and clear to me....People see what they want to see.

    [ Parent ]

    Which is worse? (5.00 / 16) (#54)
    by magisterludi on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    The prospect of Obama and an acquiescent Congress happy to let the Chicago School of supercharged Reaganomics continue to flourish or McCain and a chastened, yet still larger, dem majority that has turned back to its roots for fear of losing like Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    That is fantasy (1.00 / 3) (#124)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:00:46 PM EST
    A naive fantasy....

    If McCain wins, Progressives will be out of power--completely.....Congress will stand up to McCain?--You have got to be kidding me....What evidence do you have that Congress would not kowtow to the miraculous come-from-behid victor who hates pork (money for bridges) high taxes (on the wealthy) and so on....

    [ Parent ]

    Progressives (5.00 / 9) (#145)
    by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:37:42 PM EST
    won't ever be in power.  Not that Obama is one, btw.    

    Not the way the media and Washington politics operate now.

    That you believe otherwise certainly says something about you.  It's a dangerous label to use.  Show me.  Don't tell me.  Actions, not words, bub.

    The best (wo)man is not the presumptive nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Was Bill a progressive? (1.00 / 3) (#155)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:57:14 PM EST
    You guys loved him....Welfare reform, NAFTA, yet he could do no wrong....

    What if Hillary votes for the FISA bill?

    [ Parent ]

    The country (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    managed to find the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center attack witout losng its mind, stayed out of major wars, and did better economically.  We had a greater standing and more credibility internationally.

    Getting people off the welfare rolls and getting them jobs and childcare was a great idea.  That others worked against it doesn't negate the policy.  I've yet to hear everyone, including my husband, say that NAFTA, as offered or even as it's practiced, is 100% bad.

    He wasn't perfect.  Obama isn't either, but he's not Bill Clinton, who was a very popular president, btw.

    Bush used to be popular, too.

    Heh.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, MKS. (5.00 / 11) (#174)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    Bill was my kind of progressive (root word is progress).  He made progress on many fronts, including the ones you mention, with little help (except on the tax budget vote which passed by ONE vote) from Democrats whose corruption and stupidity got themselves thrown out of office by the Gingrich revolution two short years into Bill's first term.  Great.  (Even so, I notice ex-Speaker Tom Foley is a Hillary superdelegate.  Amazing).

    Many people conveniently forget that Bill Clinton's veto pen was all that stood between us and the wackiest legislation ever sent up to the WH...and he used it more than all previous presidents put together.

    Get real.  Governing is complicated and - yup - hard work.  

    Shoot me...I'm reduced to quoting Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    Sigh. (5.00 / 6) (#178)
    by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:21:32 PM EST
    from Democrats whose corruption and stupidity got themselves thrown out of office by the Gingrich revolution two short years into Bill's first term.

    Less corrupt now, maybe, but no smarter.

    And not the kinds of democrats we should have.

    We trusted them.  They screwed up.

    [ Parent ]

    But they'll stand up to Obama? (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by lmv on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    If Obama veers in a direction The Left, the Middle or The Right don't like, who, exactly, do you think will stand up to him?  Pelosi?  Reid?  Dean?  Where are they now?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama would have a lot of clout (1.00 / 5) (#161)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:04:08 PM EST
    and could actually lead....But if you think he is Satan, I suppose one would take a different view...

    [ Parent ]
    Could actually lead? (5.00 / 9) (#166)
    by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:08:40 PM EST
    When?  He hasn't up to this point.

    See, that's the problem.

    [ Parent ]

    Because he doesn't do what you (1.00 / 5) (#171)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:14:09 PM EST
    want him to do:  which is basically to resign in favor of Hillary being the nominee.....Nothing short of that would really count...

    [ Parent ]
    No. (5.00 / 6) (#180)
    by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    There's no chance of that happening.

    You need to step back and take a deep breath.

    But, $#%&!#, I want a leader and a fighter.

    I'm not seeing one.  Instead, I'm seeing someone with little experience, who's listening to the establishment, someone who's appealing to the republicans and playing it safe.

    Blech.

    Unity 2008.  It's become a vile expression.

    [ Parent ]

    Then you are just (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:58:20 PM EST
    blowing hot air!

    If you are going to vote for him then all your talk about not sending him money fall kind of flat.

    No! It falls real flat.

    [ Parent ]

    So you would rather vote for McCain lite (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    because you won't vote for McCain

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not so sure of that... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    The reasons people were throwing money at him was that he was promising them glittering intangibles like "hope" and "change."

    Now that he's just another pol, they'll start donating, at best, as they would any other politician.  

    [ Parent ]

    Ordinary people are not where a bulk of (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    the money comes from.  

    [ Parent ]
    True, but I haven't seen Oprah around lately... (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    The people who are donating the big bucks are going to want something back.  Given his history of renegging, I'm not sure what he'll offer as collateral.

    [ Parent ]
    Corporate pals (5.00 / 9) (#78)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    are the one group that need not worry about him reneging.  They're the only ones he hasn't reversed himself on.  And he'll still need them if he wins and wants reelection.

    Not just Obama, but all of Congress -- when it the last time they voted clearly against big $?

    They have a golden opportunity with FISA -- they could have proposed many things that would limit telco liability without letting them off the hook.  Hell, at this point I might even support immunity from suits and prosecution as long as they opened up the files so people could see what they were really up to.  Or delayed the vote.  Or just not freakin' blinked when GWB dared them to a staring contest.

    The funny thing is, if FISA didn't have a telco immunity provision, and if the average person didn't resent the big telcos as much as they do, I think you'd hear virtually no one making a big deal about it aside from blogs like TL and a few left activists groups.

    [ Parent ]

    No, It Was Extraordinary People Like Me (none / 0) (#150)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:44:02 PM EST
    and some of my neighbors and friends. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    We don't have leverage (5.00 / 15) (#14)
    by david mizner on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    Not really. That's not an excuse not to scream about this, we need to because it's the right thing to do and it feels good, but...for the thousandth time:

    If we wanted a fighting progressive candidate, we needed to elect a fighting progressive candidate.

    There's nothing in Obama's record to suggest he would've played this any different than he has.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I honestly didn't expect him to embrace (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:41:03 PM EST
    this compromise.

    [ Parent ]
    Why??? (5.00 / 16) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    He always said that "post-partisanship" was his plan.  He's acting on that plan with this "compromise".

    [ Parent ]
    If you keep using (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    "post partisanship" like that, it will lose all meaning. This is just a combination of cowardice and greed.

    [ Parent ]
    What meaning (5.00 / 16) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Did "post-partisanship" ever have?

    [ Parent ]
    Post-partisanship (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    has always meant " after I remove real democrats".

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    You really DON'T get it do you? You have no idea what Obama means when he says post-partisanship?

    TeresaInSnow2 is 100% correct. Post-partisanship is about compromise. It is about satisfying the other side.

    Cowardice and greed? Please! And even if it was, what is the difference in the end result? someone slipped some kool-aide in your drink.


    [ Parent ]

    obama says he is progressive too, but if I (5.00 / 8) (#132)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    read this correctly, it is another case of flippity flop...

    link

    obama is endorsing a guy who favors the Iraq war and bush's tax cuts over someone who doesn't.  What do we take away from this?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#173)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:15:22 PM EST
    I saw that last week over at (not so) Openleft.com.

    I was LMAO over their because they are always fighting what they call the Bush Dogs...

    Soon to be know as the Obama dogs apparently.

    Thanks for the link.

    [ Parent ]

    da nada....but I would like to know what (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:32:53 PM EST
    some of the obama followers feel about this...shall we call it betrayal?  Got awfully quiet.

    [ Parent ]
    It did get quiet didn't it (5.00 / 6) (#196)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:52:02 PM EST
    The droves of clones who were here last week have evaporated. They are probably in church praying for Obama salvation!

    Chances are if Obama caves on removing immunity and votes yes for the bill they will not be returning as their messiah would have lead them down a false path and embarrassed them.

    On the other hand they could have listened to us and saved themselves the misery. ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Everyone eventually suffers some sort of (4.57 / 7) (#199)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:00:24 PM EST
    embarrassment caused by their candidate and you move on.  But obama, so far, has shown misstep after misstep, flip flop after flip flop, no leadership, and, try as I might, I do not see the allure of obama.  All I can see if gwb pt. 2.  If there is a valid explanation for something, I will do my best to listen, but when someone is trying to shove something down my throat with no reasoning behind it, then see ya.  I kinda felt like obamatrons felt they could just swoop in and take over, but this isn't over yet....not by a long shot.

    [ Parent ]
    Your Definition of Compromise (none / 0) (#152)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    is 'satisfying the other side'?

    My dictionary defines it as:

    "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."

    In my own life, I've always experienced it as both sides get something important that they want, but neither gets everything they want. Each walks away wanting more but settling for less, for now.

    That is how I interpreted Obama's calls for post partisanship. Not always working things this way. But using it as a strategy sometimes to get something done.

    I remember this was how politics used to work in Washington--not always, but often. A looong time ago when there was still a robust moderate Republican wing.

    [ Parent ]

    I had a little (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by david mizner on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM EST
    bit of hope that he wouldn't because I, like millions of others, resist seeing him clearly, because the reality is not very edifying, and because he talks such a good game. No matter how many times he ducks a fight and refuses to lead, when another fight arises, there's  a widespread willingness among Dems to hope all over again...but it's getting a little ridiculous, after all the Iraq funding battles, after Kerry-Feingold, after Reid-Feingold, after MCA, after Kyl-Lieberman, after the vote to condemn Move On, now after FISA, we should start acknowledging what he is, lest we look like fools.

    That's not to say that there aren't good things about him, leading on issues like FISA isn't everything. As president he could probably be inspirational,  and a good consensus builder on some pretty good to good legislation, etc. But a progressive fighter? Nope.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem (5.00 / 11) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    with Obama's definition of consensus building is that it's "give the GOP what they want." Frankly, why vote for this?

    [ Parent ]
    Change (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    is just mre of the same. Democrats have been caitulating to the GOP for forever.

    [ Parent ]
    I find it disheartening (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    that we'd have to ask, "What now is our leverage?" when discussing our presumptive nominee. The supers had the leverage, but they ceded it to "The Shiny."

    I'm headed for my beating now so when I vote the scars won't show. Gobama, pass me the koolaide please!


    [ Parent ]

    What makes you think (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Nadai on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:23:35 PM EST
    we have any leverage?  His money comes from bundlers and always has.  No amount of money anyone here gives/doesn't give makes a difference.  Most of the people here will vote for him no matter what he does; we're the definition of a safe vote.

    The time of leverage is gone.  He got from us everything we had to give.

    [ Parent ]

    So what.... repercussions? (5.00 / 18) (#2)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:31:59 PM EST
    Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

    I still don't know the repercussions that the non-cheerleading Obama supporters will enforce if he throws them under the bus.

    Will they employ a vice, rather than a clothespin when they vote for him?

    Obama doesn't care.  He doesn't want their approval.  He only wants their vote.  And he knows he'll get it because "real Democrats" have nowhere else to go.

    Thankfully, after 28 years of being a "Real Democrat," I'm now an Independent.

    What repercussions? (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    Our Vote!

    That is all we have. And if we give it to him he will continue to trample on us and the constitution with impunity.

    And if we don't give it to him then we are free from the the guilt that others will have to live with from putting him in office and destroying the Democratic Party and all we have worked for on the Progressive side for decades. All that hard work. All that money. All that volunteering. All that passion. All of that will be gone on January 20, 2009. And back to square one.


    [ Parent ]

    Were you going to vote for him anyway? (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:30:04 PM EST
    Before FISA?

    [ Parent ]
    But isn't that what I'm supposed to do? (5.00 / 24) (#5)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    Vote for Obama even though I don't approve of the way he is running his campaign? I've had an awful lot of people tell me that the most important thing is to beat McCain, and therefore we have to unite behind Obama, the chosen candidate of the Democratic Party. You've suggested that yourself, Armando, with your repeated claims that you support Obama not for idealistic purposes but because you feel he is the most likely Dem candidate to beat McCain in the fall.

    I used to feel that way... now I don't. Now I think that it's not enough to win the world if you lose your soul in the process. The right wing may destroy America. I believe that. But I can't see the point of voting Dem when they seem determined to take us down the same path as the right. They won't fight for women's rights. They won't fight for the Constitution. They won't fight for health care. They won't fight to end the war. All they do is tell us that if we give them power, then they'll fight. Meanwhile, they go along with the status quo without even token opposition. If they won't even make symbolic gestures of opposition now, why should I expect them to make real changes if they are given more power?

    Good points (4.90 / 11) (#67)
    by kempis on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:40:52 PM EST
    I would have been much happier with Hillary at the helm because we knew what her policy positions were and we knew she was committed to fighting for them--win or lose.

    We knew she was determined to implement universal health care coverage and had laid the groundwork in a pretty elegant proposal that, unlike her earlier failed attempt, actually had input from all stakeholders and a good likelihood of passing.

    We knew she was committed to energy independence and couldn't talk fast enough to share the details of the "Manhattan Project" she and her advisers had worked on.

    And on and on and on.

    Hillary was passionate about policies that could improve the lives of working Americans.

    Obama is passionate about winning. I want to know who and what he wants to win FOR. I cannot get a sense of that, and lord knows I've tried. I even started out in his camp because I was intrigued with his persona and his speeches. I used to get furious at the old "empty suit" insult hurled at him. Then, by god, I started poking around and guess what? Compared to the detailed policy proposals of Hillary Clinton, Obama is more interested in campaigning than in giving us a preview of how he'd govern. This worries me.

    I want to know who I'm voting for. I know who I'll vote against: McCain. And that's nothing personal but again policy-based. But I want to know what kind of Democratic party the "Obama party" will be before I cast my vote this fall. It's clearly going through a re-branding. The question is, what does it really stand for now? And how committed is this group of politicians to actually realizing those goals?

    So far, this week, opting out of public financing and supporting the FISA "compromise," he hasn't given me anything at all to vote for.

    [ Parent ]

    So, is Hillary for or against the FISA bill? (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:30:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh don't fool yourself (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:41:31 PM EST
    I expect alot of clucking and handwringing everything that goes with the political kabuke but I can with about 90% certainty say they will use "they don't have a large enough majority" as their excuse as to why this passes.

    It's such bad theater I almost hate to turn on the TV to watch it play out as I expect.

    [ Parent ]

    Who knows and who cares? (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    Clinton is out. Obama is our candidate. I think that if Clinton were still in the running, she would publicly oppose this, and be accused of pandering to the left. As it is, I don't know what she'll do. If she votes no, it will be perceived as opposing Obama, which will "damage" his credibility. I think she'll quietly vote yes without much of a public statement, or she'll sit this one out. Isn't she supposed to be on vacation? When will the Senate vote come up?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama=1950's liberal Republican. (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:36:32 PM EST


    Nah (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    Arlen Specter, for example, is opposed to this "compromise."

    [ Parent ]
    Ok, he's a 1950's conservatie Republican! (none / 0) (#27)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:52:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    DINO (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:28:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    1948 Republican ... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    He's Dewey!

    With a bit of an update this could clearly pass as an Obama speech.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (2.33 / 3) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:57:50 PM EST
    And a hair to the left of Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    True, but I felt more certain (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by hairspray on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    about Hillary on a few issues, namely gay rights and choice.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems Logical (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    Feeling wise, Hillary's image appears as a more sympathetic figure, imo. Although I believe that they would perform identically in both areas. It is interesting that both had a big early influence from Alinsky. Hillary moved left and Obama moved right, to both wind up in exactly the same place, the center.

    McCain was the second most conservative R, in the 109th congress, now he is the 8th most conservative member.

    POTUS contenders want to be seen as close to the center as possible, because there you get to be someone for everyone, iow more votes.

    [ Parent ]

    She never left choice... (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    meanwhile, Obama is all over the place with his trying to bring evangelicals into the fold and embracing the support of anti-choice Dems.

    And she's been pretty outspoken...including taking part in NY Pride marches for as long as she's been senator.

    [ Parent ]

    You Are Making Up Sh*t (1.40 / 5) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    Obama never left choice either. You are still drunk on Hillary if you believe that. She is a Pol just like Obama and Panders to groups that we both have contempt for. The Fellowship is about as anti choice as you can get and she fits in there like a bug in a rug.

    Do you think it is a good idea for the Democratic party to avoid trying to get religious people to vote for them? Personally I think religious people are deluded, but believe that most of them would not want the government messing in their business as it is a double edged sword.

    Personally I would prefer candidates that are less conservative than Hillary or Obama, but I guess I am not mainstream.

    [ Parent ]

    Making sh*t up? (5.00 / 12) (#97)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    You mean like this? How 'bout this?

    Yup...making up the evangelical thing...

    Embracing anti-choice Dems? How 'bout this?

    Look...I don't know what his actual position is with regards to choice. But what I said was hardly "made up."

    And you know as well as I do that I'm not "IN" one camp or another. So do me a favor and pull your "you're still drunk on Clinton" crap back and put it where it belongs...the trash can.

    It's the BS of "you appear to be for one candidate if you say something nice about them...and you "hate" the other candidate if you are critical of their attempts to pander to a voting group" that really makes me glad that I've stuck in the NFC voting column.

    FYI...My candidates of choice didn't run...


    [ Parent ]

    You Seem Drunk (1.14 / 7) (#113)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    Because for whatever reason you seem unable to separate the notion of campaigning from policy positions that are in line with mainstream Democrats. Obama would be stupid to ignore any voters that could be swayed to embrace democratic values. People are free to believe in the flying spaghetti monster and Obama would be foolish to ignore those voters.

    As for your links they indicate nothing about Obama radically switching his beliefs about the separation of Church and state, particularly regarding a woman's right to choose. I am all for wiping the word GOD of all government buildings, courtrooms and currency, but you are a fool to expect that any politician, especially one running for POTUS, would lobby for that.

    [ Parent ]

    Right... (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    drunk and a fool (for something that I didn't even say or imply).

    Who said anything about him radically switching his views? I didn't. Nor did I imply it. I simply pointed out that he's been seeking the evangelical vote...for quite a long time. You don't get that by stepping up and being counted re: choice and abortion.

    So what exactly is his position on choice? What are his votes on the issue as a state senator again?

    [ Parent ]

    OK (1.25 / 4) (#126)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    Then your reason for this:

    I simply pointed out that he's been seeking the evangelical vote...for quite a long time.

    Is to provide a non sequitur, or a red herring in the mix? Because I thought the topic was about Obama's v Hillary's support on gay rights and choice.

    [ Parent ]

    Neither... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:25:38 PM EST
    What is his position on choice again? What were those votes?

    How important is the pro-choice vote to him? Or does he just assume that it'll be there for him because they have no where else to turn.

    Thus far, it appears that if he is pro-choice, he's done a pretty good job of downplaying it...as would be expected of a candidate who is interested in "pandering" to get more evangelical and anti-choice votes.

    [ Parent ]

    If You Mean His Present Votes (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:34:51 PM EST
    Here is a rather impartial account of Present Gate

    And as far as courting evangelicals go there is much evidence that many of the youth are interested in many of the democratic platforms, including separation of Church and State.

    And why would any politician say things to purposefully cause discomfort to potential voter groups while campaigning at one of their events. To blather on about being pro choice in front of a bunch of evangelicals would be like eating pork at an orthodox jewish rally. Or going on about how poorly the Palestinians are being treated at an APAIC event.

    [ Parent ]

    again.... (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    have a nice day...

    [ Parent ]
    You're one of the most insulting posters (5.00 / 10) (#130)
    by shoephone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:13:29 PM EST
    on this site. Yes, yes, I know. You've been here "since the beginning" and that, somehow, gives you the right to personally insult anyone and everyone with whom you disagree.

    You and your obnoxiousness are exceedingly tiresome.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (1.12 / 8) (#133)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    I am sure it is hard for you. All the abuse you must have gotten at those other cultist sites, and you thought TL was a support group for refugees.

    Poor baby. Blind faith has its downsides.

    [ Parent ]

    what bratty behavior (5.00 / 5) (#193)
    by sarahfdavis on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    more mocking and meanness from the crowd that won.
    I still have absolutely no idea what all that unity garbage meant.
    90% of his supporters that I've tried to have discussions with behave just like this poster.

    [ Parent ]
    I suspect those stats (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    are skewed...in part because of all of the votes Sen. Obama has missed.

    I've seen other stats that suggest she's a hair to the left of him.

    [ Parent ]

    OK (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:38:40 PM EST
    But hair is the operative word here. Looking at the missed votes it is clear that almost all of them were not nailbiters. I have compared the votes, by looking here and here,  and the not voting ones, do not remotely suggest that Obama was hiding his stealth right wing beliefs by avoiding them.

    [ Parent ]
    No... (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:45:10 PM EST
    there were some real nail biters in there.

    My personal fave is Kyl-Lieberman...that he vocally opposed right afterwards only to turn around and support it--in front of AIPAC--not 2-3 weeks ago.

    Way to stand on both sides of the fence...


    [ Parent ]

    Well You And I Have A Different (2.00 / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    Idea about what a "nailbiter" is. Kyl-Lieberman passed 76-22. Obama and Hillary are both warmongers, imo. Obama had legislation to make the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror org, long before Kyl-Lieberman.

    There is no difference in either policy position regarding the WOT, Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan if you bother to read their statements and foreign policy speeches.

    The only leg up Obama gets from me, is that he parted from BushCo in that he would talk to our enemies (save for Hamas) without preconditions. Hillary made a mistake on that one, by sticking with the insane BushCo policy.

    [ Parent ]

    My own background (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    in conflict analysis and negotiation tells me that preconditions are often a necessity when it comes to sitting down and talking with groups you're hyper-prickly with.

    As the Northern Irish peace talks show, preconditions are not just a Bush "thing."

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by lmv on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:20:23 PM EST
    The only leverage we had was before the nomination.  Once the Supers gave in, it was over.  

    Now, we are left with two weak sticks:  threaten not to donate (when Soros and the MoveOn dot com millionaires  are bundling for him) or not vote (and he's already said he doesn't need traditional Dem supporters).

    I don't think anyone has influence over  

    [ Parent ]

    "Often" A Necessity (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:27:52 PM EST
    Is quite different than the black and white world of never negotiating with enemies, and never negotiating without preconditions. The ceasefire agreement that was just reached in the Israel/Hamas in gaza conflict was resolved without preconditions.  

    [ Parent ]
    Right... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:31:02 PM EST
    there were no preconditions after years and year and years of back and forthing that did require preconditions.

    [ Parent ]
    and that whole (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    Hamas having to give up its position re: the destruction of Israel policy...:
    Mohammad Dejani, a political science professor at Al Quds University, says it represented Hamas's de facto recognition of Israel as well as an endorsement of the peace process...

    That wasn't a pre-condition of the talks.

    Right.

    [ Parent ]

    Hilarious (1.00 / 3) (#125)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    Sophistry becomes you. Let's see....

    Hamas refuses to recognize Israel as a precondition. Hamas negotiates a ceasefire with Israel therefor they have recognized them by definition, because if Israel does not exist then Hamas could not talk to them in the first place.

    Agreeing to meet is a de facto precondition.

    Good one!  You must get a lot of people to agree with each other using that trick.

    DeFacto

    [ Parent ]

    Wow...trying for insults? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:21:13 PM EST
    Both Gorgias and Isocrates were Sophists. So...I'm pretty okay with being dropped in with them. Though I'm pretty sure that you weren't going for that.

    Ever since Hamas was elected into power, one of the major talking points and thorns in the side has been   Hamas's official position with regards to Israel. It has been the reason that funding got cut off. It has been one of the major reasons for Israel's position re: a Hamas-led Palestinian territory and a key rationale for why Israel refused to speak with Hamas.

    You know it. I know it.

    The fact that the group has changed its position re: Israel is a "thing."

    I haven't insulted you. I haven't called you drunk...nor a fool.

    But since you seem to just like to go there, enjoy talking to yourself.

    [ Parent ]