home

Obama's Statement on Disagreement With His FISA Position

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:17:42 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sen. Barack Obama released a statement yesterday explaining why he's going to vote for the FISA bill. I'm sure Big Tent Democrat has previously addressed the substance of it.

Since I oppose all the FISA bills believing that FISA isn't broken and therefore needs no fixing, I've pretty much stayed out of it. What I find interesting about Obama's statement is this:

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

I'm still not convinced he will chart a new course, but I am convinced he will chart a better course than McCain. FISA is not a deal-breaker for me. [More...]

Obama's FISA stance was predictable months ago. He has always been a compromiser. It's why he wasn't my first or second choice for the the Democratic nomination. I don't want a President who reaches out to Republicans when he should be fighting them.

Nonetheless, as between a President who reaches out to Republicans and one who is a Republican, the one who merely reaches out is preferable.

We get the Government we elect. Maybe next time around, when a candidate runs on a platform of change and progress, people will examine his or her record for substance more closely before joining the bandwagon.

< Obama Denies He's Moving to the Middle | Tuesday Night Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Statement on Disagreement With His FISA Position | 214 comments (214 topical)
    You misss the problem Jeralyn (5.00 / 18) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:26:41 PM EST

    Here's the problem. In October 2007, the Obama campaign said:

    To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

    Now he is VOTING FOR such a bill.

    The got you by the tail (5.00 / 20) (#64)
    by makana44 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:03:19 PM EST
    By voting Obama into office you will create a situation in which the center right will become the new left, and today's left will become the far left, and today's progressive agenda will be permanently moved off the table. He may be better than McCain, but voting McCain into office will not permanently eliminate progressivism from the political spectrum. On the contrary, it will re-invigorate it. Long term view or short term view? The short term view is myopic indeed. And it is exactly what they want to see happen. You will reward blatant lying on the part of your leader with undying loyalty. You want to reward blatant manipulation on the part of your leader with blind following. You want to prove them right - in more ways than one. They know you. They know how to manipulate you and make you grateful for the pitiful crumbs they leave for you. This year the only way for progressives to win - is to lose.

    [ Parent ]
    If I were Obama and the Dem leadership, (5.00 / 8) (#223)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:19:22 PM EST
    I would be dancing around in glee and doing fist bumps all over the place. This week has proven IMO the the sky's the limit and there is no deal breaker for the  majority of Democratic voters. Obama and the new Democratic Party can pursue any agenda and no matter how much it goes against the values of the Democratic voters, the majority will still vote the "D" rationalizing their decision as the lesser of two evils. I expect bolder moves away from a Democratic agenda as a result.

     

    [ Parent ]

    That was the argument for Nader (2.50 / 4) (#91)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:29:46 PM EST
    Look how well that worked out.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, that's true but (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:53:58 PM EST
    the country was in a totally different place politically.  Republicans were on the resurgence, not democrats.  The bipartisan, let's work together argument was necessary to maintain a voice in US politics.  2008 is different.  The democrats are in control and should be defining the center (with supporting polling) and rallying behind leaders willing to take a stand on something.  At the very least to demonstrate yes, we too can have backbone.  This is not the year that we should have had to continue the politics as usual stuff  - hence the reason, I believe, a lot of democrats were suckered into voting for the candidate who claimed to be different.  I voted dem my entire voting life and am really beginning to believe we should no longer reward cowardice.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, that's true but (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:54:42 PM EST
    the country was in a totally different place politically.  Republicans were on the resurgence, not democrats.  The bipartisan, let's work together argument was necessary to maintain a voice in US politics.  2008 is different.  The democrats are in control and should be defining the center (with supporting polling) and rallying behind leaders willing to take a stand on something.  At the very least to demonstrate yes, we too can have backbone.  This is not the year that we should have had to continue the politics as usual stuff  - hence the reason, I believe, a lot of democrats were suckered into voting for the candidate who claimed to be different.  I voted dem my entire voting life and am really beginning to believe we should no longer reward cowardice.

    [ Parent ]
    This is false... (5.00 / 10) (#139)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    Nader's argument was that there was no difference between the Democrats and the GOP - that it didn't matter whether you voted Gore or Bush, the outcome would be the same.

    The current argument is completely different -- Obama will be slightly different from McCain, but the long term impact of an Obama presidency will be the end of "progressive" politics as we know it for the forseeable future -- Obama presents himself as a "progressive", when in fact he has no ideological foundation whatsoever -- and is likely to "govern" from the center (and define the 'center' as progressive).   Real progressive politics will be relegated to the 'fringe', because Obama will be presented/perceived as being as far 'left' as 'reasonable' people can be.

    IMHO, Obama lacks the basic competence to govern effectively -- and the character to govern appropriately.  I think Obama represents a far more 'dangerous' president than McCain, because Obama (like Bush) is all about his own ego -- and this is especially dangerous in terms of foreign policy.  Obama's willingness to 'throw people under the bus' who don't worship suggests that he will engender just as much hostility toward the US as Bush does.... and Obama is even more likely than McCain to start a war with Iran if Iran acts "unreasonably" -- ie, doesn't act like Obama thinks it should act.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is not Gore (4.63 / 11) (#124)
    by dianem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:07:29 PM EST
    Nader was running on a lie - that the Democrats were the same as the Republicans, that Gore was just as bad as Bush. But Gore was not what they said he was - he was a boy scout with a proven history of standing up for what he believed in and a lifetime of political experience to draw upon. And, in spite of his current stances, McCain is not Bush. Even the right wingers he is trying to convince don't believe that he is.

    Nobody is pretending that Democrats aren't better than Republicans. The only movement I've seen to defeat Dems in primaries comes from the left wing - the same people who say that I have to vote for Obama no matter what he says or does. Nobody is saying that the parties are the same. What we are saying is that Democrats have let us down repeatedly, and that it's time to hold them accountable. Obama is a candidate who has been hand-picked by the establishment and the media. He is not qualified to be President. He ran a dishonest and disgraceful primary, and he has shown himself to be a triangultor at best, a liar at worst.

    I don't know if not voting for Obama will change anything. I do know that voting for him will NOT change anything. All I'll get is Rove lite, a candidate who is willing to say and do anything to get elected. I won't vote for that.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't romanticize (none / 0) (#179)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    Albert Gore is a politician.  He would have broken your heart too, on at least one issue.  "Boy scout" indeed.

    I remain consistently amazed at the capacity for posters here to flip instantly from extreme cynicism ("I don't believe a think Obama says") to blind romantic idealism ("Al Gore was a boy scout") within the same sentence.


    [ Parent ]

    My heart is not that easy to break (5.00 / 6) (#187)
    by dianem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:15:47 PM EST
    No romantic idealism involved. Al Gore was legendary for being honest to a fault. Would he have triangulated? Of course. Would he have taken positions I would have disagreed with? Of course. Big deal. So does my husband, but I don't expect any politician to be perfect. What I do expect are minimal standards of trustworthiness. Kerry met those standards. Even Clinton met those standards (I couldn't care less about lying about private affairs). Gore certainly met them.

    Obama has shown me that he is willing to do or say anything to get elected.  Lying about FISA is a trivial matter compared to what he tolerated during the primary. Obama told me that he was running an honest campaign, then tolerated the most Rovian campaign in recent Democratic history to be run in his name. He told me that he stood for change, then ran on a standard centrist Democratic Platform. He told me that he stood for unity, then proceeded to allow the Democratic Party to be divided. He told me that he wanted to reach out to all voters, then proceeded to dismiss entire segments who seemed disinclined to vote for him. Bill Clinton's ran on improving the economy. Gore ran on his environmental record. Kerry ran on ... well, I'm still not sure. But none of them pretended to be something they were not. Maybe it's idealistic to prefer losing to giving up my last shred of dignity, but even cynics have moments of idealism when somebody shows them that their cynicism is not only matched, but surpassed, by the current crop of politicians.

    [ Parent ]

    Just remembered one example (3.00 / 1) (#182)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:05:57 PM EST
    I just remembered Tipper Gore, in my youth, railing on about the evils of D&D (!) and the need to ban these books before they turned our children into satanic demon worshipers.

    This was a sideshow issue, obviously, but clearly intended to ingratiate Al with the christian right by violating the first amendment rights of a bunch of harmless pimple-faced geeks.  Yeah, that's a career of standing up for "what's right", it is. :)

    [ Parent ]

    I forgot that she ran for President (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by dianem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:55:05 PM EST
    Oh, wait... she didn't. Her husband did. I don't specifically recall what his position was on banning books. I'm guessing he was against it. Actually, if I remember correctly, Tipper wasn't promoting banning books, either, she was fighting to get ratings labels for music. Some people felt that ratings on music would amount to censorship because stores wouldn't carry music that was rated the equivalent of "X", so artists would have to self-censor themselves in order to gain wide distribution. Personally, I thought that argument was nonsense and that it's a pretty good idea to give parents tools to control what their children are hearing. If artists want to cut out dirty words in order to get wider distribution then that's their own business. They can always sell uncensored versions at other venues. They already make edited versions of many songs for the radio. Nobody forces them to do it.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah. (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by pie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:56:17 PM EST
    This was a sideshow issue, obviously, but clearly intended to ingratiate Al with the christian right by violating the first amendment rights of a bunch of harmless pimple-faced geeks.

    Geeks who voted for Nader or didn't vote.

    And these morons have been complaining for eight years about Tipper.  

    Now Obama is doing his faith-based initiative crap, but it doesn't hurt their music choices.

    As if it ever did.

    Morons.

    [ Parent ]

    Books? A link for that? (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:31:51 PM EST
    I don't recall that at all, and I was paying attention to it at the time.  Nor do I recall a ban of other materials; as I recall, she worked for a rating system to help parents figure out just what our darlings wanted us to bring home.

    I paid attention to it at the time because I had a son on the cutting edge of that generation and made a lot of trips to Blockbuster -- and a few of those rentals really appalled me.  And I'm not a prude.  But the kid did seem encouraged to act out some of the violence on his baby sister, the cat, and more.  I spent a lot of time then -- time I did not have in hectic years as a single mom in school and with several jobs -- trying to monitor the insanity on the screen, whether shows or games.

    I did not like the way that she waged some of the battle, agreed.  But the concept had its worth.  And it led to self-regulation in the industry to some extent, didn't it?  I hope so, for the sake of my unborn grandchildren.  That is so often the far better result of such movements that finally force businesses, professions, etc., to do what they ought to have done.

    If she did work to ban books, though, I want to know.  That's an issue for me -- and we don't see the same impact of the printed word on impressionable minds.  Much as we wish they would put down the darn remote or jumpstick (I bet I date myself with that:-) and read more.

    [ Parent ]

    Then he was a senator (4.54 / 11) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    now he's a senator and a presumptive nominee. Then he needed leftist support. Now he needs centrist support.

    That's his politics. My point is that's it's not surprising. Next time people should examine a candidate's past record more closely, not just promises. And if he doesn't have enough of a track record, they should suggest he run for office when he gets one.

    We are where we are today because people were naive in thinking he's about change. He's not. I blame his followers more than him. But he is a Democrat and preferable to McCain so I don't see the point of beating him up over FISA. The prospect of a faith-based presidency is  more frightening to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Then you should be more afraid (5.00 / 12) (#16)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    of Obama than McCain.

    I'm afraid of both of them equally, personally.

    [ Parent ]

    Sad but (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    true. Obama's religious background is kind of strange. The theology at TUCC is very much out of the mainstream. McCain is an Episcopalian. Frankly, I think that not only would McCain not increase faith based initiatives, he probably would decrease them under the guise of cutting government spending or some such. The one area where I think Obama actually has a strong stance on IS increasing faith based funding. He supported it in the IL senate. This is one area where both candidates have a record to look at.

    [ Parent ]
    The theology of the United (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    Church of Christ as a denomination is very progressive...They really believe in helping to alleviate poverty.....

    [ Parent ]
    TUCC (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:36:54 PM EST
    is NOT a typical UCC church. It adheres to BLT. The UCC is a bottom up organization where each church is free to run the church as the minister sees fit. Wright was a proponent of BLT therefore that's the theology of that Church.

    [ Parent ]
    That is correct, (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:04:05 PM EST
    and the TUCC church states it quite plainly on their website.

    [ Parent ]
    Episcopalians have a theology? (none / 0) (#151)
    by lambertstrether on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    [rimshot. laughter]

    Actually, the sane Episcopalians have been in the forefront of ordaining women and gays, and even if you do believe in God, I think that's probably a good thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:39:02 PM EST
    we actually do have a theology but, hey, we're big into freedom so there's lots of disagreements on theology. Hey, you know the joke: If you ask two different episcopalians a theological question you'll get three different answers!

    [ Parent ]
    You will never hear me (none / 0) (#178)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:02:22 PM EST
    bashing Episcopalians.

    I was a soloist in an Episcopalian church for many years. There were three ministers: all three married, one a British man with a lovely plummy accent, and two women with different, but interesting preaching styles.

    Although I am not religious, I got something out of the sermons every week. They were thoughtful and inclusive.

    They are all right with me - as long as they don't start berating me about my utereal choices. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    According to Detroit Free Press, (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:03:58 PM EST
    Sen. McCain was raised Episcopalian but now attends a Baptist church.

    Free Press

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:19:10 PM EST
    but he's failed to become a baptist. Kind of interesting isn't it? I read an article where the Baptist minister had been trying to "convert" him but McCain has continually refused.

    [ Parent ]
    I think I read Sen. McCain's wife is Baptist. (none / 0) (#195)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:29:31 PM EST
    I give him an "A" for remaining Episcopalian!

    [ Parent ]
    Strong disagreement on this (5.00 / 20) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    When did protecting the Constitution and the rights it grants the citizens of the U.S. become a leftist position?  That responsibility is the only one deemed important enough to be included in the Congressional Oath of Office. It is an American position.

    Also, I strongly believe that voting in favor of this bill is going against the wishes of the majority of the citizens of the U.S. and is not a centrist position at all. That term is being used IMO to absolve those who are voting against the will of the majority by making it look like it is the mainstream opinion when it is not.

    [ Parent ]

    Expansion of faith-based programs under (5.00 / 12) (#22)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    Obama is the only issue on which he has not flipped, watered down or 'refined'.

    Every thing he says about bringing faith into the WH as a core of his presidency makes me wish to unsupport him more.  When he combines it with his quiveringly unstrong support for abortion -- women needing to consult their 'pastors' -- my head nearly explodes.

    The demogogue you agree with is always more dangerous than the one you don't.  This is the one issue Obama has a plan for and truly believes in.  It may be the only one he's successful at achieving.  And while he claims he'll hold to the separation of church and state, I see nothing to make me think that's anything more than 'just words.'

    [ Parent ]

    It's Related, I Think (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    The faith-based and the FISA.  I've always thought authoritarianism - the desire to control people whether we're talking their political lives or their sex lives - underlies both.  

    [ Parent ]
    Which is exactly why (5.00 / 12) (#38)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:52:50 PM EST
    people should fight not just for single issues, but for the underlyling philosophy that best accords with their views.

    And is why the Obama's campaign's response to Clinton supporters has largely been to be affronted by the dissent and tell them to 'get over it' and that 'they'll come around eventually.'  Disagreement, esp. from the womenfolk, is disloyalty and punishable misbehavior, period.  You don't question Big Daddy.  Same with the debates -- to engage is an outrageous proposition for authoritarians.  Only agreement is allowed.

    The first time I read the section of Obama's statement on FISA regarding 'dissent' I literally laughed out loud.  Seriously?

    [ Parent ]

    No it's not surprising for those that (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by my opinion on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    researched him. Many saw this coming and voted against him in the primary. And his shifting to the right and his failure to protect constitutional rights is deal breaker for many.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think that this is (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by eric on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    about getting "centrist support".  For one thing, it isn't likely to get him any more support because his other "moves to the center" have netted him no more votes thus far.  And compromising on this issue isn't really a centrist act.

    I think it is about money and power.  He knows that he, and Democrats generally, need the telecommunications money.  Further, he doesn't want to alienate those in Congress that stand to gain by this bill.

    I do agree that his statements before were about getting support from the left.  Now that he is the nominee, though, what are we going to do?  You are right - he's a compromiser.  But he's not compromising for the center, he's compromising for money and for his friends in Congress.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Forget Cover Up (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:53:36 PM EST
    Pelosi, Daschle, et al, were all part of the Gang of Eight.  People who just helped Obama secure the democratic nomination.  It would be ungrateful if Obama embarrassed them by insisting everything they did be made public wouldn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I guess that is (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by eric on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    what I was thinking when I suggested that he was doing it to help "his friends in Congress".  I just didn't make it very clear.  I agree with you completely.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, Gotcha (none / 0) (#72)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:08:07 PM EST
    I've become so used to the focus on Obama's fundraising I thought that's what you meant.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought the Superdelegates (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:34:11 PM EST
    were free to vote for whomever they wanted, for whatever reason they wanted.  They didn't have to rubber-stamp the pledged delegate leader.

    That was what we heard in the Primary at least....

    [ Parent ]

    What you write (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by talex26 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:54:42 PM EST
    sounds like the same old DC politics he says he is against. What a surprise!!!

    Given that he pulled the same old crap in the Illinois Senate...

    Fool me once...

    [ Parent ]

    jeralyn, you hit a home run with (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    that comment.

    [ Parent ]
    did this! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sleepingdogs on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:04:14 PM EST
    if he doesn't have enough of a track record, they should suggest he run for office when he gets one.

    My vote was never going to him.  He is not qualified.  My objections started l-o-n-g time before any primary votes were cast. He will not get my vote because of lack of past record, now compounded by inconsistency.  

    [ Parent ]

    so when was he telling the people (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    what he truely believes?  THEN or NOW?

    [ Parent ]
    Next time we won't examine a candidate (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:14:59 PM EST
    any more thoughtfully because we will still have tons of young naive rock enthusiasts and an intelligensia that thinks like them.

    [ Parent ]
    If the prospect of (4.75 / 4) (#30)
    by MsExPat on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:47:58 PM EST
    "a faith-based presidency is  more frightening" to you, then your candidate of choice would have to be McCain.

    McCain may pander to the religious right, but he's 100% secular--no biographical conversion experiences, rarely photographed around a church, no coded Bible talk in his speeches . In that respect, he's an old-school, pre-religious Republican conservative in the Goldwater mold.

    [ Parent ]

    faith isn't the defining issue to me (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    I'm fearful of it it but I care more about our Supreme Court and crime and civil liberty issues and health care and social security.  While I wince every time I hear him talk about bringing faith into government, it's not a reason to vote for McCain.

    They will both vote for FISA. But they won't be the same on the other issues. I'm trying to look at the big picture.

    [ Parent ]

    Why Do You Think (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    his positions on faith, not to mention his tendency to compromise, won't play a role in his selections for the Supreme Court and civil liberty issues?

    One of the things that scares me is that Obama will appoint someone who is as wishy-washy on reproductive rights and civil liberties as he is.  I have no doubt Obama's appointment would sail through the Dem-controlled Senate.  Now, the Senate might also cave to McCain, but they will definitely not stop Obama's appointments. Which is not to say I'm voting for McCain, I'm not.  But I'm not sure I'm voting for Obama either.  Both of them scare me, albeit in different ways.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:31:26 PM EST
    voted for Roberts and Alito--Obama did not--and McCain has said he would appoint more like Roberts and Alito....

    McCain's voting record is very, very anti reproductive rights....

    On the Supreme Court, the differences are stark.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama Was Going to Vote for Roberts (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:40:17 PM EST
    until someone pointed out it would hurt him in any quest for the Democratic nomination.  

    Which is not to say that I doubt Obama's nominees won't be more to my liking than McCain's.  However, that doesn't mean I'm going to like Obama's nominees.  

    [ Parent ]

    the supreme court is why (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    i fear Obama MORE than McCain.  The dems will be amajority in the senate and can stop McCain's supreme court picks in committee.  But, I fear Obama would nominate "centrist" judges and being a dem, the dem senate would be hard prssed to not confirm their own party's pick.

    I'd rather hold out for the health of the justices for 4 more years than have Obama put o bunch of centrists on the court to replace liberals.

    [ Parent ]

    Health Care (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by talex26 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:51:06 PM EST
    The ultimate goal is Single Payer. The step needed to get there some day is Universal Coverage under the current system.

    It is extremely important that when congress passes any kind of health care reform, which is what is being talked about this election cycle, that a 'marker' is laid that all people in our country will be covered, i.e. Universal Coverage.

    Any reform short of that will lay the wrong marker and then in all likelihood Single Payer would be DOA during our lifetimes.

    Obama starts off without Universal Coverage. So he is killing Single Payer and is not smart enough to know it. That alone, if one really cares about establishing Single Payer Universal coverage some day, is reason enough to not vote for him. Because a vote for him is a vote against Single Payer.

    As many have said above, we would rather fight McCain for four years instead of killing health care and a whole slate of other Progressive causes.

    Like stated upthread by a few, and expressed by me many times here, we must choose between short term and long term. And when short term will kill the long term and kill our movement in the process then there is not even a question on what the right thing to do is.

    If I must lose a finger to save a hand, If I must lose a hand to save an arm, if I must lose an arm to save my life...

    Then cut it off so I may fight another day!

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree with one point ... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Inky on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    Obama starts off without Universal Coverage. So he is killing Single Payer and is not smart enough to know it.

    Obama is smart enough to know it, all right. He wouldn't be the darling of Wall Street with the seemingly endless access to campaign dollars if he didn't know it.

    [ Parent ]

    Good Point (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by talex26 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:51:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not a good enough excuse to people's rights (4.55 / 9) (#28)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:47:12 PM EST
    He's still a Senator vowed to uphold the Constitution. That's his ONLY duty to uphold while holding the office he directly promised to acquit for at least a term and NOT run for Pres.

    It's simply unacceptable that he has to (a) discard his senatorial obligations because he lied about running for the presidency and

    (b) has to lie about FISA because he needs votes from a group he didn't honor before and has no intention of honoring later but needs their support.

    This bending over backwards to allow Obama this weaseling won't get a Dem into the White House -- not this one, anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    "He's still a Senator" (4.25 / 4) (#49)
    by owenaprhys on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:58:00 PM EST
    not based on his statememts

    "When I was a US Senator..."

    [ Parent ]

    I wish i could have rated this (3.50 / 2) (#44)
    by owenaprhys on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:55:15 PM EST
    a 10!!

    [ Parent ]
    I am with you on this.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    in this country, we are not at the point where we can elect anyone but a centrist.  Hillary knew it....learned it in Bill's first term.  Her idealism  was tramped on and instead of blaming the corporatists, the Obama left blamed Hillary.  Now their candidate is doing what we all knew he would do and either they are spinning like mad, trying to convince everyone that they always knew he was a centrist, and denying they trashed Senator Clinton for everything they are now spinning as positive for Senator Obama.

    Like you I am more frightened of his faith base beliefs and his willingness to embrace the religious right...

    [ Parent ]

    At The Cost (none / 0) (#128)
    by talex26 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    of Leftist support? Seems like a high price to pay.

    And are centrist voters really that more valuable to Obama than Lefty supporters? Apparently so.

    [ Parent ]

    He does not think there will be a cost (none / 0) (#204)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:47:26 PM EST
    in terms of losing lefty voters.  

    [ Parent ]
    So far, I think he is right that there will (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:22:04 PM EST
    be no cost.

    [ Parent ]
    on shiny new objects (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    Maybe next time around, when a candidate runs on a platform of change and progress, people will examine his or her record for substance more closely before joining the bandwagon

    The problem here is that every time around, the young crowd and new people pulled into the party will always be attracted to the "change" "hope" type stuff, or the shiny new object. So there will never be such an examination in my opinion from the voters. That examination instead is supposed to come from elder party members (that is, SD's). Sadly they don't tend to be very wise. See for example, Obama, Kerry, etc. And of course it would be nice if it came from the press, but of course we don't have one anymore.

    I think the republican light party will continue to chase the real republican party for approval. And this year of all years is the saddest seeing that same behavior.

    I'm continually told ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:38:04 PM EST
    how media savvy young people are.

    But they fell for one of the oldest advertising tricks in the book:  "New and improved."

    Why should I be surprised?  This is the same generation which will pay $4 for a cup of coffee.  And $1 for a small plastic bottle of Detroit tap water.

    [ Parent ]

    They are media savvy only in the sense (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:52:14 PM EST
    of how to use it, not how to process or analyze or think critically about it's contents.

    In fact the constant usage of this fast-paced, newest newest newest media is reducing the ability to think critically, not to mention increase their inabilty to learn and retain information (eg, history).  

    I will badly paraphrase The Dumbest Generation and say that their 'media savvy' has turned national politics into one big high school contest for class president.  No surprise Obama's 'you are the bestest and specialist and smartest in the world ever!' message took hold so quickly and unshakeably.

    There's a reason why advertisers endlessly chase the key 'demo' of 18-35 year olds; they are the easiest to manipulate into spending money on the next new thing, and the next and the next.  Older people are a much tougher sell; not only are they more fad-resistant (ok, generally, not on MSNBC obviously) but they have different concerns and responsibilities.  They are much more worried about whether their paychecks will be going away than when the next version of Grand Theft Auto is coming out.

    [ Parent ]

    We need to teach media studies (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    in this country, as is taught in many European countries even at the high school level.  Technologically savvy to the media, as are Americans, is not the same.  They have not, en masse, been taught the core of media studies: media critiques.  It is at the college level here at some campuses but still reaching relatively few students.

    That is, unless they're American students in women's studies, as critiques of the portrayal of women in advertising and other media is at the core of many courses.

    [ Parent ]

    They? (none / 0) (#206)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:48:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 22) (#6)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:30:01 PM EST
    I don't see how we're going to learn anything if we all just pretend nothing is wrong with Obama, or the way he has campaigned, or the way he "won" the nomination. There is not going to be a "next time" because there will be no consequences for "this time." Even if Obama loses, the Party leaders won't care - they'll just blame the voters and be happy in their new, large Congressional majority and their DNC, awash in Obama's cash.

    As Democratic voters, it is OUR JOB to fix the Party when it's broken. Saying "Oh well, what choice do we have?" is exactly what the DNC and Pelosi and Reid want us to do.

    If we want a better Democratic Party, we must force our leaders to give it to us. Sometimes this means going against the party line. But if we don't show some spine, our leaders never will.

    Delete me if you must.

    Excellent post madamab (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by talex26 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    As you mentioned there are many reasons to not like Obama. There are some reasons to make one not want to vote for him which you expressed very well. Allow me to add the following:

    If stomping on the Fourth Amendment when you promised in many ways to uphold it, one being an oath taken; if breaking ones promise; if letting off the hook the very companies who are the only vehicle to uncovering Bush's illegal spying; if lying about what is in the bill when no such things are in it (hat tip - Glenn Greenwald)...

    If all of those things are not a deal breaker when even Obama realizes and says they may be a deal breaker...

    Then what is a deal breaker?

    What would Obama possible have to do to make it a deal breaker if all of the above, which includes not honoring the Constitution and not living up to ones oath of office, is not a deal breaker.

    I find it hard to imagine anything else would be a deal breaker.

    [ Parent ]

    This is just so blatant and so wrong (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:08:11 PM EST
    it's perilously close to the old getting caught with a live boy or a dead girl standard.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is saying the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by abfabdem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:23:35 PM EST
    in essence - "no matter what I do or say that you don't agree with, what other choice do you have?" The sense of dread about his candidacy that I've had for months just keeps growing.  

    [ Parent ]
    your comment is fine (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:35:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Similar goal, different calculation (5.00 / 13) (#7)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    I'm beginning to be persuaded by the folks who argue the best remaining choice is divided government.

    Which is likely to cause the worst long term damage, a Congress who will roll over for every damaging policy put forth by Obama, even if his policies are slightly less damaging than McCain's, or a Congress who will be slightly less capitulating for more damaging policies?  

    Then throw in time -- I doubt McCain will make 2 terms, but if Obama wins there's a better chance for 2.  So twice as long to implement a series of individually less damaging policies, but which still may add up to more damage overall?

    For instance, I seriously doubt McCain would have any success at privatizing Social Security, yes, even with our current crop of weak 9%-ers.  Obama, on the other hand, is much, much more likely to succeed.  How long and how hard will it be to undo that damage?

    Disclaimer:  I reached my dealbreaker issues with Obama more than I month ago, won't vote for him.  Won't vote for McCain either.

    Dont' forget the importance of (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    McCain's VP candidate in the equation. Given McCain's age, he could end up as our president for a portion of McCain's term and then run again as the incumbent. I doubt it will be someone who is preferable to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm watching it very carefully (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:55:46 PM EST
    as I find it difficult to impossible to vote for either of the nominees.  So their picks for VP could get me to mark my ballot at the top, after all.

    Or not.

    [ Parent ]

    If McCain were a savvy politician (none / 0) (#42)
    by MsExPat on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:53:43 PM EST
    he'd go out and find just that sort of running mate: a secular, vaguely liberal Republican of the Michael Bloomberg stripe. If he did that, this whole horserace could turn around on a dime.

    But McCain is not that kind of creative, savvy politician.

    [ Parent ]

    He is not (none / 0) (#62)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:02:55 PM EST
    but his handlers are.

    Have you seen this ad?

    Purpose

    IMHO, he will do exactly what you say, and nominate someone like Sarah Palin.

    Meanwhile, Obama will pick a Republican.

    [ Parent ]

    I've got (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    to say that when Andgarden reported that McCain has a supeior media shop, he was right on. Almost every ad he has put out is excellent.

    [ Parent ]
    and for many (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:54:09 PM EST
    who still have no clue who Obama really is, it may not take more than some excellent commercials to put them in the McCain column rather than struggle to understand who this other guy who keeps "refining" his message is.

    [ Parent ]
    romney? but that is a (none / 0) (#56)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:00:46 PM EST
    low possibility though i read he is being vetted. there is a certain former gov from arkansas with conservative, religeous views and a folky manner that would please the base.

    [ Parent ]
    That goes both ways, though (none / 0) (#60)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    I don't generally believe the rumors about Nunn or Hagel for Obama, but with such pols, the evil eminence grise factor a la Cheney is a significant risk.

    McCain dying in office could very well end with the new president in a Gerald Ford situation.  Someone left with a big pile of steaming economic mess, no time to turn it around even if competent to do so, and tainted by the failures of McCain's presidency.

    I don't think the VP picks should come into until they actually are picked and both candidates stop playing pander-tag by hinting at VPs from all over the spectrum.

    [ Parent ]

    Valhalla, didn't see your comment until (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:06:34 PM EST
    after I posted mine, but we are having a mind-meld on this issue.

    A Rubber-stamp Congress scares me, and I think we are more likely to have one if Obama is president.  Sure, there will be bipartisanship in a McCain presidency, but there will be less pressure to go along with him, while I think a Democratic Congress is more likely to feel pressure not to get in Obama's way.

    It's all giving me a giant headache.

    [ Parent ]

    Dem Congress and Obama will be partners. (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:14:03 PM EST
    The more I read, the more I think that Pelosi, Hoyer and the other Dem Congressional leaders supported Obama because he is a money machine and because he is both malleable.  He will not be independent of the leadership.  I'm not suggesting that he will be a puppet but he will go along to get along.  I think Pelosi, Hoyer etc supported Obama (overtly or covertly) instead of Hillary because they knew that Hillary would be independent of them whereas Obama , given his inexperience, would be a great team player.  

    [ Parent ]
    You give up at least two (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:43:35 PM EST
    Supreme Court nominees that way.  

    McCain would be able to appoint successors to Stevens (88) and most likely Ginsburg (75).  In that event, there would only be one Justice left who was appointed by a Democrat: Breyer (69).

    There would be no more 5-4 decisions; you are looking at a 7-2 very, very conservative Court.

    [ Parent ]

    I've yet to see anything (none / 0) (#173)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:53:14 PM EST
    from Obama to suggest his judgment would be any better.  Having a (D) behind one's name doesn't guarantee one will choose wisely and Obama seems to be bending this way and that so much that it's hard to tell WHERE he stands or WHO he is.

    A strong Dem Majority in the House and Senate CAN stop President McCain from railroading Conservative Judges onto the bench, though.

    [ Parent ]

    You mean they will prevent a Clarence (none / 0) (#177)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:59:56 PM EST
    Thomas or an Antonin Scalia from being confirmed?

    [ Parent ]
    well, if Obama had his way (none / 0) (#208)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:51:30 PM EST
    he would have voted for Roberts, so ...

    [ Parent ]
    Voting for and nominating (none / 0) (#213)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    are two different things....I seriously doubt that Feingold would nominate a Roberts--but he did vote for him.  (He got schmoozed by his former classmate.)

    So, Obama is condemned for his supposed bad thoughts, and gets no credit for his good deeds?

    [ Parent ]

    ques to valhalla (none / 0) (#100)
    by noholib on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    perhaps you posted this already, but do you mind stating what the dealbreaker issues were for you?


    [ Parent ]
    "Take This Country In a New Direction" (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    One that includes expanded surveillance on the American people and further legitimizing the illegal activity of the current administration.  Wow, that is completely different than what McCain wants to do.  Oh, wait...

    Shorter Obama:  What're you going to do, vote for McCain?  Shut up, fall in line, and send me more money.  

    This bill IMO also solidifies the precedent that (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    The President is Above the Law.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a Bad Precedent (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    if you're about to become president.  Is it?

    I've come to believe the best chance to roll back all of these civil liberties if Obama is elected is for the GOP to take over the Senate in 2012.  I'm guessing these spy provisions will be less popular in the hands of Obama and I fully expect some "scandal" to erupt over the Obama Administration's corrupt efforts to spy on Americans.  You wait, the GOP will turn this into a Democratic scandal.  I'd feel bad for Obama and the Democrats if they hadn't basically done this to themselves.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm fairly sure that there will be a scandal (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:58:05 PM EST
    trumped up (or just revealed) on Obama on something, no matter what.  The '90s may seem like ancient history to his followers, but plenty of those folks who plagued the Clinton administration are still there in D.C., and they still have their playbooks.

    [ Parent ]
    True (none / 0) (#61)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    But the beauty of this would be they would get to pin GOP crimes on the Democrats, thus washing the GOP of its sins and enabling it to invite back into it all those Republicans driven from the fold over the last eight years.

    [ Parent ]
    my gangs better than your gang (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:38:39 PM EST
    OK, one more fun thing to poke at. But this has been a pet peeve of mine for a while. You say (and most everyone agrees I think):

    Nonetheless, as between a President who reaches out to Republicans and one who is a Republican, the one who merely reaches out is preferable.

    Why? I mean, if the blue gang is more and more like the red gang, when is it only about gang membership. Of course I know there's still a difference, but not that much. And it seems to be less every day. At what point will this be strictly gang colors and nothing else.

    I admit still agree with the sentiment somewhat, but I'm getting less and less tolerant of the blue gang every day.

    Obama could (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by pie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:38:46 PM EST
    score huge points if he showed some spine and voted against it, because it's the right thing to do.

    I know the vote is tomorrow, but if Hillary really does vote no, I will dance and sing the rest of the day.

    He will continue to plummet further in the approval category.

    No more excuses.

    vote tomorrow - Obama,, Clinton (none / 0) (#109)
    by noholib on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:52:31 PM EST
    A little fantasy...
    I have one wish for the tooth fairy tonight:
    that this FISA mess blows up in Senator Obama's face; that Senators Feingold, Dodd and Leahy get the entire FISA bill stopped dead in its tracks; that Senator Clinton rides in on a white horse, stands with them on the entire bill and shows her leadership mettle to the SuperDelegates, and becomes the nominee as 18 million hoped ! Failing that, maybe Feingold as nominee ... OK, OK ... I'll stop now.


    [ Parent ]
    Huh? Why's he 'have' to appease rad-right .. NOW? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:39:58 PM EST
    Does he think that the two sides he's trying to play against the middle don't own TVs?

    Obama should be out front leading on Obama's stated principles -- ESPECIALLY the ones he used to deprive Democrats of the better, more qualified, more winning candidate in the primaries.

    It's simply not good enough to say, "Oh well, I'm just a lying cynical pol like all the other schmucks!" just as it's not right for, say, a drug-clean athlete who got millions in endorsements based on that saying, afterwards,

    "Yup ... I'm dirty like the rest. Yeppers, growth hormone in the morning, steroids at noon and anti-histamine masking agents at night. SUCKAHHHHHS!"

    Now does this athlete get stripped of his/her gold medals and endorsements, or allowed to continue competing unquestioned and bestowed with millions more in rewards?

    According to Obama, TeamObama and hard core supporters, the public indignation is the "affront".

    It's not a deal breaker for me either (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:45:33 PM EST
    No way in hades I'm voting for him, FISA or no FISA.

    ok so I get that we have to have (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by owenaprhys on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:54:04 PM EST
    WORM, but now we have to have WORRM?

    Jeralyn, I agree with you (5.00 / 10) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:56:47 PM EST
    completely on the point that FISA was never broken and didn't need to be fixed, but I have to part company with you in settling for a Democrat who seems to be on his way to emulating that shining example of the Democratic ideal: Joe Lieberman.

    Ugh.

    I will not vote for either candidate, but I have more confidence in a Democratic Congress pushing back against McCain than against Obama - and it is what Obama will do as president that I am concerned about.  Remember how we railed against the rubber-stamp Republicans?  Well, I've come to worry about what a Democratic Congress will be rubber-stamping for President Obama.  Sure, some things will work out just swell - but is a Democratic Senate more or less likely to reject a "consensus" nominee to the Supreme Court if Obama makes the nomination - how on earth will be stop the nomination of someone like Roberts, whom Obama was poised to vote for?

    I don't know how this is all going to turn out, but I know that I cannot, in good conscience vote for either of these candidates.

    Bingo (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:07:37 PM EST
    I will not vote for either candidate, but I have more confidence in a Democratic Congress pushing back against McCain than against Obama - and it is what Obama will do as president that I am concerned about.

    I couldn't have said it better myself.  This is what I have been trying to communicate to my Obama-loving friends.

    [ Parent ]

    If McCain were to win (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:47:35 PM EST
    he would of course have made one of the greatest come-from-behind victories ever--he would have a mandate for many things including his foreign policy: he still says going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

    [ Parent ]
    While I agree wholeheartedly (none / 0) (#145)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:25:38 PM EST
    with your sentiments, I just wonder if the spineless Dems we are watching today really will push back against McCain.  They have done almost nothing against Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    We can wonder (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:41:53 PM EST
    whether they'll push back against McCain.

    But we KNOW they won't push back against Obama.

    Someone upthread made an excellent point: if Obama is elected it will set progressivism back 50 years, because he will define his right-leaning stances as centrist (or worse, progressive) and then the true moderate left will be the whackaloon fringe. The former whackaloon fringe will be in another galaxy. His positions on things like FISA, abortion, faith-based government, etc., will be accepted as centrist rather than right wing - which is what they are.

    WE are the middle. WE are the mainstream. Obama is to the right of most people in this country. And he's lurching ever farther in that direction.

    Scary.

    Yes, please show me a Democrat!

    [ Parent ]

    Theyre afraid... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:41:33 PM EST
    to push back against one of the most unpopular presidents in history.  McSame will get what he wants just like bush.

    "vote for Senator Mccain and you'll get more of the Same." - Hillary Clinton
    [ Parent ]
    with Hillary leading the charge, (none / 0) (#174)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:54:14 PM EST
    I bet some will.

    [