My View: I Do Not Believe Obama On The FISA Capitulation Bill

Yesterday, Barack Obama said:

Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

I do not believe Barack Obama. I will go further. I do not want to believe him. Because the alternative is worse. Because if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President. More . . .

If Barack Obama really believes this about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is as dangerous as George W. Bush:

[G]iven the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people."

(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me, but the Constitution does not work that way. Firm pledges from the President do not compensate for evisceration of the Constitutional right to privacy. As John Adams said:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

(Emphasis supplied.) Obama's "firm pledge," (given he pledged to filibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity, the irony of his new pledge is nauseating), IF HE WINS is worth nothing. His position here is nothing short of disgusting.

But politics is disgusting. And pols do what they do. I remind Barack Obama of the words of Louis Brandeis:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

They tell me Obama is a Constitutional scholar. I assume he is familiar with Brandeis' words. So no, I do not believe he believes this FISA Capitulation bill is good or even acceptable. I believe he is acting out of political calculation (and bad political calculation at that.) Indeed, if that is not the case, then his position is unacceptable and he is not fit to be President.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night: Jessie's Girl and Open Thread | FISA: Giving Bush What He Wants >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD, you are too funny! (5.00 / 21) (#1)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:28:19 AM EST
    I thought you wanted to hold his feet to the fire!

    Personally, I find Obama kind of scary simply because he appears to have no real "set" values.  He's always like a moving target.  Today it's this, tomorrow it's something else.  

    As of right now, I can't vote for him.  I wish I could because he is the Democratic candidate and I've voted for all of them since 1975!  But this candidate makes me really nervous...  Really nervous.  I don't want to be bamboozled or okie-dokied or tricked.  

    Please bring Hillary back!  ;-)    

    BTD...yup, we know that pols are pols... (5.00 / 19) (#59)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:39:11 AM EST
    but is it too much ask that one or two of them know how to "play that game" - but to be a leader, too?

    Unfortunately, IMHO, pols who are just pols decided the Dem nomination this time and picked one of their own kind.  And while I acknowledge that pols and pols, we - this nation and this world - need a leader not a hack.


    Oh Man!!! (5.00 / 23) (#67)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:48:50 AM EST
    Armando almost has me with this one:

    Because if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President.

    Wow! I was ready to say welcome to the real world - welcome to the club.

    But then he let the air out of the balloon:

    I believe he is acting out of political calculation (and bad political calculation at that.)

    OK, Go on.

    Indeed, if that is not the case, then his position is unacceptable and he is not fit to be President.

    So much said for nothing IMO.

    Bottomline is this is what was said:

    >>> If Obama believes what he said then he is not fit to be President


    >>> "If that is not the case" (if it is political calculation) - then it is OK to stomp all over the Constitution!!!


    Being a politician is now an excuse for doing wrong? If Obama truly believes what he says then he sucks - but if it is being done for political reasons then he get a free pass?

    What kind of logic is that? If it is wrong it is wrong.

    How about an analogy: I don't get to steal your property just because my family is hungry and needs food and get away with it. Stealing is stealing and that is what Obama is doing to all of us - Stealing our Sacred Rights!!!

    Sorry Aramndo - but ANYONE who gives a pass to the the stealing of our Rights because it is for political calculation is just as guilty as the thief themselves.

    So even though Obama HAS NOT SAID his vote is for political calculations then just thinking it is, is reason enough to give him a pass.

    Only In America!


    Excellent (5.00 / 16) (#115)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:57:22 AM EST
    talex26; well said!! The cynisim of giving someone a pass to something so wrong so dangerous just b/c it's a pol (who by the way RUN solely on the notion he
    was just "different" and NOT a usual pol) makes me sick. I am not naive about pols (at all) but there has to be a set of core positions and he doesn't have ANY. aa BO Pres. will be indeed Bush III.
    Enen on abortion his comments about mental distress and women "feeling blue" was  disgusting.

    I think we have the answer to BO's (5.00 / 12) (#180)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM EST
    "present" votes on choice...he was unwilling to take a stance and "stand for something" (anything!).  And now we're seeing it played out - again - in this campaign.

    Not a pretty sight.


    talex26 (5.00 / 10) (#126)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:07:36 AM EST
    Great post!  Are we now giving candidates a pass because "a pol is a pol?"  Too bad that wasn't the meme during the primaries, not that I think Hillary is really guilty of that but it was the only thing the opposition could come up with.



    Thanks (5.00 / 14) (#144)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:26:48 AM EST
    It is just common sense what I wrote and I knew others felt the same way so I posted that for all of us.

    The one thing I forgot to include was this:

    Where does it stop?

    You see if you give Obama a pass for stomping all over the constitution because it was for "political calculations" then by extension you have to give every Pol pass for anything they do for "political calculations".

    The next time Pelosi caves in on something for "political calculations" - she gets a pass.

    The next time Reid caves in on something for "political calculations" - he gets a pass.

    When Dems vote for a bad bill so the Repubs won't attack them then it was for "political calculations" - a pass.

    Where does it stop? Once you apply it to Obama you have to apply it to all.

    It's just a fatally flawed rationalization. It's also dangerous. When we start overlooking the damage done by Pols through flawed rationalizations then we have ceded all political power we have as citizens. That is a non-starter.

    I hope Armando rethinks his position presented in this diary regarding not only how wrong it is to apply it to Obama, but also to the ramifications it would have on politics if you naturally extend it to all Pols. It just makes no sense at all.

    The logic here is that Armando, or you , or me, could never ever again criticize a Pol for any vote or any action, or anything they said ever again as long as they did it for "political calculations".


    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 17) (#153)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:33 AM EST
    Where does it stop?

    Nowhere, unless we stop it.


    I can't believe how depressed I am (5.00 / 11) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM EST
    this a.m.  Since 2004 it has been one long unfixable nightmare that just won't go away.

    It will never stop while voters on both (5.00 / 18) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    sides of the political spectrum use the rationale of "the lesser of two evils" to justify voting for candidates who offend their core principles.



    You know what? (5.00 / 13) (#179)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:54:41 AM EST
    This is the first time I have ever been so down on a Democratic candidate for President. I didn't think Kerry was all that great, but he had a long record of standing up for Democratic principles.

    I never thought Nader was right. But this current crop of "Democrats" is making me agree with him.

    Word to Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Obama et al. - Between a real Republican and a fake one, the American people will pick a real one every time.

    Say hello to President McCain.

    [shoots self in face]


    I suppose Kerry was upholding (none / 0) (#192)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:18:28 AM EST
    "Democratic principles" with his AUMF vote if we assume he was doing it in the grand tradition of Dems lining up like sheep to vote for a dishonest president's blank check warmaking powers, like Lyndon's Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

    Before that, in the 90s iirc, there was a bill to modestly increase the minimum wage.  Kerry, a senator from a famously solidly blue and liberal state, actually thought about voting against it.  Ted Kennedy heard about it and gave him a tongue lashing for not standing up for basic liberal principles, and JK finally backed down.  A modest minimum wage increase, ferchrissakes.  

    Kerry overall was pretty good, and I voted for him in 04, but let's not overlook some of his important downside aspects.  He was a pol like all the rest, just not as smart a pol as we needed in 04.

    Reid, Pelosi and some of the others are about the same -- flawed but basically good Dems who usually do the right thing but will occasionally disappoint.  Ditto for Obama.


    Dodd last night (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    on the floor of the Senate speaking on FISA and quoting Margaret Thatcher:

    "Where law ends, tyranny begins".


    so the dems assume we should vote (5.00 / 12) (#155)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    for obama on the hope that he won't stomp on us? I DON'T THINK SO! just saying he isn't bush means less and less to me everyday that goes by.

    To be fair to BTD, (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by dk on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM EST
    my bet is that he views the "pols are pols" thing not as a justification for what Obama is doing, but rather as an explanation for it.  

    My problem with BTD's post is that I think that neither of the two explanations he offers are correct.  BTD seems to say that Obama either 1) believes what he said about FISA or 2) is lying because he believes it will further his chances to win the election.  I think there there is a third, and IMHO more likely explanation.  

    Namely, that Obama is lying, but not because he thinks he needs to for his campaign.  Rather, he is lying because he knows that the bill is an affront to the constitution but wants the bill to pass because he and/or the democratic leadership that supported him would be personally compromised if there were lawsuits allowed against the telecoms.  Essentially, it is about personal greed, and protection from criminal punishment.


    No, Sorry, it was not (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:30:48 AM EST
    an Explanation. It was an 'It's OK IF'.

    Grace (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:52:33 AM EST
    Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more.

    One other thing (5.00 / 26) (#2)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:32:39 AM EST
    If he isn't going to pay attention to you now, while he still needs your vote -- how much attention to you is he going to pay when he doesn't need anything from you?  

    None! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by kimsaw on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:08:26 AM EST
    Whatever his reasons (5.00 / 18) (#7)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:47:48 AM EST
    this is a dangerous move.  He and the Democratic Party have become a joke if the only thing they can do as the majority is to capitulate to the most unpopular President in history and his minority party on such an important matter.  What else awaits us?

    Capitulation or Complicity? (5.00 / 22) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:43:31 AM EST
    IMO this bill did not have to come to floor for a vote. Why did the Dems CHOSE to vote on this atrocity at all?  

    The protection and restoration of Constitutional rights is my number one issue. Also, it is imperative that the precedent that The President Is Above the Law or Is the Ultimate Law be completely debunked. Granting immunity to telecoms for the breaking the law because they complied with a president's request IMO strengthens the precedent that the President Is Above the Law.

    I do not think that a President Obama will roll back any of the presidential powers that Bush claimed. His willingness to vote for this bill and his justification for it only confirms this for me. Therefore, he is potentially just as dangerous as Bush. I do not find it acceptable that any president of any party have these additional powers.


    Bingo! This is not capitulation. (5.00 / 11) (#77)
    by lizpolaris on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:02:42 AM EST
    The Democratic leaders clearly support this bill or it wouldn't be on the floor for a vote.

    What's scary to me is that this clearly demonstrates that the Democratic party is no longer about safeguarding citizens' rights under the Constitution.  I guess it's time to turn out the lights as we leave the party that was our experiment in constitutional democracy in the US.  What's left?  Maybe we can each individually ask the ACLU to file lawsuits for us?  That's going to get really far with the 'laws' now being passed.


    The whole leadership is capitulating (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:35:50 AM EST
    The Democratic leaders clearly support this bill or it wouldn't be on the floor for a vote.

    I believe they are
    a. capitulating to look 'tough on terror'
    b. saving their own hide for the 'gang of 8' approval of it to begin with, which included Dems.

    It is a politically motivated capitulation. I agree with BTD - if I thought they really believed this manure I would be for impeaching all of them.


    Whatever the motivation the results (5.00 / 14) (#117)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:00:04 AM EST
    are the same. Citizens of the U.S. lose 4th Amendment rights, illegal actions by Bush and numerous others are covered up and the precedent that the President is Above the Law is strengthened.

    IMO Democratic leadership CHOSE to take this action and the Democratic nominee supports this action. Both the party and the nominee are distorting the truth in exactly the same way that Bush and the Republicans did to justify their actions. Outrage at actions taken by Bush and the Republicans and then justifying or rationalizing the exact same actions when Democrats do it makes us no different IMO than the Bush supporters that we vilified for the past 7+ years.


    Well said (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    I wish I had an answer as to how to stop it. Electing more Dems did not seem to do any good.

    I forgot to add in my post that I am against the capitutlation, for whatever the reason.  And I am probably deluding myself by thinking it was capitulation and not voting based on belief in the bill.

    I feel as helpless to stop any of this as I did in 2005.


    at what point was the dem party (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by sancho on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    ever committed to this ideal? until 1964, they could not fully support civil rights. w/ republican help, they impeached nixon. but after choosing not to prosecute iran-contra (and letting gwhb pardon the culprits) they have been partners in crime or malfeasance. they did not support bill clinton on healthcare and did little to stop his impeachment. and we've seen the last eight years (and how they handled the stolen election.) many would argue that right now we live under corporate fascism. choosing not to believe what dem leaders say is the sweet and sad recourse for people who wish to believe politics in this country is not an absolute nightmare.

    most americans do not vote. with good reason when there are no choices.


    I think Obama has little interest... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:06:43 AM EST
    ... in limiting his own potential powers. That certainly does not make him unlike previous Democratic Presidents (FDR, most notably), but it's not really a good thing.

    Not limiting President McCain's powers (5.00 / 12) (#87)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:17:59 AM EST
    is the thing to think about, too.  Dems are capitulating to that potential outcome, too.

    Everyone here kewl with that?


    That's something we should be considering... (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:22:02 AM EST
    ... but I doubt it's something Obama is. I imagine he's almost certain he'll win.

    What we imagine Obama imagines (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:26:53 AM EST
    is beginning to ask a lot of us, isn't it?

    Now let's imagine that McCain, in voting for this bill, imagines that it would be a good thing to endow President Obama with these powers.

    I need more coffee to cope with this mental pretzeling.


    Or someone worse than both of them (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    FISA's been around since what, the seventies?  It will be around long after Obama and McCain.

    We're very focused on the two of them now, for obvious reasons, but there's all the presidents who come after them too.


    Exactly right (5.00 / 8) (#130)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:11:49 AM EST
    The Democrats initiated this bill.  And I always believed the whole purpose of the Obama campaign (which I got in trouble for on this site) was for a group of career politicians to be able to hold onto the expanded executive power and wield it themselves.  They didn't want a strong president, so they helped destroy everyone and then pushed weakling Obama onto the ticket.  Now the guy is already acting like he's King of the World.

    The Dem version... (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by sj on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:19:30 AM EST
    ...of the empty suit.  You gotta admit, it worked pretty well for the R's.  

    1.  Find someone basically lazy
    2.  Pretend he has personal charisma
    3.  Install him as titular head
    4.  Feed his ego as you carry out in secret what could not be carried out in the open.
    5.  Protect execution of secret plans from prosecution

    How depressing.

    And that's why... (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by Mike H on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:30:40 AM EST
    they had to get rid of Hillary.  Because she's stronger than Barack, and wouldn't be controlled.

    The more I think about it, the more I think this theory has some relevance.  But who will end up being the Cheney to Obama's Bush?


    think donations for the general election. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    obama's fund raising last month was a disappontment. they haven't paid for the democratic convention yet. and on it goes.

    Do Obama supporters (5.00 / 17) (#8)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:54:46 AM EST
    realize they too have now been thrown under the bus??

    >>>>Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make

    Do they realize Obama demolished their one thread of hope that his flip flop on FISA is merely a political calculation??

    >>>"You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

    I honestly (5.00 / 19) (#13)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:04:49 AM EST
    don't think they care, as long as they win.  H*ll, they fight for the best position under the bus that they can (at least his hardcore supporters, certainly not all of them) and brag that they got there first.  The Constitution is just a quibble that must be done away with or we're "bad Democrats" if we dare to raise an objection.  John Cole may even yell at me if I don't meekly go along with whatever Obama wants as winning is the only thing.

    Yeah, we "won" one of the most historic victories in the history of the Republic in '06, and boy did that accomplish a lot.  Well, we got a mediocre bump of the Min. Wage and several stern letters to Shrub.  Hooray!!!!!!!!!!



    "As long as they win" -- electability (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:34:47 AM EST
    was a worrisome argument for me.  This is where it leads.  It is the opposite of fighting for principles.

    Some of them do (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:41:36 AM EST
    I have resumed listening to the Young Turks podcasts.  I really enjoy their show, but the Obama fanboyism during the primaries turned me off. I am happy to report that Cenk Uygar is every bit as hot about this as most of us here. He minces no words in calling Obama out on this issue especially, and all of the moves to the right generally. I was glad to see that his critical functions are still intact.

    A little late, I would say (5.00 / 13) (#156)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:37:09 AM EST
    From the Department of Closing the Barn Door After The Unity Pony Drops A Steaming Load.



    Uh, (5.00 / 7) (#170)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:49:57 AM EST

    I stopped listening to them after their Hillary Hatred became obvious.

    Personally, I didn't think that the "progressive" media should have chosen sides until after the primaries. In an ideal world, they would have evaluated all the candidates honestly and not fallen into the trap of an early endorsement.

    They have absolutely no credibility now, as their Chosen One knows they will vote for him no matter what he does. Even FISA won't cause some of them to abandon him.


    I agree. I also think (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by dk on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    that giving these people site traffic, or any kind of support, is wrong.  We should not be encouraging these people to continue in their roles.  They have discredited themselves, and frankly should choose another line of work.

    This is not, I should stress, to mean that I think they necessarily are awful human beings.  I'm sure that on many issues I probably share their point of view.  Rather, what I am saying is that as "professional" progressive activists (whatever that means) they have discredited themselves permanently through their actions in the primaries, and should therefore move aside.


    I'm not sure it would matter even if (5.00 / 8) (#190)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:11:30 AM EST
    they did all turn against Obama.  

    Obama's playing for the general now.  He no longer needs them.  He's got to play now to the millions and millions of folks who've never heard of Dkos and wouldn't care two bits about the big Orange even if they did.  If anything, the alliance of a bunch of kids playing White House dress-up would likely turn off the majority of grown up voters.

    Although, I have to say, the DK audience crowd's  big trick of consistently licking the hand that bites them is impressive.  But it doesn't matter.  This political season is so rife with irony.  Because for all their taunting, they're the ones who really don't have any other place to go.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#211)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    It appears Bush isn't the only politician (5.00 / 12) (#12)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:03:46 AM EST
    in Washington who believes the Constitution is just a "GD piece of paper."

    A standard (5.00 / 15) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:13:02 AM EST
    tactic of Obama shows up here too. It's called blame someone else. This is really tiresome. It's what George W. Bush spent 8 years doing.

    yeah when he said that (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:17:07 AM EST
    sometimes i just disagree with you, heh the FISA cave in never even came to my mind.

    the FISA cave in is just obviously a cave in I don't even listen to the democrats about it.

    I just took it to mean he was talking about everything else. but yeah i give no democrat any benefits of any doubts if they vote yes on FISA, F that, we aren't idiots just admit you guys are too chicken to deal with Bush and the White House on this, lets us know what a bunch of pansies you are so we know who to begin replacing after we take control of the white house.

    Doesn't sound like 'we' at all (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:01:14 AM EST
    It sounds as if some stranger with a D after his name wants to be President and it might be a lot worse than the alternative. The fox guarding the hen house. I am not for McCain, I also do not like BHO's personal changing agenda. Maybe this is what he meant with the Change mantra. Maybe it is a good thing he is speaking out about this now so that many can take off the rose colored glasses. Six months ago I thought any of the top three would be a fine Democratic President. Now, I am sure the last man standing might be very dangerous for Democrats. AND, I am not over-reacting. The bells and whistles are going off and they are so loud I can hear them from under the bus even muffled by all the new additions there.

    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by g8grl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:08:07 AM EST
    This makes Obama in some ways even worse than McCain because Obama is a Democrat.  When the Democrats do this, they are essentially saying that they are not giving you any other option.  When Republicans did this kind of thing, if you didn't like it, you could vote Democratic.  Now with Obama, we have no hope to defend our Constitution.  

    I have been on the fence about holding my nose and voting for Obama.  I REALLY don't like him but I've been thinking I may just take one for the team.  It's getting to the point where I'm gonna have to say this isn't my team anymore.


    I tried but I couldn't resist (none / 0) (#195)
    by MMW on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    Perhaps you're watching the world cup in Germany, with Italy and France playing in the finals?

    In other words - get off the neighbor's fence, neither team is your home team.

    Other than that I have much love for you.


    ahhh...right (none / 0) (#102)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:40:55 AM EST
    I agree with him that we won't agree on things 100% of the time.

    I just don't agree with why he is doing this. he feels he needs to for political reasons, fine, I disagree I think Democrats could have fought on this and stood up to the white house but they refuse too, probably somethings they too want to hide, whatever cave I don't care they are all a bunch of wimps.

    but I still 100% support Sen. Obama. no politican agrees with all my stances on the issues, I have a mix of many things so I am not going to fault a poltician for NOT agreeing with my views.


    support for the constitution is not a (5.00 / 7) (#162)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    popularly contest. this isn't american idol.

    And if it were (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    Obama would be filibustering, because the majority of the American people DOES NOT support telecom immunity.

    There are just too many flip-flops (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by glennmcgahee on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:17:50 AM EST
    Can't you just see the Republicans with those shoes clapping again at the Republican Convention. I'm flapping mine now already and I'm an Independent. Just what does Obama agree and disagree with? We obviously can't assume we know by what he has said previously. This is too bizarro. Instead of a fighter, we've got a wimp.

    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by BernieO on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:01:52 AM EST
    Obama is no wimp. He is over confident and calculating. A wimp would not blame his strongest supporters. A weasel, yes. Wimp, no.

    I strongly agree (5.00 / 13) (#46)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:18:28 AM EST
    He is overconfident which, if not checked, could possibly come across as condescending and impatient with what he views as others' "stupidity" eg. the sigh he begins most "refining" statements with and the disbelief in his voice that he actually needs to explains what he meant AGAIN.

    Add to this his penchant for turning his speeches into lectures (as well as tending to go on and on and on) and I can clearly see where many voters -- come the Fall -- may see him on TV, go "ugh" and tune him out 'cause they either don't believe he's going to bring anything to the table other than yet another speech followed by more "refining" or they  have no clue where he stands or if he's going to be standing there tomorrow or next week.

    Voters know that speeches and refining don't put food on the table, gas in the car or protect one's job from going overseas.

    Is McCain bringing anything to the table that will help either?  No, probably not.  But at least voters "know" who he is and feel he understands them and their needs.  They may not agree with him, but at least they "know" what he allegedly stands for. (I don't think they do, but he's got an established brand which carries with it it's own beliefs and assumptions eg. Straight Talker, POW, many years of service in the Senate, Moderate, etc)

    Or, as a friend of mine put it, McCain is a familiar juicy steak and Obama is a shimmering bowl of Jell-O in a supposedly dazzling new flavor you're unfamiliar with.  If you're hungry, which would you choose?

    (and, yeah, she was hungry when she used this analogy, ergo the usage of steak and Jell-O)



    The thing (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:37:15 AM EST
    John McCain has going for him is that in spite of his cow-towing to Bush to stay in the party is that he's perceived as having good character and integrity.  At one time, he did stand up and do the right thing and make sacrifices.   He also has military experience that shows leadership and he's had way more time in the Senate.  Of course he has a downside, but it's beginning to look like the things that would be a problem with McCain are also a problem with Obama.  Obama is selling out to the big money interests--even voted for Cheney's oil give away and certainly threw money to the nuclear plants in IL.  

    Just look at Rod Blogojevich's behavior in IL if you want to see how Obama will behave in the WH.  They're bosom buddies, both part of the same corrupt Chicago machine.  It's very ugly.  


    The other thing McCain's got going for him (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by g8grl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:28:40 AM EST
    is that he's probably not going to run again in 2012.  That means once he becomes President, he'll be able to spit in the eye of all the Fundie Evangelicals if he wants to.  I actually think he, more than Obama, will be less objectionable AFTER elected.

    I don't believe Obama on the FISA Agreement Bill. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:35:47 AM EST

    That's Ok (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:39:48 AM EST
    I think Obama's consistent because I don't believe him on most anything else he says either (NAFTA, reproductive rights, Iraq, health care, education, etc.)

    BTD - Thank You for Your Clear (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:42:46 AM EST
    Statement on the poverty of Obama's position on the FISA bill.  

    The Leader has spoken! (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:57:05 AM EST
    Why do you doubt him?

    What's wrong with you?

    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:04:33 AM EST
    Check the files under "Principles, Possessing Them."  All of this stupid freedom-loving does get in the way of a good Election, eh?



    Shut the f*** up and send Obama more money! (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:40:27 AM EST
    He needs it!

    At this point it would seem most everything! (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:17:28 AM EST
    Word n/t (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:00:14 AM EST

    Don't Blame Obama (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by This from a broad on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:01:31 AM EST
    He is only doing what Pelosi told him to do.  She made him the nominee and he will do whatever she tells him to do, now and for the next eight years!

    eight?? (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:06:36 AM EST
    No way... BTW, Pelosi must go as Speaker of the House of the house. She is no leader and has done nothing of value as Speaker.

    Time to start lobbying your Representatives in Congress !!


    BTW, Did anyone See Turley (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:03:33 AM EST
    last night at KO - Turley was interviewed by Maddow, who made clear she doesn't agree with Obama's position (IMO).  

    Turley, I believe, said he cannot explain why the DEMs are allowing this bill to pass when they clearly have the power to stop it & the bill clearly is so damaging to the 4th Amendment.

    Olbermann on vacation (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:05:22 AM EST
    Well timed.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:12:14 AM EST
    pimping such fake outrage is really hard work.  I wonder if he has a place up in Nantucket with all of the other "blue collar" NBC folks, he does need a place to unwind.  :)



    I find your (none / 0) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:25:43 AM EST
    calling Turley's position "pimping" offensive.

    I was (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:36:01 AM EST
    referring to Olbermann actually, and his way of pumping up the volume of some of his rants.  I actually agree with Turley if what you are saying he said is correct.  It was also a backhanded slap at the whole Schuster "pimping out Chelsea" remark.

    If you were being snarky in your reply, then I'm sorry if I didn't get the joke.  If not, see my above clarification, it was more of a reply to BTD's 'well timed" remark than your original comment.



    Turley's interview (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    pretty powerful stuff, with Maddow as sub. host on Countdown

    (If this link doesn't go directly to the vid, it is story number 4.)

    Turley "completely astonished by Sen. Obama's position [that this is a good compromise] and obviously disappointed." Said this is not a compromise...it's a cave in.

    Compares it to a story when someone is assaulted on the street and 100 people stand around and do nothing. In this case the 4th amendment will be eviscerated and 100 people will stand around and do nothing. "The fix is in."


    KO has come back from vacation (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:38:24 AM EST
    before, when an issue mattered to him -- and didn't conflict with his fanboyism.

    WYSIWYG (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by makana44 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:21:50 AM EST
    Believe it. Either way he isn't fit. The only thing presidential about him are his powers of prevarication and his ability to raise money.

    blog reactions? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jjsmoof on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:24:59 AM EST
    anyone know if agent orange is melting down or in  spin mode?

    They seem to be okay (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:46:58 AM EST
    with it in a twitchy kind of way. I think many bathe after said support is vouched.

    This issue plus, unlimited presidential (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:33:33 AM EST
    powers (i.e. President above the law) use to be a major issue on DKos. KargoX posted on this subject non stop back when I frequented the site. If he is silent on this issue, it is just another example of how far they have fallen.  

    Kagro has been in fine form. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Burned on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    Multiple front page stories that don't give an inch.

    Glad To Hear That (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    He has always been a strong voice on this issue IMO. While I won't go back to the site, I'm happy that KargoX is continuing the fight.

    Spinning and melting (none / 0) (#95)
    by Burned on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:30:20 AM EST
    Spinners are mad at Markos for announcing that he was withholding his donation and at FISA FP'rs, diarists, and commenters for causing Obama to lose.
    Nothing unusual.

    Fake-out on his "money myth," too (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:28:14 AM EST
    The Newsweek blog is showing some signs of life...as in, what's actually going on with Obama's "cash cow"....

    Newsweek Blog Finally Decides to Debunk the Obama "Cash Cow" Myth

    What can you actually believe about anything that comes out of Obama's mouth?  Heck, his bio had fictionalized/composite characters in it. That wasn't the first clue??

    One of the most significant (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:28:46 AM EST
    changes Obama could deliver is a vision of an executive branch less monarchical than the Bush/Republican brand.  Instead he chooses to affirm their style of governance.  

    It's making the retro Hillaryism of the 90s seem like the best option of all.

    It's a Democratic year, but if Democrats don't run as Democrats, who knows what will happen.. I hope Obama is looking long and hard at the Congressional approval ratings.

    Return to the prosperity of the 90s (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:42:30 AM EST
    whereas, Obama was all about "the future" etc etc, which apparently includes some of Bush's worst tics and tendencies.

    absolutely (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by kempis on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:50:33 AM EST
    lilburro: One of the most significant changes Obama could deliver is a vision of an executive branch less monarchical than the Bush/Republican brand.

    Bingo. That would have been the right position--and politically a winner.

    His position is not only deeply flawed in principle but also in politics. The politically astute thing would have been for him to be that RFK-like candidate that some people naively believed him to be and for him to take a strong stand for the Constitution and against powerful special interests (telecoms).

    He did not. I can only assume that after he and Pelosi and the Dem "leadership" did some calculations and consultations with the telecom folks, they decided that the influx of grateful telecom $$$ in an election year--without the limits imposed by public funding--was too good to pass up.

    I am beyond revolted by the lot of 'em. I'm glad I  changed my registration to Independent this spring--but I worry about my country. Washing my hands of the Democratic party isn't doing much to alleviate my anxiety about its future.


    Yes, this is the real Obamamentum (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    when one step down the slippery slope is to get to the next one -- you show the link from the flipflop on public financing to the flipflop on FISA.

    So where is this flipflop on FISA leading?  What is the next goal?  This is a game plan, folks -- a chess game with the moves ahead already planned.


    I (none / 0) (#122)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:05:20 AM EST
    think you've got these people's number as we boomers used to say.

    bingo, i wrote that above but (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    you stated it it much clearer terms.

    This "careful monitoring" and (5.00 / 18) (#53)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:30:25 AM EST
    "review" and "taking whatever steps he deems necessary to protect the lives of the American people" was cribbed right out of the George Bush playbook, which makes my blood run cold.

    We've had more than enough of "trust me" over the last 8 years, don't you think?  And here's Obama, patting us on the head and expecting us to believe that he will be a better steward of the constitution than Bush - even as he advocates for passage of a bill that only further undermines that constitution.

    I'm sorry - he can't have it both ways - not on these terms.  Not when there is nothing wrong with FISA.  Not when there are ways to "protect America" without shredding the Constitution.

    Given that Congress seems incapable of serving as a check on the power of the presidency, I fear that they are setting up conditions where the balance of power will be forever tilted toward the president, and we will be at the mercy of whoever that is.


    Exactly Right And IMO The Most (5.00 / 12) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:51:13 AM EST
    dangerous aspect of this atrocity of a bill.

    Given that Congress seems incapable of serving as a check on the power of the presidency, I fear that they are setting up conditions where the balance of power will be forever tilted toward the president, and we will be at the mercy of whoever that is.

    The way it is looking a President Obama will have all the unfettered powers that Bush assumed, a complicit Congress and control of all Democratic funds under his umbrella. Too much power for any one person.


    Two presidents in a row (5.00 / 10) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:36:41 AM EST
    from different parties claiming "unitary executive" powers means our Constitution is permanently weakened and the balance of powers effectively drestroyed.  These powers will never be rolled back, and no president can ever be held to account for the abuse.

    This is what comes of not impeaching Bush/Cheney for the power grab.  Hillary said she would get to work canceling all these extra-legislative extra-constitutional powers Bush grabbed for the presidency right away.  If she had, it wouldn't have stopped some future presidential power grab, but it would at least have thrown a few rocks under the wheels.

    The single most important reason to have a Democrat in the White House, in my mind, was to roll back, "denounce and reject" the Bush administration's massive imperial powers.  If there's no hope Obama will do that (and I don't care if he "pledges" he will at some point, since his pledges are obviously just words), there's really literally no point in voting for him, IMHO.

    I strongly urge everybody to read Charlie Savage's very thorough, absolutely shocking "Return of the Imperial Presidency" for a catalog of what Bush has claimed -- and exercised without hindrance from the Congress -- for the presidency.  It's sickening.


    The Imperial Presidency, Part II (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by wasabi on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    I'd like to remind people of the hell that the media gave the Clinton presidency regarding every small whiff of often imagined impropriety.  Everyone in the Administration and their brother were called up before Congress to testify continually about all sorts of BS.

    Will the Dems get a free pass from the haranging if Obama wins?  Congress will be in friendlier hands, but it all depends on how much b*lls the Dems want to exhibit.  I am not feeling assured here.

    I am sure that no Dem will be given as much of a free pass as is given the present Administration.  Perhaps our famously free press will once again righteously demand accountability.  Or not.


    What makes you think a dem (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:09:25 AM EST
    congress will be friendlier? They are in the majority now....are they any "friendlier?"

    A Dem Congress is so friendly to Bush (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    that of course it would be friendlier to Obama.

    The question is what makes you think that this group of Dems in Congress would not be friendlier?  Heck, this group gladly will be friendly to President McCain.


    If Obama controls the purse strings, many (4.50 / 2) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    will be forced to "rubber stamp" whatever he proposes if they want funds to keep their seat. Also, his coalition has proven that they are more than willing to run primary challenges against incumbent Democratic pols who do not give complete and immediate loyalty to Obama. John Lewis is one example and a google search will provide other examples of the challenges against black reps that supported Hillary.

    yeah dems are tough with other dems (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:48:21 AM EST
    but repubs, "roll over boys/girls".

    wouldn't calling to account (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    Republican crimes and misdemenaors be against the spirit of "post-partisanship"

    is that snark? before all the (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:37:55 AM EST
    political division today the congress critters were able to debate and vote against each other for the benefit of the citizens they represented. at the end of the day they could all go for a beer feeling they had represented what they felt was best for those they represent. now it appears they answer to lobbyists, special interests and corporations while behaving like gangs on the street toward each other without the welfare of the american people even under consideration. so excuse me bipartisan means nothing to me but an excuse to further stick to the american people.

    Yes, I guess so... (none / 0) (#204)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:43:54 AM EST
    I refer you to Barney Frank's essay
    about the need to fight the good fight. (thanks to andgarden for that link)

    truly upsetting (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    now, there's nothing saying that McCain won't take advantage of the Powers * has accrued as well.  But it's less damning for McCain to take this position because he never sold himself as a candidate of "New Politics" and "hope and change".

    For new voters or those who supported Obama because he seemed like a breath of fresh air, this about-face on FISA is more than likely the straw that will break the camel's back.  They don't EXPECT McCain to take a stand for the People on this issue.  They DID expect it from Obama and he gave into the temptation of Power which, in many voter's eyes, makes him into the thing he promised us he wasn't:  just another Politician.

    For someone who's, in essence, a blank slate and still introducing himself to potential voters, that's the equivalent of taking 10 giant steps back.  

    Everything he says from now on will more than likely be met with the understanding that it'll probably change within a week.  And, if that's the case, the voters will lose interest -- and he'll lose their support -- fairly quickly.


    For most of the time I was reading (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:30:37 AM EST
    Savage's book either my mouth was hanging open or my head was shaking.  I mean, I followed all of the power grabs as they were happening, but the realization that it was all deliberate and planned, that Bush administration minions were tasked with finding ways to accrue power to the presidency, was chilling.  

    I had long been of the opinion that impeachment would have served as a tool by which Congress could assert its mandated check on executive power and draw a line that future presidents would cross at their peril; with impeachment off the table, I knew the precedents set by Bush would be waiting for all future presidents, and I consider that a dangerous gift to have given them.

    We have a constitution for the protection of the people from the power of government; Obama, as a candidate for the office of president, has a conflict of interest in any legislation that affects the power of the presidency.  If he were as smart and canny a politician as some seem to think he is, he would finesse this whole situation by either announcing that he felt constrained from participating in this vote and would abstain, or resigning from the Senate immediately, on the basis that it would not be appropriate for him to be voting on matters that would affect what kind of power he could wield if he were elected president.

    It won't happen, but I would love to see some discussion in the media about the inherent conflict in these votes.


    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:14:15 AM EST
    But only if he wins. (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:13:54 AM EST
    If he loses...well then he's voting the powers to the Republicans....

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by sancho on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:48:12 AM EST
    why is that? what does he know?

    just to add (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:38:10 AM EST
    At this point, saying obama isn't fit to be president has the same effect as saying he's capitulating.

    As long as it remains that mccain is unfit to be president times infinity, I don't think anyone (even obama himself) is going to be that upset by the assessment.

    and he is calculating in this message (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:43:17 AM EST
    which is tantamount to doubling down on his wager.  

    there is no excuse anymore (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by kimsaw on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:45:25 AM EST
    A pol does what a pol must is nothing but an excuse for not during the right thing when it comes to the issues and political campaigns. Obama has no excuse for his FISA capitulation except it's a political calculation. I already know he's not perfect, but that's just another excuse for his own failure to do the right thing on the issues that concern the American people.

    If we allow Obama this pass then a CEO is a CEO even when his workers are nearly paupers, after all its about capitalism and the free market and not about what's fair or equitable. It's about the bottom line, workers are not considered assets but an expense. Dollars to CEO are like words to politicians, it makes them the rock stars of their industries, it doesn't mean they have to be ethical or do a great job on behalf of their employees or their constituents. A CEO can get a 200 million dollar compensation package even when they fail. A politician can even neglect constituents ripped off by his supporter slumlord and still be a presidential nominee.

    Doing the right thing is a moral calling on behalf of those you represent or employ. CEOs or politicians who neglect it are morally bankrupt and should not be rewarded for their failings.

    Please don't accuse me of looking for perfection, because I'm not, I'm looking for some integrity on the issues and not political calculations as a criteria to earn my support. A do anything or say anything to win is the old politics and Obama is buried in it, all while professing he's not. Integrity is a word that matters to me as a voter and I'm not seeing a whole lot of these days.

    or holding my nose because he claims (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:50:06 AM EST
    to be a democrat has no affect either. i mean really dems under reid and pelosi? their polls numbers are lower than bush for heaven's sake.

    is as dangerous as George W. Bush.... (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by Salt on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:53:32 AM EST
    is as dangerous as George W. Bush.... many of us already view Obama this way thus our passion to unite for our country outside of Party identity, there is no rational none that supports Telecom immunity, absolutely none.

    Obama's positions follow the money... (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:56:25 AM EST
    NYT - Obama Courts Big Donors - http://tinyurl.com/675gs4

    After Pelosi said impeachment was "off the table" - Obama became the only Dem to declare Bush and Cheney had not committed impeachable offenses.

    Rockefeller will vote 'yes' on FISA and last night, on the eve of the FISA vote, among wealthy donors gathered to get a glimpse of THE ONE - declared --

    >>>Senator Rockefeller again handled the openings, this time opining that for the first time in his more than 40 years: "I've met the man, the only person I've really wanted to see as president."
    Hold that thought: Lyndon Baines Johnson never made Mr. Rockefeller's heart race? Nor Robert Kennedy, George McGovern or Jimmy Carter? Minnesota Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and neither Bill Clinton or Albert Gore quickened his pulse? What of John Kerry?

    I'm beginning to feel (5.00 / 8) (#76)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:02:12 AM EST
    like the guy on the used car lot.  The more the salesman tries to tell me this is the best car in the world for me, the more suspicious and reluctant to buy it I become.

    If Obama were as amazing as they say he is or they were as confident they made the right choice for him to be the Nominee as they want us to think they are, they wouldn't sound so desperately effusive in trying to convince us, would they?

    The more they say, the stronger the scent of desperation and regret becomes.


    Best possible scenario (5.00 / 9) (#72)
    by Lysis on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:58:37 AM EST
    So the best possible scenario is that the standard-bearer for our party is a bald-faced liar.  Great.

    Yeah, that's something I've been thinking (5.00 / 8) (#82)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:09:57 AM EST
    for awhile now. "Boy, I hope Obama won't really put Hagel and Lugar in charge of Defense and State. Boy, I hope Obama was lying about wanting to support Roberts. Boy, I hope this Unity schtick is just that."

    It's hard to hope that your candidate is a pathological liar.


    all politicians lie (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:10:33 AM EST
    this is just the point at which it became known that obama does it with the MOST ease and dexterity.

    Yes, all politicians lie (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:38:50 AM EST
    The problem is that I do not know when Obama is lying or telling the truth. Is he lying when he makes statements that I oppose 100% or is he telling the truth?  

    Just as there are cardinal sins (5.00 / 7) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:40:18 AM EST
    and venial sins, there are big lies and small lies. All pols do the small lies, sure (or almost all, Bernie Sanders may be the exception).  But not so many do the big, jaw-dropping lies.

    or have the hubris (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    or preening over-confidence to (almost) pull it off.  

    I do enjoy how he then acts either shocked when questioned about the obvious or condescendingly patient when forced to explain to use rubes who somehow didn't "get it" how the plain-as-the-nose-on-his-face lie isn't, really, a lie.


    Or he says he is "disappointed" (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:49:25 AM EST
    in us.

    Yes, condescension and paternalism in addition to hypocrisy and hubris -- and religiosity . . . this is why I never have found Obama attractive.  I find him the opposite.  


    Don't Be FUUUUKING Naive (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by tokin librul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:09:52 AM EST
    Obama wants the power--all the power--the Busheviks have carved off the supine corpse of Congress.

    Mebbe he wants to turn it against the GOPukes, though I doubt it.

    But doubtless he WANTS that power...

    No president, except Washington, has EVER ceded power BACK to the Legislative when once they have approporiated it...

    Silence (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Lora on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:26:43 AM EST
    I did a quick survey today of the Mouth Piece Media's on line news sites to see if there was anything in the news (not opinion pieces) about Obama and FISA.

    (Almost) Nada. Nothing. Zip.

    msnbc news: nothing
    cbs.com news: nothing
    abc.com: nothing except about a 2-second sound byte about his supporters accusing him of flip-flopping on the wiretap bill (thrust of video is that Obama faces his greatest criticism from his own supporters).
    cnn.com nothing

    My guess is that an Obama filibuster would have brought negative reporting, and no reporting is better than negative reporting.

    And what's up with the silence on FISA?  Slip another theft of American civil liberties on by?

    I've also been wondering why no (none / 0) (#178)
    by mikeyleigh on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:53:23 AM EST
    coverage in the media on this FISA debates.  Why no mention of Obama's flip-flop?  Perhaps nobody beyond the confines of this blog and others gives a hoot.

    Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:51:52 AM EST
    problem now is that he ran such a nasty campaign in the primaries, whatever he accuses others of he is already guilty of doing himself.  This guy is a total loser.

    That'll be flagged (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:59:39 AM EST
    As insulting but I think it's true.

    I'm only human (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:54:49 AM EST
    I do my best to nurture my humanity at this time too because of the situation my spouse lives in and takes this family into, it is an inhumane situation in many ways right now so I must nurture my personal humanity.  It isn't exceptable that he is lying about this for political calculation BTD.  Our soldiers are in uniform to keep our liberties safe, but that isn't exactly what they are doing in Iraq anymore now is it?  Yet they remain because this country allowed itself to be drug into that horror and now we must figure out how to leave.  After a fitful night's sleep alone with my husband at a school at Fort Benning I find myself contemplating joining the PUMAs.  It seems that political war may be the only thing that fixes what ails this nation right now.

    So, "We The People" lose again because (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:01:10 AM EST
    a pol is just a pol? And big business, the telecom community, slides by? This sounds more like ameri"k"a, than america!

    I know what you mean. We as a nation need a great (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by FLVoter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:30:16 AM EST
    leader.  We need a President that puts our welfare and rights first before his/her political aspirations.  Why are so many willing to support Sen. Obama?  He has shown me by his actions that he values his own political self interest first (FISA, Public Financing, Abortion Rights, NAFTA, Expansion of Faith Based Initiatives, Gun Control, Death Penalty, UHC).  I am not willing to accept that kind of politician anymore. I demand a nominee that has the courage and determination to be a great leader. I demand an extraordinary person to be President and any candidate that is willing to foolishly give away my constitutional rights is not that person. No more lessor of the two evils, no more compromises.

    Hear, Hear (none / 0) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    No more lessor of the two evils, no more compromises.

    FWIW (none / 0) (#187)
    by NJDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:02:23 AM EST
    I think it's more about people going with the "devil they know" than the one they don't.

    Does anyone know what time the vote starts?  Hopefully someone will be watching CSpan for those of us at the office :)  


    There's a number of things wrong here (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:01:45 AM EST
    1 - As has been pointed by others, Dem leadership had to know about GWB bypassing FISA - before he did it and when he actually did it.  I can't beleieve folks were in Congress gossiping, "psst, I heard GWB is hunting terrorists and ran afoul of the constitution, but we can't be sure so let's wait until some reporter breaks the story.  Shhh, don't tell anyone."  Please.  Now it's CYA time, because God forbid they are held accountable for their actions.

    2 - Both Dem leadership and our presumptive nominee are now banking on us being the ignorant herd and either not paying attention or not caring come election time in order to accomplish #1.

    3 - The arrogance of their thinking re: #'s 1 & 2 says something really shady about the type of politicians we have representing us.  These folks even w/a majority are only out for #1.  They believe they can do some cheap tricks like give us new roads and reallocate funds for programs developed by legislators in the past to placate us.

    I used to wonder why folks could support far out candidates like Nader who didn't have a chance in he!! of winning.  It seems they knew something I didn't.  While I still can't do the protest vote thing and support a candidate w/no chance of winning, I can use the one tool available to me, my vote.  If these Dems can sell me out on something as true to what it is to be American as the Constitution, why should I believe they'll have my back on the day-to-day bread and butter issues that affect my life; e.g. the economy, jobs, healthcare, the environment?  This whole thing reminds me of the "trickle-down" economics espoused by Reagan and the Republicans in the 80's.  "Trust us, we know what's best for you, even when your brain is telling you otherwise."  While I agree pols will be pols, pols still need some character or we're back to Tammany Hall days.

    Grow a spine (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:15:07 AM EST
    For some unexplainable reason the Democrat's continue to allow the Republican's to frame every issue.  There are several reasons that this bill is wrong. Even without an organized push back by the Dem's, the public see the flaws in it. But instead of standing for anything, the Dem's back away in an effort to not alienate anyone. The end result is a phoney cardboard characture that no one respects.

    I disagree slightly with you (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by dk on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:27:23 AM EST
    I think that the Daschle/Pelosi/Obama wing of the party actually agrees with Bush on this one.  So, I don't think it's as much "allowing" the Republicans to frame the issue as much as "embracing" the Republican's framing.

    Trying to understand (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by delacarpa on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:16:25 AM EST
    something about FISA and found this and so what I am not understanding is why there is a debate today.

    Our Founding Fathers, principally through the work of James Madison, (who is often called the "Father of the Constitution" because he was its principal author as well as writing the Bill of Rights) designed a system of divided government. Madison's believed that our government needed checks and balances to limit the powers of special interests. Madison eclipsed his mentor, Thomas Jefferson, by outlining a system of separate powers that has endured for over 200 years. He did such a good job we have had more Presidents (43) than Amendments (27) and our Constitution has endured through the Civil War and two impeachments, as well as other crises such a Watergate, the Great Depression, Disco and polyester leisure suits.

    So why is that important today? The answer is FISA

    Constitutional Scholar? (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:30:05 AM EST
    He taught a class in constitutional law. His status as "Professor" is in dispute (most agree that the statement is accurate, although perhaps a bit of a stretch). I am unaware of any scholarship he has contributed to the field of constitutional law. He was not tenure track, has no written papers, and has not involved himself in debates of merit on the subject. Perhaps an Obama supporter could enlighten me.

    Modus Ponens (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jpete on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:18 AM EST
    is the form of an argument:

    If P then Q
    Therefore, Q

    Here's a great if-then from BTD:
     if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President.

    So the conclusion that he's not fit seems pretty inevitable.  But there might be an even bigger worry: how in the world is the country tolerating this trashing of the constitution?

    Easy enough, (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by g8grl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    I don't believe he's fit to be President either.  Add this reason to the dozen others including:

    lack of experience;
    mistakes he makes initially which he then backtracks on (learning on the job);
    no history of strong work ethic;
    throws strong democratc allies (or potential allies) under the bus when politically expedient (see Clark, Clintons);
    complete lack of loyalty;
    lack of commitment to any signature issue;
    history of lack of judgement on MANY issues.

    I could probably go on, but most of the others are more disagreeing with him politically rather than deficiencies in his character.

    BTD you echo (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    the fear many of us have.
    and you have been far more patient and forgiving  than he deserves IMO.

    so I guess what your post is saying.... (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    Is that Obama is either a liar or he is unfit to be president.

    Not much of a choice, is it?

    boy BTD, have to get (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    up mighty darn early in the morning, to put one over on you!

    Because if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President.

    welcome to the club, finally. i wondered what it was going to take, to open your eyes completely.

    i don't hate sen. obama, i don't hate or disparage his supporters. i do, however, believe that it's long past time he stopped being adulated as the "second coming". he has feet of clay, and not even dry clay, given his lack of resume'.

    to have expected anything more of him was to set yourself up for disappointment. he is what he is.

    BTD, you not only aren't a constitutional (1.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Steve Davis on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:35:12 AM EST

    scholar, but you don't seem to know a damned thing about how filibusters work, either. The senate voted by 81 votes in favor to invoke cloture on the FISA bill. Obama could no more filibuster the FISA bill than he could donate sperm to an animal shelter and create hybrid german sheperds. My god! I politician engaged in political calculation!! What will happen next? A chessmaster engaged in a tactical endgame? A doctor actually looking at your x-rays before discussing your medical symptoms with you?

    Insults first (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:37:03 AM EST
    You are an idiot incapable of reading.

    Now, a specific point, you write "My god! I politician engaged in political calculation!! What will happen next? A chessmaster engaged in a tactical endgame."

    So you do not believe Obama either. I am not sure why you are yelling at men.


    Not to mention Steve (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:44:35 AM EST
    clearly doesn't understand how politics works.  If Obama had taken a stand on this, there would not have been 81 votes for cloture.  The entire calculus would have been entirely different.

    They feel free, maybe even obligated, to pass this legislation because of Obama's support for it.


    It's scary (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:42:08 AM EST
    how something so important and fundamental, like, you know, surveillance of U.S. citizens by the government, has been reduced to a joke.

    I'd welcome a bit of (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:45:20 AM EST
    political posturing, if it was principled political posturing.

    Obama does the former, far far more than he does the latter.


    So - if Obama won't or can't filibuster FISA (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:58:42 AM EST
    that means he must vote 'yes'??
    What happened to the 'no' option?

    Josey, he CAN'T filibuster. He was not (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve Davis on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:06:12 AM EST
    present for the cloture vote, along with Hillary Clinton, and their absences counted AGAINST invoking cloture. Unfortunately, it didn't matter, as the Democrats were 20 votes shy of keeping debate open on the bill.

    I deleted your comment (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:09:39 AM EST
    Because you simply do not know what you are talking about in your attempts to insult me.

    A SUCCESSFUL filibuster requires 41 votes. When you announce that you have renounced your pledge to filibuster, then your chances of a successful filibuster drop to zero.

    Now, if you are going yo insist on demonstrating your own ignorance, please keep my name out of it.


    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:12:40 AM EST
    A successful filibuster is really stopping a cloture vote that achieves 60 votes.

    no FISA filibuster = 'yes' on FISA? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:12:47 AM EST
    Again - what happened to the 'no' option?
    Inquiring Founding Fathers would like to know.

    Actually he can filibuster (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:19:58 AM EST
    The question Steve attempted to present was whether a cloture vote could be defeated. Obama could have filibustered and had his filibuster broken by a cloture vote. He broke his pledge and decide to not only NOT filibuster but to announce he will vote in favor a bill that contain telecom immunity.

    The rest of your comment is correct imo.


    Jesse Helms (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:26:07 AM EST
    (man I wish we could speak ill of the departed here-lol) all by himself, and with only "holds" and other Parliamentarian devices held up wildly popular things for years.  But Obama, who received one of the highest vote totals in Primary history, and is considered a wildly popular "Rock Star" can't be bothered.  Of course, I guess you actually have to be in the Senate to do such things, so maybe that's his problem.  

    What amazes me, in either an act of political cowardice or the desire for such powers himself, he actually supports this garbage.




    the Rock Star really does seem (5.00 / 14) (#30)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:43:43 AM EST
    full of himself. Now he wants to give a speech at the Brandenburg Gate which has only been used on special occasions by politicians and only elected American presidents - not presidential nominees.
    But in ObamaWorld, it's all about giving a speech - where ever - at a Hard Rock Cafe, Denver stadium, Brandenburg Gate...
    Reminds me that Bush's problem wasn't that he thought he was God, but that he thought God thought he was God.

    Wow... (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:00:01 AM EST
    even if that isn't considered an insult to the solemnity of the place, what would be the point?  Talk about the politics of the old, what is he going to do, start telling the Russkies to tear down that wall?  He is really reaching for some Foreign Policy cred, isn't he?  It's actually kind of funny, too bad I'm not in a laughing mood today, the evisceration of the Constitution is kind of a downer for me I guess.



    The Roman Goddess Viktoria (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:33:17 AM EST
    rides her horses across it. Hitler used it as his symbol of conquest and victory. The incredible arrogance of someone like Obama to presume the right to speak there is just... it is beyond presumptuous. He has accomplished nothing. Kennedy was deeply humbled by the honor... as was only right. But Obama doesn't seem to get it at all for some reason. Why? He was brought up well.

    Simple arrogance just seems too easy now that I think about it. Is he trying to demean our German friends?


    Reid doesn't honor holds (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by lizpolaris on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:13:20 AM EST
    placed/requested by Democrats.

    BTD - thanks for the clarification (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:44:35 AM EST
    He could have brought McCaskill (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:51:27 AM EST
    and maybe others with him too, and maybe cloture would have lost.

    Okay Steve (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by standingup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:17:39 AM EST
    Can you explain why any Senator would filibuster a bill he has declared he would support?  Obama went back on his pledge to filibuster well before the vote to cloture so I wouldn't expect him to filibuster a bill he has stated he will vote to pass.  

    Obama could have led his party (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by kempis on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:13:23 AM EST
    Pelosi and Hoyer are not going to break with their party's nominee on a key issue in an election year. Neither is Reid.

    Obama had a choice. He chose to leave FISA to Pelosi and Hoyer and Reid and follow their lead.


    Your last line (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:42:43 AM EST
    is fit for misconstruction. Use your words more carefully please.

    That was what talex kept saying (none / 0) (#128)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:08:12 AM EST
    About Clark.

    There was no misconstruction on Clark (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:21:22 AM EST
    Rather, LYING about what he said.

    Don't get me started again.


    It's true (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    You'd have to lie to mis-construct his criticism of McCain as being insensitive or somehow critical of the sacrifice all armed forces service people make.

    I would fight to make sure Clark isn't defamed as such.  If anything, just so he can focus on fighting for what believes in instead of spending all day choosing his words more carefully.


    No profanity please (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:10:22 AM EST

    Frickin' Rules (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Petey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:17:23 AM EST
    Sorry.  Blanked out about that rule.

    Ever watch Glengary Glen Ross on a basic cable channel like TNT?  Endless scenes of guys yelling "Forget you" at one another...


    casino (none / 0) (#107)
    by jjsmoof on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:48:40 AM EST
    Yeah, watched casino on TNT...its odd seeing Joe Pesci saying Forget You throughout the whole thing. hhaha

    Mad TV (none / 0) (#140)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:17:38 AM EST
    did a great parody years ago about how The Sopranos would look on TNT or something.  It was one awkward, jarring edit after another with the advent of each cuss word.  Hilarious.

    The tag, of course, was "tune in next Wednesday from 10:00 to 10:02 for the next episode of The Sopranos"


    For those unfamiliar (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:03:25 AM EST
    Discussion of who you are going to vote for in November are not permitted in my threads.

    Inevitably, such discussions are used to deflect from the substance of the post presented.

    You can still discuss that topic in the threads of Jeralyn and TChris. But not mine.

    If you have nothing to say about the actual post presented, there is no requirement that you post a comment. Indeed, there is a prohibition against such off topic comments.

    Raisng the bar? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:00:08 AM EST
    Last week it was people could not ask how others were going to vote.

    Now we can't say how we are going to vote?

    Ridiculous. Just ridiculous.

    Peoples comments alone say how they are going to vote so what is the sense of what you now trying to do?


    BTW (none / 0) (#88)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:20:54 AM EST
    Supposedly I can't say who I am gong to vote for in America anymore. /snark

    But I can say I won't vote because that is not taking sides.


    Let me rephrase (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:01:38 AM EST
    No discussion of how OTHER people should vote.

    Thanks for the clarification :) (none / 0) (#127)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:07:55 AM EST
    you should not believe obama (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:28:16 AM EST
    because he himself ascribes political motivations to other politicians.

    Which was probably the high point of your opinion of him.

    Did we see a poll (none / 0) (#60)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:42:30 AM EST
    last week that showed support from HRC backers softening? And so what when there's the fat juicy middle available.  His position on FISA is despicable, but the great middle couldn't care less. They'll have moved on to whatever the narrative is/becomes after the kids are back in school. This will be so much dust in the wind to them.
    By early September the economy, which is showing signs of worsening, may dominate the landscape, but the fear of attack will not go away, the republicans won't allow that. BO gets his "security creds," as defined by the right (they own the narrative they get to make the rules - I believe he believes that is true) and the fat juicy middle is safe.

    perhaps (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:56:52 AM EST
    but there's also the threat of those Unknowns about Obama the republicans will run with and make a part of the daily conversation 24/7 (Wright, Ayres, who knows what else).

    If Obama had a stronger "brand" with a longer history (like McCain who most voters feel they already "know"), he might be able to dodge being defined by the inevitable 527s.  But he's decided to make himself a blank slate in order to please everybody.  Unfortunately that decision also leaves him open to being defined by the Republicans and, come the Fall, that's what you're going to see non-stop.

    Obama has between now and late-August to define himself clearly as something OTHER than "the guy who's not McCain".  To tell the Voters what he wants to do for them and how he's going to help them.  Where he stands on the important issues of the day.  To stand firm, speak clearly and not equivocate.  

    If he fails to do that, the voters -- this middle you refer to -- will have nothing to grab onto when it comes to deciding "who" Obama is and they won't have the time or patience to figure it out via his long-winded statements and constant need to "refine".  And that's where the Republican 527s step in.  They'll do the deciding for them.

    You gotta make it easy for the American Voter.  Otherwise they lose interest and either vote for the other guy or skip voting altogether.  

    Either Obama can make it easy or he can have the Republicans make it easy for him.  His choice.


    The American Voter (none / 0) (#83)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:10:16 AM EST
    does indeed need for it to be easily digestible. BO has made the "defense of the homeland" issue easy in that he cannot be accused by the 527s of having jeopardized security by not supporting FISA.
    Those voters won't go much deeper than 3 or 4 major issues, then it's ties and shoes unfortunately. I see that BO is looking to disarm the 527s wherever and whenever possible. Will the 527s stop attacking him? No, but softening possible points of attack does appear to be a concern for him.
    Where does that leave the voter? It may come down to the lesser of two evils. The irony of that will leave a lot of people shaking their heads.

    if it comes down to (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:24:48 AM EST
    the "lesser of two evils", most voters will go with they one they "know" rather than the one who's the "new guy on the block".

    Obama's inexperience and lack of legislative history -- once highlighted and shouted from the cable news channels non-stop -- will scare a lot of fence sitters into McCain's column if they find themselves still struggling to understand just WHO Obama is come Election Day.

    Better the Devil they know than the Devil they don't, as they say.


    Granted (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:26:00 AM EST
    I live in GA and it's not representative of the rest of the country but I'm already hearing the same thing about Obama that I heard about Kerry. Voters saying they "don't like him" or "he's wishy washy". The thing that's probably worse is that there are Kerry voters who won't vote for him.

    I live in NYC (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:36:52 AM EST
    in Greenwich Village near NYU and I'm hearing the "ugh, I'm so over Obama" and "he's so wishy-washy" lines as well.

    My partner -- an attorney at Skadden, a strong supporter of Democratic candidates -- went to a City Bar meeting last night (or a meeting of people involved with the City Bar, I'm not sure which) and, out of a room of twenty or thirty people, not ONE person was excited to be voting for Obama.  Many feel he's not up to the job and he wasn't the people's choice.  In addition, many there were considering -- as he and I are -- not voting at all.

    So, it's not just GA.  I suspect the buyer's remorse we saw in the primaries after February has only grown stronger, especially after the DNC's charade of a meeting in June.


    "Realist" versus "Real Change" (none / 0) (#94)
    by Exeter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:30:18 AM EST
    Except for the untruthiness, I don't have a problem with Obama. I knew all along that he was the same brand of "realist" DLC Dem as Clinton, but at least with Clinton, for better or worse, I knew exactly what I was getting. With Clinton there would be no suprise when she moved to the right for the general, but Obama specifically campaigned against "realist" DLC Dem politics and demanded that it be replaced with "real change."  


    Well, the next time you are on (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:44:25 AM EST
    your telephone, and you hear a clicking sound, say hello to the gov't, listening to every word and perhaps finding your conversation unacceptable and rounding you up for questioning. Listen for it, it's coming!!!!! Is it "change" you can believe in?

    On FISA I can't say for sure (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:03:39 AM EST
    But Obama's move to the right on SS, Abortion, and Evangelical outreach exceeds what I think Clinton would have done.

    On Evangelical outreach, Obama exceeds (5.00 / 12) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:17:35 AM EST
    what Bush was willing to do. Even Bush did not propose adding a Secretary of Faith to his cabinet. Think about what a great recommendation this is for a Democrat to vote for Obama. Vote for Obama. He will dare to go further in blurring the lines between church and state than Bush.

    On that note, (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    The other day I happened upon this snark page:

    A sample:

    Washington, D.C. - President George W. Bush, in a quiet ceremony in the Oval Office, today signed an executive order that creates a new government agency called the Department of Faith. Selected to head the Department of Faith is Vice President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynn Cheney, who will now carry the title, Secretary of Faith, which is a cabinet level position.

    Hard to believe this was once intended as satire, innit?


    I do not see why (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    Clinton would have moved at all had she been declared the winner of the nomination. She was already running a centrist campaign. She won 18 million votes. Why would she change her strategy?

    Moreover, she was able to garner the support of 67% of New York State residents (many of whom are very conservative) in her last re-election bid, without giving an inch on womens' rights, faith-based initiatives or Social Security.

    One thing I know about Hillary is that she has core Democratic principles and sticks to them. She may parse her words a lot and pander to the rightwing when it does no harm, but that is why she is a consummate politician IMHO.


    Wait a minute (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:42:12 AM EST
    What's going on with SS?  Is he touting privatization again?  That was his stand before January.

    As far as Hillary, I'm disgusted with Taylor Marsh saying that Hillary would have done the same thing every time Obama comes out with one of his zingers to the left.  Hillary would not have done any of this stuff because she wouldn't have to.  Hillary laid out her positions and policies during the primaries and people voted for her on because they liked her positions.  She was enormously popular with traditional Democrats and moderate Republicans and even evangelicals.  She wouldn't need to flip.


    That's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    Here's the thing, who cares what Hillary would have done? If she had done it, I would have blasted her in these exact words.

    But she is not the nominee. He is.


    I agree wholeheartedly... (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:02:20 AM EST
    comments like that, every time Obama flips, set my teeth on edge. Hillary was/is a known quantity. A fighter for progressive causes (UHC, reproductive rights, gay rights etc.) and we knew she stood firmly in the center. She was/is a populist and people voted on her grit and her very detailed policy plans.

    She would have had no need to flip on those issues.


    I don't believe him either (none / 0) (#132)
    by annabelly on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:12:17 AM EST
    And I caught Kos tipping his hand about it and blogged it here: Truth and Kosequences

    I believe him on FISA now (none / 0) (#150)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    I think that's the way he really thinks. I believe him on wanting to water down Roe. And I believe him on some of his other recent "moves" to the right. And what's more, I'm happy he's finally being honest and telling us what he thinks and what he would do. I think it takes guts.

    He could be more political and not do this. Because this year of all years, if he pretended to be more left, he would win. Period. So his move to be honest is actually gutsy. Especially since he's not formally the nominee yet. I don't like his positions of course, but I applaud his honesty. Perhaps he was serious about a new type of politics and not being partisan. He doesn't fit in the mold of either party and he's now finally bold enough to let it all hang out there.

    Sorry but he is just the wrong choice (none / 0) (#177)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    to be representing the democratic nomination.  It gets worse by the day.  

    Will the Hilary delegates automatically give their votes at the convention to Obama or will they cast them for Hilary?  The way this is going there could be a fiasco and major upset in Denver.  Anybody else feel this way?

    Democrats having backbones? (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:59:29 AM EST
    I assume you're joking here, right? A fight at the convention would necessarily involve convictions and similar concepts that aren't really part of our parties makeup.

    Sadly I think the convention will be show only. I won't even be surprised to see Hillary not even mentioned on the floor.

    Of course I still have some hope something can happen, but I don't expect it.


    I agree, but it depends on how bad it gets (none / 0) (#194)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    from here on out to the convention.  Stranger things have happen.

    I have had to realize that I have a (none / 0) (#207)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    whack view from other progressives where politics is concerned these days since there is military involvement in my daily life.  For me though, it would seem that this invites a shake up in Denver.  Of course this silly family has to plan its daily life around defending the Constitution, whatever that is today.

    How is AT&T's stock price (none / 0) (#183)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    doing today?

    Checking....  up, what a surprise.
    Verizon, also up.

    In this bear market, it helps to have Congress on your side.

    grrrrrr (none / 0) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    The excuse that he is doing this (none / 0) (#206)
    by my opinion on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    out of political calculation can not be accepted since FISA was put in place to stop politicians from stomping on the constitution for political reasons.

    From the Church Report:

    "The Committee finds that information has been collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action."