Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama, FISA and the Netroots
The current dust-up in the Obama camp over this week's FISA vote may have real consequences for the rest of this campaign. As you may know, the largest "group" on the Obama campaign's social networking site, MyBarackObama.com, is now a group assembled to protest Senator Obama's reversal of his promise to filibuster against the FISA legislation up next week. Reading through the blogoshpere, many commenters appear baffled at the intensity of the passions involved, and criticize the protestors for making such a fuss over "just one issue." But there are good reasons why core activists have taken a strong stand, and why the campaign may look different after this is over.
For many Obama activists, a key issue that propelled them into campaign activism is dismantling the unconstitutional legal measures the Bush administration put in place in the aftermath of 9/11. The prison at Guantánamo, the secret CIA prisons scattered around the globe, the torture of prisoners, and the kangaroo courts set up to process them are the foreign pieces of this puzzle. Warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is the domestic piece. While understanding all the ins and outs of the FISA legislation requires a specialist's knowledge, the core issue is simple: are we working to return the country to the rule of constitutional law or not? (Click here for an excellent analysis of Obama's FISA statement by a specialist.)
Obama made two arguments in his reply to the protestors. First, he argued that though the bill is "far better than the Protect America Act" which the Bush administration pushed through Congress last year. This argument is not only meaningless but downright misleading, for the Protect America Act was written to expire. If no new legislation is passed, we revert back to the pre-Bush, pre-9/11 version of the legal structure of state surveillance of Americans, not the Bush version. The question is not whether the new legislation is better than Bush's, but whether it is better than what the country lived under from 1978 until Bush. It is one thing for Obama to be vague about the particulars of his policies, as he was throughout the primaries. But it is a different thing altogether to make misleading statements about key issues.
So we are left with Obama's second argument, and this one has actual substance:
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.
The "important surveillance tool" he is referring to is warrantless wiretapping. Here Obama unequivocally sides with the argument the Bush administration justice department has been making for years: that in the context of the "war on terror," some constitutional rights must be suspended or at least sidestepped, and key among them is warrantless state surveillance. That is a BIG DEAL.
There are more ways in which this issue stands out among others. Obama's promise to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 18 months is highly provisional and will be subject to many reality tests along the way. His program for global warming will be a major undertaking to put in place, and will surely show many signs of wear when and if it is enacted. The FISA issue is a completely different deal: this is pending legislation that will be voted on next week. It is very much still a fight. There are senators set to oppose the bill, by filibuster if necessary.
Obama had promised to be one of them. On October 24, 2007, campaign spokesman
Bill Burton announced,
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
The position was elaborated in another statement December 17, 2007:
"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same."
What Obama has done here is not a "refinement" of a policy position like he recently suggested concerning Iraq. It is an about face. Imagine how different next week would play out if the presumptive Democratic nominee was joining a filibuster on the floor of the senate, standing up for the constitutional rights of all Americans. The contrast between what would happen if Obama followed through on his promise, and what will happen if he doesn't, is night and day. (See this complete timeline of Obama's statements on the bill.)
Here is another level on which this whole thing stinks. It is one thing for a presumptive nominee to adjust policy positions to reach out to constituencies he wants to bring in to his coalition which were not part of his primary victory. We have seen Obama do that with evangelicals, for example. Warrantless wiretapping has no constituency. There is no sector of the American population that just might jump off the fence and get behind Obama if he only agrees to give telecommunications corporations retroactive immunity for illegally collaborating with the Bush administration's spying. He is not courting votes here. Either he is caving in to pressure from the giant telecom corporations, or he has really bought into the idea that American actually needs warrantless wiretapping. Either option is equally unpalatable to many activists.
Finally, here is yet another angle. Throughout the primaries, one of the big criticisms of Obama was that when it came to votes, he backed off. Thus all those "present" votes in Illinois. But the campaign came up with what seemed like a plausible explanation for all that, and many Obama supporters decided he deserved a pass on that. Well, here we are, the first big vote Obama faces on the national and international stage, and guess what? He is backing off. Not good.
Yet there has been very little talk among the MyBO protestors of not voting for Obama. What there has been is a pronounced change of tone, which may hold real implications for the rest of the campaign. Obama rode to the nomination in large part on the backs of... well, of people like me.
I always vote Democratic, and I always vote. All my life I have voted for a long string of mediocre Democratic candidates, but I have almost never volunteered for or sent money to a presidential campaign. I am politically active, but on local issues where I feel I can have a real impact, or on international issues that I feel are of global importance. The realm of presidential politics is another world to me: donors who can bring in millions, TV ads which I never see since I don't own a TV, and candidates loaded down with corporate backers with set agendas.
Obama changed that for me. I sent him money. I phone banked. I held street signs. I don't know if I am going to continue with all that. I will vote for Obama of course. I will continue to urge everyone I know to vote for him. But my money and time, paltry though they may be, will likely get redirected to candidates who are willing to stand up for issues I care about. And because of the Internet, I know that there are a lot of other Obama supporters in the same boat; a lot of people considering cutting off their string of small donations to the campaign.
All of this is coming at a time in which Obama's schedule is filled with big-money fundraisers where people can buy face time with the man for $30k. Put all these things together, and one cannot help but wonder if there is a turning point, that from here on out the campaign is will be less of a grassroots affair. This is not the death knell of the campaign. Far from it. I think Obama can do very well against McCain with a traditional, top down, big money campaign. I think he will be sworn in as our next president in January. But it will be a different campaign than what it has been until now. As one commenter to my blog so aptly said, "Senator Obama, you can tap my phone or my wallet, but not both."
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.
39 Comments so far
Show AllSpeaking from under the bus, I have to say something that got me totally wiped clean at HuffPo (seems they are too important to allow this message)...
Obama has deserted Progressives with intent... it is NOT by accident. He has proven himself to be just one more politician who is willing to lie and deceive his way into power. That he is so good at it makes him extremely dangerous.
We have two choices. Vote... Don't Vote. I am not an individual who has ever voted for the lesser of two evils. I have no reservations about noting the evil way Obama played upon American's desperate hope for real change to garner a primary victory.
I will NOT vote for Obama. He is betting that you will... that you have been so conditioned to being lied to that you will still vote for him... and I have to agree. Most will not exercise their sense of responsibility and will vote for evil... and be content to cry for four years.
sphne July 8th, 2008 2:21 pm
If you would be willing to undergo the very unpleasant, distateful and difficult task of plucking your well-lodged head out of your own ass, you'd see the the DemocRATS, the Repugs and Nader are not the only choices and that as long as so-called liberals remain tethered to them like rats on a sinking ship 3rd parties will never be viable. You happy with the DemocRATS? Good, vote for them!
oncemanc July 8th, 2008 1:13 pm
Okay, the argument goes like this:
1) I do not support war nor will I vote for anyone that does.
-Obama has a record of voting to fund wars (Say what you will, that is the record) and so do the DemocRATS.
2) I cherish my civil liberties.
-The revision to FISA allows the government to spy on us without a court order of probable cause.
3) Obama supports giving lawbreakers immunity.
-If I break the law I get no immunity. What applies to me should apply to Telecoms inspite of being powerful and well-connected.
That is the tip of the ice berg in my case for not voting for the DemocRATic Party candidate. Of course, I respect your and everyone else's right to do as they please.
dougnwagner July 8th, 2008 1:50 pm
Glad to see you back. Hope school has gone well. You'll make things more interesting around here because you will be among the precious few that still have the audacity to defend the indefendable, clinging to a sinking ship instead of leaving it, like most rats. No offense intended.
Hell, I would love to see Nader get elected pres. instead of Obama, I would even prefer Ron Paul, but if you think a country that voted for Bush and his miscreants TWICE is ever going to ever elect Nader then you all have your heads completely up your asses. The neocons had a plan to set things up so there would be Republicans in power for generations and you are all playing into their hands. One step at a time people--this country (and the world) needs for them to lose this one. I don't know what you guys do for a living or where you live but it seems like you definitely don't mingle with 'regular' (the uninformed majority) of folks like I do-and I live in the Northeast! .
Your critical mistake oncemanc is confusing tailcap with someone who lives in the real world. He apparently believes the sociaist equality party will be appointing supreme court justices :)
We should all remember that the Democratic Party did produce FDR. And if we had more FDRs this country wouldn't have its head so far up its ass. You have to be a complete jackass to not vote Democrat with the Iraq war, the economy, and global warming. And I am sure as hell not getting behind any kind of Ralph Nader or 'revolution' tailcap is waging against his village council. I will gladly vote to keep the Republicans out of power.
"For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor — other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness. Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended."- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 'Democratic National Convention' 1936.
tailcap July 8th, 2008 11:43 am
Apparently, you believe that your insulting, ever-so-original and ever-so-witty capitalization the last syllable of the party's name somehow passes for argument and will help bring people around to your way of thinking. I actually share your complaints that Democrats have let Bush off the hook. Where we differ is that I recognize that there were always many congressional Democrats who acted like Democrats. Their numbers can only expand and there's a realistic prospect that they will take over the House and Senate leadership. I have much more confidence in their prospects than in President Nader's to help our cause.
oncemanc July 8th, 2008 11:17 am
Just curious, oncemanc is your sole argument lesseroftwoevilism?
Would you be able to list anything the DemocRATS have done in the last 8 years or the last two since taking over the Congress that would merit a vote besides not being Repugs?
Can you give us some reasons for voting for Democrats that aren't reasons to vote against Pugs?
In what way have the DemocRATS thwarted the Pug's agenda?
1) DemocRATS authorized the war
2) DemocRATS funded and continue to fund the illegal/invasion/occupation
3) DemocRATS refuse to impeach Bush Co. for a host of crimes
4) DemocRATS haven't even censured Bush Co.
5) DemocRATS support retroactive immunity for powerful lawbreakers
6) DemocRATS confirmed right wing Supreme Court Justices
7) Insert your favorite DemocRATic Party capitulation here:___________________________
What have your DemocRATS done to help our cause oncemanc?
jozef July 8th, 2008 4:41 am
If you want to feel good now but remain totally powerless after the election, by all means help McCain by voting Nader. Yes, justice appointments require senate confirmation but, knowing the way the real world works, do you seriously believe the Democrats could keep rejecting McCain nominations without playing into Republican hands? Do you seriously believe that you would happier with McCain's appointments than Obama's (because those are your choices – or do you really think Nader will be nominating Justices any time soon?). You should be smart enough to understand that because of the age distribution of the present justices, McCain would likely have the power to solidify conservative power on the Supreme Court for your lifetime, a goal conservatives have had for my lifetime.
Historically, changing parties from the inside has, for both good and ill, been much more effective than voting for third party and independent movements. Conservatives understood this and, over decades, turned the Republican Party into the hard-right party that it is now. (Remember Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex). Liberals and progressives will have a real chance, if a Democratic President and Congress are elected, to steer the nation in the direction they want. If it's a typically American instant gratification that you want, I suggest you forget about finding it in politics and government.
For those of you who feel violated by Obama and taken for granted, it is only because he knows that you have no place else to go. He can back peddal all he wants and dissappoint you all he wants because he knows you have no place else to go. Well, you can always not vote for him and let him loose. There is nothing wrong with this. It will send the Democrats a final message that they can't take their base for granted and perhaps they will finally rid themselves of their party leadership. The next president will have an absolute economic dissaster on his hands and will tank anyway. Why not let it be McCain? After another four years of criminal leadership Americans won't elect another republican for a hundred years. If you are sick of Obama's weakness and cowardly back peddaling, don't vote for him.
dougnwagner July 7th, 2008 6:46 pm writes "What truly matters is the authenticy of the next president."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/cong-j21.shtml
US: Democratic Congress approves war funding, legalizes domestic spying
In an across-the-board capitulation to the Bush White House, the House of Representatives voted at the end of this week to approve another $162 billion to fund the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while also passing legislation that legalizes the administration's domestic spying program.
President George W. Bush appeared in the White House Rose Garden Friday morning to praise the Democratic House leadership for supporting these two prongs of Washington's so-called war on terror: military aggression abroad and an assault on basic democratic rights at home.
Obama had promised to filibuster against the FISA immunity for law breakers and capitulated and went back on his word, proving his word cannot be trusted.
April 29 2008
Democratic presidential front-runner Senator Barack Obama said on Sunday he would endorse Bush's nominee to direct US military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout a region extending from North Africa to Central Asia. The pledge, made on the "Fox News Sunday" program, while predictable, serves nonetheless to thoroughly expose the antiwar pretenses of Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole.
Obama was asked by Fox's Chris Wallace: "Senator, this week President Bush named David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, to be the head of Central Command.... Will you vote to confirm his nomination?"
Obama responded, "Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq. I think as a practical matter, obviously, that's where most of the attention has been devoted from this administration over the last several years."
Is Obama moving to the "center" right or was always there?
dougnwagner July 7th, 2008 6:46 pm write: "An antiwar candidate at the top of the ticket..."
-This is a throughly dishonest and laughable statement. The antiwar candidate Obama has absolutely no intention of ending the war. Obama cannot be called antiwar as long as he votes to fund the war, no matter how much he and his DemocRATic Party apologists like dougnwagner try to weasel, perform mental gymnastics and contortions to justify funding a war you oppose. Principled opposition would only fund an airline ticket home
Obama just voted to fund the war (H.R.2642 77-21) The bill funds the slaughtering, raping and plundering through the middle of 2009 to ensure the embarrassing specter of it coming up again during the election.
From Obama's website:
He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda
We all know this is a complete crock of shit and is actually the fine print weasel that allows him to keep many 10's of thousands of troops in Iraq to ensure the profits of Big Oil, Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater and a host of other profit-seeking vultures. These so-called "targeted strikes" always seem to kill some innocent kid looking out the window or a group of people at a wedding.
Would President Obama Keep Bush's Secretary of Defense?
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/89833/
Raising eyebrows over his Iraq approach, a new report suggests Obama could recruit none other than Robert Gates if he becomes commander-in-chief.
Richard Danzig, Obama's top military adviser and a former secretary of the Navy in the Clinton Administration, saying:
"My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
Adds the paper:
Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents.
The Post reports rather ominously today:
Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be "responsible" in handling Iraq -- rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out -- to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance.
This is what "antiwar" candidate Obama is up to, becoming Barak Bush lll.
Sorry, no free rides on disseminating mis-information.
Everyone in our household voted for Obama in the primaries. We are all shocked that he intends to vote FOR continued illegal spying on Americans! If he does, we will NOT vote for him in November. It will probably be Nader.
Peter Montana
"To those who think that electing Obama is the lesser of two evils, I have two words for you: Supreme Court." Nonsense. Democrats approve all of the Republican Supreme Court nominees. This is a red herring. Obama has nothing progressive to offer so we are to vote for him now in order to accept not only the lesser of two evils but the lesser of two evils lesser of two evils Supreme Court nominees. Brilliant Democratic Party strategy, no? In fact, it is more of the same Democratic Party "you have nowhere to go but vote for our candidate" BS. But there is somewhere else to go. Every addiction is broken with the first step of saying no to more of the same. Vote Ralph Nader. Vote McKinney, vote anything but Republican or Democrat.
dougnwagner July 7th, 2008 6:46 pm writes:
"Get over it people. Civil liberties are constitutional. But understanding the details of the policy so you understand what is actually compromised (which aren't civil liberties, merely who you can bring suit against) and the stakes of this election are as well."
-I am not sure if he is misinformed or is lying.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/obam-j23.shtml
The bill authorizes indiscriminate monitoring of all telecommunications and e-mail traffic into and out of the United States, without the previous requirement that a FISA court judge find probable cause that particular individuals are engaged in illegal activity. The FISA court will review only the general procedures for targeting—everyone telephoned from a particular cellphone, for example—and not the actual identities of those under surveillance.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/06/10154/
What all of this is really about — the reason why political elites like Nancy Soderberg are so eager to defend it — is because they really do believe that lawbreaking isn't wrong, that it doesn't deserve punishment, when engaged in by them rather than by commoners. People who defend telecom immunity or who say that it's not a big deal are, by logical necessity, adopting this view: "Our highest political officials and largest corporations shouldn't face consequences when they break our laws as long as they claim it was for our own good." That's the destructive premise that lies at the heart of this deeply corrupt measure, the reason it matters so much. Just like the pardon of Nixon, the protection of Iran-contra criminals, and the commutation of Lewis Libby's sentence, this bill is yet another step in cementing a two-tiered system of justice in America where our highest political officials and connected elite can break our laws with impunity.
Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote, but deserves to be a slave of liars.
I think it especially disturbing to hear a person old enough to know better, prattle on like this. Making excuses for themselves and their choice for America's Next Top President. That there is any sort of surprise, disillusionment, whatever, over Obama being a hack like the rest is just sad. But of course, as the man says, he's never been anything but a mindlessly reliable Democratic vote. Shame on you. It's not too late, you can still grow up to be more than just a flack for the Democrats.
http://votenader.org
The new FISA "compromise" asks only that the telecom company produce an order from the president that says he asked them to spy on whomever. The courts may NOT question the legality of that order-their only concern is that telecoms produce that order in court. Goodbye, Fourth Amendment, hello Imperial King. Vote Nader.
Obama has lost me; I've asked for my donation back -- which I intend to recycle to Cindy Sheehan, even though I don't live in California. My two voting age sons are going to 1) not vote for president and 2) going to vote for Barr. Me, I'm likely voting Nader. So, in one fell swoop Obama has sent the three votes he had to the wind.
dougnwagner - 6:46 pm
An antiwar candidate at the top of the ticket who respects rule of law is more important than endlessly criticizing a legislative compromise over telecom immunity [...]
_______________________________________________
I quite agree. Now, where do we find one?
RichM July 7th, 2008 1:23 pm
Better Obama than McCain...I think, still not committed. But your general point I believe is correct.
So wouldn't you agree that we should be trying to reform the Congress, elect liberal candidates there and tostate and local levels to have some input?
An antiwar candidate at the top of the ticket who respects rule of law is more important than endlessly criticizing a legislative compromise over telecom immunity to make a Naderesque critique- who by the way, is not committed to building a third party as his run in 2004 to get the Reform Party's nomination showed. At least Obama is committed to running on judgment on Iraq/foreign policy and pro-fair trade, against a pro-war free-trading John McCain.
"Reform of the Palestinian Authority — finally underway — can only be strengthened by the demise of the suicide bombers' paymaster in Baghdad. Change in Iraq and elsewhere will increase Israel's security, indispensable to achieving an enduring peace with the Palestinians."
-John McCain, 'A Fight for Freedom', March 23, 2003
Reality: Not recognizing the democratically elected Hamas as the legitimate parliamentary majority in Palestine has legitimated Israeli aggression against Palestinians in Gaza, and not brought Israelis or Palestinians closer to a peace settlement.
"Mr. Abbas has been ruling by decree since the Hamas takeover of Gaza. The Hamas-dominated Palestinian parliament has been paralyzed for months, with about half the Hamas legislators detained in Israeli jails. Palestinian officials in the West Bank said over the weekend that they had received a new list of 110 fugitives to be offered amnesty by Israel. A month ago, Israel and the Palestinians agreed on the names of 178 militants to be taken off Israel's wanted list, all members of the Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades militia."
Isabel Kershner, 'Palestinian Leader Fires Dozens of Hamas Civil Servants', The New York Times, 8/19/07
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html
I think the choice is clear.
What truly matters is the authenticy of the next president. John McCain took public financing and illegally used it to get a loan for his house, is determined to stay in Iraq until it looks like South Korea (while Afghanistan deteriorates), flip-flopped on his positions of the 2002 tax cut, is in bed with James Dobson, and will put another Scalia or Clarence on the Court.
And anyways, 527s undermine the principle of public financing. Obama cannot put his head underwater and fight the Republican attack machine. And the same is true of this FISA bill.
Is this the bill that is going to prevent lawsuits from being filed against the Bush Administration for violating civil liberties? no. The bill is a compromise that provides immuntiy to telecoms following the Justice Department's assurances that the Bush Administration's requests did not violate the law. This legislation reaffirms that FISA and its courts, not the Justice Department, is the ultimate authority for deciding the legality of an executive request of telecoms.
"The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."- Barack Obama
"Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this site and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. . . I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country." - Barack Obama
Get over it people. Civil liberties are constitutional. But understanding the details of the policy so you understand what is actually compromised (which aren't civil liberties, merely who you can bring suit against) and the stakes of this election are as well.
Some people saw the handwriting on the wall MUCH earlier.
The 1st confirmation was Obama bringing Clinton strategists aboard his campaign - (read 'the corporate fascist message bearers). Sure enough, he began acting like Clinton - the powers that be have spoken,
2nd was the Bush strategist brought aboard over the weekend - the fascist controllers are making sure nothing changes. Let's see what he 'orders BO to do and/or say.
oncemanc- I suppose when you say that McCain will embed the court with conservatives I assume you mean with Democratic assistance in congress, right? Because they sure have capitulated on all the others.
So of course, I should support violations of the constitution, permanent bases in Iraq, pre-emptive strikes on Pakistan, and other violations of domestic and international law, just so I do not have to watch the Democrats vote in a conservative to the supreme court. Wow, glad thats all cleared up.
Unless Obama works against this FISA theft, I will vote Nader. This is a direct attack on OUR Fourth Amendment rights and it further says to the American people that SOME people, POWERFUL people ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
NO. A democracy can not survive with a two-tiered system of justice. We are witnessing the rise of Fascism in the USA and if Obama can't find it in his heart to stand up for our
Constitution, I sure as HELL can't vote for him. This is no small issue.
If Obama folds, vote Nader. either way, it's high time we get the asses of the masses into the streets!
To those who think that electing Obama is the lesser of two evils, I have two words for you: Supreme Court. If you vote for Nader in a closely-contested state and by doing so you let McCain in, be prepared to see him embedding the court in conservative heaven for much, or most, of your lifetimes. And then be prepared to deservedly accept the blame for your myopic actions. The democratic process doesn't end when the election is over, it is just starting. With Obama in the White House and large Democratic majorities in the Congress, you will have plenty of opportunity to exert influence, if you can summon up enough maturity to accept such responsibility. If McCain wins, you'll have no chance.
"Yet there has been very little talk among the MyBO protestors of not voting for Obama."
Oh, yeah? Those of us who voted for someone besides Obama or Clinton in the primaries may not so pliably fall into line with Obama behaving badly. You can demonize us all you want, but if Obama loses over this (which so far is the biggest reason he would), blaming us won't make him win.
If Obama were actually to take the floor of the Senate and filibuster this bill he would win the election next week.
He could say that he has listened to all of the people over the last few weeks and has decided to represent them and filibuster the bill, admitting that in many of his positions he has not acted upon principle but only under the influence of 'winning' above anything else. Well this scenario is probably very silly hope.
Real hope is for all of us to act according to principle and I cannot think of a better principle for evaluating the merit of any law or national position than the Golden Rule. It would be of great service if Obama could recognize that. But until we have an honorable stateman for President that we all hope for, at least we can find that principle within ourselves and among other canidates who have the courage to put to work, day in and day out, such a principle.
For myself I have found that this is very hard. However, today, it is what is required on all levels of the relationships we have with the rest of humanity and our planet.
http://www.cindyforcongress.com .send her money, send her an email of encouragement, and send the Demodonkeys a message.
If the best argument the Democrats have for electing Obama is that he is the lesser evil, then it is it not one they can use in this case. Obama and McCain hold the same position on dismantling the fourth amendment. Not that Obama's supporters seem to even care what his positions actually are. Believing in "The Audacity of Hope" has become a barrier to confronting reality.
Bob, my man, you make a lot of sense ...until you get to the end; "I will vote for Obama of course."
Well, there's your problem, Bob. "Of course" you'll vote for Obama. The sad fact is, Bob, you will vote for anyone they place on a ballot. Read that again, Bob: Anyone.
And they know it. You Bob, sir, are a much taken-for-granted vote.
They keep giving you -- by your own words, crappy candidates -- "I always vote Democratic, and I always vote. All my life I have voted for a long string of mediocre Democratic candidates"
You are the perfect example of the naive and self-defeating average democratic supporter that makes-up your party.
I had hope for Obama. After voting for Nader twice, I was actually going to vote democratic (the first time since 1976.) Not now.
Thankfully, Obama opened-up his mouth early enough that I won't spend any time, money (or hope), on him. That now will be reserved for Ralph Nader.
You might as well have nominated Hillary.
Nader will Get the Job Done, while Obama will continue on in the republican, oops, democratic tradition: Looting the world and murdering people along the way--all at Wall Street's request.
Good luck with all that, Bob.
This is good for me. You ask why (if you care you ask why).
I will tell you. This makes it easy to quite the Dems once and for all. I will be at the beach with my head in the sand, not making phone calls and shelling out $25. donations all Summer and Fall. You know the line " Meet the new boss just like the old boss".
I tried suggesting to people that they should perhaps get involved and support the party and it's candidates that are most in line with their own hopes, wants, and needs.
For those of you that think this is crazy, here is another idea: If you have been voting Democrat, vote Republican and if you have been voting Republican, vote Democrat. That will show the Republicans and Democrats voting for this bill who is boss!
Translation & Summary: Obama's swing to the right is so blatant & undeniable that even people who were wildly enthusiastic about him are now recognizing they were duped.
Prof Ostertag writes, "I will vote for Obama of course. ....I think Obama can do very well against McCain with a traditional, top down, big money campaign. I think he will be sworn in as our next president in January. But it will be a different campaign than what it has been until now...."
To put this more bluntly, President Obama will not be significantly different than any of the stinking Demo-publicans. Just as Bill Clinton continued inside the general framework established by Reagan & Bush Sr, Obama will continue policies wholly embraced by Wall St & the MIC. He's already signed on to the concept of "The War on Terror," & to the necessity of violating the Constitution to spy on Americans & protect giant corporations. These ideas are Bush Jr ideas -- & clearly, Obama does not dispute them.
In practise, this so-called "progressive candidate" who brazenly tried to imply he was "against the war" when running against Hillary, will turn out to be not that different from Hillary, Bush Jr, or McCain. Only the rhetoric will be different, just as the main difference between the Pelosi Congress & the Hastert/DeLay Congress was rhetorical, not substantive.
I have sadly joined the ranks of those people who don't know who in the hell this individual is--and he is not going to be able to put that right.
"I always vote Democratic, and I always vote. All my life I have voted for a long string of mediocre Democratic candidates..."
Well Mr. Ostertag, that is the heart of the problem, isn't it, holding your nose and voting the 'lesser of two evils'? I have always been a Democrat, but I am registered as an Independent and have never voted for a Republican in my life. However, I don't automatically vote for Dems either--I stopped that lesser of two evils crap years ago and now vote my conscience and third party whenever there's a choice, or write in if there isn't.
We are never going to move beyond this two (one!) party system unless people refuse to re-elect all these tools. I heard today Congress has a 13% approval rating, about half of shrub's. But how many millions of people (presumably the same dis-satisfied voters)will trudge into the voting booths and mindlessly re-elect those same people?
How does our Constitution read on the issue?
What are the words of U.S. Senator's Oath Of Office?
"Put all these things together, and one cannot help but wonder if there is a turning point, that from here on out the campaign is will be less of a grassroots affair." Yowza. Surprise! "...big-money fundraisers where people can buy face time with the man for $30k." But, of course. No Senator Obama, you cannot "tap my phone" nor "my wallet. You can't have either." Run Ralph. Run!
hey obama,
if you start taking it up the butt from the soft-on-corruption neocons now, they'll never stop.
our rights are inalienable. which means they can't be taken away.
your presidency, on the other hand...