OBAMA may well lose the Presidency because of his FISA vote.

Haven't you noticed the deflation? The fire gone from the Obama campaign? Sure, some money's coming in, but the flow has slowed a bit, hasn't it? All that support he was getting from folks like us is now gone. In other words, all the support frome people on this site who REALLY DO PAY ATTENTION, folks who will eagerly voice their heartfelt views and can move and influence many, less aware others -- all that support and money, all that magic of a campaign that was just going to be HONEST and bring us out of these dark ages with a clarity of vision that says NO NO NO to the destruction of the constitution, NO NO NO to the old ways of political maneuvering -- NO NO NO to the INSANITY of the past 7 years -- all that IS NOW GONE! Gone with one fatal, assinine vote. And my friends, make no mistake, it is gone for good. Why? Because the second Obama cast that vote in favor of the FISA bill he ceased to be a legitemate public servant. By voting to end the 4th amendment, he is now necessarily, by-definition, part of and and accomplice to the crimes of the very outlaw regime that we must today throw off to if we are to survive as a Democracy. Obama has now thrown in with bandits of the right, who would steal many more rights from if --god forbid-- there were another attack on American soil. How can folks like us be excited anymore about this campaign? We can't, quite simply. It is basically over for us. There just are some things ONE CANNOT COMPROMISE. And everyone who really knows what is going on understands what I am talking about.

So the Obama campaign was apparently outraised by the McCain campaign this past month. What do you suppose is the reason? I say it is the FISA vote. What Obama failed to understand is that the magical internet money machine that he had tapped into --that seemingly endless flow of small contributions from small donors that led him to forego public financing -- was a collective THANK YOU for finally saying the things that needed to be said. ALL that energy and enthusiasm and the money that went with it was for what WE THOUGHT was going to be Obama's heroic efforts to filibuster the FISA bill. Now I watch sadly as the MAGIC of Barack Obama just fades into our memories, as slowly but surely, one by one, we disengage from him and write him off as 'just like the rest of em'. Oh, Obama may be able to woo a certian number of less-aware voters and get them to cough up a contribution or two with a good speech here and there. But I predict the Automatic Money Machine is no longer going to run as well as it did. I also predict that he won't fill that stadium. That's what happens when you step on the rights of true patiots for some stupid triangulation stategy, that will NEVER win in the end. Indeed, I beleive that in this vote, we have just witnessed the blunder that will cost Obama the presidency....

more @ http://hatingitmagazine.com

One of my personal favorites: Nader caused Bush.

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

"Democrats for Bush, Democrats for nobody"
"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with their own candidate, Al Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting.

willybill

You are not biting because you don't have an argument with teeth. You don't want the discussion to be about what Gore would have done or not because you can't face the fact that had even a tenth of those 97,000 voters considered the possible consequences of their vote, we would have been spared the most disastrous presidency in our history. Their abdication of responsibility is what made the Florida vote close enough to rig. And they still don't accept responsibility for their actions, just like the guy they put in the White House.

oncemanc June 27th, 2008 8:24 pm .....This discussion is not about what Gore would have done or not done. You present diversionary tactics. I'm not biting.

The 2000 election was rigged from start to finish; from the dimpled chads, the bogus felon list via Jebb and K. Harris and all the way to the coup d etat implemented by SCOTUS. Bush was in, Nader or not.

Ciao.....

Willybill,

"This argument implies that 97,000 Floridians were too stupid to be given a choice at the voting booth."

Not stupid, perhaps, but certainly unable or unwilling to see past their noses. You tell me, do you really believe deep down that President Gore would have invaded Iraq, or appointed Justices Scalia and Alito to the Supreme Court, or reacted in such a disgusting way to Katrina? Voters in Europe and Canada have long understood the idea of strategic voting, but perhaps too many American progressives are too naive to comprehend where their own interests lie. Strategic voting in 2000 would not only have given Al Gore a fraud-proof victory, but also produced a President that progressives would have had a reasonable chance of influencing. Actions have consequences and you cannot deny that those high-minded individuals who voted for Nader or stayed home in tightly contested states, rather than vote for a less-than-perfect Democrat, risked putting Bush in the White House. It turned out to be Florida, but it could have been any one of a number of states. Too many progressives act as if once an election is over, they can only sit on the sidelines until the next election. That's perfectly true if by sticking to your principles you help a Republican into office, but with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Congress you would have a real chance of wielding influence. The way I see it, far too many on the left are content to wait for some progressive version of the Rapture. Maybe they enjoy being in perpetual opposition, or perhaps they fear that if they actually exercised some influence they would also have to accept some responsibility.

IT'S ALL ABOUT ORGANIZATION

This is the only way progressives can hold the Democrats feet to the fire, and at the same time, create a viable third party, the Green Party, and make the progressive voice heard. It would take a massive amount of organizing and cooperation, but it could be done, and I would love to be able to vote for progressive people like Cynthia McKinney and even Ralph Nader knowing that my vote was not putting Bush III in the White House.

First of all you would have to organize all the progressive outlets on a common thread and around a common mission. By progressive outlets I mean websites, news sources, blogs, radio and podcasts, and print media. I'm talking about MoveOn, CommonDreams, TruthOut, BuzzFlash, DailyKos, HuffPost, AirAmerica, NovaM, DemocracyNow, The Nation, Mother Jones and all the rest! I'm talking about an Internet Progressive Revolution here! This can't be done on a piecemeal basis!

And here is the mission -
Get every single progressive Democratic voter to change their registration from Democrat to Green. Even if we got eveyone to do this, we would not have enough to win an election, so they can, and still should, vote Democratic in November, but we would be well positioned to make demands on the new Democratic power structure by threatening them with mass losses in the 2010 elections for the House and Senate, as the entire House stands for re-election every two years, along with one third of the Senate.

By 2010, we could make the Green Party a viable alternative if the threat is not enough, and should we still need it. I would hope that we don't need it, as the time available to make a course correction to save this country, and this world, is growing very, very short. We are in that proverbial quandary of an irresistable force on a collision course with an immovable object, and it ain't gonna be pretty! The perfect storm of financial and economic failure, war without end, global warming, peak oil, food shortages, water shortages, resource depletion and dying oceans is bearing down on us at breakneck speed and the ship's crew is asleep-at-the-helm!

Mike B. in SC

pnolan June 27th, 2008 11:51 am .. I'll go for corporatocracy. Greed and the bottom line rules. I cannot disagree with a thing you have said, but I am not ready to throw in the towel. We the People have and are the ANSWER..if we would only get up off our asses and use the power of numbers. I assure you, of that they are terrified!

to willybill: your metaphor of "national suicide" notwithstanding, yeah, I think its way past time to move on to something that works better and reflects the will of the people within the context of being citizens of the world, no better and no worse. Let's face it, we've blown it and what we have doesn't work, not that it was ever truly designed to (I've a much different take on our founding fathers as it were). We've crapped in our own nest once too many times. Call it suicide if you like if that means the demise of what currently stands for the government we now have being run by crooks and cronies. In reality, if I may, this country's govt is not a living being so it can't die muchless commit suicide. It can only change and I'm all for that. I just don't think that change will come fast enough or soon enough or substantially enough relying on the same old processes we have right now. I'm freely admitting that I have completely given up on what stands for the alledged democratic process in this country. At best when it's allowed to function as designed (elections), it is too dependent on a well informed public that's not being intentionally manipulated and deluded by wealthy special interests (nay I call it the aristocracy) - ref Chomsky. At its worse, as it is now, there's absolutely no hope when votes are being stolen and manipulated, candidates are essentially the same, and the will of the people is totally ignored (pick an issue de jour - war, rendition, torture, death penalty, drugs, nuclear power, foreign policy, etc. and explain to me the dissonace between the clear majority position of the people and that of those people elected to govern over us). Either you trust the will of the people or you don't. If it's the latter, then that's democracy; if it's the former than that's some sort of facism...You tell me which one we've got. My opinion is that we have a kakistocracy!

oncemanc June 26th, 2008 9:48 pm ....

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Saturday, February 10, 2001 in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Democrats, Not Nader, Caused Gore's Loss
by Robert Adleman

Marianne Means' Feb. 4 column "Goodbye, Ralph" exemplifies the sad state of civil discourse and democracy we live in.
I was recently at a party with some wonderful liberal friends who were chastising me and a minor number in attendance for voting for Ralph Nader. I asked all those who voted for Nader to raise their hands. I then asked all those who voted for Nader and did not either work on his campaign or contribute money to his campaign to put their hands down. Nobody put their hands down. I then repeated the same process with Gore. No hands remained raised when I asked who contributed time or money to Gore's campaign.

People with a compassionate vision are too willing to accept corporate democracy that undermines the very vision they profess.

Means perpetuates myths that are useless except to those invested in the status quo.

Myth 1: Ralph Nader cost Gore the election.

Putting aside that the election was decided by a corrupt Florida government in concert with a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court, financed by corrupt corporations after a corrupt election where African Americans were routinely disenfranchised, and accepting the questionable underlying premise, it was not Nader who cost Gore the election but the 97,000 Florida citizens who exercised their democratic rights and voted for Nader rather than someone else, possibly Gore.

This argument implies that 97,000 Floridians were too stupid to be given a choice at the voting booth. The underlying premise of this myth is that a person who offers an option to voters is bad. It says that voters are not quite as smart as sheep and we need to vilify the naysayer who confused the poor sheep. Nice.

Myth 2: The Democrats are justified in blackballing Nader because he cost them the election.

Every year Democrats beat Republicans and Republicans beat Democrats, but members of the two parties work in collaboration year after year. They allow each other to testify and be part of the gang even though they clearly cost each other elections. Why is that?

Because they are both drinking from the same trough and know that while the faces occasionally change, their power is dependent on the two-party system. But if someone says, "Hey, this two-party system is corrupt," he or she becomes a pariah. Why is this?

To ask the question is to know the answer. It has nothing to do with costing the other party the election. The reason Nader is attacked is because neither party is interested in change. They are solely interested in having access to the spoils of the system -- which they have whether in power or out, albeit to lesser or greater degrees. If Nader has useful information to give in testimony, why would the Democrats bar him? It's because what he could contribute to the debate on the issues they profess to believe in is not nearly as important as making an example of him for anyone else who dares to challenge the entrenched party system.

Myth 3: Just look at Bush's Cabinet picks and you know how important it was to have voted Democratic.

Excuse me. Tommy Thompson -- a man who is in the pocket of the tobacco companies and has tried to prevent any money of the tobacco litigation settlement from being used to prevent those corporations from addicting teenagers -- was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

Gale Norton -- a disgusting blight on the environment who has sided with corporations against the people and was virulently anti-gay as Colorado attorney general -- was confirmed with a majority of the Democrats voting yea.

Christine Todd Whitman -- who as New Jersey governor was videotaped patting down African America youths who were stopped as part of her administration's illegal racial profiling -- was confirmed unanimously.

It reminds me of the argument during the election that we had to vote for Gore or we would end up with justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas This ignores the fact that Thomas was confirmed when Democrats controlled the Senate and Scalia was approved 98-to-0.

Nader's argument was that marginal differences between the two parties are not as important as building a progressive alternative to the corrupt system.

When the system shows itself at its most corrupt -- in Florida with a stolen election, in Washington with Bush's Cabinet and policies belying all he proclaimed, by Democrats refusing to seriously raise the issue of African American disenfranchisement or a stolen election, and by Clinton's pardoning the rich but not those who have languished in prison unfairly for years -- the messenger is blamed. The message is conveniently marginalized.

If Gore supporters had the enthusiasm for their candidate that Nader supporters had and volunteered and contributed money to his campaign instead of relying on the corporate elite, he would have won.

So the question is: Who cost Gore the election? Nader the democrat, or the Democrats?

Robert Adleman is an attorney who was active in Ralph Nader's campaign.

©1999-2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Adding to Hank Fur's list June 25 4:46 PM on why Obama is not progressive. He'll never miss an opportunity to tell us what a great president Reagan was. Talk about pandering.

Let the Obama people know how you feel LINK. I did. While the FISA bill decision hasn't changed my vote, it has shaken it...

Flood the inbox.

I understand the politics of this decision.... but why would he think it was necessary? Americans are ready for someone to dig in against the madness.

I was listening to Randi Rhodes on the radio this afternoon and she said that it was bothering her a lot that Obama was going for the Fisa Bill. She had on her program Jonathon Alter, Senior Editor from News Week. She asked him about it. He said for the last ten months there hasn't been a Fisa Bill at all and Congress was suppose to do something with it in Jan. but didn't. He said there had been something about the Capital last year, it had a warning it was suppose to be bombed so Congress gave Bush the right to wire tap without a court order until they could get something together for a new Fisa Bill. Alter said that he thought it was a con job. He said Obama is going for it because it puts in an Inspector General in the bill and restores the Fisa Bill where there wasn't one before. He said,(Alter) that Obama, if he becomes President, could change it with the help of the Democrats to get the Fisa Bill where it would be back to where it should be. He said the Bill was just thrown together and it is hard to read.
It is all politics and right now Obama is doing what he has to do to get along I guess. I was upset myself and called Congress's switchboard and left a message for my Senator and for Obama not to vote for it.
After listening to Alter explain it, much better than I am here, I could see where Obama was coming from. I know that he would be attacked for not voting for it because he'd be accused of being soft on terror.
By the way, why is it that Americans think that the Republicans are better at protecting us? We were attacked on George W. Bush's watch!!! He was even warned that we were going to be attacked and Ashcroft, Conde, and Bush didn't pay attention. Ashcroft didn't want to hear about it from the CIA Richard Clark when he tried to warn them along with Conde. George Tenent gave Bush the papers at his ranch while he was on vacation Aug. 2001 that Bin Ladin was going to attack. He told Tenent ok, you can leave now, you've covered your ass. Then, when we were attacked, Bush goes in and bombs Iraq, that did not attack us and we are in one hell of a mess and we aren't safer because they hate us more. Go figure.

For the record, I admire Ralph Nader's lifetime of achievement and I voted for him in 2000 to send the Democrats a message. I afforded myself this luxury with the full awareness that if Al Gore lost my state, he would be buried in a landslide anyway. However, those knuckleheads who thought they were keeping their political virginity by voting for Nader in Florida enabled the Supreme Court to hand the election to Bush, and ended up being well and truly raped by two terms of Bush with a criminal war, torture, an even more skewed Supreme Court and the worst economy since the Great Depression. If you really believe there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, ask yourselves whether the disastrous course of our nation since 2001 would have been followed under President Gore.

Yes, Obama has his failings, being human like the rest of us. But learn your constitution: the President proposes but the Congress disposes. We should elect Obama so big that he pulls in huge Democratic majorities in both houses, just like FDR did. VAGreen claims that FDR's move to the left was motivated at least in part by a desire to prevent the rise of the Socialist Party. There may be a grain of truth in that, but the major truth is that he was given courage, and kept in line, by having all those Democrats in congress at his back. What matters is how Congress modifies the President's proposals by the time he gets to sign them into law. Let's face it, in the real world the only realistic alternatives are Obama and McCain. Although there would obviously remain conservative Democrats in the Congress, Obama as President and a substantial influx of new Democratic members would do far more to advance a progressive agenda than any number "principled" votes Nader could realistically expect.

For those wishfully-thinking ostriches out there who objected to my original post: how many more times do you want to get screwed by a Republican administration? That's exactly what you could risk by your supposedly pure Nader votes. Do you really want to enable more rulings like today's pro NRA decision?

They say you can only lose your virginity once but I guess some of you would blithely risk learning the hard way that, politically speaking, you can repeat the process.

In light of the many startling revelations about Obama's right-wing tilt since receiving the nomination, it is shocking to hear so many fools speak about how a vote for Nadar is a ridiculous way to throw one's vote away.

Quite the contrary. To vote for Nadar is to vote for the kind of integrity that the US desperately needs, regardless of whether or not Nadar wins the election. If a significantnumber of people vote for Nadar it will send a clear message that Americans really do want change they can believe in

With the Obama-McSame election we are back to voting for the lesser of two evils again rather than voting one's conscience.

When is America going to realize the absurdness of the statement that that Obama is simply playing pragmatic politics when he tilts ever right in his so-called effort to win the votes of "Middle America"

The reality is that if the Obama leopard is so willing to change his spots when it expediently suits him to do so, he can change his spots again and again and again given the circumstances.

If the Republican advisors on McCain's team are smart they will continually paint Obama's everincreasing shift to the right as just t dhe leopard chaning his spots again. Theyh should ask the electorate the question, "Once the leopard begins to change his spots, can you ever trust the leopard not to change his spots again?"

pnolan June 26th, 2008 1:08 pm ................So, you have come to the conclusion that national suicide is the answer. Do I read you correctly?

NADER, a vote for integrity. obama is yet another in a seemingly endless line of yes men kowtowing to big money and their god, the corporation.

Obama and his its all about change. How vague can one be and this "change" didn't say a thing. He's gotten where he wanted to be through sheer personality and charisma, but he never approached any issues early. Now his real stand is coming forth and what are we left with but another Republican Democrat and Nader isns't going to save the day. Is Obama a turn coat or is he just playing polictics? Maybe he will prove to be an improvement but to vote for this new FISA Bill sends an entirely new message: betrayal. Or maybe he didn't read the bill. Still I think he will be a small improvement over Bush but he was never meant to be a Kucinich.

.

I'll say it again…

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.

Never before as we do now

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

.

"How in the world will a vote for Nader change anything in this country?"

Apparently this Cat never read the article or numerous others showing Obama has no plans of changing anything either. My vote for Nader will be a protest vote and unlike the denial so many people cling to, I have no illussions about what my vote will achieve. Protest voting can impact pretenders like Obama and the Party he belongs: the only thing required is a critical mass of like minded people who have had enough with status quo, and corporate controlled political entities and their agents. When enough people decide to finally stand up and say 'no' not in my name, by weakening those entitites by witholding their votes things will actually start to change. The difference is, people like the author of that sentence don't really want change and so they jump through the various political hoops paying lip service to their ideology while diminshing the scope of freedom, environmental integrity, and instead become slaves to political entities offering a brand instead of substance.

I'm voting for McCain.

It's as plain as the nose on my face that in what is popularly charaterized as the "greatest experiment in democracy" that I once again have no viable or suitable or reasonable choice for President (or Senator, or Representative, or state legislator, or councilman, or judge, ad infinitum...). Since I've been of voting age when Kennedy was anointed, there has not been a single viable (that means electable) candidate of any sort that was worthy of my vote (the same applies to all the other offices we go through the charade of voting for - federal, state, or local). That presumes, of course, that my vote is actually recorded/counted correctly, that national popular vote actually determines who's elected President, that citizens are not prevented/prohibted from voting (racism, poverty and other marginalized members of our society), and that once elected, the new office holder would actually behave as he/she promised before being elected - all of which we know not to be true and never has been nor designed by our so-called "founding fathers" to be.

Even assuming that there's truth to my rant, at least there was a comforting thought I deluded myself with that no matter who took office (by whatever means), at some level, ultimately they had the best interest of the nation, in some distorted psycho way, at heart - then came Clinton/Bush who have managed to take the pludering, marauding and pillaging of the this country (yes, like pirates) and the world to unimaginable heights. There is no doubt that they are pathological - legends in their own minds and we are mere pawns for their amusement. Now I've got to pick between Obiewan and McShame - just when I thought it couldn't get any worse! Not only have the major candidates achieved a new level of depravity, hypocracy and moral void, but the other two branches of govt have become equally corrupt. It's enough to make one want to...I don't know what...it seems somewhat hopeless... what can one do?

Well, I'm becoming convinced that the best option I have before me is to go with what I'm calling the "Phoenix" option (any connection AZ to is coincidental). Here's my rather twisted logic. Things have become so bad that there's no chance of self-correction. The govt to the core is totally corrupt; the process we have to change the govt has been totally co-opted and no longer works (if it ever did); the institutions external to govt are likewise co-opted by corporations and the ruling wealthy elite; the last line of defense we had was the Bill of Rights and that's essentially been shredded; militarism has invaded and pervaded our social fabric at every level to the point that we have become a police state - we've run out of options to legitimately turn things around through any civil process. The only option there is is for the entire system of government to collapse of its own weight since there's no peaceful means that exists now for the people to change it and the people's wishes are being ignored and their rights trampled upon - self-implode as it were and the best way to do that is to elect the most incompetent, delusional, amoral, unqualified, cowardly, and narcissistic candidate we have ever had run for the presidency (never thought I'd say that after Shrub) and let him by his own acts bring this corrupt system of government to ashes. Only then will there be any hope for a new form of government of the people that actually serves the needs and will of the people, rising from the ashes like the Phoenix.

Everyone needs to vote McCain!

comradericardo June 26th, 2008 12:49 pm ...And your suggestion to help the situation is?.....................

How in the world will a vote for Nader change anything in this country? That is an absurd decision. There is no hope in the vote and there never was. Look at the evolutionary process of voting in America. All we have had is wars and reliance on fossil fuels and now we are bankrupt! Voting is the problem not the solution. Politicians are incabable to change anything because they are put in office by the corporations that dominate this country. Both parties receive equal amounts of worthless dollars to insure the corporations do not lose. The Republicans have figured out how to stack the deck and rig the electronic voting machines so they will win every time and they will. McCain will be our next president, you can bank on it! I say screw voting and do not support a rotten plan. I won't bother ever again to cast a ballot for a corporation. Go ahead and vote for Nader, that has to be the most insane solution to the problems in this country. Read Karl Marx, he predicted all this and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is applying Marxist philosphy and it building a socialist country. It is worth watching and making all you voters might learn something from it!

jpbreeze: You're wrong. Under Obama nothing significant will change. His rhetoric is only rhethoric. He is backed by the same entrenched special interests that back McCain. The problem is in the entire two party system which keeps the country in the thrall of the super-rich and corporate interests. We betray ourselves if we vote for those who don't represent real reform. That makes us almost as corrupt as the two party big money system itself. The political system on the federal level in this country is defunct, beyond redemption. Real change can only be initiated on the state and local level. That is the sad truth, but it is the truth.

IMHO, any real humanist-progressive voting for the Democrats, and specifically for Obama for President is committing an act of "Evil Lesserism " while thinking he/she is merely practicing "Lesser Evilism". Vote for Nader, vote Green, but please don't vote for Obama and legitimize the myth that only one of the kleptocratic "major" parties can win and rule effectively. Democrats are more evil than the Republicans because they a far more pernicious pretender (greater than the Republicans) of effectively championing the aspirations of the "ordinary, hard-working Americans". For those of us who have seen Obama grovel before the power-makers at AIPAC, the FISA sell-out is no surprise. Fascism (combination of theocratic, corporate and military dominance of society and culture) keeps creeping up on America. We are headed for even more deep doo-doo with Obama at the helm (BTW, he's guaranteed to win because the corporations have placed their bets on him - just look at which way the bribes... er.... campaign contributions are flowing).

I guess he is going to turn into a John Kerry afterall. A carefully calculated, delicately scripted, wishy-washy piece of vomit. I don't know why I let myself get my hopes up. After all he is part of the Democratic party of quitters, loosers, cowards and capitulators.

Well, this is frustrating, to say the least, but also not a surprize. Obama is running on one issue and one issue only...and that is change. When he gets called on as to why he didn't keep his campaign promises, all he has to say is "I only broke one promise, change."

What we have here is the same ol sh*t wearing a different shirt. Obama and Clinton were BOTH the corporate picks of the democratic primary, didn't really matter who won (same with the repugs., just more "candidates" for the corporations to choose from). Now the corporate candidates are in place, McCain and Obama, and here we are, once again, voting for the lesser of two evils.

We had a choice during the primaries, but blew it, with a little help of course from "our" compicit corporate media. I don't care what anybody says about third party candidates, they are the ONLY choice we now have. Perhaps voting third party may be a losing vote, but at least it is a vote of conscience. A vote for McCain or a vote for Obama are esentially the same thing, a vote for the same old Sh*t, same party, different name.

oncemanc June 25th, 2008 9:17 pm

"To all those people who are having a hissy fit because Obama doesn't satisfy your every whim, try to understand that he has to attract as many independents and moderate republicans as possible to get elected. Unlike other Democratic presidential candidates, he is not moving rightward so much as trying to persuade undecided voters to move left."

Poppycock! Barack Obama is a centrist plain and simple, look at his record, look at his policies. Listen to what he is really saying, not the worthless platitudes about "change" but the substance. I have no problem with you who support Obama, go ahead and vote for him, but do not try to sell him to the rest of us as something he is not, awn will never be. It is obvious that he will be selling progressive values down the river like the Centrist Corporatist Democrat he is.

I will wager that if he is elected he will work diligently to maintain the power garnered to the office of President by "w". He will be the next puppet leader of the Fascists regime that has already taken over even before "w", even before Slick Willy. The American dream of freedom and equality has been turned into a farce, and we the people have been distracted from our duty as citizens, turned into Zombies whos only role is to consume as much crap as possible.

OK, I guess that qualifies as a rant.

Let us not forget that Mr. Obama is running for president. After his short tenure in the senate, where he is supposed to act in the best interests of the people he wishes to be the Chief Executive, the "Grand Poobah" if you will. The role is much much different. Considering the fact that the after Bush and that farce of an opposition party currently in charge of the congress the US constitution is so much toilet paper anyway, is it any surprise that one such as Obama, seeking the office of President would want that office to have as much power as possible?

So much for our agent of change.

Apologies...Could not get back on to edit.....Should read, "and NOT for what I must assume".

oncemanc June 25th, 2008 9:17 pm ....So, I must base my vote on an assumption that this is Obama's strategy, rather than vote for a man whose integrity is proven and in the open and whose position on issues has been consistent through the years. Thanks, but I'll vote for what I know and for what I must assume.

If you insist that a "third party" can never make a difference,any third party will never make a difference.

Stovob, were are getting hearings and investigations that would never have happened under Republican control. Some truth is getting out now. The Senate requires 60 votes for cloture and two thirds to squash a veto from Shrub. The republicans have set a record on filibustering legislation since the Dems gained control, but at least we're running the show and chairing the committees.

While I would love to see an impeachment of the Neo-Fascists, it has zero chance of success. It takes a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict, and we wouldn't even be able to get the one half that are supposed to be Democrats to vote for conviction, no matter how convincing the evidence. Better that we let Vincent Bugliosi prosecute him for murder after he leaves office.

We have worked very hard to get real progressive candidates like Donna Edwards to replace beltway-insider Democrats in the primaries in Maryland and other states. They are ready to start changing things in 2009 if elected, but if people turn away from Obama in the general election in November, all that work will be for nothing. We need people to vote a straight Dem ticket.

By the way,I didn't find Hillary's name on this list, can you? I wonder how she will vote on this.

"In the end, only 15 U.S. Senators were willing to resort to procedural tactics as a last ditch effort to hold up the legislation. The list of those who voted against cloture included:

Joseph Biden, DE Barbara Boxer, CA Sherrod Brown, OH Maria Cantwell, WA Chris Dodd, CT Dick Durbin, IL Russ Feingold, WI Tom Harkin, IA John Kerry, MA Frank Lautenberg, NJ Patrick Leahy, VT Robert Menendez, NJ Bernie Sanders, VT Chuck Schumer, NY Ron Wyden, OR

For the White House and the majority of the Senate, the FISA compromise has been hailed as a political breakthrough. "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get," Republican Sen. Kit Bond told the New York Times.

Sen. Barack Obama, a reluctant supporter of the bill, said he would work to strip telecom immunity from its language. However, he added, "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

Mike B, I respectfully disagree.

"We (liberal progressives), have worked very hard over the last six years to change the political landscape in Washington, and guess what - IT'S WORKING! We have gone from sliding down the mountainside with no limbs to grab or footholds to slow our descent, while the Fascist enablers in the Republican party held all the levers of power in the House, Senate and the White House."

What exactly is working??? The democrats won the majority in '06 based on their anti-war platform. Guess what the war is still going on and still being funded, including all the supplemental requests, by a democratic majority in the house and senate!!!

"The Democrats won enough photo-finish elections to regain control of the Senate and House by razor-thin margins."

See the previous comments as to why this made no difference.

"This is falling right into the corporate media trap, and setting yourself up for defeat in November."

Funny how the corporate media never mentions ANY 3'rd party candidate be they Libertarian, Green, Socialist, Independent, etc... I'd say you are falling right into the media's trap.

"Give Barack some latitude to attract some swing-Republican and centrist independent voters with his rhetoric on this bill, as his vote will not decide this issue. This is what politics is all about."

I guess that is what change means... pandering to get the most votes regardless of what may be right, or constitutionally correct. We need leaders, not wind socks. Let's hear one of those inspiring speeches about why the rule of law is still important.

"I would love to be able to vote for progressive people like Cynthia McKinney and even Ralph Nader knowing that my vote was not putting Bush III in the White House."

Welcome to the instant gratification of the US. A viable 3'rd party will not happen overnight, or maybe even through several election cycles. All I know is that voting for either of the same two establishment candidates will never result in change.

At this point all I can say is vote your true conscience. I think if you are a progressive the vote will not be for Obama. It is time to draw a line in the sand.. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Also everyone should remember that a vote for Lincoln in the 1860 election was a vote for war, but it was the morally right vote.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR SANITY AND A REALITY CHECK!

The Presidential Election in November is NO place to stage a protest, as that should be confined to the primary contest. Once the primary is over and nominees are chosen, getting behind your candidate and WINNING is what it's all about.

Even knuckle-dragging right-wing crazies like James Dobson, from Focus (FUBAR) on the Family, know this. After vowing that he would never vote for McCain during the primary, even he has taken to smearing Obama in the hopes of pulling his base together - They know how to win elections, a lesson yet to be learned by Liberal Democrats!

We (liberal progressives), have worked very hard over the last six years to change the political landscape in Washington, and guess what - IT'S WORKING! We have gone from sliding down the mountainside with no limbs to grab or footholds to slow our descent, while the Fascist enablers in the Republican party held all the levers of power in the House, Senate and the White House. They passed worse legislation after bad legislation and stuffed the judicial system with Neo-Fascist right-wing hack judges in the mold of Tony "The Skunk" Scalia.

We finally landed on a ledge after the 2006 elections, when the Republicans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with a lot of bad press about Iraq and a Republican Congressional homosexual page-diddling cover up, after the fix was already in place on the voting machine count. The Democrats won enough photo-finish elections to regain control of the Senate and House by razor-thin margins.

In the process, we managed to throw some scum-sucking pigs out of the party - Joe Lieberman comes to mind, and we have removed a few more of the DINOs in the 2008 primarys. This is how it is done, and how it is WON - incrementally! One step at a time, one progressive candidate elected after another, until we own the party and set a new progressive agenda. You can't change everything and get everything you want in one fell swoop, it takes time and organization.

What we need to do right now, is elect Barack Obama in a landslide mandate with long coat-tails that will sweep many new progressive Democrats into the Senate and House. Then we can change from holding hearings about Republican criminality, to passing meaningful legislation for ordinary Americans, which will never happen with a Republican president, even if we have a veto-proof majority in both houses. And they will still stack the court with Fascist judges and fill all the government agencies, OSHA, FDA, NASA, FEMA, USDA, CIA, FBI and all the rest, with right-wing cronies.

No, NOW IS THE TIME to join together and drop the boot-heel on the wriggling Republican WORMS, and squash them into the ground, scoop up the remains, and toss them into the trash-bin of history. You can't do this by bad-mouthing your own candidate - This is falling right into the corporate media trap, and setting yourself up for defeat in November.

We have some good people in the Senate determined to stop the FISA bill, Feingold, Dodd and others. Give Barack some latitude to attract some swing-Republican and centrist independent voters with his rhetoric on this bill, as his vote will not decide this issue. This is what politics is all about. Sometimes you have to shut-up, hold your nose and do what is not perfect, but what is best! Any third party vote in November is a vote for Insane Grampy McSame.

Now, having said all that, let me tell you how you can hold the Democrats feet to the fire, and at the same time, create a viable third party, the Green Party. It would take a massive amount of organizing and cooperation, but it could be done, and I would love to be able to vote for progressive people like Cynthia McKinney and even Ralph Nader knowing that my vote was not putting Bush III in the White House.

First of all you would have to organize all the progressive outlets on a common thread and around a common mission. By progressive outlets I mean websites, news sources, blogs, radio and podcasts, and print media. I'm talking about MoveOn, CommonDreams, TruthOut, BuzzFlash, DailyKos, HuffPost, AirAmerica, NovaM, DemocracyNow, The Nation, Mother Jones and all the rest! I'm talking about an Internet Progressive Revolution here! This can't be done on a piecemeal basis!

And here is the mission -
Get every single progressive Democratic voter to change their registration from Democrat to Green. Even if we got eveyone to do this, we would not have enough to win an election, so they can, and still should, vote Democratic in November, but we would be well positioned to make demands on the new Democratic power structure by threatening them with mass losses in the 2010 elections for the House and Senate, as the entire House stands for re-election every two years, along with one third of the Senate.

By 2010, we could make the Green Party a viable alternative if the threat is not enough, and we should still need it. I would hope that we don't need it, as the time available to make a course correction to save this country, and this world, is growing very, very short. We are in that proverbial quandary of an irresistable force on a collision course with an immovable object, and it ain't gonna be pretty! The perfect storm of financial and economic failure, war without end, global warming, peak oil, food shortages, water shortages, resource depletion and dying oceans is bearing down on us at breakneck speed and the ship's crew is asleep-at-the-helm!

Mike B. in SC

I will NOT vote for Obama. He has passed the line into being not merely undesirable, but unacceptable.

The Hermit,

If the majority of people voted for a third party progressive like Ralph Nader, he would be president. It's not rocket science. Liberals have been complaining to each other for over seven years, but turn around and vote for the same group of politicians ready and willing to betray them once they are in power. The Democrats are one step higher than the Republican scum but still very low to the ground. Time to change your voting habits and discard the imaginary fear syndrome.

Matt Rothschild gets it right in this article that Obama has moved to the right. In contrast, that Wall Street Journal article, also posted today on Common Dreams, pretends that Obama moved to the center. It's important to see this slight of hand by the mainstream corporate press, which can cause many to be confused.

The Hermit above is quite correct in the how a third party like the Greens can shift the country in a more progressive direction. Unfortunately, so many Democratic Party loyalist voters in the United States will just root for their team, even if that team compromises its values so blatantly as Senator Obama has recently shown.

The big problem in the United States is getting the liberals to think like progressives. The right wing in the United States doesn't have the numbers to win elections. It only wins by cheating, plus relying on the Democratic Party to betray, alienate or bore its base. And that's happening - again.

How can anyone excuse a vote for a bill that is counter to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? I don't understand how so many can ignore that and still support the man. This is his moment to show if he has any sand. Senator Obama took an oath to protect and defend The Constitution. Period. What else might he do? By the way, I'm one of his early supporters - I have requested a refund on my campaign contributions.

so this is the "politics of change"

....Obama has changed so much he is hardly recognizable since he won the nomination...Giving Jerusalem whole over to the Israelis, supporting 4th ammendment abuses in the FISA bill, refusing public campaign financing, leaving the troops in Iraq indefinately....

At this rate, by the time he gets elected by the Pavlovian response of progressivs that can't count past two (parties) he will be sporting a tiny little moustach and goose-stepping up Pennsylvania Ave.

A repeat of 2006..the "antiwar" house democrats win a majority on an antiwar platform..then do nothing but political theater, and wave through some of Bush's worst abuses.

"YES WE CAN" fuck over the voters again.

A repeat of 2006..the "antiwar" house democrats win a majority on an antiwar platform..then do nothing but political theater, and wave through some of Bush's worst abuses.

"YES WE CAN" fuck over the voters again.

Matt,
Are you seriously surprised? In the rush to annoint the new chosen one, did anyone take a real look at his character? I did. John Edwards was the much more progressive voice. I would even have preferred Hillary Clinton. Now we have no hope of a new game. Vote Nader.

I can't agree more with "The Hermit". What "The Hermit" explained here is the exact reason why Nader is running again. We need to wake up. Only way to get out of this mess and bring some positive changes to this corrupt "two-party" political system is to vote for Nader (or other 3rd party/independent candidate). Since it becomes clear that the Obama presidency will not get us out of this mess or bring any significant changes, there is really no point for voting for Obama. If we keep voting for "anyone but Bush/McCain" or "for lesser evil," we would be stuck in a vicious cycle. I am voting for Nader.

If you want to change the Party system you have to work at the grassroots not for candidates but for changes in the Party system.

Work to change ballot access laws--the ruling class has pretty much shut off ballot access.

Work for Instant Runoff Voting

Thank you "The Hermit" You posted while I was typing mine up. Everything you say is spot on though!

Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I had been intrigued by Obama's message of change during the primaries. Originally I was a Kucinich supporter, but after he withdrew I was willing to give Obama a chance. He IS an inspiring speaker and I found myself trying/hoping to believe in him. After he clinched the nomination however he has steadily disappointed me, AIPAC, "Chicago school" economic advisors, FISA cave in etc. Change you can believe in? Where is the change? Maybe his health policy which will mandate me to purchase health insurance from for profit insurance companies? I guess that would be a change....

Does anyone believe that either a republican or democrat would ever reform the electoral process to allow third parties to compete? I don't see it, perhaps someone can enlighten me. I will be voting for Nader. I would strongly encourage anyone who truly wants to change the system to do the same. Not necessarily Nader, but any third party candidate.

The only way things will change is if one or both major parties realize that they are losing large amounts of support. If ~80 percent of the country thinks we are headed in the wrong direction then I don't understand how anyone thinks that a third party cannot pull in a respectable number of votes. Will they win this election? No. Change will be gradual, but unless we actually do start voting for a change the status quo dem/rep power structure will prevail.

PS. before you tell me I'm throwing my vote away I'm in Illinois... If Obama can't carry this state without me then....

I'm an Australian, so I'm a mere spectator in the coming Presidential election, but nevertheless, if I may...

Reading CommonDreams, I've seen a lot of progressives criticise the idea of voting for Ralph Nader (or Cynthia McKinney?) because doing so may help McCain to win. While I acknowledge that this is indeed a very tough choice (believe me, the rest of the world does NOT want another George Bush in the White House in the form of John McCain), I believe that this really is a time in which you need to stand up for what YOU THE PEOPLE believe in.

In Australia, our government has been dominated for decades in the same way as yours by two parties - the Liberals (Republicans) and Labor (Democrats), who seemed for a long time to be two faces of the same crew. Since enrolling to vote, I have never given my vote to either party, and instead have always voted Green, because the Greens are a real Party with real values. I did this knowing that the Greens would not win.

And yet, the Greens are now the fastest growing Party in Australia. Labor has recognised this trend, and the current leader of the Labor Party (also, after winning last year's election, the Prime Minister) now leads the most progressive government we have seen in a very long time.

The point I am trying to make is that a vote for a third Party IS NOT A WASTE.

It is a fact that Ralph Nader WILL NOT win this election. But perceiving this as a reason for voting for a Party you do not believe will do the right thing once elected is ludicrous. Voting for the Party that has the better chance of winning elections is what lands us with two-party oligarchies in the first place. What I am saying to progressives in the United States who are unhappy with the same-shit-different-day policies you are being handed is to stop voting for Democrats today. Vote for a third Party! Right now it is clear that the Democrats do not give two shits about your wishes because they know there is no alternative to their bullshit other than the even more retarded Republicans.

GIVE THEM ONE!

Trust me, if Democrats were to take a dive at the polls in both the Presidential and Congressional elections in favour of real progressive Parties, they will pull their finger out and start to take notice. I saw it happen in Australia, and I see no reason why it cannot happen in the United States.

I know nobody wants McCain to win (who does?) but if you keep throwing your votes at the Democrats regardless of the conservative bullshit they pull, the Democrats will _never change_. The way I see it, as an outsider, is that progressives need to say "No more." Send a message to the fat cats in the Democratic Party that they can no longer claim the progressive vote unless they start acting like progressives.

Just my two cents.

Oh, and by the way, make sure you take care of that Kucinich guy! Hell knows the world needs more politicians like him.

I am voting my conscience and the hope for a better world. I am voting for Nader. Obama is one of them. How much more proof do you want?

Bob K- No, you're absolutely wrong. You're pulling this "fact" out of where? Are you just a victim of Hillary mathlexia or do you simply have no functioning relationship with reality? If all the people (like me) who say they would prefer Nader voted for him, he still would not get close to even a respectable showing. There are still Republicans in this country, not just faux revolutionaries on CD. There are moderate Democrats. There are Centrist Democrats. Not all Democrats LIKE Nader's ideas.

You are amazingly, almost magically, wrong.

oncemanc June 25th, 2008 9:17 pm

"To all those people who are having a hissy fit because Obama doesn't satisfy your every whim, try to understand that he has to attract as many independents and moderate republicans as possible to get elected. Unlike other Democratic presidential candidates, he is not moving rightward so much as trying to persuade undecided voters to move left. Remember that FDR ran as a moderate in 1932 but governed with a pragmatic agenda so progressive that he was angrily denounced as a traitor to his class."

It's not about Obama satisfying "every whim". I'm tired of the "purity" strawman. Obama has been moving to the right: Caving in on FISA, embracing NAFTA after denouncing Clinton for supporting it, sucking up to AIPAC, etc. If my support for the Bill of Rights is a "hissy fit" and a "tantrum", then so be it. I'm sorry if I'm a little skeptical of ripping up our civil liberties and throwing them in the garbage in the hope that we can do some dumpster diving and tape them back together again "later" after Obama wins.

FDR's move to the left was motivated at least in part by a desire to prevent the rise of the Socialist Party. Just because FDR moved to the left after winning doesn't mean that Obama will. For most of my life, the Democrats have shifted to the right after winning. They only shift left (like Gore and Kerry) after they lose!

To all those people who are having a hissy fit because Obama doesn't satisfy your every whim, try to understand that he has to attract as many independents and moderate republicans as possible to get elected. Unlike other Democratic presidential candidates, he is not moving rightward so much as trying to persuade undecided voters to move left. Remember that FDR ran as a moderate in 1932 but governed with a pragmatic agenda so progressive that he was angrily denounced as a traitor to his class. The voters rewarded him with reelection in 1936 (and '40 and '44). If you don't like Obama, I suspect you wouldn't have liked FDR in 1932 either. Take enough time out from your tantrums to learn some history.

Correction below

It only takes 41 votes in the Senate for a filibuster to continue and for the FISA bill never to come to a vote!

If all those who say they WOULD vote for Nader except that he has "no chance" would simply vote for Nader, he would be our next president. President Nader. I like the way that sounds.

I told you so.

A vote for Obama is a vote for a continuation of the Reagan/Bush/Cheney policies. The "difference" between Obama and McCain? In an Obama administration those policies will be carried out under the banner of the Democrats.

Actually, I think I'll vote for Jesus. He has as much chance of winning as Nader. Or maybe I'll write in Kurt Vonnegut's name. I know he's dead, but what's the difference?

Thanks Tarry_Faster! I saw two names in your list that I will remember. Luckily they weren't in my district.

Great Work!

Oops... should read make an enormous DIFFERENCE!

It's plausible that all those authoritarians John Dean wrote about in "Conservatives without Conscience" really feel GOOD to know that big brother is watching/listening, kind of like "someone to watch over me." But the unspoken gist of this bill is "TRUST US" to make determinations as to whom is listened to and for what purpose(s). TRUST us when... Katrina left a wonderful city to rot in its own sewage; when war was made on fixed evidence and an elaborate PR machine to seduce public understanding; when our treasury is bankrupt; when this nation has decided torture is so much fun; when the presumed worth of homes has plummeted, etc. ad nauseum.

OUTSIDE THE LOOP/M BRUTON: Excellent posts.

WILL BILLY: In case this interests you, I wrote a script that was based on a clandestine "Manhattan" style "Project" based on choosing to clone a human being who could make an enormous distance in the fight against global corporate capitalism without conscience. I hate to give away who the committee selected for the first CLONE but he's high on your list, too! The script has been adapted into novel format and is entitled: The Caretakers, available at xlibris.com.

While I feel that Obama's support of FISA is a betrayal of the Constitution and the people who support him, I feel that he is still the only logical choice. The truth is that there is no way Nader is going to get enough votes to become President. All Nader is going to do is make it easier for the Republicans to keep control of the White House. Nader will only dilute the progressive votes, taking away from Obama just like he took from Gore in 2000. (can you imagine what this world would be like if Gore had all the progressive votes in 2000?)

I guess I feel that the most important thing about this election is not whether Obama is center or left, but that the next President will probably nominate up to 3 new Supreme Court Justices. The Supreme Court can be what breaks this FISA if we have the correct Justices on the court. Habeas Corpus barely survived the current Supreme Court line up and only did so because Kennedy swung to the left. Kennedy is the current swing vote on the Supreme Court. Okay, the three Justices who are, according to conventional wisdom, probably going to be leaving the court during the term of the next President are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and David Hackett Souter. These are three of the Justices who voted to kep Habeas Corpus. If these Justices had left earlier, during the Bush regime, we would have lost Habeas Corpus as Bush would have nominated conservative Justices who would have let Bush do as he will. If another Republican gets into office, it will guarentee a conservative majority on the highest court in the land. This is the court that can help reign in the run away executive branch and decide whether the laws that the roll and bend over congress are constitutional or not. We need to vote for Obama if only to bring the Supreme Court into a more progressive stance. A Supreme Court Justice has a longer effect on the government than the President. A President can serve up to 8 years, but a Justice can serve decades, if they want.

The best way to save our nation is to vote for Obama so he can bring the Supreme Court back to the Constitution. Oh and a mostly Democratic Congress is also important to get the right nominees accepted as the Justice.

Get on the da*m phone! Was just over at DKos and they are really making a push and getting some results. All of the Senate offices are being swamped with calls and they are all making tallies of the calls. Obama is under a huge amount of pressure to stop this thing. Even Schumer has been turned to vote against this. And Reid too. The important thing is to NOT get cloture. So call your senators! Forget how they stand on FISA. Tell 'em to vote AGAINST cloture and kick this can down the road. Maybe it will even die after the July 4th recess!

If you can't get through today, call again in the morning! And make sure you call Obama and Reid's offices too. NO CLOTURE!!!

Toll-free numbers for Congress:
1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 – 6437

Oh, and if you can, back up your call with an e-mail to ALL your senators, no matter which party.

Thanks for all you do!

Obama is Bush the third.The Republicans are backing him.They know McCain cant win in November.So Obama,who will do anything or say anything to get elected took them up on their deal.This is their only chance to hold on to the White House.The corporate media forced all the other candidates out of the race.The Republicans havent been hitting him like they did Kerry and the other Democrats who have run for the oast few years.Wonder why???

In a five hour fit of anger and frustration, I dug up the names and contact information on the 105 "Democratic" traitors who voted to approve the latest version of the "Compromise FISA bill" -- which destroys our Fourth Amendment.  I put the list on a website and will now go about "promoting" it.  Ideally, with your help, we could bring this site to the attention of enough people to develop a viral network that could then gain critical mass among voters to remove these traitors.

Here is the site: 

http://www.cloudbyte.com/traitors.html

Don't throw away your vote by voting for Obama (and yes, he was a better choice than Hillary). But he supports the corporate agenda, and it is the corporate agenda that is destroying our country and environment.

Make your vote count, vote third party.

(the next Obama letdown is going to be his vice presidential choice, who some apologist will again say is needed to reach out to the so called centrist voters. Lucy lines up another football for Charlie Brown.)

Ralph Nader or Green Party for President

Cindy Sheehan for congress.

The Presidential system itself is tainted. There is so much money and organization and media control invested in getting someone into the presidency, once they do, they are beholden to the powerful that got them there. The presidency is a role and set of behaviors and a set of power groups that selects its occupant and not the other way round. There is nothing inherently anointing or magical about electing one of the major party nominees except for the backing of a huge organization and money. It guarantees an occupant. Under this model, Mr Bush is not his own man, as should be well known. Other people and forces do his thinking. He is the embodiment of the national interests that supported his campaign. The presidency should be called the Puppetry.

Only the gathering of a large passionate momentum of opposing forces and views from grass roots up can bring about change. If Obama says he represents change, then you have to make sure you can see a large powerful organization behind him with well known views that are independent of the election cycle, and a set of published strong policies that mandate change. But there is no organization as such, and he has only the Democratic Party, which has next to no truly disinterested philosophy on Environment, Climate Change, War, and Independent Science. On all those big issues which really matter and require international cooperation, not US militancy and terror, Obama is a puppet tied by strings of narrow minded interests.

This is a sad sad sad event for anyone hoping that hope can be audacious. Obama has sold his soul to gain the world, and in this he gains nothing. I suppose one can still think that McCain is so bad that he needs to be stopped no matter what. But a vote for Obama will be a cynical vote, a vote without hope. One can vote for Nader without holding one's nose, be we know he cannot win. Is a protest vote for someone we can respect worth the chance of McCain winning? Tough question. But now it's clear that Obama is only a choice that can be made in terms of the lesser to two evils. Perhaps like voting for Mussolini over Hitler. No damn good, but what the heck...

Why does even the alternative news continue to talk about this as if it is simply a bad bill rather than being the blatant and direct attack upon the constitution and accountability that it is?

Not only does this so-called "law" violate the fourth amendment but also Atricle I, section 9 of the constitution which states:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Despite the Latin this is one of the simplest, clearest and most concise prohibitions the constitution has to offer.

A bill of attainder is a law which punishes someone without a trial - essentially the opposite of habeas corpus. In this case it is quite apparent that those who have filed suite against the telecoms are being punished for exercising their legal and constitutional rights, effectively ruling on the case through the use of legislation and usurping the power of the judicial branch. Maintaining the separation of powers was precisely the reason that the prohibition on bills of attainder was included in this section.

In the same simple sentence the constitution absolutely forbids the federal government from making Ex Post Facto law. Ex Post Facto translates to "after the fact". In other words the constitution's prohibition is against retroactive law. If this retroactive immunity does not qualify as Ex Post Facto law then nothing in this universe does. It is eminently clear. There can be no real debate that does not rely solely upon the most outrageous of lies. Even SCOTUS couldn't bend this clear and simple message without every Bible, in every court in the land, spontaneously combusting.

He showed hiss True Colors when he attended the Bilderberg meeting.....

The Dumbass lost my vote, my Moms, my Wifes, My Brothers,,,,, he is pissing it away.....

Would someone please stamp "Wannabe Neocon" on his head!

Coffee,,,,,,,

Attention Democrat Party Congressional Leaders and other Fair Weather Friends of the Constitution:

Just what the %&*@#% do you think you are doing? FISA, a law only dictators could love, violates a whole bunch of unambiguous prohibitions in the Constitution designed for the express purpose of preventing dictatorships. Why then are you cowards giving Bush and his Neocon henchmen, dictator wannabes one and all, exactly what they want? The so-called "improvements" you are helping pass not only violate 200 year old liberties, they wipe out what was clear grounds for impeachment and will let some egregious criminals in the Administration go free to continue their harmful schemes without penalty.

You could have defeated the entire concept merely by doing nothing and letting the odious law expire. Doing nothing is something you have proven so good at over the last several years. Why didn't you continue doing nothing for just once in your increasingly fruitless careers instead of becoming co-conspirators in the dismantlement of everything this country once stood for?

I have made this proposal here and elsewhere and no one has taken me up on it:

MAKE A LIST.
What about Barack Obama makes you think he's a progressive? Not character issues but social/political accomplishments. Politicians can say anything, and do. Eminent historian Howard Zinn says Obama is just slightly to the left of the Republicans. And yet, even here on Common Dreams, some still repeat the lie that Obama is progressive. That's just utter nonsense.

Here, I'll make my list of why I know he isn't:

1) Voted for the FISA bill discussed in the above article. It's unconstitutional.

2) Votes to continue the brutal, war on Iraq. Clearly illegal and un-constitutional.

3) Voted against putting caps on credit card interest at 35%. Soak the poor is not progressive!

4) Voted to make it more difficult to sue corporations in class actions. If lead poison retards your kid, too bad!

5) Supports corporate controlled healthcare. every other civilized country in the world has single payer. the vast majority of Americans want single payer. Not Obama.

6) Is calling Iran a terrorist nation, although Iran has not invaded any country for 250 years.

7) Supports Israel over the Palestinians, breaking treaties already in place. Illegal!

8) Supports NAFTA, free trade. Devastates American jobs.

9) No IMPEACHMENT! Says we should save impeachment for "exceptional circumstances." Can you believe that?

10) Has not spoken clearly about TORTURE. Has a wishy-washy stand: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/042108Floyd.shtml

11) In favor of more nuclear power plants.

12) Wants to increase the already enormous military budget.

Come on gang, let's list 'em here! Who else has Obama's number?

These are some of the most crucial issues we face, yet Obama is squarely on the side of corporate money. He is a big beneficiary of defense industry money, health insurance lobby, etc. Check it out.

The mantra, "he has to say these things to get elected," is not valid. You'll be chanting the same thing for years to come because there's always the next election to win. He has the money already, he has the voters support! Do you actually think he'd go under if he came out for single payer health care? A prompt exit from Iraq? 80% of voters want these things. Yet, he says "NO!" He is losing support by shifting right, not gaining.

If you want him to win, you'd better act fast because enough of us are bailing from this two-faced Democrat candidate. It's ignorant to go along any longer. Call him up today and tell him the news: Barack, you're gonna lose to McCain unless you CHANGE.

Yes, WE CAN CHANGE! VOTE NADER! THE PEOPLE'S CANDIDATE!

Donkeyman!

I don't like it, but it's not enough to push me to McCain, yet. I'd love for the next President (or the next) to start tapping into all of our representatives phones and E's. That would be justice served. Big Brother is coming, and damn quick. Get your squirrel guns ready.

This is a betrayal, and Obama is a hack. But I do not want the blood of one million plus dead Iranians on my hands for the sake of a protest vote that will mean absolutely nothing! A lot of people here have it so backwards. Until you can DEFEAT the Democrats (and not by electing Republicans) they will remain part of the problem. You have to field candidates locally, then groom them to run state wide and eventually for national office. How else do you people think this is going to work? A few percent at the margins vote for McKinney or Nader, a few percent vote for Barr and what do yo get? Business as usual, that's what. I will keep repeating it.... Trickle down politics works as well as trickle down economics. They (the corporate parties) will only take notice once you threaten their power. Voting for Nader or any other 3rd party candidate for the highest office in the land is laughable to these people, if it shows up on their radars at all. Only a movement of people committed to justice and equality will change this country. And unfortunately it will take time and effort. But what ever you do don't let your purity or idealism lead you to these pie-in-the-sky wishes that you accuse Obama supporters of clinging to. It won't happen over night and it won't happen with Ralph Nader leading the way.

Vote Nader. Dems and Repugs = no difference. Same old same old stuff as usual. I predict Obama will become president but will be just a mediocre president making no REAL changes that effect our continuing disastrous foreign policies and domestic policies that do not lift up our nation's people. (single-payer healthcare, K-college education for all, downside the Cold-War military and decrease the size of the military budget -- which stands now at 50 cents on every American tax dollar and rising --, stop proliferation of WMD's around the world, repeal the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act, reverse Military Commissions Act, invest heavily national infrastructure, institute carbon tax and discourage further oil development along our shores and Alaska while instituting a Manhattan-like project towards clean energy that would create literally hundreds of thousands of jobs, etc., etc. Then there's his vague statements regarding bringing the troops home from Iraq (and Affhanistan) -- very vague timelinewise and numbers. Personally, the more I learn of O'bama's voting record, the more I hear him speak (as he did at AIPAC gathering), the more I see of the large corporations supporting him, the more I learn of who his advisers are now and who he is considering in his cabinet as President (same people as the last 12 years, including military generals --the more I don't see faces that represent change coming), and the more I have grave doubts about just what kind of "change" he is talking about. I'm not buying it anymore. Vote Nader.

Sipsey said: "The first job is to get the man elected"

So, is it ok to sell out your principals to get the man elected? It's it ok to vote for a wrong piece of legislation to get the man elected? Is it ok to go against everything his supporters believe in to get the man elected? Is it ok to kiss the ass of AIPAC and make irrational statements regarding Israel and the Palestinians, to get the man elected?

If Obama had taken a principled stand against the new FISA bill, sure, Fox 'news' and the other media hacks would have taken swipes at him, but what does that matter? Those that believe the crap on Fox news aren't going to vote Obama anyways. If he had taken a stand, then we would have seen a man with the integrity to stand up for justice and what's right, even at the expense of his campaign. Instead, all we see is another bloody sell-out politician with no spine. Shame shame shame.

jpbreeze said: "Obama is our best hope"

If Obama is your best hope, then I would say that you're hopeless as everything he stands for, everything he'll do as president, is on behalf of the corporations and Israel. You, the common person are out of luck and the slide towards fascism will continue unhindered. Is that your hope?

When I argued one year ago that Obama is a dangerous politician I was showered with filthy invectives by the Obamazis. It feels much better to discover that I am no longer alone.

sipsey June 25th, 2008 2:24 pm :

"Listen in your head to the narrative on Fox and CNN is he were do to that."

Sipsey, if you are waiting for Fox and CNN to bless candidates that will take the side of the people against the owners of Fox and CNN, I'm sure you will be disappointed.

Let's face it, Obama is a hack from the Chicago political machine. I called his office to ask that he not capitulate on the FISA bill.

Last year, Obama promised to filibuster any attempts to insert retroactive immunity. Now, his staff reads off talking points about why the FISA "compromise" is a good idea.
Amazing how so many people wanted to hold Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire, but want to exempt Obama from the same degree of scrutiny.

I, for one, cannot support either of these corporate hacks - Obama or McCain.

More Democrats will vote for McCain than will vote for Nader. Very little will be said of them though. I guess voting for the other major party isn't as bad. Many on the right will also vote for Barr this election.

The only thing that I feel uncomfortable with is the right wingers who come here and pretend like they're left of center and use that to criticize Obama. Make no mistake, McCain is worse, and the right wingers doing this should spend more time trying to woo Barr supporters, but as a left winger I'm beyond disappointed, given the stances people are now taking on issues according to polls, we have no options for a REAL alternative in the major parties. I'm not surprised at all, just disappointed.

So, what you folks are suggesting is that Obama stand up all by his lonesome, with Steny and Pelosi cowering in the corner, and take a strong stand on the FISA Bill? Essentially say that "most of my colleagues are hacks"? Get a grip on reality, people. Listen in your head to the narrative on Fox and CNN is he were do to that. The first job is to get the man elected. Did someone say Nader? Yeah, right...........

Chris Dodd got up and made an impressive speech against the bill. Let Obama's colleagues lead the way on this, and in doing so, give BO some covering fire. Enough pearl-clutching. This is politics. This is how it's done.

doughyden
"your stupid. Attitudes such as yours are what enable Obama and the rest to take advantage of us"

Oh, that really hurt? Boo Hoo! What "attitudes" are you referring to?, and try speaking for yourself douch-bag, who are the "us" your ranting about. You may have been taken advantage of, which is probably why your bitter. I see you posted nothing worth reading, I guess your just here to call people "stupid" without explaining why.

JP Breeze, you're stupid. Attitudes such as yours are what enable Obama and the rest to take advantage of us.

If I were a betting man, my money is on Obama winning in a landslide. I would also bet what little I have, that progressive environmental policies are dead on arrival and giving way to incremental reform environmentialism predicated on Bio Fuel and Nuclear energy sources; I would bet that U.S troops will be in Iraq long past the 16 month deadline Obama promises; I would bet that the U.S will be embroiled in Iran in an ever widening war in the Middle East; I would bet that corporations have more influence at Obama's inclusive "table" then he says so publically; I would bet that the minumum wage will remain so; I would bet that FISA and other snooping Bills will continue to destroy personal rights and freedoms under an Obama Administration; I would bet that the Earth has about 5 years before we reach the tipping point.

Matt,
You seem surprised.

Haven't you been listening to Obama all these years: he's deeply conservative.
How do you think he got corporate American to bankroll his campaign?

Obama=McSame on everything that matters.

Voting for Nader is just throwing your vote away. How many Red State Conservatives are going to vote for Nader? None! Obama is our best hope, even though he is tacking to the "center", which he has to do to get elected. No matter how you look at it, voting Democratic (republican-lite) is the only way to get us out of this mess.

One other thing. No, Telecomms don't deserve immunity for this reason only. On 11 January 08 it was reported that these same companies "suspended" the services they were providing the FBI because of an unpaid $66,000 telephone bill, while at the same time reporting "quarterly" profits in excess of $3 billion dollars. Were they just doing their patriotic duty?, and Was our country being "protected" during this lapse in information sharing? Answer those!

Can you hear the chains?

Who you gonna run too?

Here is an EXCELLENT site which cites 10 arguments for TeleCom Immunity, and then refutes them with solid counterarguments:

http://fisa.wikispot.org/Telecom_Immunity_Arguments

If Barack, the chosen, wants to prove himself to his core constituents in the banana republic, he'd better goose step towards the police state.

VOTE FOR NADER!

Obama offers a false promise of change. There is no point in having a democractic party which is just another shade of the Republican party.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/24/feingold