Why Dems Lose

Because they listen to people like Nancy Soderberg (for a more thorough evisceration of Ms. Soderberg's nonsense, see Glenn Greenwald):

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumptive presidential candidate, said it was a close call but he had decided to endorse the bill. As he explained, the bill won't allow the president to "suggest that somehow there's some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps." The rest of the party should follow Obama's lead.

Besides being false, the current FISA law ALREADY "won't allow the President to 'suggest there's some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging warrantless wiretaps,'" it is political stupidity. It creates stories like this:

Is Barack Obama close to being shadowed by giant flip-flops and, worse, having the image stick with people all the way to the voting booth? Four years ago, Republicans branded as a "flip-flop" even the slightest rhetorical or policy change by John Kerry and sent huge replicas of the casual sandals to bob around the Massachusetts Democrat's events, feeding an image of him as a wishy-washy panderer.

Fair or not, Kerry never recovered and lost to President Bush. It's now the Republican weapon of choice against Obama. . . . [Obama] is giving the GOP effort ammunition and endangering his "Change We Can Believe In" motto with several shifts to the center . . .

. . . [Obama] now supports broader authority for the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it, supporting the bill after some protections were added.

Well, you made Nancy Soderberg happy Senator Obama. Was the flip flop worth it?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< That Was Then, This Is Now: Combat As Qualification Edition | Assuming a Move to Invesco Field for Obama's Acceptance Speech >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    She obviously hasn't listened to the (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    floor debate. She says:

    the compromise bill's opponents -- mostly Democrats -- want also to punish the telecommunications companies that answered President Bush's order for help with his illegal, warrantless wiretapping program.

    Actually, no. Every time Dodd speaks about this on the floor, he says that it isn't Congress's place to decide whether the telecoms should be punished. It's a decision that he thinks should be left to the courts. George Bush and the Republicans, and now apparently Obama, are the ones who want to immunize the telecoms and ensure that they are never held accountable.

    Oh, and her judgement on the matter (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    is more important too:

    the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power

    Is there a secret cabal advocating for the abolition of the judicial branch that I was unaware of?


    Nancy Soderberg seems to be a part of it (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:59:03 AM EST
    That Nancy Soderberg does not know what she is talking about seems manifest to me.

    That Obama blew it politically also seems manifest, and it my larger point.

    Nancy Soderberg is happy with Obama and so is McCain - they get to run the flip flop story on him.


    Obama deserves the flip flop story (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:02:00 PM EST
    He earned it (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:03:14 PM EST
    No question.

    It's an old story by now (none / 0) (#9)
    by talex on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:19:14 PM EST
    The flip-flop story has been replayed a thousand times already all over the internet as I pointed out in my post below.

    It will be the Sunday-morning story (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    tomorrow.  All over those internets is just a part, and the first-reacting part, of the synergy of multimedia messages.  The Sunday-morning talk-show set is another step.  As for whether it will seep into the larger public discourse and become part of pop culture -- which is when it can become damaging and even fatal -- watch for whether Obama's flipflops become a Jay Leno monologue joke.  That is the tipping point, from what I've seen again and again.

    Flip-flopping is so 04; loss of coolness'll be 08 (5.00 / 9) (#68)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    The story will be how Obama "lost" his coolness factor: is he more Malaise than Mahatma?

    Given that any arc can turn on a dime depending on spontaneous (or contrived) events, one of the few reliable constants is that the media will perpetually blame an object of its fascination -- or The Audience's fascination* with that object --for the media's shallow and shifting attention span.

    Obama has clay feet, one of which is constantly getting into his mouth.

    His reputation as being an inspiring speaker was puffed beyond reality with media and political fluffers doing their [::: ahem :::] duty to keep rampant the nat'l stiffy for Hopalong Changey. However, media was enchanted more by The Movement -- and potential to attract a new demographic -- than the Inspiration drawing forth those newly tuned in viewers.

    Oh, how sprightly Wolfe Blitzer moved at the thought of nubile college-aged viewers thinking it was cool to watch his droning pointless @ss, and Jack Cafferty hocking phlegm into his mouth after getting off an anti-Clinton good one, knowing some pile of ambulant laundry might laugh and think him a wit.

    Outside the cumulative reinforcement of the early springtime snowballing, Obama's boring. His existing rabid following is established but neither he nor they are making converts, but he's losing the ones who gave him the benefit of the doubt and got on board.

    He's on the verge of having to promise free beer at his "rock star" clip-creating events to get the magic back. However, he's literally too small for his oversized sets and it shows, and his speechifying is tired. You can see the anchors and newsies fidgeting and in check- their- watches mode instead of listening closely in rapt admiration.

    Tonight on News Ho: When did Obama Start to Bore Us?


    I believe you are right (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:57:34 PM EST
    that the "flip flop" is no longer a powerful retort.....so passe'. It is a Rovian Kerryism and people heard it millions of times.  Means little.

    That was a dangerous post to read (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by otherlisa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:29:31 PM EST
    with a mouthful of coffee!

    Ha! Too true! (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:20:07 PM EST
    I still have to wonder though...

    Will Oprah arrive to save the day?  Will she give away cars to the voters who are willing to accept Obama as their own personal savior?  I think "Oprah & A Free Car" can accomplish almost anythihg!  


    It appears (4.00 / 8) (#8)
    by talex on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    that we are going to rehash the already known facts about FISA on this blog from now until the actual vote. It won't do much to do so. Nothing is going to change.

    The real question is will people stand up for principles and not vote for Obama?

    So far you andgarden have said you will vote for him. Armando refuses to answer that question.

    Principles or Obama. That is the question.

    Do we allow someone to break their promises, take us for granted, give the Fundies more respect than us, and stomp all over the constitution and have Frank Church spinning in his grave - amongst many other things?

    I say no we don't. I say no we can't. Because if we do then we have no one to complain about except ourselves. You can't complain about Obama if you vote for him because to vote for him is to enable him with full knowledge of what you are going to get. How can you complain about what you knowingly vote for to anyone but yourself? If you rubber stamp him then you are just as guilty as he is.

    So it is a decision between Principles and, well, I don't know what the Obama supporters are calling it!


    No one has to tell you how s/he might or will vote (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:06:45 PM EST
    So far you andgarden have said you will vote for him. Armando refuses to answer that question

    You have no business asking, no standing to demand it, no call to judge that, and no right to "vote" on anyone else's vote.

    Discussing support for one candidate over another, making a persuasive case for that based on issues, using positive or negative spin -- yes, by all means engage in that ongoing political debate.

    Supporters of one candidate should simply lay off this form of extra-judicial, extra-constitutional persecution and bullying. It's fascist. It stinks.

    Extra means out of bounds and illicit, not super righteous with sprinkles.


    I agree with this, and I would add (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:36:50 PM EST
    That it should also be out of bounds for commenters to scold non-Obama-voters by labeling them right-wing trolls, republican trolls, McCain shills, Hillary cultists, etc etc. It's all part of the same bullying package. No one should be denigrated for continuing to support Obama nor for not supporting him. Free country, dissent is good, and all that.

    Agreed (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:11:19 PM EST
    We do NOT (and hopefully we never will) have a constitutional responsibility to belong to the Democratic Party or any party for that matter.  

    Our votes are our votes -- OURS and they're all we have.


    ooops, agreed you just ruined (none / 0) (#123)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    some folk's day.

    Given Dodd's position on this (none / 0) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:56:52 AM EST
    (and Feingold's for that matter)...he can be ignored by the media as one of those crazy outliers.

    I wonder if the flip flop will stick (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by bjorn on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    the way it did with Kerry.  I am not sure it will, even though I think Obama is a bigger flip flopper than Kerry ever was...the problem the Repubs have this time is McCain's own Flip flopping.  On another note, is it just me or does Obama sound more and more like Bush when he talks now with those short 3-4 words, pause, a few more words, more pause, and so on?  Maybe I am just imagining it.  

    bjorn....to me, obama is a carbon copy of (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    gwb...as for the flip-flops, as I saw it explained in another article, mccain's flip-flops are framed as "he has studied the issue and changed his mind".  I am not sure if that is legitimate or not, but dems OWN the flip-flop label.

    interesting (none / 0) (#13)
    by bjorn on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:38:22 PM EST
    i have a sick feeling about all of this

    The difference between Kerry and Obama (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cosbo on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM EST
    is that Kerry as seen as a flip flopper on just one issue....

    "you know, I voted against this bill before I voted for it."

    Obama is now seen as  flip flopper on several issues. And he's flopping closer to the right than the left.

    The problem for Obama is that because he is not a known national figure like Clinton or McCain, he runs the risk of people questioning  his true beliefs. If people are questioning his true beliefs then they are not going to trust him with the country.  I don't care what the polls say right now.

    With McCain, they kind of know what they will be getting. Added to that, most people believe that if McCain wins, he will not last more than one term.

    The cumulation of all of Obama's turnabouts from the people he associate with down to FISA and Iraq is going to be massive fuel for the republicans.


    I disagree. I think it'll be harder to paint (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:37:19 PM EST
    him as flip flopping on so many issues because he seems to be abandoning the lefties.  That is viewed as lack of character by progressives (who will assuredly vote for him even if they stop giving him money and foot power) but may be seen by Middle America as tricking those crazy liberals into thinking he's one of us when he's obviously more like them.  

    McCain, in the end, will lose Middle America because his policies and the obsessive need to keep fighting in the middle east will bankrupt our economy and waste their hard earned money.  At some point, their pocketbooks and the war will be the final decider.  


    obama has lost a great many votes (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    in middle america. respectfully have you paid attention the division in the demcoratic party?

    I was referring to blue collar and middle (none / 0) (#46)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    class whites, mostly men, somewhat racist and  sexist guys who actually hate the Clintons.  

    racist and hate the clintons? (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    well for sure they do exist. how that is split? i think most(male southern nascar) will vote for mccain because typically they call themselves conservative. i have seen however that racism knowns no boundaries on color, age, education or sex when it comes to bias and discrimination. the past campaigns in recent years proves that. look at what the bush campaign did to mccain about adopting a baby. look at the remarks by reverand wright. the vile from so called liberals toward hillary was a tragedy.

    hatred for the clintons? the repubs showed more tolerance for hillary than many in the democratic party sorry to say in this campaign.


    No, no, I didn't refer to the split in the party, (none / 0) (#57)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    you did.  I'm talking about Reagan Dems, independents and Republicans who have realized or can be convinced that Bush tricked them and they're going to lose big bucks if they vote Republican again this fall.  And of course racism knows no boundaries, I didn't say it did.  

    BTW, Republicans showing tolerance, respect and/or support for Hillary Clinton during the primary was fake, IMO.  If she had won, their talking points about murders, cheating, unethical pardons of terrorists that bought her Hispanic votes, her relationship with Bill, Bill's antics while Prez and since, etc. would be in our faces for the next four months.


    You are either incredibly naive (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    or awesomely stupid.  The absolute worst Obama defender ever.

    What's today's secret plan, huh?


    Aw, c'mon (none / 0) (#79)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:43:38 PM EST
    Can't we just talk it out over a pint or at least wait until next week to see how the FISA bill plays out?  Here's the plan I'm rooting for.  Obama supports FISA, low info right wing and centrist voters think his support of FISA protects America, Dems filibuster (or even just vote) to remove telecom immunity, Bush is forced to pardon people, which doesn't give us all the info we need, but implicates him in the illegal spying.  

    Obama doesn't support FISA (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:24:57 PM EST
    He is supporting the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) which guts many of the protections of FISA. Bush is ALREADY implicated in the illegal spying, along with a host of other illegalities. And Bush will pardon whomever he pardons AFTER the November elections. Other than those supernova size holes, its a fine, fine plan. I hope they are going to use some of those wonderful techno-gadgets from the Acme catalogue that Ellie posted the other day in order to cement  those plans.

    sorry tree, i meant to rate 5. (none / 0) (#156)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    i changed it.

    you did talk about the reagan (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:32:41 PM EST
    democrats. that is a split. you also based on the terms of bigotry. not a good thing to do! most of us know the repubs would be tough on clinton in the ge, but if you think for one naive moment that obama will not receive equally and probably more severe negative campaigning, then i would have to shake my head and heartily disagree with you.

    That's where Obama is losing (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    support, as I recall; see the CNN poll yesterday (and discussed in some threads here).

    exactly, that was a real eye opener (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:05:33 PM EST
    for me. neither obama or mccain is scoring right now with middle america. gas prices among many of the areas of "enough already". i do think that the repubs will come home to mccain. they are more organized than dems. i am thinking right now about the split in the party when the far right took over. that didn't end well did it?

    Poll from CNN (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by americanincanada on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    showing Obama losing support among clinton supporters as well as registered Dems. The most interesting part is that the number of Dems who would prefer Clinton as nominee has actually gone UP.



    The more muddled Obama's message (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:10:09 PM EST
    becomes, the less sure many of the Clinton supporters (Reagan Democrats) are in his leadership.  Like it or not, the candidate that projects the strongest image, fighting spirit, and willingness to stand up for what he/she believes in wins.  I never saw what people saw in Reagan, but those were his strongest qualities.  Kerry never projected those qualities and it now looks more and more like Obama will not be able to do so either.

    The fighters (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:04:44 PM EST
    in the Democratic Party are still fighting for Clinton...that's why.

    If the fighting Dems leave the Party or stay home or both...big, big trouble for 'the chosen.'

    ('The Chosen.'  Good book, good film.  Potok, as I recall).


    17 Month Primary Season vs. 4 Weeks (none / 0) (#108)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:32:58 PM EST
    since Clinton left the race. One of CNN's analysts pointed out.

    But just like the polls showing rosy leads for Obama right now this poll means very little to me. I'm waiting till September to pay attention. And even then...polls have lost their credibility to me except as interesting possibilities.

    But I won't be surprised if a big chunk of Clinton supporters sit this one out at the top of the ticket. It isn't what I'm hearing from my friends and family who supported her, but it's certainly apparent around here.


    The significance of the poll (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:06:06 PM EST
    which the analyst who agrees with your point missed is that the support for Clinton has increased, and the nonsupport for Obama has increased.

    That is entirely counter to the pathology-projecting 'still grieving' riff Obama supporters and those of the House of General Cluelessness are trying to push.

    Had the numbers stayed the same, then the grieving meme would be no more an illegitimate argument than it ever was.  But people's 'grief' diminishes over time, and everyone loves to be on the winning side.  

    And while, yes, polls at this point mean little in terms of predicting the GE, that does not mean they do not reflect sentiment at this point in time.  In fact, that is mostly all polls are -- a snapshot of opinion at this point in time.  And when you compare the snap taken in early June to this weeks, Obama don't look good.


    "Grieving Meme" : Always Illegitimate (none / 0) (#159)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM EST
    If you think this poll works to debunk that than more power to this poll.

    I was for Dean in 2004 and then Edwards and decidedly NOT for Kerry when he became the nominee.

    Dean was the first presidential nominee in my whole 30 year voting history I felt anything like enthusiasm for and instead we ended up with a candidate who seemed to me in many ways his antithesis--even though their positions on core issues were probably the same.

    I can relate to the reactions of people who wholeheartedly supported a candidate in the primaries who ran so strongly (something Dean certainly didn't in 2004) and to be left with a candidate who falls so far short of what you want. I don't call it grieving.


    Depressing...not to have a (none / 0) (#151)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:59:58 AM EST
    candidate to get behind.

    I would normally be phone banking, getting voters registered, canvassing, donating money, etc.   Not this year.  I am completely turned off.

    I don't have a Party anymore...it's been hijacked.


    I'd like to know how much support he's lost (3.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    from the far left, especially the college crowd.  But that is not going to show in polls because pollsters don't call people who only have cell phones.

    I predict he's losot no support there (3.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    They will support no matter what.

    they may not willfully decide not to vote for (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:58:42 PM EST
    obama but if the past elections are any indicator, the final turnout is not as good as the media predictions.

    Well he's sure not losing them (2.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:54:41 PM EST
    by saying he'll vote for FISA.

    I think he's eliminating or reducing the impact of the GOP's attempts to scare people by painting him soft on terror.  Now he'll have to do something else to win their votes.  If he wants to try to do that, I would expect the economy/finish the damm war strategy might be effective.


    Obama: Soft on National Security (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:44:51 PM EST
    What does Obama plan to do now that he is facing McCain in the Fall?  McCain voted opposite of almost everything that Obama voted on regarding National Security.  How is Obama going to counteract his voting record?  This FISA vote is not going to erase the votes he's already made in the past -- it's only one vote.

    I know you think this is part of some grand plan but I don't think it is going to work.  


    and if the young voters don't leave in (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:21:39 AM EST
    a righteous rage because of fisa, then double shame on them. they should be in the trees demanding the same rights their ancestors were brave enough to fight for instead of caving with craven excuses.

    You do realize that it was Obama who did (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    not connect with the blue collar, middle class whites in the primaries and even as we speak is losing the male vote to McCain.

    Hillary won by substantial margins among those demographics in the primaries.

    Funny how all those people who hated the Clintons voted for her instead of Obama.


    And part of the reason was that he had (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    no vision for improving the material well being of these people who had been so battered by GWB and the Repubs. I am terrible at links, but look over on the right side bar and click on to Anglachel's journal and read her latest essay on "No where else to go" for an excellent analysis of why more than 40% of the Hillary supporters may just not vote for president this year.  Its about the split in the Democratic party.

    Obviously the Obama camp has been reworking its frames.

    And the latest frames are:

    1. not necessarily Dems, but TRUE PROGRESSIVES will vote for Obama because they're TRUE PROGRESSIVES;
    2. the working class (which is, by extension [according to your comment], racist) will vote for Obama and sexists will vote for Obama - okay, I can buy the second half of this one, given how much the Obama camp has proven his distaste for women.

    Catchy memes!
    Okay, not too terribly catchy, not to mention, pretty ineffective, but fair effort!

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#86)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    I didn't say the entire working class is racist, I said I was referring to those blue collar and working class voters who are racist.

    I believe progressives for the most part will vote for him.  I expect he'll return to solidifying the base after the convention when he is the nominee.

    And I don't represent the Obama camp, which BTW is our camp now, the Democratic camp.


    If working class do not vote for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    it will not be due to racism -- for the most part. Instead, it will be because in the middle of a bad recession, with oil and food prices rising daily, Obama chooses to speak about our service to the country.  When is he going to speak ardently about what he is going to do for voters on pressing economic issues?  To me his campaign seems to be missing the boat of late.

    Good point. (none / 0) (#96)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    We need a "New Deal" approach to win over Middle America.  Let's see, one component of it can be social service oriented, with links to college funding and faith based initiatives, another component would be hiring middle class Americans out of work because of the economy and free trade.

    Democratic  Economy Recover Plan (DERP, help me out here...)

    I. Social Programs:  
    A) College loan payoff for Peace Corps type commitment, but here at home.
    B) Faith Based Initiative expansion.

    II. Work America Program (WAP, ok I still need help, Put America.. PAWAP?)
    A) Green Technology funded by the government.
    B) Eliminate the advantages of sending jobs overseas.

    Hey wait, isn't this already proposed somewhere?


    I am just guessing (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:57:47 PM EST
    that it is proposed on the website of some guy who prefers to spend his time talking about patriotism and abortion restrictions instead.

    you can take that so called "faith (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    vote for me program" and put it at the bottom of the trash heap where it belongs.

    VISTA (none / 0) (#135)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:09:22 PM EST
    Do you need more help than that?

    Yes.  I think you do.


    He's already said all this (none / 0) (#141)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:52:11 PM EST
    the problem is:  How is he going to pay for it?

    Originally he said it would come from funds available from ending the War in Iraq -- but he doesn't plan to do that right away.  Not only that, we won't save a dime by ending the War in Iraq.  We haven't been paying for it.  We've been borrowing the money from the Chinese to pay for it so the only thing we'll gain by ending it is that we will stop running up the tab with China.  

    He plans to increase taxes on those earning over $250K.  Everyone says that won't amount to a drop in the bucket.  

    So, how's he going to pay for it?  Tax increases for everyone?  It sure sounds that way.  


    In case you haven't noticed, Obama is (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM EST
    really an independent. The Democratic party since FDR has sought to improve the material lives of ordinary working class people. That is not what I hear from Obama.  I hear a different kind of message from him.  I was confused until I read Anglachel's journal the other day and finally understood the schism in the Democratic Party.  It may sink Obama and the DNC.  Look over at the right side bar in this blog to pull it up and click onto it if you want an interesting discussion. (I am terrible at getting the correct URL) so you will have to right click if you want to read it.

    Hairspray....here ya go.... (none / 0) (#144)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:12:01 PM EST
    you know it is possible to be a democrat (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:46:39 PM EST
    and not support the presidential candidate. there are about 18 million in the primary didn't agree and polls say around 50% of them still feel that way. they didn't leave the party because of obama won but they way they felt he won. there is a good difference.

    The ultimate irony (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    given this:

    sexists will vote for Obama - okay, I can buy the second half of this one, given how much the Obama camp has proven his distaste for women.

    is that women are now putting Obama over the top against McCain according to polling. Post-Hillary-suspension, white men are going more for McCain whereas a lot more women have moved to Obama.


    Anecdotal only (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Jane in CA on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:50:50 PM EST
    but I don't know a single woman who is voting for Obama.  And I live in a region that Obama carried during the primary.

    I would also add that my best friend's husband, who became energized enough by the Obama campaign to register to vote for the first time in his life, and partook freely of the kool-aid, told me yesterday that Obama's flip flop on Iraq was the final straw and that he wasn't going to bother voting in the general.

    My friend thought that was pretty funny since this is exactly what I'd been telling him for months -- once the primary was over, the media would begin reporting more honestly on Obama, and my friend's husband would become disenchanted and refuse to vote in the general. Meanwhile, the traditional Dem base -- folks like me who have voted democrat since 1980 -- would go to the polls but would not, under any circumstances, vote for Obama.


    That's Funny (3.00 / 0) (#125)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:45:14 PM EST
    I live in upstate New York. Really, truly Hillary Clinton country--and, indeed, more than half the people I know (who I've discussed politics with) who voted in the primary voted for her and wanted her for the nominee.

    But now they have moved to Obama, many (maybe most) unenthusiastically, but so far no one I know who usually votes Dem is either voting for McCain or sitting it out. A little more than half of them are women--maybe a dozen.

    FWIW, I don't think ANY of them participate on political blogs or in discussions like this one online.


    Can't Speak (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by Jane in CA on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    to your friends and acquaintances, only to mine. And none of my female friends are voting for Obama.  Nor do they frequent sites like this; as a group they were/are not fervent Clinton supporters (if that was your point?), just are completely unimpressed with Obama's ability to lead the country, and don't really believe much of anything he says anymore.

    I Appreciated Your Snapshot (none / 0) (#160)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    of the positions of those you know, and I responded by sharing that of people I know.

    From the tone of your response, I get the feeling I rubbed you the wrong way by doing this and, if I did, I'm sorry.

    I wasn't trying to counter/argue with what you were saying. Frankly, I've been a little surprised that some of the Clinton supporters I know HAVE resigned themselves to voting for Obama, or at least have done so this early in the season.

    Maybe that was the difference. My friends and family WERE/ARE Clinton supporters and otherwise were kind of indifferent about Obama (and still are, by the way).


    Many women I know who voted for Hillary (none / 0) (#88)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:09:49 PM EST
    would have chosen Obama if Hillary weren't running.  It makes sense that they have switched over.  

    I think it's important to remember that most of the country sticks with general impressions about these candidates and don't delve into the details, except for those snippets deliberately used against them.
    Also, I think we've always had huge schisms in our party, but the difference this time is that those opinions were expressed around the blogosphere.  What if you never heard all the nasty sexism that came from some of the Obamabots.  "His supporters" wouldn't figure in to the equation in the way that it's happening now.  


    Yes, the sexism was limited to the blogosphere (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    I must have imagined the months of sexist fatwa against Clinton all over the MSM.

    Sorry, you're right, MSM participated. (none / 0) (#91)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    But again, there are millions of people who support Obama, who voted for him and who gave him money.  The sexism in the blogs and media is not a shared value of the rest of his supporters.  But the few vocal ones have given the rest a bad name.

    really? then you know very few women (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    hillary voters. go do your research please.

    Yes,well (none / 0) (#136)
    by Nadai on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:10:00 PM EST
    What if you never heard all the nasty sexism that came from some of the Obamabots.  "His supporters" wouldn't figure in to the equation in the way that it's happening now.

    Little late now, don't you think?


    Who says I'm --- me who has never voted for anyone but a Dem in my whole life - moi --- who says I'm going to vote for Obama?

    You don't know that. And I can assure you, among the Dems and PROGRESSIVES I know, it's not looking good. The Obama fan boys fought too nasty a fight, and now Obama has proven his unwillingness to take a real stand.

    Profoundly doubtful I vote for him. Sure as hell won't be voting for McCain, but deeply, profoundly doubtful I vote for Obama. He and his fanbase have proven much too untrustworthy for my tastes.


    and as the bell for the 10th (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM EST
    and final round was ready to ring, the poster formerly known as cookie bear gave the knock out punch.

    To change your position once (3.00 / 2) (#42)
    by tben on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    is to flip.

    To change it back to where it was originally is to flip-flop.

    To modify, or refine an original position is neither.


    I hope you seriously don't believe that (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by cosbo on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    most voters try to discern the nuance between flip-flop and refinement. Only elite overeducated liberals play with  nuance. Regulars joes & janes keep things real simple.

    Simple means: first he said/believe this and NOW he said/believe that.


    Nope (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by badger on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    A flip-flop is a device that has two states (technically it's a bistable multivibrator, if you really want to know). What makes it a flip-flop is that it changes state in response to inputs.

    Hence to change one's position (or state) is to behave like a flip-flop. One might refine the statement by considering whether Obama is a D flip-flop, JK flip-flop (not named after Kerry) or an RS flip-flop, but there is no question that his clearly demarked change of state to the opposite state is how a flip-flop classically behaves.

    I'm sorry, but Obama apologists don't get to make up their own etymology.

    Would you like a transistor level schematic with this or a reference to Texas Instruments TTL Data Book (for example - SN74LS74 is a dual D-FF; IIRC the CMOS equivalent is an MC14013 or CD4013)?


    dude, its a (3.50 / 2) (#118)
    by tben on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    plastic sandal. You make one move (lift foot up) it flips up, you make a second, it flops down.

    Ha, OK Mr. Technical (none / 0) (#71)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    but the name Flip-flop was given to that device because it flips between states when given input multiple times.  The flip is one way, the flop is the other.  Details, details.

    Hang in there tben, we're all really on the same side.  We want a better America.  It's just a painful process trying to figure out how to get there.


    I want Bush and Co. prosecuted for their (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:29:06 PM EST
    crimes. Immunity will rid them of all accountability in this matter.

    So Obama's flip is now (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    and he flops in November.

    Y'know, it doesn't play any better for him your way.


    Seems enough of the elected officials of (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    the party will in fact follow Obama's lead and the Bush Coverup and Elimination of Rights (aka FISA) bill will be passed.

    Do I think Obama is making a poor political and ethical choice when deciding to do a major flip flop on this very important issue?  Yes. Will Obama be portrayed as a flip flopper? Probably, by some. Will it have any real world consequences? Hmm Normally I would think it might but this year I'm not sure it will.

    There is one thing that I'm sure of and that is when there were no real consequences for Bush breaking the law on FISA, it gave Bush the permission to push the envelope and expand his activities in all other areas. Bush had permission to continue to say F*ck you Congress, F*ck you rules of law, I will do whatever I want and what will you do about it.

    Seems to me we are now at that same point with Obama. No real world consequences and we have given him permission to pursue whatever agenda he wants and the confidence to know we will will, like the 110th Congress, do nothing but bluster.

    It's as if the dems are saying: (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by pie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    You republicans had your fun.  Now it's our turn.


    However, the republicans aren't going to be quite so accommodating, I'll bet.


    Media will find its duty should Obie gain the WH (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:45:46 PM EST
    Dems seem to believe (foolishly IMO) that they can run the same kind of Rethuggernaut as Bush / Rove / Cheney did the last two admins.

    They cannot for the simple reason the party can't hold it together to vote in lockstep formation. As much as they lust for power, they crave validation even more (and poll watch differently).

    Repugs watch numbers to see what they can get away with regarding marshalling more power and/or keeping it (and f*ck responsibility) while Dems are obsessed with escaping media and voter criticism while purporting to hold the high moral ground. (:: snort ::)

    The Repugs actually reward loyalty by advancing conservatism and they do throw their factions enough of the booty to keep them in check.

    Dems don't do circle wagons; they sell out.

    Example 1:
    Q: [paraphrased] VP Cheney, after lo these 8 long years, we have a mountain of irrefutable evidence that you are the d0uchingest d0chebag that ever d0uched. What say ye to that?
    Cheney: So?

    The Hungry Dems burn furniture for firewood so leadership can jiffy-pop the seed corn in front of starving peasants, who are then scolded for trying to ruin the party's unseemly rapacious appetite. (Optional: the ever irritating Rahm Emmanuel stomping forth to berate the peasantry for underperforming on the new Rahm-set goal that if they want the Dems to perform at all, the base needs to get him mas butter and some sody pop.)


    Except (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    Will impeachment be off the table if Obama wins and then Republicans take over Congress in 2010?

    Probably not....

    It is different with Democrats.  Democrats never get away with these things.  Republicans don't capitulate.


    i have thought in despair (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:03:20 PM EST
    that if the dems get power and basically do nothing, the repubs can retool for the mid terms and then sally bar the door.

    Bcz the Dems ignoring the Iran-Contra illegalities (none / 0) (#155)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:54:08 AM EST
    worked out so well for the nation!

    Gave us extended rounds of the same thugs and criminals.

    What a way to run clean government!

    Who was it was pointing out the necessity of impeachment simply to keep BushCo from pardoning the miscreants? Impeachment cannot be pardoned. Was it John Dean, back when it looked as if the Dems had spines?


    Greenwald's question (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I'm asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse -- that the President can give "orders" to private citizens that must be complied with?
    If Ms. Soderberg's thinking is reflective of what Obama and his people are giving credence to then could they view the office similarly? Would the image of another imperial presidency sit well with the American people?  

    Flip Flops be da*ned. There may be so many this cycle the invective may become irrelevant, sorta like two children on the playground - did so, did not, did so, did not...

    I wonder if Senator Dodd is reconsidering his endorsement of Obama.

    If Dodd is not reconsidering, he should (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    be.  He and others jumped the gun and for the good of the country and the party, they need to swallow their pride and take their lumps....in the end there might be alot of admiration thrown their way for the bold step.

    speaking only for me here, the welfare (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    of the country is the main concern for me. the welfare of the parties? when they represent the welfare of the american people, then i'll condsider my support. the hold my nose and vote for a dem and that's the way pols are doesn't work for me anymore.

    dodd will not flip flop (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by sancho on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    on his endorsement of obama because, like pelosi, he has done the research, or had the research done for him, and determined definitively that obama is "not hillary." besides dodd and obama use the same lending company for their homes! countrywide users got to stick together.

    i too wonder where reluctant dems are going with their support of obama. not mccainland looks pretty scary to me.

    i'm still leaning toward the "not obama" party.


    Dodd & Obama have different mortgage lenders (none / 0) (#95)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    Dodd - Countrywide
    Obama - Northern Trust

    Where does your info about Dodd's having done research on Obama & Hillary come from? Thanks.


    my bad on the mortgages (none / 0) (#97)
    by sancho on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    Oh, it definitely would be another imperial (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:04:18 PM EST
    presidency, no question about that from the arrogance in the primaries and every message since.  But no, it would not be seen as that, at least at first, because it would be seen as sacrilege, or probably as racist, to call out the first president of color for, well, a 'tude.

    There comes a time when Americans (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    need to make a move if they are sick of the b.s....the time is now...before the convention.

    McCain paid a political price (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    for speaking out and voting against Bush policies and the Repub line.
    imho - Obama has never displayed such political courage.

    What price was that? The Nomination? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    In a way, yes. Just not this nomination. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:59:27 PM EST
    McCain bucked Bush and the party line (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    on Torture, immigration, Rummy, management of war, Abramoff....
    Political courage.

    And paid what political price? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    That was the comment- McCain paid a price for bucking Bush etc.

    So what was the price? As best I can tell, he hasn't paid any price.


    you bought the premise (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    Which was false. The reason he did not pay a price is because he turned to the right in a series of flip flops.

    McCain paid a price (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:43:42 PM EST
    with rightwing talk radio screaming he was a liberal for voting with the Dems on immigration, mismanagement of the war, etc.

    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    McCain voted for and insisted on allowing the CIA to torture.

    McCain agreed with Bush on immigration and then caved to the GOP base on immigration in lock step with Bush.

    On Rummy, most of the GOP was against him.

    Management of the war, sounds like Rummy twice to me. The Surge was a Neo Con idea and McCain has always been a Neo Con.

    Political courage? Absurd.


    I really hope not to have to deal (2.00 / 4) (#84)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    with McCain cultism too. . .

    and I hope I don't have to deal (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:49:00 PM EST
    with your insults - implying I'm a McCain cultist.
    There's a reason the rightwing calls McCain a liberal - because he voted with Dems and didn't toe the party line.

    I don't think you got the memo, Josey (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:34:26 PM EST
    It's extremely rude and off-limits to criticize people, or question them, for supporting/voting for Obama. But it's considered good form to criticize, mock, and name-call people for not supporting/voting for Obama. Get it straight!

    The memo is (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:48:54 PM EST
    to state the facts.

    You think Josey told the truth about McCain? You know better.


    I think you have it backwards (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:00:24 PM EST
    Josey was partially correct - in the past (not now), McCain has gotten a lot of flak from the right wing base for not towing the line. Remember the smears against his 'black children', etc. But that is not really my point. My point was that Josey has an opinion about whom she should support, which is a different one from andgarden's, squeaky's, or mine. But that doesn't mean she should be called 'cultist' or other names any more than talex should criticize you.



    Okay, here's a fact: (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:04:07 PM EST
    JFK Profile in Courage Award Announcement

    "Senators McCain and Feingold demonstrated the kind of political courage my father admired most," said Caroline Kennedy, President of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. "They defied the extraordinary pressures of partisan politics and special interests and stood up for what they felt was best for the country. In doing so, they suffered the displeasure of their party leaders and key constituency groups and even risked reelection to office. In a time when politics and government have been marked by incivility and partisanship, these senators distinguished themselves by their political courage and by their vision of what was right for the country."

    If Caroline Kennedy said it, I'm going to believe that John McCain actually has shown political courage in his lifetime, particularly since he got an award for it.  


    Not Sure What To Call You (1.00 / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:17:13 PM EST
    If you post such blatant misinformation about McSame in order to make him sound appealing.

    Josey trying to make McCain appealing? Not (none / 0) (#122)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:35:00 PM EST
    Then what was the purpose? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    my purpose (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:57:42 PM EST
    was first, to point out McCain has disagreed with Bush and the Repub Party line. Now, later he may have flip flopped again, but he's considered "liberal" by a large chunk of the Repub Party specifically for his positions on immigration and torture, although they've been more forgiving on torture because of his POW experience.
    Second, Obama has not shown a modicum of political courage and specifically won't buck the Dem establishment on FISA.

    poor andgarden... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:45:34 PM EST
    Dems are what allow this, not the law (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    As he explained, the bill won't allow the president to "suggest that somehow there's some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps."

    The president, whoever he or she may be, is free to suggest anything if the opposition does not stand up and call BS.  The current FISA law already prevents this, but how have any words in 1000 laws or the Constitution stopped Bush from suggesting just that, and a lot more?

    The likes of Soderberg have convinced Dems that strength in standing up to a power-grab is electoral weakness.  I wish them luck with that strategy

    Bi-Partisan FISA Lying (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    I always used to shake my head to  shake my head in dismay when someone would claim  that there is no difference between the two major political parties in this country. You know, the "Republicrats". I always saw it as some sort of idiosyncratic apology on the part of the speaker for not spending the time to understand the real differences between the parties. Maybe I was the one fooling myself. With a few notable exceptions (Dodd, et al.), it seems that a mighty Wurlitzer of propaganda from the political elites of both parties, especially the Democratic Party, is playing the same tune on FISA. And the rationale seems to be today's version of that stand-by line of cheesy WWII movies,  "Don't you know there's a war on?" That is, national security. And you know what, they are going to get away with this. Senator Obama is making a critical error here. The rationale for excusing illegal actions at the behest of the Executive Office is a double-edged sword which he may one day regret should he become President. These types of things have a way of taking on a life of their own. It would not surprise me at all, if several years down the line, when a President Obama finds himself embroiled in a Constitutional crisis,  in which he is the target of accusations, due to his administrations abuse of these illegal powers of warrantless surveillance against American citizens.

    flip-flopping is the symptom (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by pluege on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    why dems lose is because they do not believe in or stand up for liberal values - they compromise, calculate, triangulate, or whatever you want to call it on liberal values all the time, every time. This conveys and makes it clear that dems stand for nothing except trying to win elections; that they are weak and sniveling, without any ability or desire to lead.

    Amen! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    Now what's the solution?

    But Here, It's Not Even (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by The Maven on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    liberal values that are at issue, but rather the very basic and fundamental premise of the Constitution itself.  If Democratic candidates and elected officials are willing to "compromise" and capitulate where Constitutional rights and powers are concerned, that is a clear demonstration of their spinelessness.

    It was Sen. Dodd's clear emphasis on the centrality of the Constitution that won me over to his side about a year ago -- I only wish that more of his strong beliefs had worn off on his colleague and endrosee.  If there is an issue for Obama upon which to make a firm stand, this certainly would have been an excellent choice.


    Excuse me, but the US Constitution is a Liberal (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by pluege on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    value, at least the part with the Bill of Rights, and its notions of equality and justice for all citizens. Liberal Values embodied in the Constitution are THE ONLY thing that make it a great document and expression of ideas. Otherwise its just another organization of government that works somewhat and doesn't work somewhat, like many other organizations of governments.

    It's not just liberal values (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sassysenora on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    Standing up for the 4th Amendment and against the FISA fraud is standing up for American values. You know, the Constitution.

    Voting against FISA would be playing to the middle, especially in this election year where voters are tired of Bush and his corrupt administration. As Daniel Larison (in the American Conservative) said:

    "If I were in the political "middle," I would be deeply offended by the idea that supporting the gutting of core civil liberties is required to win my vote."

    I think voters want Congress to stand up to the executive. I think they have for years. Since the Nixon presidency, many voters think it's best to have the president be from one party and Congress be controlled by the other party precisely because they don't want the president to have too much power. In 2006 they voted more Dems to Congress because they wanted Congress to stand up to Bush (and executive abuse of power).

    Obama's (and the Dem Party's) cave is not only craven, it's stupid.


    Sorry, I forgot the url for the quote (none / 0) (#64)
    by sassysenora on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    I find (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:25:34 PM EST
    it highly ironic that we had a candidate who was unfairly attacked for "flip flopping" in 2004 and now we have one who will be legitimately tagged with that label. It's why we need a fighter as a canidate not another latte liberal who uses too many words and sends out patronizing lectures as press releases. Of course, it's too late now. You go into the election with the candidate you have.

    Too late... (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    probably.  Democratic delegates are afraid of AA backlash if they 'abandon' Obama at the convention and nominate 'someone else.'

    This is not the Democratic Party in which I invested 55 years of my adult, activist life and $50,000 of my own earnings.  

    The ROI (return on investment) was pathetic...4 years of Jimmy Carter with a screwup Dem congress and 2 years of Bill Clinton with an uncooperative Dem congress and 6 more years with the Gingrich revolution.  That's IT.

    And now I'm supposed to accept this pathetic excuse for leadership in governing?  Greenwald is right...it is

    "...yet another step in cementing a two-tiered system of justice in America where our highest political officials and connected elite can break our laws with impunity."

    No deal.  This wimpout by Democrats and by Obama is an outrage...no different from pardoning Nixon or forgiving Iran/Contra.

    With this bill, Democrats will not only be enablers...they will be complicit.

    Time to call them out.  



    Oh (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:16:42 PM EST
    I'm under no delusion that short of an epic disaster that Obama will be nominated in Aug.

    As far as AA's go, they are gone from the party one way or another. If Obama loses they will be gone. If Obama wins, they will be gone because he probably won't be a good president.


    Moyers had interesting discussion about blacks, (none / 0) (#154)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    impact of Obama's nom and possible presidency on his Journal on June 20th Journal, with Orlando Patterson and Glenn Loury. Here's the transcript link.

    This struck me at the time as very interesting:

    GLENN C. LOURY: In this campaign I think the Reverend Wright controversy and the speech that Obama gave in Philadelphia after it was the beginning of this process. The implicit racial contract is being renegotiated. The sort of, consensus view about collective American responsibility around racial questions is being renegotiated.

    Now, I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing. Okay? Barack Obama is actually more important to the future of affirmative action than was Sandra Day O'Conner, in my opinion. If Barack Obama comes out in October or September and gives this speech that says affirmative action should be class based and not race based, it will be so.SNIP

    GLENN C. LOURY: It will materially affect the consensus understanding politically in the country about affirmative action if he decides to redefine it in that way.

    BILL MOYERS: So how do you change the metaphor when you do that?

    GLENN C. LOURY: Well what's at stake here for me is the extent to which current generations of Americans understand a historical obligation to deal with racial inequality. Ok? To make sacrifices on behalf of it. To bend themselves out of what they would otherwise would do in order to mitigate racial inequality.

    Now I'm not saying Obama's program is anything other than progressive around these questions. I think that it is progressive. Okay? But I think that the country as a whole is looking for a reason to get out of the mire of racial politics and racial discussion. And I think Obama's offer to the country is that his very person, his very success in his electoral ambition, is a kind of expiation of collective racial sin. It's a kind of confirmation of what's, as he said, good about America. As opposed to what's bad about America.

    Loury seems to posit that electing Obama will relieve white Americans of doing all they can to improve the lot of blacks and mean less attention to black problems. He's not sure what this will mean, but it will be a different approach to racism in this country.  

    What will it mean for the Dem Party? I do not know.

    The segment is also available as video; just click to archives.


    Why do Dems lose? Just look at the (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    nominees. Stop nominating turkeys and we might win.

    Word. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by madamab on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    An off topic discussion (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:48:46 PM EST
    was moved to the Open Thread.

    She's a Democrat? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by bayville on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    So Nancy Soderberg is considered one of the bright bulbs on our side, eh?

    Within the Beltway parameters of reasonableness, (none / 0) (#153)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:27:45 AM EST
    she was considered one of the more reasonable.

    There isn't much room for divergence from the CW and MCM blessed reasoning.


    Technical nitpick (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    I've seen the bill that's up for a vote next week referred to as FISA numerous times here. That bill is NOT FISA, and it clouds the issue to refer to it as such. The bill is the FISA Admendments Act (FAA). It would help the clarity if everyone would refer to the current bill as FAA and the 1978 law as FISA.

    my frustration in a nutshell (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    I just hate this move to the right. And in this year of all years. Why don't dems ever get it. They are on the winning side. Their liberal values are on the winning side. Yet, they abandon them and move to the right.

    Dems lose (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM EST
    when they nominate losers.

    Time and time and time again.


    Probably...the Democratic Party is shrinking every day since the last primary...

    Reading Soderberg's twisting of the law and the (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:26:03 AM EST
    Constitution, seeing Obama's and other Dems' pretzeling on the FISA issue, and I thank the FSM that we did not have people like these in charge of writing our Constitution! These people seem to actually be afraid of our individual liberties and want to suppress them using any rationals possible. Terra, terra, terra.

    Our founders had lived under a monarchy, knew people with living memories of the wrongs of authoritarianism. Obama, alas, seems to actually like authoritarianism, as does BushBoy. Oh, dear.

    I've been trying to think of what kind of government and Constitution we would have had had today's "leaders" been in charge back in the late 18th C.

    Pretty dismal think to imagine....

    The Reason Dems Lose Is... (3.00 / 0) (#145)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:24:26 PM EST
    Members of the GOP have come home to stand by their nominee when the primaries are over in recent elections (maybe not this time)

    By comparison, the Dems are the Big Tent Party, and under the big tent are lots of people with lots of different priorities. When things don't go their way perfectly, many run looking for a third party candidate or sit out or switch sides. That leads to a trickle out of the big tent effect and Republican victories.

    And that's why Dems lose...because they don't come home to their candidate the way Republicans generally do.

    This year though it won't matter because there are so many under the big tent in an attempt to repudiate all things Bush, that the trickle out effect is likely to have no effect.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:44:57 PM EST
    If you look at the way McCain is working hard to please his base with all sorts of wingnuttery, at the same time Obama is running to the center as hard as he can and taking the base for granted, it's real, real easy to see why the GOP does a better job at holding their base together.

    But... (3.00 / 0) (#149)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:06:14 PM EST
    But it doesn't take much to appeal to the GOP base...God, Guns, and Gays.

    The Dems on the other hand get caught up in FISA, which it's safe to say 95% of the population has no idea what it is.

    On a positive note, in Florida which is supposed to be solid McCain, you can't find an office for McCain in Miami in the state's largest county. Obama has two offices open in Miami and two more set to open soon. The Dems groundwork this year in Florida is taking shape much faster than I would have expected when there was no campaigning here to lay any groundwork.


    If the bid to remove retroactive immunity (2.00 / 0) (#28)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    works, Bush will have to play his hand and deal out some pardons before he's fired.  Then we'll know exactly who did what.  

    That is where we need to focus right now, not on Obama's decision to vote for FISA.  He has to support it or he's easily painted as weak and enabling the terrorists.  Period.

    But a filibuster on retroactive immunity resulting in removal of telecom immunity is how progressives get what we need out of this.  We're one step closer to winning the presidency, and we get the information that discover would lead to.

    He'd only seem weak on terrorists (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sassysenora on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:32:17 PM EST
    if he didn't fight back against the lie that Congress needs to pass FISA so the government can "collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people." The government already has that power and the Dems should be saying so. Instead of repudiating that lie, Obama is propagating it himself.

    (Obama's statement on FISA)


    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    A pardon hardly tells us "exactly who did what."  Are you under the impression it comes with a bill of particulars?

    If Bush is forced to pardon (none / 0) (#80)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:46:22 PM EST
    He'll at least be admitting the spying was illegal.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:00:01 PM EST
    He will be "sparing the country the expense of a baseless prosecution," or "protecting the classified information that might be exposed during a frivolous lawsuit."

    everyone and his brother (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by tree on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:01:39 AM EST
    ALREADY KNOWS it was illegal. That's why there's telecom immunity in the current bill. They wouldn't be bothering if the damn wiretapping had been legal.

     And Steve M is right. Bush wouldn't admit a thing, anymore than his father admitted wrongdoing when he pardoned all the Iran Contra people, or when he himself commuted Libby's sentence.  


    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by otherlisa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:36:50 PM EST
    That is where we need to focus right now, not on Obama's decision to vote for FISA.  He has to support it or he's easily painted as weak and enabling the terrorists.  Period.

    Are you kidding? You can't mean this.


    Even with this very educated group at TL, (none / 0) (#104)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST
    we're calling the Senate bill FISA instead of the more specific name.  

    Imagine how easy it is to trick people who aren't paying attention to the complexities into thinking our candidate will protect them if he votes against FISA and our homeland is hit with another terrorist attack


    We know that visceral impressions (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    and the amygdala are key to how people vote.  If  Obama had announced that he'll fight this even though the "protections" (their word, not mine) will expire in August, he's done for.  The electorate still doesn't have a good sense of who he is.  The ads would roll, and he'd be painted as liberal and weak on terrorism.  They're trying to do that already, of course, but it would be much more effective if he "blocked the government from protecting us."  If he made a stand against FISA, we'd feel great, liberals would have delayed the 4th amendment attack for another day, and McCain would win the election.

    The intricacies of this bill are not followed by most Americans.  They hear that it allows the government to protect us, and many will think it sucks that the government will be able to spy on us.  They'll expect cheating from the government, including getting dirt on the  other party, making money of information gleaned via spying, etc, and they'll expect others in the government to solve the problem of cheating, not spying.


    Amazingly (5.00 / 8) (#124)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    the Republicans ran ads all over the country in 2006 screaming about how the Democratic opposition to warrantless wiretapping had put the country at risk to terrorist attack.  "Why do Democrats value the rights of terrorists more than your safety?" they asked.

    Did you notice how that election turned out?  It was a Democratic sweep at all levels.  The Republican fearmongering did not unseat one single Democratic incumbent, anywhere, even in the reddest districts.

    I don't know whether you're the kind of person who wets the bed at the thought of negative Republican advertising, or if you're just trying to rationalize Obama's moves to the right, but whatever the case may be, you need to stop pushing theories that are contradicted by the empirical evidence.  In your world, Obama is such a vulnerable candidate that even one nasty ad from the Republicans can bring him down, but somehow, if he lies and lies and lies from now through the election, they'll never be able to run that ad!  Come on.


    For Citing the Amygdala in A Political Context (none / 0) (#127)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:47:34 PM EST
    I had to give you a "5".

    Must be a first.


    alas, s/he does... (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:32:35 PM EST