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.

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.

This IS going to be Nader's year!

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 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."

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

"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.

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."

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.

Thanks to Little Brother (July 3rd, 2008 2:47 pm) for a weirdly funny and deep comment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A Common Pipedream!

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.

Well the choices are.....

Barack Obama.. Not perfect, but better than present.

McBush.. No way!

Nader.. No Chance!

Cindy.. Another no chance!

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?

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...

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.

What a sad Independence Day Mr. Obama has given us. I am switching from Independent to Green.

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.

That's the way to go Obama!

What's bad for Amerika is good for Amerika!

Samson, if you want to see who is getting telecom money, it is the "blue dog" democrats, not Obama.

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.

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.

Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote but deserves to be a slave of liars.

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