Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity
WASHINGTON - Senator Barack Obama's decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.
Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.
In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama's own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government's domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. That decision, one of a number made by Mr. Obama in recent weeks intended to position him toward the political center as the general election campaign heats up, has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters.
Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Mr. Bush's surveillance program.
"I don't think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this," said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama's new position. "For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in."
Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters frustrated with his new stance.
"The opposition to Obama's position among his supporters is very widespread," said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. "His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned."
One supporter, Robert Arellano, expressed his anger on the Obama site.
"I have watched your campaign with genuine enthusiasm," Mr. Arellano wrote, "and I have given you money. For the first time in my life, I have sensed the presence of a presidential candidate who might actually bring some meaningful change to the corrupt cesspool of national politics. But your about-face on the FISA bill genuinely angers and alarms me."
For now, the campaign is trying to put a positive spin on the new FISA fight among its supporters.
"The fact that there is an open forum on BarackObama.com where supporters can say whether they agree or disagree speaks to a strength of our campaign," said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.
Several activists and bloggers predicted that Mr. Obama's move toward the center on some issues could sharply reduce the intensity of support he has enjoyed from liberal activists. Such enthusiasm helped power his effort to secure the Democratic nomination, and it has been one of his campaign's most important tools for fund-raising and organizing around the country.
Markos Moulitsas, a liberal blogger and founder of the Daily Kos Web site, said he had decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute to the Obama campaign because of the FISA reversal.
"I will continue to support him," Mr. Moulitsas said in an interview. "But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution."
Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.
"This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip," Mr. Craig said. "Obviously, there was an element of what's possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire."
© 2008 The New York Times
127 Comments so far
Show AllThink Reverend Wright ever covered this? "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36
sure smells like a sell-out.
Obama is just more of the same old sell out politics. The CHANGE he speaks about is the change from principled beliefs to Washington beliefs. We are seeing the change now. He has become BARAK THE CROCK.
.
"The only vote that's wasted is a vote for someone you don't believe in," Nader said, at the University of Hawaii-Manoa campus
July 3,2008
.
Here is another view from Obama voters:
Let's Escrow Our Money to Keep Obama Progressive
Last week, we asked 1,000 of you to contribute $10 to raise $10,000 to help progressive Democrats like State Senator Regina Thomas defeat "Bush Democrats" like Rep. John Barrow (GA12) in upcoming primaries. Your response was amazing: over 1,300 of you contributed over $60,000! Senator Thomas and our other "Replace Bush Democrats" candidates were thrilled by your support, and so are we!!
Now we are asking you to use your money to ensure that Barack Obama lives up to his promise to deliver "change we can believe in. "
How? By creating a progressive "escrow" fund that you control.
http://www.democrats.com/obama-escrow-fund
Many progressives were shocked last week when Obama flip-flopped on wiretapping immunity for the phone companies with this simple explanation:
"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."
So if a President unilaterally decides it is in the "security interests of the American people" to defy the Constitution, the Law, and Congress, (s)he can do whatever (s)he wants?
George Bush believes that, as do Dick Cheney and John McCain - and every dictator in the world. How is that progressive? And how is that change we can believe in?
Don't get me wrong: we fully support Obama and will do everything we can to elect him President. But will also do everything we can to protect the Constitution and hold Obama to his promise of real progressive change.
And that's why we are launching our Obama Progressive Escrow Fund. We're asking you to put some of the money you plan to give Obama "in escrow" until he demonstrates progressive leadership on the issues we care about, like warrantless wiretapping.
http://www.democrats.com/obama-escrow-fund
No, you don't have to spit on Democrats to care about humanity infact spitting can get you locked up.
Here is a better Idea if you care about Humanity from Pete Seeger.....
_________________
July 2, 2008
Dear Friends of the Climate Crisis Coalition:
The darkening clouds of the climate crisis are on us. All corners of our fragile globe are threatened. But don't despair. In my 90th year, I am finding more rays of sunshine. Committed people everywhere are deciding that they can make a difference. This is the hope that I have for my grandchildren, and for you.
Four years ago, my friend and neighbor, Connie Hogarth, told me about a new initiative that she was helping to start with some colleagues. They were determined to wake up citizens everywhere to the urgent need of addressing the climate crisis. They would take this campaign beyond the confines of the traditional environmental movement and engage a broad range of folks concerned with social, economic and environmental justice. And in building this coalition they would urge people to get involved, especially in their own communities.
Well, CCC has persevered. I particularly like the ways that CCC seeks to empower people to act locally. And although I'm not what one might call a computer person, I hear wonderful things about their daily online news summary.
So, I'm getting on board to do what I can to help. Last fall, I did a CCC video. Now, I ask you to help directly. Please, read this information about their current work; make a contribution. Get involved! http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/handout08.html
Your check should be made out to the Climate Crisis Coalition. If you would like a tax deduction, your contribution should be $50 or more and made out to our fiscal sponsor, The A.J. Muste Memorial Institute.
All contributions should be sent to:
Climate Crisis Coalition
P.O. Box 125
South Lee, MA 01260
You can also make a secure online donation here or print out this form to mail in with your donation.
Best regards,
Pete Seeger
...So much ignorance, so little time!
What will it take to show that the Democratic party is a criminal organization? It is the party of slavery and Jim Crow. It is the party that dropped two a-bombs on Japan to scare the Soviets. It is the party that buried the 9/11 conspiracy. It is the party that has voted for mass murder in Iraq. It is the party that voted for all of the neocon's oppresive legislation.
If you really care about humanity, you will spit on the murderous Democrat deceivers, and proceed to build the workers' party of international socialism.
I have no sympathy for their crocodile tears because this is what you get when you buy snake oil.
Interesting... I just submitted a comment for the umpteenth time and got a "duplicate comment" message. So the comment was received but not posted! I guess Common Dreams has come to its senses and joined the mainstream media!
Ah, well. It was good while it lasted.
GREENERTHANTHOU, sorry the link didn't work. Try this one (which reproduces the entire thing instead of just linking to it):
http://militantblaze.blogspot.com/2008/07/cynthia-mckinney-deserves-your-support.html
I have been trying, to no avail, to register on the my bo site for two days, so that I could make my disappointment (with the immunity clause) known. The website just tells me that it is under construction. Thanks Mr. Obama!
Jim Glover,
Sounds good Jim. I'll give it try.
I prefer lesseroftwoevilism because it has a nice ring to it and has the evil in it, implying its not good. Best worst sounds dorky to me.
Although I greatly admire Ralph I am actually to his left and do not rely on him for my thinking or choice of words. Ralph does have an excellent analysis of the current situation, dont get me wrong, but I feel free to disagree when I see it different.
One of the best web sites where I do study political analysis is the WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE (wsws.org) Their analysis is beyond superb. I rarely disagree with them.
I take issue with the campaign's rebuttal:
"The fact that there is an open forum on BarackObama.com where supporters can say whether they agree or disagree speaks to a strength of our campaign," said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman."
Ok... then what. Just having a forum where people can come and gripe about an unpopular policy is meaningless if those gripes are simply disregarded.
Sorry Obama, you fail.
Yes I think even ralph dropped that "Lesser evil" and now says the best worst.
So Cheer up! it could be worse!
Okay, so it's lesseroftwoevilism. Although I disagree with its logic I think lesseroftwoevilism is a valid agument. The problem is that you get a lesser by definition.
Jim Glover, if I have an elephant on my head, what do you have on yours? A jackass?
I defend Demorats Because of Hoots like you, tailcap.
You like to scape goat all Dems and you would sell out the countries chance to turn left a little bit with that swing of the pendulum that may never ever come again if a wasted vote helps the right wing... You know that we do have a One Party system but there is still the Bush Putsch to the right or try some solidarity for the unity of progressives and actually learn to work it out.
its progressive or regressive we are at the crossroads.... So You blame the Dems and don't see the elephant on your head. And I well try and fix it.
He's really not defending the dems, tail!
He's simply asking questions about the nature of the FISA bill. I appreciate this kind of honest dialogue that looks for real answers before making blanket statements.
Jim Glover,
So there is some doubt about whether the bill contains immunity for the Telecoms and Bush?
You sound like a DemocRATic Party apologist. The thing I don't get is what's in it for you? Why do you defend the DemocRATS?
No I am not supporting Obamas decision I think we are jumping to conclusions about reality when none of us has really read the bill and all the other items which some might be good and some bad...
Come on folks the congress doesn't even read the stuff that they rubber stamp.
but this is great that Americans and interested folks all over the world are thinkin about this. and are discussing it now instead of keeping it buried.
This is a worthy debate!
"DemoRATS" that is a cheap shot Cheer UP! things could be worse.
WHY THE OBAMA SHIFT RIGHT: BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROGRESSIVE THIRD PARTY IN U.S.
Obama's shift right points up the weakness of organized progressive movements in the U.S.
The existence of a progressive third party could have prevented this; the absence of such a party makes it harder to fight now.
A progressive political party - or coalition of such parties - could have 'negotiated' with the Obama campaign from the start, and made support depend on his adopting certain positions, and on his not adopting others.
Progressives can make some difference now by withdrawing support for Obama - donations, articles, volunteer work, rejection of support through organizations, and direct letter-writing - 'I will not vote for you now.'
But these tactics would be stronger - and quite possibily, would never have been necessary - if the original support for Obama had come through a greater progressive organization.
The analogy here is with parliamentary blocs that give conditional support to a ruling party.
I think Jim Glover is right, if I understand him correctly.
I mean shouldn't we prosecute the president and congress for selling our 4th ammendment rights to corporations. And I hate to take the side of telecom companies, but hey they're in business to make money. (This is capitalism, folks.)
Our government should be keeping the people safe from agglomerations of corporate power not using them against us.
I'm not sure if Jim and myself are really supporting Obama's decision. I would want to leave the option of prosecuting telecoms open if I were a US senator. But would this merely be a symbolic gesture? I don't know.
I don't intend to exculpate the brand-new right-wing, general election Obama for his weakness and capitualtion.
Jim Glover,
Are you saying Obama did the right thing in supporting the granting of immunity to the Telecoms?
People that vote for Nader are under no illusion he is going to win. A Nader vote is a principled protest vote, whether you like it or not.
I am supporting Cynthia McKinney in the hopes of building up a 3rd party. The DemocRATS have completely discredited themselves as an opposition party. The DemocRATS claim that McCain will carry through the Bush policies. Which is like the pot calling the kettle black. The DemocRATS have done Bush a tremendous service in helping him with his right wing agenda.
Barak O'Lieberman is just following in the footsteps of his old mentor.
If he sheds his "principles" so quickly after just winning the Democratic nomination, imagine how fast they will disappear if he wins the presidency.
Nobody likes to be spied on...For us older radicals, that is all we ever got from the War Machine...
But I have been thinkin..... and I may be wrong but lets say he telecoms don't get immunity in a civil suit... OK first of all they will claim that they were under duress from all the Patriot acts and were afraid to lose their LICENSE! AND THEY ARE A BUSINESS WHOS JOB IS TO STAY IN BUSINESS.
NOW YOU KNOW THEY ARE GONNA GET OFF SCOTT FREE AND WILL PROBABLY SAY THE CASE MADE THEM RAISE YOUR RATES AND EVEN HIGHER AS A SHILED FROM BOTHERSOME CONSUMER HARASSMENT BECAUSE FOLKS, NOT ONE OF YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT BEIN SPIED ON CAN PROVE IN A CIVIL COURT (DID YOU EVER TRY AND COLLECT AFTER YOU WIN IN CIVIL COURT?) THAT ANYONE OVERHEARD ANYTHING YOU HAVE COMMUNICATED... THIS IS TOP SECRET NSA FILES AND NO CIVIL COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT THEIR SECRET STUFF,INFO, METHODS AND ALL THE REST,
NOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE A BRAVE LAWYER OUT THEIR WHO THINKS HE CAN MAKE YOU ALL A BUNDLE BY SUING YOUR PHONE COMPANY AND THINK YOU ARE GONNA BEAT THE BIG BOYS AT THEIR OWN GAME, YOU PROBABLY THINK RALPH NADER WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT. .
Sorry for the CAPS, I had a Crumb attack.
The problem with democrats is cowardice. They are afraid of losing so they take no risks. As was noted, when Kerry was attacked, did the democrats attack the war dodging republicans for not supporting the troops? They could have said: republicans dont support our army. They want to send them into battle and kill them--then throw them away.
Obama will continue to alienate his base right up to the election, and then there will be some attack or incident, and his advisers will tell him to rattle the saber(but not the spear! no spears allowed) and he will lose to McCain anyway. Only chance he has is to offer a clear difference and show some integrity--something many politicians struggle with.
He is still better than McCain obviously, but will people be scared into voting for him out of fear of Mccain?
no.
Well done greenerthanthou. Tell those fascist dems whats up!
ps I can't believe that the Democratic fundraiser blamed the FISA debacle on too few Dems in the house. Yeah right, I doubt more capitulators would help people recover their fourth ammendment rights.
This seems to be the dems modus operandi: do the wrong (i.e. right-wing) thing and then blame someone else (ralph nader or the repugs) for their own complicity.
To Barack from me: Not one dime; not one minute; not one vote.
This goes deeper than just a flip-flop. This is a matter of honor. Honorable men do not lie.
Is it true that Obama is adding Madeleine "let's watch 500,000 Iraqi children starve to death" Albright to his foreign diplomat team? It seems like he is picking a lot of people from the Clinton Administration to be in his cabinet. Was this a private, sweetheart deal that Obama and Clinton made on the phone the other day when they had a "great conversation?"
And Ann Faith, 3 times I tried to open your link about Cynthia McKinney and 3 times I got dumped off Safari. I can follow other links, so I don't know what happened. But while waiting for it to open 3 times, I really appreciated the point about the Attorney General supposed to be guarding our rights. Yah!!
Thanks, Terry Faster, for the links. My senior senator, Dick Durbin, voted correctly, as did my congressman, Jerry Costello. Too bad my second senator, Obama, sucks.
Some poor Democratic fundrasiser picked Monday to call and ask me for funds. Whoops! He got an earful. Then he had the nerve to blame it on not enough Democrats in Congress! I told him that that didn't explain the 80 traitors in the House. He said "Have a nice day".. And I said, "How can I have a nice day when my country has gone fascist?" Then he hung up.
I thought that Bill VanAwken's comment was very good. Worthy of Common Dreams top posting. And if he accidentally posted it twice, so what? I have a scroll arrow.
I'm very happy to hear that many Obama supporters are speaking out against their own candidate.
It strikes me that many of the more left-leaning CD bloggers
will say something along the lines of "I told you Obama was an empty suit"
Maybe these folks aren't quite wrong. But I don't think we should undermine the significance of those who were "fooled". These are people who wanted change and believed in Barack Obama. The difference between what Obama promised to the liberal/progressive base and what he will deliver can only ignite the embers of real change.
MY Constitutional rights and the Rule of Law are issues that are VERY important to me.
If Obama votes for immunity for the telecom companies that illegally spied on me, there is NO WAY that I will vote for him. Period.
"rjmart01" said it all: MEET THE NEW BOSS, THE SAME AS THE OLD BOSS!
If you think Obama shifting loyalties are surprising now, wait until he becomes President: we are in for Bill Clinton part II.
Namely, good bye environmental sustainability; good bye grass roots accountability; goodbye reduced military spending and occupation; say hello to war with Iran; say hello to corporations extending corporate power; say hello to MORE OF THE SAME!
In order to believe that Obama and co. are actually going to proceed with CRIMINAL investigations of the telecoms in 2009, you must have:
a) been born yesterday, and
b) arrived at this blog on the back of a turnip truck
Do you really believe that? Really? Let's look at some recent history, shall we? Remember 2006? Vote democrat if you want to end the war! Vote democrat if you want accountability!
Yeah, that worked out really well. Now, I have this really great bridge in Brooklyn that I'm selling... you interested?
Meanwhile, Bush will issue a blanket CRIMINAL PARDON on his way out the door. Let's not be lemmings... again.
What do you expect from a guy that praises Reagan?
The same old same old from the usual sources. Those who believe that Obama must move right to win the election simply support the creeping fascism inherent in our system and supported by our candidates.
Until and unless the voters of this nation understand fully that neither political party represents us, only slavers at the heels of the coporations begging scraps from their table, no change of diorection or policies will be possible. How gullible are we all to make the same damn mistakes election after election, vote for centrists and globalists and expect an end to war, support for the American worker, decency and fairness in our treatment of others. Will our prisons have to be full of folks being tortured and held without charges or evidence, or will it be you being held before you awaken?
Become actively engaged in the growth of third party politics, end the stranglehold of big business on the business of government.
SO GLAD I NOW LIVE IN CANADA
This was as clear as glass a very long time ago and that is why I moved out of America forever. Your ( my former) country was invaded on Sept 11 2001 as has been posted before. Most of you just can't get your head around it as I did years ago. Your political system is broken and can't be fixed.
Like we had any choice at all. The only reason to prefer Obama to Clinton was his lack of DLC baggage; apparently that was only affectation. I had an audacious hope, it was that just once a candidate would be better than I predicted. It would have been nice if he had turned out to be just as I imagined, instead he's much, much worse. I'm done with even the pretense of support for the Democratic Party.
Obama Touts Faith-Based Initiative Plans
Barack Obama on Tuesday visited Zanesville, a small city in the heart of Ohio's eastern Appalachian region won handily by Hillary Clinton in that state's Democratic primary, to tout his plans for expanding the direction of public social service funding to religious groups. Media reports portrayed the move as another effort by Obama to position himself for the general election.
The AP reports, "Taking a page from President Bush," Obama said "he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican."
tailcap: I agree totally. The irony is that if Obama was who most people *thought* he was a few months ago, he would have clobbered McSame so badly that the election would be un-steal-able and republicans would be effectively done as a party. They would have gone the way of the Whigs. Instead, he has taken the Clinton approach, which I think was best framed in the BBC documentary, "The Trap" part 2:
"The program describes how the Clinton administration gave in to market theorists in the U.S. and how New Labour in the UK decided to measure and provide targets for everything it could including several things that are unmeasurable. This created a government that was sacrificing the greater good to appease immediate and often trivial desires of focus groups."
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=153
"Sacrificing the greater good..." That has a deep resonance to me, seeing Obama help trash the Fourth amendment. And seeing him talk about the "faith based initiatives." Talk about NOT understanding the Constitution. Sheesh. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, and even I know these things are in violation of it. It's no wonder why the democrats are putting the "free speech zone" far away from their national convention. They wouldn't actually want anything like free speech intefering with their little party, would they?
And how this is different from Bush when he ignored the 11 million protestors before the iraq occupation?
urthsong July 3rd, 2008 1:26 am
Entirely possible.
Congress has been compromising for years on bills that do some nasty things with some nice carrots waved. That's how they got the new funding for the Iraq occupation well into next year. But this time, Obama is making a very grave error because if this law is passed, he will never see the presidency not because he won't get the votes. He will get the votes as Americans are desperate to kick the Republicans out. In the infrastructure of these corporations is the hardware and the expertise to intercept any converstions or e-mails such as those of candidates running for office as well as the voting results which can then be adjusted. They did it in 2004 with more difficulty, shifting about 8 million votes using computer voting with no paper trails for Bush to become the majority vote winner. It will be easier using the communications systems. It will extend to contests with members of Congress as well. We'll all hear the nonsense explanations of how McCain and many Republicans won again. We'll also hear the words,"Get over it", "conspiracy theories" and "tin foil hats" a lot to shut up anyone who might speak out. Numerous op-ed pieces and entire articles will be written to explain away what can't be explained away. Recall the Washington Post article in 2004 supposedly debunking the most reliable method of checking the vote using the exit polls?
culicomorpha July 3rd, 2008 12:38 am
"I recognize that this will probably mean McCain will win..."
The amazing part of the DemocrRATic Party prostration before Bush is that his numbers are in the tank and he is one of the most unpopular presidents ever. Notice how his popularity ratings are rarely given by the MSM. They are probably in the low 20's.
If DemocRATS can't beat that old, fossilized and decrepit, George W. McCain, then as Nader said, they should fold up tent, shut down and start a new party. They shouldn't need our leftist lousy 0.5% of the vote.
If the DemocRATS can't win, I suggest they join the Green Party. Greens aren't perfect but they are night and day better than the sold out DemocRATS.
Dennis will ALWAYS have my vote! The only reason his bumper sticker isn't on my car is: I got another car. I wanted to go to Denver and, as the only two possibilities were: Hillary or Obama, I ran as an Obama delegate, regardless of the fact that I am not an enthusiast. I lost, so, now, I'm going anyway and will spend my time there more constructively, as a CODEPINK protester! Look for me in the orange hazmat suit with the black hood and bound wrists. I will represent our Constitution; someone's gotta!
Obama deceived his voters, and catapulted to victory because he believed we wanted CHANGE. He left out just what change he had in mind. He has captured scores of supporters with his charisma, but that glow will soon wear off. He's a slippery fellow and has ridden on his rhetoric, but he has recently shown his true colors and will continue to let the liberals down. Why not draft Edwards or Kucinich? At least we have always known where they stood. Obama won because we were so tired of Bush and his corrupt gang and because Kucinich and Edwards weren't given a chance due to Hillary, another slippery candidate. DRAFT Kucinich!
Voting to not punish the telecom companies for violating our Constitutional rights is NOT A MOVE TO THE CENTER for Obama. IT'S A MOVE TO THE RIGHT!
Please excuse the caps, but this is just ridiculous.
Centrism is a made up ideology, but no one knows what it means. You can take any position you want and claim to be a centrist. So, please don't get confused by the corporate media's mischaracterizations here.
It is in the tradition of the right wing to sacrifice individual rights for corporate and national rights. Mussolini called that "fascism," and we know what that means.
In this case, Obama is just abetting a crime committed by Bush and the telecom companies. It's really simple. The crime just happens to seriously trample all Americans' Constitutionally guaranteed rights to be free of unwarranted searches. FISA was just a fig leaf protection, so Bush's violation of the FISA Court rules just added more insult to injury.
Why isn't the headline reading, "Obama Votes To Support Constitutional Violations." That's an accurate headline. And why would anyone support a candidate who would violate the Presidential oath to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws - even before he took that oath?
Please don't sweep this under the rug, folks. It matters. It's not quibbling over the candidate's character flaws to say so. You just lost part of your so-called democracy by Obama's vote.
You do have alternatives to Obama and McCain. Listen to what the third-party candidates have to say. At least the Greens have core principles entirely in line with the Constitution. Can you say that's true about Repugs or Dems?
I already let the Obama campaign know he lost my vote. I wanted to believe, like a lot of people here, even though I feel I should know better after having seen this pattern over and over. I saw it with Clinton. I have argued here, in fact, that Obama is a Clinton replica, pandering to the corporate powers that be and ignoring the people. Now I am firmly convinced.
I am going to vote, but it is going to be Green or nothing. I am voting for Cynthia McKinney. First, she is a woman, second, she is a Green, and third, she is not beholden to corporate interests, the defining characteristic of both the republicans and the democrats. I love Ralph, and voted for him in 2000, but what is necessary now is Green power.
I recognize that this will probably mean McCain will win, but that is hardly the point. The next president will be a loser, no matter what. The economy will collapse. The environment will degrade further, creating increasing turmoil, and the way of life, regardless of who is elected, will change dramatically for the worse. Obama is no savior, and people should disavow themselves of that right here, right now. He is more of the same, more corporate power subverting your power, merely a kindler, gentler machine gun hand. Now is the time to create what we want, to build a movement that will guide us out of all the damage to come in the next four years.
For those of you out there who are so pissed off you won't vote, I appreciate your anger. Why not change the direction of politics instead? Why not vote Green? It is where we are going anyway, whether corporations like it or not. At least then we might have a say in how things are done, a chance for real Green policies, rather than having "green" policies imposed upon us.
"Anybody with me?"
I'm with you, goodmama. It would be a risk, but it would be wonderful to see some actual leadership. It might work, it is so rare and apparently difficult to come by. Circumstances supposedly bring out the leaders, but Obama gives no indication that he even understands the circumstances and has opted for perpetuating the shabby and tattered and simplistic storyline. It's almost a crime considering the consequences of perpetuating the lies and the possibilities of tapping into real values (as a true leader would do.)
Obama says "we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith"
Well, no...those are mostly generic and easily manipulated characteristics necessary to keep the ol' elitist, invasive, deadly, earth-destroying, hypocritcal engine of capitalistic expansion going.
Can there possibly be any question of where Obama stands and what he is doing? He is almost defining Nader's good cop, bad cop analogy. There is a time for everything and now is the time for clear vision, anger, and justice. (You can bet Obama wasn't talking about hard work overthrowing the corporate masters or personal responsibility to preserve values of peace and honesty.)
It's all slick marketing with Obama. Always has been. Amazing that wishful thinking can be translated into belief. Progressive indeed...
Right, center, left...more diversion to prevent people from seeing what's actually happening...very useful in the corporate show. Shadows on the wall as we descend into an authoritarian nation that nobody really wants, although within the right center left framework some of us think we are arguing substance.
Sorry for my typing error above..I meant to write "SHOULD HAVE BEEN" not whoud, but missed the editing time...
I'm starting to feel more and more green, especially after seeing Obama's ad tonight where he says he supported eradicating women on welfare rolls. Oh yeah, THAT's worked out well.
Just another note: IT seems to me that Congress functions like a couple in the middle of a divorce: one IS a greedy mean bully who wants to keep everything and more and is absolutley unwilling to mediate or discuss...while the wimpy other spends time at the counselor's office talking about what's "fair" and how to make it work and how strong she/he needs to be...but then gives in when the bully partner has a tempertantrum and claims it as a "necessary compromise." Meanwhile we (the kids?) get the realy raw deal. This is the power of FEAR, folks. It's the same kind of thing that keeps people from leaving abusers, keeps them from becoming strong, keeps them oppressed, keeps the bullies in power. True courage is not in the bullying or the so-called "compromising." I want a leader who stands up and takes it on the chin for GOOD reasons, who has the guts and the courage to take the high road and to risk having to put it all on the line for what she or he believes in, for what is right. Not some bully or caver-inner. Anybody with me?
Nader all the way! Anyone who gives a hoot about real democracy needs to recognize how essential it is to have more than two parties, more than two candidates! As for Obama caving (or should I say "craving")to the right: it brings to mind the old saying "Don't shit where you eat." Sorry to put it so crudely, but obviously those of us who are progressives (as we are being labeled) are being taken for granted, as if our voices don't need to be heard... We have legitimate concerns and need to stick together and not vote for a person who does not show leadership spunk when called on...
Though, as for the child rapists getting a death sentence: IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR LEGAL FATE ALL ALONG!!!!!! Consider the lives they have permanently ruined, the future offenders they have created. Anyone hwo owrks with offenders knows how nearly incurable they are, how likely they are to re-offend. It is the sickest of crimes.
I, for one, wish we had a candidate with Kucinich's nerve and Howard Dean's fiestiness and Nader's brains... I know we all are afraid to vote Green, because we don't want McCain to win, but isn't that fear a political tool not unlike Naziism? Vote your consciences, people. And work hard to help a BETTER CONGRESS get elected, because we obviously have a bunch of creeps in there that really need to go. Work hard to elect good state legislators, and to stay involved in those local issues, too. Most importantly, BE VOCAL. WE can build a movement, Obama or no Obama. I am glad for this forum to voice & read concerns. Thanks, Truthout & all you bloggers!
I'm a little befuddled, we're supposed to vote for Obama who voted against our rights, so he can gain the power to vote for out rights ?!?
Only the current crop of Democrats could take a sure thing (81% of the population believes the country is on the wrong track) and completely f-it-up. Amazing.
has led to an intense backlash
-would like to hang him from a tree
switched positions, and now supports a compromise
-a cowardly, traitorous capitulation
is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in."
-told you so
in recent weeks intended to position him toward the political center as
-sell out and become a DmocRATtic-Republican
promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch
-lying traitor
decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute
-that will get his attention
"I will continue to support him,"
-chump
I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution."
-there may be one or two
concluding it was the best deal possible.
-capitulation, Republicans give nothing, Democrats bend over and lock their thumbs around their ankles and say, "Easy!"
it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire."
-Why the hell is that?
Newsflash...
Nader's polling 6% as of today.
If Obama keeps pandering to the right, the Progressive and Libertarians might decide to go for Nader and bring him up to the necessary 15% to get him into the debates.
If Nader gets into the debates I honestly believe he'd win in an election between McCain and Obama, since he'd be the only person telling the TRUTH.
The American People are sick of being lied to by the Republicans and Democrats.
If somehow we could get a true progressive to catch fire the main problem we'd then have would be the fact that we are not even allowed to count the votes any longer.
Since the advent of privatized computer voting there are no longer "free and fair" elections in the United States. What are we going to do about THIS problem???
Frankly, I don't think he gives a damn if disgruntled "purist" progressives rattle our cages; like his predecessors, he probably calculates both that we're expendable, and that in any case he's got the lesser-evil vote anyway.___
SO WROTE LITTLE BROTHER;
Exactly right. And just what are OUR CAGES? Its typing only on left sites like this instead of typing where everyone can see it. How else will younger dems know just how right Obama is being? WE HAVE TO TYPE ON MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPER SITES OR WE ARE HELPING MARGINALIZE OUR POINTS AND HELPING THE COUNTRY MOVE RIGHT.
Aboslutely right about our vote being taken for granted: THE SIMPLE FACT IS RIGHT NOW IS EITHER BASH OBAMA AND THE CORPORATE DEMS ON NEWSPAPER SITES OR HAVE NO IMPACT AT ALL. Obama is doing this because we are in our CAGES!!!!
JimCD (8:00) and Little Brother (8:41) -
About the relationship between Obama, his mother, & the 60's, here's a passage from a very astute review (by WSWS writer David Walsh) of Obama's autobiography. (The review was written in Feb. 2007) --
--------------------
"...Unpleasantly enough, in The Audacity of Hope, Obama's ideological attack on New Deal liberalism takes the form of a rejection of his own mother's outlook. He first explains his own "curious [i.e., essentially hostile] relationship to the sixties" and goes on to refer condescendingly to his mother as "an unreconstructed liberal" and to "her incorrigible, sweet-natured romanticism...her heart a time capsule filled with images of the space program, the Peace Corps and Freedom Rides, Mahalia Jackson and Joan Baez."
A page later, Obama is offering this remarkable tribute: "All of which may explain why, as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan's election in 1980...I understood his appeal.... Reagan spoke to America's longing for order, our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith."
In other words, Obama argues, objective social forces are not essentially responsible for such ills as poverty, homelessness and social inequality. Margaret Thatcher was right: there is no such thing as society or social responsibility. This is a translation of the Reaganite-Thatcherite program of greed, individualism and worship of the market into the language of the modern American liberal politician...."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f14.shtml
This presidential campaign is spawning some of the most insane proposals. Now Senator Obama wants to expand an already bloated Federal bureaucracy with a "Civil Rights/Civil Liberties" Czar at a "high level". Apparently he does not understand that there is already a powerful cabinet-level position which is supposed to protect our "Civil Rights/Civil Liberties". It is called: Attorney General. All he has to do as president is to remind the AG that he/she can be replaced at a drop of a pin. Furthermore, he can demand that the "Civil Rights Division" of the Justice Department earn its keep. We do not need yet another Czar for some other needless reason. Get lost Obama.
Great endorsement of Cynthia McKinney:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=681&Itemid=1
No, no, no, Senator Obama - uphold the law and hold the telecoms responsible for the laws they knowingly broke. Reversing your position on FISA is a bad idea, and I beg you to reconsider. What the telecoms did was against the law, and all the promises in the worlld from the Executive Branch don't change that. That what Congress and the Senate are FOR - to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the people. Please do what you were elected to do, and represent the people of America, not corporate lawbreakers.
JimCD-- having spent my adolescent Formative Years in the '70s, when the "counter"culture that began during the summer of love reached the East Coast, I'm rooted in the Aquarian Age. And, as I've been frequently been blathering on CD comments, I confess this bias for drawing a sharply negative inference whenever I hear the Sixties being dissed.
So I thought it was me. I mean, it's gratifying or validating-- or some even better buzzword I can't summon up at this moment-- to find that I'm not the only one who's sensed a real CHIP on Obama's shoulder towards that period.
I also agree completely that subsequent generations have become so sick of living in the shadow of Mount Sixties, a dead volcano, that it became natural to take a dim and hostile view of that special chaos. As with post-war generations, a debilitating air of anticlimax settles in.
Anyway, I do get a possible "revenge of the nerd" vibe from Obama. I appreciate that he's navigating through a fetid political bog that will soon turn into rapids full of alligators and pointy rocks and falling trees and such. So he's hewing to a public image as serious, straight-laced and squeaky-clean as a father-figure in a Norman Rockwell painting.
I actually LIKE Norman Rockwell, but I'm not enthralled by the painting of Obama embracing the Silent Majority. I guess I'm more of a Peter Max enthusiast.
It was a major blunder on his part, and it makes me now question his judgement. I will not vote for John McCain under any circumstance, but I may not vote at all now.
I was stunned when I read the news that morning that he was supporting this bill.
Kind of deflates the whole 'change' message..
While I don't feel I usually have enough information to psychoanalyze many American public figures, I have witnessed a certain syndrome that Obama is exhibiting often enough in my day-to-day life that there may be some use in mentioning it.
Obama had an intensely free-spirited mother, one whom it would be impossible not to associate with the ethos of the sixties. Any resentment Obama may feel towards his mother—say, for leaving him in Hawai'i with his grandparents and going back to Indonesia, or for marrying a man who abandoned his son—could easily be transferred to a contempt for the sixties and its belief in values such as justice and peace.
Also, may men in Obama's generation, and even among the baby boomers, feel they have to repeatedly express their differences with the values of sixties in order to prove their "maturity" to their superiors. I've seen that syndrome over and over, too.
Well, now it's either draft Edwards at the convention or vote for Nader again. What a disappointment "Mr. Change you can believe" is turning out to be.
Obama has moved to a mythical center where Americans want telco's to assist the government in illegal warrantless wiretapping. This is being done in an effort to secure the support of voters who are for unhindered government surveillance of everyone, but who want a candidate without military experience.
Must be at least a few dozen of those folks.
Why did Obama do this? Bush has done nothing right YET--isn't that obvious to everyone by now? Why would Obama do anything that Bush wants? I wouldn't.
Unfortuneately, it seems like in 2008 it is politics as usual. In Barack's attempt to win more votes, he's moving more to the center to the point that he's becoming more and more like the Clintons, and actually moving to the right. The whole idea of CHANGE is to get away from the right and get the abuses of the "right" cured by a sensible move to the LEFT. As a nation, the clock is running out on us, and Barack needs to be aware - - - or get out of the way and let the people choose someone who can lead us on a clear path to survival and out of the mess we're in.
Unfortuneately, it seems like in 2008 it is politics as usual. In Barack's attempt to win more votes, he's moving more to the center to the point that he's becoming more and more like the Clintons, and actually moving to the right. The whole idea of CHANGE is to get away from the right and get the abuses of the "right" cured by a sensible move to the LEFT. As a nation, the clock is running out on us, and Barack needs to be aware - - - or get out of the way and let the people choose someone who can lead us on a clear path to survival and out of the mess we're in.
He thinks you have no choice but to vote for him. Show him you do have a choice, or accept that you don't. Do you like not having a choice?
The whole Olbermann thing about 'criminal' versus 'civil' is a red herrring.
Civil actions are the only thing going on, or that is going to happen. You will never see a 'criminal' charge from either the Democrats or the Republicans. Its obvious of course that the Republicans won't file civil charges. Party loyalty trumps rule of law.
But, the Democrats won't prosecute either. These are the same Democrats that have protected Bush and Cheney from impeachment the last 2 years. And note very carefully that no leading Democrat is clearly promising any prosecutions. The dream of prosecuting the Bushies by the Democrats is one of those fantasies that Obamabots have made up in their heads.
And, with about $270,000 or more in Obama's bank accounts from the Telecom industry, don't hold your breath waiting to here Obama give an solid promise to prosecute. And its probably just 'overheated rhetoric' that he'd later disavow if you did hear it.
The only way this matters is if everyone votes Green. A Green Justice Dept would prosecute the heck out of these crooks.
There's only one way to get a politician's attention. Change the first two words of this headline.
As long as people are 'Obama voters', then Obama knows he's got the one and only thing he wants from people, their vote. If you want to get his attention, stop being an 'Obama voter'.
Retroactive immunity is unconstitutional. Spying on americans is unconstitutional. To be against these is not PROGRESSIVE, it is AMERICAN, as in the AMERICAN constitution.
"It is not power that corrupts, it is that corrupt individuals seek power."
It is his decision to make. He wants to attract the center voter. If his plan works then he doesn't need the progressive vote. Don't vote for him, he doesn't need you anymore.
d.o.n.k.e.y.m.a.n
See the facts from willybilly
Depending upon how you interpret "legal protection"….this bills allows immunity from civil judgement, NOT criminality….unless they change the wording before the final debate. Olbermann made this crystal clear in his most recent "special comment"
Check out www.truthout.org for the transcript.
Thanks, William Street, for pointing out that the FISA violations started before 9-11. (They were not a response to 9-11). Bush began his illegal eavesdropping from the very start of his administration. That news has been reported before. I had heard it, but the corporate media has ignored and misstated it continuously. Another who was aware of this before 9-11 was Nancy Pelosi, herself. How do you say, "Complicity?"
Hope is a Christian thing. I'm so glad I use reason to make my decisions. Christians must go from one disappointment to another their whole lives. But, then again, if you're going to spend your entire life living for something better in the next (you hope), then you deserve absolutely no happiness. Hope is and always has been a complete cop out. Only cowards needs hope.
The theological virtue defined as the desire and search for a future good, difficult but not impossible to attain with God's help.
Does any Obama supporter really think that he will bring about change, now? McCain is already seen as just an extension of Bush. There really is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats: they are both largely funded by the same very wealthy haves and have-mores and when it comes right down to it, the Democrats, just the same as the Republicans, will not bite the hands that feed them. The only way for TRUE reform to happen is either completely gut the system and replace it (and hope the result isn't worse.) or to vote in third parties. Can a democracy be legitimate when only two "opposing" views are allowed into the big discussions?
RichM I agree that Obama was a Bush enableing "centerist" although we really need to challenge that term. I tend to agree with Van Auken thoughk, in that I am already convinced that Obama will be a SAY NOTHING Kerry candidate. At this point I dont really think its about Kerry Obama, or any individual candidate.
How can one when Obam NEVER SAID ANYTHING CONCRETE IN THE PRIMARIES, and only spread around vague language that people could read into what they wanted to--provided they were young and or politically inexperienced enough? When it comes to these moves to the right however I think you underplay the imporatance of FISA flip. That was a very very tell-tale and important move. With this flip the very last flicker of separtaion of powers and public accountablility are gone.
I will praise Obama when he says something praiseworthy, but so far I have seen nothing but a big money DLC PR strategy designed to establish him as the Oposite of Hillary when he NEVER really was. Remeber the COngressional Candidates funded by Rahm Emmanual? How they were all pro-war strategic fence sitters running against more actively anti-war democrats. REMEMBER HOW BADLY RAHMS SELECT DID AS COMPARED WITH THE DEMS AS A WHOLE .
We might think that Rahm lost but he really won. He can go to the corporate scum and say, see my fence strategy still works give me more cash. And the slow among us will give him cash too!!!! WE LOST, RAHM WON!
I dont know how long we can go on having hope in false-opposite. Again, I am not party person-- If Obama says somethin Ill praise him for it, but ENOUGH OF THE WASTED HAMSTER-WHEEL FALSE OPPOSITE strategy. Want change? Bashing the Corporate Democrats is a win win situation.
I give up. Obama has made it impossible for me to vote for him. He has shown himself to be too naive and lacking in courage to be a viable alternative to Bush and his clones. His actions have demonstrated to me that he does not have true leadership qualities, and suggest his interest is primarily in power and not for the good of the people. What a shame.
The ironic thing is the FISA is something that a strong stand on from the left would get a significant amount of support from the right, if couched in the language of anti-big government.
Thats not rocket-science its just obvious THOUGH UNPROFITABLE THINKING.
Of course it would entail a democrat or two actually SPEAKING UP AS IF THEY WANTED PEOPLE TO TAKE NOTE, which is something that they haven't done since 1968.
wilmoor says: "Can't help but wonder how long it'll be before the twenty-first century Crusades begin."
Where you been, wilmoor? Crusades means Christian country or countries marches into a Moslem country or countries in the name of bringing civilization and tries to establish permanent domination. This time it is not so clearly a Christian thing, because our true religion is money.
Voters fall victim again to political indignation. For fecks sake - vote Green, or OTHER party.
lwhunt330,
Then, of course, incredibly stupid advice may not be at the bottom of all this. An alternative explanation is that Obama, being the presumptive Democratic nominee, has now been made aware of certain facts concerning the ummm..... personal security, shall we say, of the President of the United States, and the steps he needs to take to ensure that personal security....
Somebody enlighten me here, please. Obama did not want the FISA bill to expire because...?
Added note: If only the MSM political commentators would explain the core of the issues, instead of going on and on claiming to have seer talents, then maybe the public would not get most of their real info from the internet.
BARRY,
PLEASE REVERSE YOUR DECISION ON GRANTING IMMUNITY TO THE TELECOMS (AND THEREBY TO BUSH HIMSELF).
IHAD HOPED THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE AT LEAST SOME OF THE INTEGRITY OF RALPH NADER, BUT I GUESS THAT WAS TOO MUCH TO HOPE FOR.
YOU HAVE DESTROYED MY HOPE THAT AT LAST WE HAD A CANDIDATE WITH THE COURAGE AND MORAL CONVICTIONS TO CONFRONT THE FASCIST NEOCONS HEAD ON. OBVIOUSLY I WAS WRONG - YOU'RE A POLITICAL HACK ONLY A LITTLE BETTER THAN JOHN McCAIN.
PLEASE REACH DEEP INSIDE YOURSELF AND LET YOUR BETTER LIGHTS SHINE. OPPOSE TELECOM IMMUNITY AND GET ABOUT THE SERIOUS BUSINESS OF RECLAIMING OUR DEMOCRACY FROM THE FASCISTS.
By doing this stupid shit, Obama is wiping out his 12 point lead nationally over McCain and making it a very close election. I guess we need another 50.5% to 49.5% election when it shouldn't even be close. The problem is, he will probably blow it. I keep asking, "Who on earth is giving him this incredibly stupid advice"? He should fire all of his "advisors" and start over.