Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiReality Time at MyBarackObama.com
It's reality time at MyBarackObama.com. The latent tension between a conventional top-down presidential campaign and the bottom-up social-networking Internet operation it launched has burst into the open in the form of a grassroots insurrection against Senator Obama's decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants.
The Obama campaign, by far the most Internet-savvy presidential campaign thus far, operates several web sites. BarackObama.com is a straight-forward campaign site, where visitors can see videos of speeches, read about issues, and or course donate money. MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site built along the lines of Facebook. Once a visitor registers as a MyBarackObama member, he or she can post blogs, join discussion groups, send each other messages, organize events, and create networks of "friends," just as on Facebook or MySpace.
In fact, MyBarackObama.com is actually a Facebook knock-off, shepherded into reality over a year ago by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. The Obama campaign's early recruitment of Hughes, which enabled the campaign to pull a virtually bug-free social networking site out of its hat early on in the campaign, was one of the most pivotal yet least noted turning points in the presidential race.
MyBarackObama.com has been critical to the spectacular fundraising success of the Obama campaign. But what Senator Obama might do with this novel asset beyond simply raising money was an open question. And what MyBarackObama.com might do with Senator Obama was a question few even asked.
Noam Cohen wrote in the New York Times last month, "The receptiveness of the Obama campaign to such bottom-up influences raises a question: might the candidate actually model his approach to politics on the informal communal spirit the Internet encourages?"
Political commentator Andrew Sullivan thought the question had already been answered. "It's a new form of politics. It is likely to last beyond the Obama campaign and to change the shape of all campaigns to come."
Not so fast, argued Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the DailyKos. "The Obama campaign is still very much a top-bottom operation. They've made it very easy for people to hop on the bandwagon, but those in the back of that wagon still get no say in where the campaign is going."
Well, this week it started to get really noisy in the back of the wagon. A new "group" started on MyBarackObama.com called "Senator Obama -- Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right." By last night there were 7,000 members. At noon today there were 11435, just short of making it the largest group on the MyBarackObama site. During the time I wrote this column, more than 800 more signed up. By the time you read this, it will almost certainly be the largest. There is even a contest being organized to see who can predict how many members the group will have by the time of the FISA vote next week.
Note to the Obama campaign: Even a cursory glance at the history of social networking on the Internet ( MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter for starters) shows that when content creation is put into the hands of the users who also have the ability to communicate and share with one another, the result becomes highly dynamic and unpredictable.
So here we are, balanced at the precise point where the bottom-up dynamics of Web 2.0 meets the top-down dynamics of an American presidential campaign. Depending on your take on Obama, you might imagine the Senator as railing in private against the power his Internet advisors have unwittingly given his base, or alternatively, as being secretly delighted at the unruly democratic spirit his campaign and its Web tools have unleashed.
In my most recent post, I wrote about the tension between Obama's Internet fundraising operation -- the 1.5 million small donors -- and his conventional fundraising. I wondered who would have the most influence with Obama, the small group of big donors who have faces and phone numbers the candidate knows, or the 1.5 million small donors.
It seems that the social networking tools of MyBarackObama.com may give some of those small donors a collective face and point of contact. At this moment, the contact is the "Senator Obama -- Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right" group.
There is of course no guarantee how much real influence the members of this group will have with Obama. But they certainly have his attention. In fact, the good folks at Obama HQ are without doubt counting every new member. 12,261 and counting.
**
Some comments from "Senator Obama - Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right":
After going through the long and difficult primary I truly believed that Senator Obama was the man we needed.
It did not take long for him to prove me so wrong.
The Senator from Chicago became an inside the Beltway wonder in such a short period of time.
What I want, and I say want, not please, is to see him stand up and as the leader of the Demos and stop this FISA bill. The FISA part of the bill is just as wrong as the telecom immunity. But how can you condone the telecoms disregard of the law? Please tell me how?
If he does not I am finished and I will not vote for him or any Demo. This is very difficult to say with McShame running on the GOP ticket.
But if Senator Obama can't stand up for me and my right to privacy (4th Amendent) who the hell will?
this is a group that REFUSES to support a candidate that supports a measure that is _unconstitutional_. Playing that "it will get McCain elected" game doesn't fly here. We're concerned about the CONSTITUTION, remember that thing?
I'm done capitulating. If the contributors to the Obama campaign truly own it, as Obama likes to say, then it's time we started acting like it.
I have just contacted the Obama campaign and asked for my money back that I have contributed. They have agreed to refund it. If Senator Obama changes his mind and opposes FISA I will send all of my money back to the campaign.
etc.
Bob Ostertag is an historian, journalist, and composer. He is currently Professor of Technocultural Studies and Music at the University of California at Davis.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
62 Comments so far
Show Allalan17b0, Kant's Categorical Imperative applies in elections: Do what succeeds when everyone does it. If everyone adopts such a strategy of allowing a state's swing status to influence one's vote, the election fails. But if everyone votes their principles, the election succeeds.
Here is the statement from Obama:
"My Position on FISA"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html
The short version:
Security and surveillance for the ruling elite trump law and citizens bill of rights.
I know that many people here understand ideology, we have bunches of them running around here. But what about politics?
If you would be so rigid to refuse to vote for someone based on something they said that was opposed to your ideology, isnt that too rigid? Would you really expect to ever win anything? Get the chance to put more liberl policies in place?
Would you rather go home in Niovember and say, well we showed them. He didn'yt present the company line trying to get elected, so we stiffed him at the poll's. I'd rather win and get some input.
I don't support Obama or McCain, I'm waiting to see how things come out. Lets wait a bit more and see how things go before we trash can anybody.
With respect to all those that like individual candidates, there is no chance for them. And yes, Nader cost Gore the Presidency last time, can you see anybody that voted for Nader voting for GWB?.
God Bless America and all who serve her. May you and your families have a happy and safe Fourth!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I have a feeling that the main attacks would stay within the realm of the right-wing echo chamber. The leaders in Congress allowed this FISA monstrosity to happen, but all on Capitol Hill who support this are complicit as well.
If Obama, who is a constitutional attorney, were to stand up for our Constitution instead of going along with this monstrosity, my gut feeling is that he would get more accolades than brickbats. Feingold and Dodd look much more like leaders than Obama,
Also, if Obama wants to be president, than he should act like the leader he wants to be and stand up for issues.
Americans are hungry for courageous leadership, but the Rahm Emmanuels and their ilk assume Americans are too stupid to notice when someone is caving in on this assault on our freedom.
And as far as the Supreme Court scare, with the spineless Dems we have in Congress, we'd be lucky to get even a moderate justice. Nader looks better every day.
Vote for Nader? Vote for McKinney? Vote for
Barr? The answer depends on what state you
are from.
If you are from a "safe state" -- Mass, NY, MD,
Ill, Cal for the Dems, Idaho, Texas, Tenn for
the Repubs, to give some examples, it is almost
obligatory to vote for some other candidate
than Obama or McCain. Why waste your vote in
enhancing or decreasing the total of an already
sure thing?
If you are from a "battleground" state, e.g.
Fla, Ohio, Penna, Virg, then you really have a
decision to make.
But most of us are not from battleground states.
We are in the fortunate position of being able
to Eat Our Cake and Have it Too. We have
a Free Vote. I urge everyone who has a Free
Vote to use it.
Alan McConnell, Co-Trustee of the Washington
Area Impeachment Fund
One candidate and his wife were involved in the theft and laundering of AMERICAN bank money which AMERICAN tax payers had to pay back . HE CHEATED ON HIS WIFE . And during his tenture in office over 50 million AMERICANS lost health care . 100's of thousands of AMERICAN jobs went off shore . 100's of thousands of lives were lost including AMERICANS invading , occupying , and stealing the resources of another country . Trillions of AMERICAN tax payer dollars in to the hands of corporations friendly to him and his cohorts . YOU ARE A DAMN FOOL IF YOU VOTE FOR MORE OF THIS MESS .
If Obama becomes our next president and we look at the road along which he came we will see piles of everything the corporate media and Dems could throw at him . Dems are like crabs in a bowl . If one is about to get over the top the others will pull it back . The tele and FISA bills are getting so much money pumped into them by the corporations that only a couple LAW MAKERS are speaking out against them . So what you want is for Obama to stand alone against the hordes while the Dems and the corporate media attack him . Why not get on his side if you are a supporter and attack the leaders in congress who allowed this mess to happen with their full knowledge .
.
"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
.
I supported Nader in 2000 and 2004. I am supporting Obama in 2008. The stakes are too high this time. We are one justice away from a far right SCOTUS. If McCain wins, the court will certainly begin rewriting the Constitution. For me, at least, this one reason alone is enough to support the Democrats in this cycle no matter what Obama stands for. Small steps.
http://politicjock.blogspot.com/
Obama, a faux progressive, has hidden behind a charismatic veneer. His positions on FISA and faith-based inititatives are only the surface of what will emerge when he takes office. An accurate portrayal of Obama can be found at The Progressive (http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed0508)
Obama has consistently refused to endorse progressive Democratic candidates, instead choosing to do what he is told and to endorse party hacks.
He did not endorse Congressional Candidate John Pavich, who ran against corrupt Republican Jerry Weller in the 11th Congressional District in Illinois in 2006. Yet now he is behind Rahm Emmanuel's hackette, State Senator Debbie Halvorson, who, incidentally is an Obama delegate.
He did not endorse Christine Cegalis, who ran in Henry Hyde's District.
He did not endorse Forrest Claypool, a reform candidate for the Cook County Board President:
"Whether Obama's endorsement (of Claypool) would have mattered or not is beside the point. Endorsements are, as a matter of practical politics, mostly symbolism. By choosing to stay neutral in the race and to not go the extra distance to endorse Claypool, Obama signified that he was for reform and change - but only up to a point.
As it turned out, there was a bizarre epilogue to this race - and one that proves these kind of decisions have real world consequences. A week before the primary, Stroger suffered a severe stroke. The resulting outpouring of sympathy played at least some part in the final outcome: the reformer Claypool lost by six points, 53 to 47.
Stroger stayed out of sight for weeks and eventually it came to light that after recognizing he would not be able to stand for re-election, he engineered a deal from his hospital bed to install his son, Todd Stroger, on the ballot.
The move was decried by many, including Claypool, for what it was: a bald act of nepotism. Despite Todd Stroger's youth, inexperience, and his reputation as a corrupt, machine-style ward boss, Obama not only endorsed Stroger in the general election but heaped praise on him as a "a good progressive" - a claim that no one who knows him could make with a straight face.
In the end, Todd Stroger won election in November 2006. Since taking office as Cook County Board President, however, he has been an unmitigated disaster. With runaway tax increases and the county hospital system in crisis, Stroger has been busy packing the County payroll with allies at the expense of taxpayers, including more than a dozen friends and relatives making more than $100,000 per year.
One critic put it this way just a few weeks ago: "He [Stroger] is like a kid in a candy store handing out goodies to his buddies and his family members at a time when the average taxpayer is hurting." That critic was Barack Obama's good friend and the reformer candidate he didn't endorse for the job, Forrest Claypool."
- "Obama's 'No, I Can't' Moment," posted by Tom Bevam , Real Crear Politics
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/06/obamas_no_i_cant_moment.html
Obama will stay well within the confines of the Illinois combine (which includes Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Rahm Emmanuel, and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.) What Rahm and Richard and Michael want, they will get. Those of us who have followed Illinois politics saw the real Obama - a hack and a product of the corrupt Illinois combine - some time back. It is unfortunate that the MSM scripted Obama as our Democrat nominee - we had several good candidates.
Also, given the rampant corruption throughout northern Illinois that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been prosecuting, I am extremely uncomfortable with Mayor Daley weighing in on the U.S. Attorney nominee for a President Obama. The Daley machine will enjoy glory days of corruption with a President Obama in office. The only thing Bush (whom I detest) got right was the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as U.S Attorney - and that was only because former Senator Peter Fitzgerald (a Republican who was not part of the Combine) had to fight for that nomination.
I just wonder how far Obama would have gotten if Ftizgerald had chosen to run again.
The Choices Are?????
Excuse me but Senator Obama has not yet become the official Democratic nominee.
Remember it was those Super(stupid) Delegates that got him this close.
He does not have enough real delegates to claim the position.
Why not put pressure on those same super deligates to take away their support.
Have an open convention and let the winner be chosen there.
After all Obama is already falling apart.
Just yesterday he stated the troops from Iraq may not be coming home in the 1900 months time line. Then he claim they will.
Anyone really expect this Senator with feet of clay to be able to stand up in a debate with McCain?
Ok now it is your turn start calling those super delegates up. if you don't then you can blame America's future on yourself.
Me I am still voting for Senator Clinton and then changing to the Green Party .
Has not the Circle Firing Squad yet run out of bullets? Pehaps the NRA keeps your guns loaded lol
Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote but deserves to be a slave of liars.
Somehow, the hopeful Obamamaniacs will forget that Obama just colluded in destroying a Constitutionally guaranteed right - to be free of unwarranted searches.
It makes me sick to think of the cheering banks of faces we'll see come election time, rooting for someone who betrayed them.
petersby: Obama didn't actually "cater to" far-right faith-based groups -- although that's how it sounds on the micro-second sound bites the mainstream media pass on to us.
In the more complete coverage of his remarks, it is clear that he emphasized continued support for both governmental and non-governmental human rights/services groups, noting that churches do much good work for the poor and should continue to get public support so long as they do not proselytize.
I hope no one will withhold his/her vote from Obama without considering that a McCain presidency would likely be the coup de gras that finishes off our democracy.
Samson, if you want to see who is getting telecom money, it is the "blue dog" democrats, not Obama.
That's the way to go Obama!
What's bad for Amerika is good for Amerika!
I am upset about Obama's vote on the so called "compromise" FISA bill but also feel betrayed on the expansion of Bush's Faith based Initiative. Not only is he going agaist the constitution on illegal spying but ignoring "separation of church and state". I thought he was for change. I do feel betrayed and am thinking now of voting for Nader!! Sounds lijke same old, same old!!! My father and I have both donated more to this campaign then ever. No More.
What a sad Independence Day Mr. Obama has given us. I am switching from Independent to Green.
Here's a piece of advice -- just ignore everything you read or hear about obama, mccain, nader, mcckinney whoever. Focus all your energies on raising all the noise you can so as to end the war. The candidates are never gonna do it so dont waste your energy on them ... instead bring your local city to a grinding halt, raise hell, shut the system down. Its the only way they listen. Take a leaf from Codepink, who seem to be the only organization that does something these days.
mybarackobama.com my ass. It's a bazillion tons of clearly, seen through by anyone, pre-posted remarks implemented by the divisor of this place while they were having, "technical difficulties". When the hell did any politicians site allow links, html links, there's a gazillion, and they all say 'link', and persons pretending to be Obama complimenting one supposed "poster" for her links because, "He always HAS to read AT LEAST one of her links daily." uh-huh. It's all a bunch of shitty assed shit, no dissention at all, I will presume each link called 'link' leads your sorry ass to "DONATIONS". this suppposed remark by Obama, "I can understand that FISA is a deal breaker for some of you, yeah breaking my Fourth Amendment Rights and paying the criminal Fucks that did it makes me testy, so I can understand but, blah yadda blah."
Now the Iraq "war" he is calling it? I used to remember Invasion before, Senator.
And whomever keeps chanting the mantra of Cynthia McKinney be advised, "she"[her campaign/fact finders]sent me an email re;my email in reference to her and how admirable it was, I never sent her shit, so whom is sharing our info with whom? I'd take Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey or Shiela Jackson-Lee over her anytime.
Whooo-Whooo, party time House of Commons...
Sorry, angel2shine, if a candidate is unwilling to support basic constitutional rights, the duty of a citizen is not to support him no matter how worse his opponent may be.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Amendment IV)
Seems pretty clear to me. So is loyalty to party, to personality, or to the Constitution?
Well the choices are.....
Barack Obama.. Not perfect, but better than present.
McBush.. No way!
Nader.. No Chance!
Cindy.. Another no chance!
Well. America has another fast talking salesman who excels at telling people what they want to hear to close the deal. What a surprise.
Happy talk about change and hope is, of course, not about principled positions but an effective sales tactic. Consequently, America will likely elect Obama and will have a very skilled salesman in the oval office to sell them the status quo of oligarchic wealth, militarism, and power.
But he will do so with such inspiring words!
Better to have that old curmudgeon, McCain/McNasty as president. At least he won't sugar coat the excrement he feeds America. He will be a little more honest, at least.
A Common Pipedream!
matti,
You only IMAGINE that Daniel David is "unraveling a bit" by bringing up the Supreme Court as the reason to elect Obama.
This is not because I've run out of other reasons (by July, no less, as you say), but because the Court always was THE reason for electing any Democrat (Obama is more than fine) this year.
If you think this is minor, I'd suggest you review two decisions, Engquist (this year by 6/3) and Ledbetter (last year by 5/4) where two separate women were completely denied economic justice in their jobs by this Court, establishing major precedents.
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy were the majority on both of them.
People think that Gitmo and guns are the major issues, ignoring everything else. I'd suggest you delve a little deeper and see if you can find it in your heart to care about women more than wasting your time bashing DD. You have a bad court for every lady in the USA and you don't seem to give a darn whether it gets worse. And I'm NOT talking about abortion. Wake up. You ain't serious yet.
So here's my question again.
While everyone was praising his keynote speech at the last Democratic convention, they seem to have missed what I found the most important occurrence.
Still an Illinois senator, not yet elected to his US Senate seat, a reporter asked him whether, if eleced, he would finish his Senate term, no matter how good his prospects for a run for the presidency might look.
I nearly fell out of my chair. As far as I can tell, nobody else took note of this.
Sorry, folks: if that didn't make you wonder about him, what would? You Obama suppporters were set up. He was annointed by the media 3 years before there was any sign of a campaign.
How many of you also fell for the "Kucinich is unelectable" lie? Yes, he certainly was - because the lies are believed, even by people that are always screaming that the media can't be trusted.
You wanted him. I hope you enjoy him. I'm considering returning to my search for a way out of this insane asylum masquerading as a civilized nation.
I'll be shocked if he changes again.
But I do believe that the protest on his site might put pressure on him to stop his "shift to the right." Might.
If he had 1.5 million on line supporters, then 16,000 is one percent, not that many.
But then again, elections hinge on a few percentage points, look at the fear of a Nader vote. Maybe it will influence what comes later.
Smilidon1 (5:20 PM), that's not exactly what the website says about release of the "escrow fund": To quote:
"We will convert our pledges to contributions to Barack Obama when he demonstrates progressive leadership on issues we care about."
With this "demonstrates progressive leadership" wording it really sounds like another fund-raising scam when Obama doesn't actually need much more funding. Any bozo can say that BO "demonstrates progressive leadership" whether or not he happens to vote against telecom immunity; or whether he changes his stances on any other of his flip-flop "issues." I'd say "donor beware" to anyone contemplating contributions through this site.
http://www.actblue.com/page/obama-progressive-leadership-fund is an escrow fund for Obama. You can donate into it and the funds will be released to the Obama campaign when he decides to be against telecom retroactive immunity.
His support for faith based initiatives seems like a good strategic move however. It should at least give government a handle on whether our tax revenues are upholding our constitutional values of the separation of church and state or going to further the anti-women's right to choose propaganda.
I forget who said it, but I agree with them, I don't just want change, I want improvement! The only change I can see with Obama is that his administration will not be so obvious in its showing of how little they care for the masses. And McCain? Forget it... Vote third party.
Members of the group currently: 16629
Members of second largest group: 13487
My question is, how many people will leave him if he votes for telecom immunity?
Not that I consider telecom immunity one of the biggest issues--although in principle it's certainly bad. Obviously.
But otoh, to read the comments in this thread about how the Supreme Court has become "fascist" with Bush's appointees--what a crock of shit. The U.S. actually *is* complicit in fascism all over the world, and has been ever since we finished the war that was supposedly about defeating fascism. The Democrats have been more than complicit in this; their presidential administrations have been active participants.
The political priorities of those who call conservative SC court decisions "fascist", in an attempt to scare Americans into voting for the candidate of a party which supports actual fascists (see Chile for one example out of a hundred) and genocide-committers (see Guatemala for one example out of a hundred), make me somewhat sick to my stomach. Despite our mutual distaste for Bush's spying, I wonder how I can have anything significant in common with these people politically speaking.
It is fun to see people like -Daniel David- starting to unravel a bit.
The Supreme Court is the last fear-based argument that has a chance at effectiveness for the Obama campaign -and they've had to bring it out in July!
There are four more months left in this madness and they're down to the old "The Supreme Court is just a political tool of the President/King and his Party, so if the Bad Guy who wants to be King wins he'll make it so the Supreme Court ruins your life and makes you have babies you don't want and lets poor people have guns so you have to be scared they will steal your stuff -and it will be really Bad- so vote for the Good Guy who wants to be King, or it'll be your fault!" already, huh?
This could get interesting, not merely for an "independent" or "third-party" presidential campaign, but perhaps also for the beginnings of a large-scale movement to democratize our system that could- in the coming years- grow into something really cool.
Who knows?
Maybe when all these sweet, trusting fools -such as those on this Mybarak site- see that their pleas for their (already purchased from a direct-TV offer) candidate to reverse his vote for the Unconstitutional, Anti-Rights, Corporatist-Fascist, totalitarian "FISA reform", i.e."Ex post facto immunity for the Corporate Zombie-Persons who assisted the King in his Spying on the People Act of 2008", go unheeded something will happen.
Maybe they will realize that until their vote is Uncertain, it will never Matter to a Party of Candidate.
Maybe they won't just follow the one who has beaten them down into the voting booth like sad little lap-dogs.
Maybe they'll see that "purist" positions are vital to true elections (ELECTIONS not appointments).
Maybe they'll finally understand that the way a democratic-republic is MEANT to work, it is the Party or Person seeking Office who must find compromise with the positions of the People, NOT the other way around.
Maybe not.
It'd be fun to see though.
-matti.
Samson, good thinking, it could work that way. Though I'm thinking Obama's campaign is not really hurting to the extent of needing to "shake down" more campaign funds. When he's even considering (with what degree of sincerity I don't know) paying off H. Clinton's campaign debts, seems he's more interested in maneuvering for progressives' votes rather than theirs or any one else's dollars; which makes the "threat" of all those disaffected BO supporters (I'll vote for him but won't give him any more money) rather laughable as any kind of real threat.
Thanks to Little Brother (July 3rd, 2008 2:47 pm) for a weirdly funny and deep comment.
Even better, Obama is probably using this to shake down the telecom industry for more bribes, uh contributions. He's good at what he does. Unfortunately, he gave up grassroots organizing for more lucrative pursuits ages ago.
Don't be too surprised if this whole MyBarack thing turns out to be a cheap campaign trick: Obama's way of retaining the support of all those supporters who believe he will be responsive to the progressive "movement" despite his multi-faceted "move to the center" in his post-nomination behavior. The trick is to accumulate thousands of signatures to a petition to have the candidate take some action he's indicated he won't take (filibuster against FISA);announce grandly that he has "heard the people"
and will change his vote; after which he can return with the blessing of his placated supporters to the REAL basis of his ticket to the White House: which is to assure whites of all ideological persuasions that he will protect them from that of which they are really terrorized: the potential from social revolution from blacks the likes of Jeremiah Wright. Playing this particular "race card" has been the basis of his campaign ever since Wall Street handlers and financiers decided he was just the person to play that game and become a President responsive to their demands and not to those of any fantasied "movement."
"In case anybody noticed in the past hour, this website has been temporarily disabled, so no further people can join this group. I guess this is Obama's way if stifling dissent."
I just went to the site... 16,770 and growing... not sure why you had problems... might try going directly to the page:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA
I was a firm supporter for Obama...a great deal of effort went into defeating the Clintons. I can no longer support his candidacy however... FISA was the last straw. Guess things will have to get worse before they get better... Obama - just one more lying politician.
He had me at hope and change. He lost me with spin and deceit.
I agree with Jim Hightower: I'm a part of the Obama Phenomena. I'm more a fan of the Phenomena than the man.
The biggest, most effective lobby right now working to get Obama to change his mind about FISA is at mybarackobama.com, as this article details.
Obama's campaign is an opportunity to become part of an enormous grassroots movement, and try to influence it's direction. I think that any leftists not joining in are foolish.
The problem is exactly that progressives are 'led quietly into the fold'.
If you want any respect from the Democrats, kick them in the balls and say 'Hell No'.
Ah Obama is just another lying sack of shit just like the rest of the politicians. Here's a quote from myBarackObama.com:
"The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq."
Can you count the lies boys and girls? I count 5.
Obama is taking up these new rightwing positions for two reasons; first, to win over undecided voters, and second, to win over the PUMAs.
PUMA's are angry Hillary Clinton democrats who promise to vote McCain or stay home if Obama doesn't meet their demands. See their pledge at http://iownmyvote.com/
Obama's not exactly meeting PUMA's demands by taking these rightwing positions, but there may be as many as many as 4 million angry PUMAs out there and, pragmatically, it's worth it for him to win some of them over without caving and looking weak.
Trying to win over undecided voters is more of a long shot; the official media is pro-Republican, so it's unlikely he can make significant gains with undecided voters.
It's fair to speculate that Obama may also be getting more funding from behind-the-curtain sources by taking these rightwing positions. But, more importantly than the funding, with these shadowy shakers and movers onside, he may have better media coverage, and that will help him with the undecided voters.
What is interesting is that between the PUMAs and the media (and the electronic voting machines) Obama might loose the presidential election. He seems to think so.
Now, progressives in general vote Democrat no matter what. Unlike the PUMAs, they have no real commitment to their stated positions. For most progressives, ending the war on terror, restricting presidential powers, environmental protection, and social justice, these are all just talking points; they will vote Democrat because the Democratic party candidate is not a Republican, and that is all that really matters to them. They use the 'lesser of two evils' justification.
Read the PUMA web sites. You probably won't agree with their content, but you'll be inspired by their dedication. They are not progressives; they will not be led quietly into the fold. Obama cannot meet their pledge demands, and they intend to pull him down. And, unlike progressives, PUMAs have hope for the future; Hillary in 2012.
For progressives who are sick of the 'lesser of two evils' rationale the PUMA phenomenon represents an interesting opportunity. Carpe Diem.
One reason I shy away from messianic politicians is that campaign logic is disturbingly parallel to Sister Mary Elephant logic.
So, if they haven't already done so, I predict that Obama spokespersons professional and amateur will suggest that, like God, Obama HEARD the prayers of his children, but is unable to fulfill them because they do not comport with His divine purpose-- the purpose fully revealed in The Book, if anyone has eyes to read and a brain to think.
And yet, in the fluid universe of realpolitik, Obama's will and purpose will inevitably be obscure and mysterious to mortals. Thus, we arrive at a paradox-- the Book that explains everything, and the spirit of Obama, which passeth human understanding.
The key point to know is that if Obama wins, we lose. The telecoms might win if Obama wins. Religious groups trying to suck in our tax money might win if Obama wins. AIPAC might win if Obama wins. There's lots of groups that might win if Obama wins. But we aren't in that group. Not unless someone out here's been pumping six figure bribes, uh contributions, into his accounts.
We can not support Obama and 'win'. We cannot elect Democrats and 'win'.
The only way we 'win' is by building a new movement and a new party that represents us. Why not start now?
I keep hearing the BS about how progressives can 'pressure' an Obama Presidency to get what they want.
So, watch closely how much grassroots pressure competes with $270,000 plus that the telecom industry has in Obama's accounts (see maplight.org).
Me, my wager would be that he does what the money wants.
Obama can't change his position again. This is a done deal, with the expected results. In order to take away the claim that he is the most liberal Senator (which is laughable considering that there is a self described socialist in the Senate) Obama has manufactured a fight with his "base" to try to appeal to the mythical "center". It is probably good politics seeing as how the American people are as ignorant and dumb as ever but it infuriates me! He will still be trashed by the Right and instead of marginalizing them he actually validates their arguments. I thought that if nothing else Obama may change the framework for how these issues are talked about in this country. But like everything about this guy, eventually he will just disappoint and he becomes just another huckster politician. This is going to make for a very interesting election. Obama was up 15 points nationally, took a hard right turn and now the numbers have him up by 5. Undoubtedly his handlers will convince him that it's because he has not gone far enough to the right, and then it will get very ugly. Only Obama could elect McCain now, and he is doing a damn fine job.
With each passing day, Obama looks and sounds increasing like a Bush Republican.
I look forward to Bob Barr getting into the race, and running simultaneously to the left and the right of both Obama and McCain. A series of four way debates between Barr, Nader, Obama and McCain could be provide the brisk slap in the face American politics so desperately needs, and could lead to all sorts of interesting political realignments as people come to realize how hopelessly stale and stupid out political discourse has become.
Oh, God, the people with sense about elections (ELECTIONS, not purist positions) have spoken sensibly again about Nader, the "candidacy", and the Nader cultists are going to worship their guy AGAIN to hijack another thread.
At issue here is whether citizens can speak and be heard by Obama on the Obama websites. OF COURSE THEY CAN. Go for it. There. Not here or KOS or Huffington. There, because that MIGHT actually give your opinions some usefulness where it counts. As for "they're gonna shut down dissent" and "they're gonna thumb their noses", horsehockey! They're gonna listen close every day. But there are A LOT of issues, and they're not gonna please you (or me) on every one.
But,... but,... but,.... There are no buts. There is only another John Roberts or another Samuel Alito----or not.
No doubt about it, the Internet has the potential to continue to revolutionize national politics, but how much of an effect we're going to have on this year's presidential campaign will be limited by the massive campaign finance requirements that still unfortunately dictates who has the most access and influence. I think Senator Obama's disappointing support of Telecom immunity confirms this.
However, we can still have a real, progressive effect not only on this election, but on the level of transparency, integrity, and accountability that people expect from ALL candidates in the future. That's what we've set out to do with my congressional run in Florida this year: http://www.jeffgeorgeforcongress.com
"it was Nader who got George W. Bush installed"
That must be about those 90,000 Floridian Democrats who voted for Nader and not Gore, conveniently ignoring the 200,000 Dems who voted for Bush.
It's so easy not to think, not to think that maybe those 90,000 weren't going to vote for Gore. Perhaps they would have voted for Bush, if Nader had not been on the ballot. Perhaps. Has anyone asked them?
Or is it so easy just to assume what one wants to?
It's so easy to forget that Gore couldn't win his own state, nor that of Clinton. Either win would have made him President.
It's so easy to blame someone other than the Democratic Party and its own candidate for their pathetic failure.
It's not healthy or helpful but it's easy.
I think that we need to stop blaming Nader for the 2000 election. He ran on a platform that there is almost no difference between the two parties and 8 years later he has been proven right and now Obama is proving it to us again as if we needed more reminders. Supreme Court gave George Bush the election 5-4. Gore would have won the close recount, but cowardly chose not only not to fight it, but to openly opposed and gaveled-down the Afro-Americans and other Congressional members who wanted to fight for him. If Democrats would not elect cowards, they might be bette off.
Another view of the 2000 election is; without the Nader campaign, progressive issues would have been earlier cast aside and Al Gore never would have attempted his too late shift away from his centrist-right DLC campaign tactics. Had he not made a shift away, minor as it was, from the pro-trade, pro-business positions of the DLC the election would never have been as close as it was. In other words, it Nader that kept Gore somewhat honest. In truth, Gore has no one else to blame for the loss after running such an inept and unimaginative campaign---a campaign that in reality was a continuation of the betrayal of progressive ideals launched by the Clintons.
And so it goes once again...
Watch out for Barry
I tried to reach the Mybarackobama site and was redirected to the official campaign site, where there was a message that they are doing maintenance. Shutting down Mybarackobama is one way to stifle dissent. That and his sudden leaning to the far right faith based groups is costing him my vote and shutdown of further contributions.
I was able to get through on one of Obama's comment sites and they responded with a paragraph stating that although "imperfect", he will still keep his stance on telecom immunity. So he is not listening. period. That just cost him my vote.
In case anybody noticed in the past hour, this website has been temporarily disabled, so no further people can join this group. I guess this is Obama's way if stifling dissent. Simply close the site. Another possibility is that so many people are protesting his criminal stance against the US Constitution that it simply jammed up the. Good luck looging on to this one.
This is NOT going to be Nader's year and any fool who thinks so should remember that it was Nader who got George W. Bush installed and got the Supreme Court into a solidly fascist mold. I don's suppose the Nader supporters have ever heard the term "false flag operation."
This whole "bottom up" thing seems to be just another flowery notion Obama advertises to the people to garner support, but the realization of the notion has yet to occur. So there's a web site where people can gather and fawn over their candidate ... does anyone think that he actually reads the messages and will changes his policies because of them ? No, they are going to have to do something much more assertive than just talk, they're going to have to offer an ultimatum to the golden boy: represent us, or you will not win our votes.
This IS going to be Nader's year!
Rich M,
I agree. Obama is just using the internet in it's proven capacity to dupe us into feeling that our views are being heard and deliberated, when in relity, our voices are being piped into a thick-walled, sound-tight echo-chamber. Our views bounce around in this chamber and have no effect whatsoever on the elite's discourse and decision making - which take place the traditional way - around a table in a plush conference room, a fine restaurant, or on the golf course.
Even sites like Commondreams work brillaintly with this regard, while the sites that were effective in spawning street-level activism, like Indymedia and Infoshop, seem to be in decline in most cities.
I think this might be Nader's year. I never would have thought it, but the way Obama is going. Nader's new national polling numbers of 6% will only grow. And when, and if, Cynthia McKinney starts campaigning, watchout Obama.
Okay, this new group on Obama's website, begging him to reverse himself on FISA, is a very nice & democratic idea. It has the added virtue that it will become very quickly evident, whether or not Obama responds to the group. This will have obvious major implications as to what can be expected from his candidacy as a whole.
I predict that the group will grow very large, very quickly -- & that it will have no effect whatsover. Obama will essentially thumb his nose at these people.