home

That Was Obama Then . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:34:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Obama campaign during the primaries:

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.

This is Obama now:

My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

Can you say "willing to say or do anything to win?" Or if you prefer, the "new" politics.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | In the Mail: Outlaw Journalist >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    That Was Obama Then . . . | 196 comments (196 topical)
    Really disgusting. Even if a pol is (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:36:15 PM EST
    a pol.  Will he get away with it?  Probably.

    Did I mention I have a daughter (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:38:33 PM EST
    living outside the U.S.?  

    Parent
    With Dems like these... (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:39:05 PM EST
    BTD, you've always called for holding pols' feet to the fire, but what leverage do we have now? Angry letters and phone calls? Gawsh I've done enough yelling/letter-writing/rallying against Repubs...now I have to call up Dems too?

    Parent
    You'd best follow Kos's advice: (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:41:49 PM EST
    berate those in the House of Representatives.  

    Parent
    Feh, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:19:32 PM EST
    forgeaboutit. What good is that going to do? They've already voted.

    Parent
    i get tingles whenever obama (5.00 / 12) (#99)
    by sancho on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    says "my view has always been. . ." b/c it means he's going to tell me some new sweet lie. does kos plan to use this advice when obama is president and enables similar sell-outs? b/c that's why nancy chose him. they are a team and it is naive to think obama is against this in any meaningful way. a pol is a pol, yes, but just b/c a pol has been branded "democrat" does not mean he wants what "we" democrats want. i honestly dont understand why dem voters think he deserves their vote. (and i hate mccain too.)

    Parent
    Heh the same way Bush was going to (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:42:43 PM EST
    punish Halliburton if we just gave him a second term. Oh wait we did.

    Parent
    lol...or when Schwartzenegger was going (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    to investigate himself, i.e., the groping girls allegations.

    Parent
    Or the way the Governator (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:53:58 PM EST
    promised he would balance the budget, but, instead, floated bonds; state's debt:  20 billion dollars!!!!

    Parent
    The SF Chronicle was so eager to endorse (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by hairspray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:27:08 PM EST
    Arnold, and then spent the next two years assailing his lame positions, like getting money out of politics and balancing the budget.  So do the SF people ever learn?  Nope they did the same with Obama.  The took every opportunity to twist Hillary's and Bill's words and endorse Obama.  Yesterday they did a big editorial slamming O for backing out of public funding. I expct the same scenario for Obama.

    Parent
    "We"? (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:57:50 PM EST
    I think you mean, "you" (or "me"). I didn't vote for Bush, did you?

    It is always great to keep Obama's feet to the fire, but to expect him to work miracles after a couple of weeks as the presumptive nominee?

    He'll get around to it.

    Parent

    Are you always so forgiving? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:59:07 PM EST
    Doesn't seem to fit w/your user id.

    Parent
    Just another version (none / 0) (#230)
    by vigkat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:49:28 PM EST
    of "you're likable enough Hillary."

    Parent
    HA! (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to speak to you about.

    Parent
    He'll get around to... (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:43:16 PM EST
    what?   Sounds like he is as willing to suspend the rule of law and the Constitution as Bush is.  Sounds like another "Just elect me and trust me to do the right thing by you" kind of pol.

    Parent
    work MIRACLES? (5.00 / 9) (#142)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:50:33 PM EST
    are you saying it woud be a miracle to maintain a consistent position for more than a few days at a time?

    I wonder what Hillary's position on FISA is?  Will she have to mimick Obama so she doesn't cause him any trouble?

    Parent

    Getting Around (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:51:51 PM EST
    Should be no problem for him. He's more flexible than Gumby!

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO! (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:00:14 PM EST
    And my teenager loved that show when he was younger! LOL!

    Parent
    Obama threw Feingold under the bus.... (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:18:25 PM EST
    ...miracle???

    Parent
    Nobody asked for the miracle of transubstantiation (4.73 / 15) (#83)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    Just the miracle of constancy.

    Parent
    Oh, right, Keith. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    What a moron.

    Parent
    Obama will already (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:45:21 PM EST
    be planning for his second term on January 21st, if he gets elected.

    Parent
    The drones will keep lapping it up. (5.00 / 10) (#87)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    Man, I can't believe I ever watched countdown.  What I'm seeing among his viewers, Kossacks, and on Air America reminds me of the birth of the dittoheads in the 90s.

    It will come back to nip this "realignment" in the bud.

    Parent

    But but but...he's a great politician and (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:02:55 PM EST
    ...will make a terrific POTUS.

    Er, no!!

    Parent

    re KO, That was a conversation with Markos (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:23:43 PM EST
    and it was very interesting, re Markos as well. Here's a snip from the transcript:
    MOULITSAS:
    ... I don`t want to hear him talk about leadership.  I don`t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution; I want to see him do it.  And I think if he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support that he gets from base Democrats.  If he doesn`t, I think we may worry that he`s just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy and doing the right thing, than they are of actually doing the right thing.
    OLBERMANN:  But to the point of the Constitution, John Dean made a fascinating point on this news hour on Friday.  He read this bill and he knows a little something about the Constitution, too.  He says it`s so sloppily written that nothing in there would rule out later criminal liabilities for the telecom companies.
    Could that be, actually, what Obama is counting on, just sort of cede this civil action stuff which is basically in lieu of sending these people to jail and just concentrate on, you know, closing up whatever perceived weakness there is of the Democrats being soft on counterterror and, in fact, just hold a bigger punch back until after the election?
    MOULITSAS:  Well, if that`s the strategy, he has said nothing to indicate that and this is not the sort of thing that I think you have to keep quiet and secretive.  I mean, if that`s his strategy, he can say, "This is a bill that`s flawed," but, really at the end of the day he has a chance to stand for the Constitution and to show that he will protect it against forces that seek to undermine it and he will show that he has, like I said before, that he is a leader and will take the mantle of leadership on this issue and take control of the Democratic Party.
    He`s been working to sort of consolidate his power in the party.  This is the perfect example, perfect chance for him to show that a Democratic Party, a Barack Obama Democratic Party is going to be one that stands for civil liberties and the Constitution.


    Parent
    Ah Markos (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by jb64 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:33:29 PM EST
    don't hold your breath

    Parent
    Maybe Markos is awakening (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by derridog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    from having eaten the magic mushroom.

    Parent
    BO will 'support' a filibuster ... ? (5.00 / 7) (#186)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:24:00 PM EST
    But not lead one.

    But that's okay with fauxgressive hipsters as long as their Presumptive Head Poseur is being whack or mack or whatever:

    For the second time, Mr. Obama will grace the cover of Rolling Stone this week [...]

    When Mr. Wenner asked how Mr. Obama might respond to harsh attacks from Republicans, suggesting that Democrats have "cowered" in the past, Mr. Obama replied, "Yeah, I don't do cowering." (The Inner Obama by Julie Bosman, The Caucus (NY Times political blog), June 24, 2008)

    That's odd, all my lying eyes have seen from this slickster is cowering.

    Parent

    The new politics (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    the same as the old.
    Can I trade in my unity pony now for an old nag?

    No. But you can trade it in (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:41:21 PM EST
    for a workhorse.

    Note: I am not a PUMA.

    Parent

    Actually...worse (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    The Clintons did better.

    This is an awful beginning.

    Parent

    My friend, we haven't (5.00 / 13) (#17)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:47:36 PM EST
    even started yet. If he sells out on one issue per week (ie even SLOWER than he's gone this week), he'll be more conservative than McCain by the time he takes office.

    Parent
    Yep, he is already owned by (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:00:43 PM EST
    Corporate America.   Another scamming of the public.  

    Parent
    Scamming of the super-delegates (5.00 / 12) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:14:01 PM EST
    which would be other pols, so on to it and not a scam at all; many lined their pockets with telecom money.

    Don't blame the public, as a majority of voters did not vote for Obama.  Blame the super-delegates -- the pols.

    Parent

    Obama's theme song... (5.00 / 10) (#54)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    ...should be "Won't get fooled again".  Meet the new boss... same as the old boss. Why don't we ever learn?

    Parent
    Ouch....but I am sure there will be no price (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:40:26 PM EST
    for obama to pay once again.  And, people wonder why I won't vote for him.

    He's like Bush---he's not even remotely (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:41:49 PM EST
    slick about his flip-flops. He just reverses course completely and expects all of his followers to suck it up.

    Which they gladly do. (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST


    Parent
    "they"? (1.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    Are you also going to go against the wishes of "your" candidate and support someone other than the Democrat?

    Perhaps some Obama supporters know that you have to work hard for some issues, that all the good things in life don't fall in your lap, and that, unfortunately, at this time, Democrats are going to have to get together and work harder on FISA.  

    Parent

    Some democrats---but not Obama. (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:06:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Is Obama your idea of a Democrat? (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:08:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Apparently, Obama is ... (1.12 / 8) (#107)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:27:38 PM EST
    ... Hillary Clinton's idea of a Democrat. What? Did you decide that now, only after the HRC Campaign is over, you can think for yourself. That is very convenient ... and coincidental, the timing that is.

    Parent
    We thought for ourselves all along. (5.00 / 9) (#135)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:45:17 PM EST
    That's why we chose her.

    Hillary is doing what she has to do. I don't have to agree with it and I don't have to do what she says.

    Parent

    You forgot (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:31:31 PM EST
    the fake snark tag there, kiddo.

    Parent
    We tell our candidates how to vote (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:54:39 PM EST
    they don't tell us.  That's the difference here in grownup land.

    Of course, sometimes they don't do as we tell them.  But the good ones at least listen.

    Parent

    Just as I expected (5.00 / 15) (#15)
    by Dave B on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    Obama really is not a liberal.

    Now we have:
    public financing
    NAFTA
    Telecom Immunity

    What will Obama flip on next?

    Oh well, living in South Dakota, my vote for president doesn't count anyway.

    Per NPR, today he disagreed with the SCOTUS (5.00 / 13) (#21)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:49:41 PM EST
    death penalty decision--saw no grounds for not allowing the states to do what they want re: death penalty.

    I did not hear a full statement, so NPR may have not quite gotten his actual meaning.

    But, given that he wanted to vote for Roberts...c'mon, what does that tell us?

    Not a liberal? Is he even a Democrat?

    He's taken over the Democratic Party--but for whom and what? Yowser.

    Parent

    Obama on DP (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    h/t to Steve... Obama disagreed with the decision.  Apparently they aren't conservative enough on this issue?

    Obama disagrees with high court on child rape case

    "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable that that does not violate our Constitution."

    One poster immidiately brought up the close 5-4 decision as to why Obama must be supported.  Obama's response negated that commenters argument.

    It has not been a good week for policy.

    Parent

    P is for Pander. (4.85 / 7) (#26)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:52:56 PM EST
    P is for Post Partisan - DemoLibertaRepublican.

    Parent
    Kumbaya.... (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:44:43 PM EST
    Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
    Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
    Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
    Oh lord, kumbaya

    Someone's laughing, lord, kumbaya
    Someone's laughing, lord, kumbaya
    Someone's laughing, lord, kumbaya
    Oh lord, kumbaya

    Someone's crying, lord, kumbaya
    Someone's crying, lord, kumbaya
    Someone's crying, lord, kumbaya
    Oh lord, kumbaya

    Someone's praying, lord, kumbaya
    Someone's praying, lord, kumbaya
    Someone's praying, lord, kumbaya
    Oh lord, kumbaya

    Parent

    Social Security, duh. (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:49:50 PM EST


    Parent
    He's already gone on social security (5.00 / 8) (#61)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:14:55 PM EST
    He plans on taxing incomes over $250,000 to pay for any budget shortfalls. This turns Social Security from a government sponsored insurance system into  welfare, and will provide incentive for the rich to oppose it. Well, for everybody who doesn't want to be on a government welfare program to oppose it. Nobody in my family has ever been on welfare, and I'm really hoping not to be the first.

    Parent
    He will privitize everything he can... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:24:37 PM EST
    thereby allowing more corporate greed.

    Not ALL the money has been wrung out of the middle class and working class...yet.

    Parent

    Don't forget Universal (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    Healthcare!

    P.S. thank you to folks in South Dakota for electing the right candidate in your primary. Too bad I can't say the same for my home (and your neighbor) Minnesota.

    Parent

    He's (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:18:43 PM EST
    not a liberal but what exactly is he? Is he a conservative? Is he a moderate? What?

    Parent
    He's A Centrist... (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:51:02 PM EST
    because that's where the votes are.  He's not a leader because a leader leads people to the right choice.  Right now he's chasing the crowd.

    Parent
    Your question implies that Obama is about policies (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Nike on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:55:25 PM EST
    I think what we are seeing here (FISA, campaign finance, but fill the blank for any core issue you want that awaits decision up to and definitely including health and R v. Wade) is that Obama is only about positions, not policies. He's good on marketing and style points. Policies? You could be waiting a while for those.

    Parent
    I predict that despite his overtures to Elizabeth (5.00 / 12) (#102)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    Edwards we will not see him "flip" in the right direction to universal health care.

    Parent
    Of course not. Obama got what he wanted (5.00 / 14) (#108)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:28:02 PM EST
    already.  End of story, nothing more to see here. . . .

    Parent
    You missed two (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:54:17 PM EST
    No time kines for Iraq and no UHC

    Parent
    He also already flipped on the (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:34:19 PM EST
    meeting with rogue leaders unconditionally.

    Parent
    And we haven't even gone a month! (none / 0) (#216)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:51:24 PM EST


    Parent
    IRAQ. Remember, he was very ready (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:48:22 PM EST
    on Day One, the day after he "clinched the nomination," to suddenly sound exactly like Bush about Iraq -- backpedaling to indefinite withdrawal.

    Parent
    Well, don't forget health care. He (none / 0) (#220)
    by derridog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:54:59 PM EST
    was for universal one-payer health care (when running for the Senate) before he was against it.

    Parent
    Wow! Obama seems ot have no sense of his own (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:47:01 PM EST
    statements, of what he has said and "stood" for.

    Cognitive dissidence--but I don't think he feels or realizes that. We do.

    I'm sorry, but he really does remind me of BushBoy. Caught in a lie? Just keep on talking--since no one is calling him on these things, no one that counts.

    I think lots of lib/progressive/leftish Dems are going to be extremely disappointed--if they aren't already.

    Just...Wow!

    [checking with his advisors] (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:50:48 PM EST
    "Okay, what's my position today?  ...and why?  Okay.  Good.  Got the podcast for me?  Thanks.  See you tomorrow folks."

    Parent
    Didn't you get the memo? (5.00 / 12) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:05:02 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what Obama or the Democrats do that might be against your interests or your principles. You Have No Where Else To Go.

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 8) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:24:17 PM EST
    they are going to hold your uterus hostage! LOL!

    Parent
    At my age, that really is LOL (5.00 / 9) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:44:43 PM EST
    What is also laughable is for anyone to think that I trust Obama enough on SCOTUS appointments for it to effect my vote.

     

    Parent

    Me too. (5.00 / 10) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:03:19 PM EST
    It's funny because before the primaries were over we were just a bunch of old hags. Now somehow we've become young chicks who should be concerned about roe. LOL!

    Parent
    Righ there with ya.... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:28:37 PM EST


    Parent
    ROFL! (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    I cannot tell you the number of times I hear or read that lame excuse from the Obamans. And I don't even have a uterus.

    It's either that, or "Make sure you stock up on wire hangers for wife, sister and daughters."

    Not only are they deranged, they are seriously sick in the head. What would Obama have to say about that if he heard that his supporters were going around town saying that?

    Parent

    He wouldn't care. n/t (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:51:00 PM EST


    Parent
    He admits that (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:17:01 PM EST
    He has disagreed twice with his own position statements, saying that he hadn't written them himself - an aide had, and had gotten them wrong, and he hadn't reviewed them. Of course, one had his writing on it, but that is his story and he's sticking to it.

    Parent
    What really gets to me is his (5.00 / 16) (#18)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:48:38 PM EST
    phraseology -- "My view on FISA has always been ..."  No, it hasn't "always been" that, not even close.  This is just another variation on "no one has been more supportive of [fill in the blank] than Barack Obama."  Right.  

    There's the Bush parallel (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:26:55 PM EST
    ... in the Fleischer Era, where every change of position was accompanied by a statement for the record that "this does not reflect any change in the President's position".

    Parent
    Today I saw "Julius Caesar" at the (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by camellia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:53:50 PM EST
    Shakespeare Theatre here.  In an early scene, Casca is reporting on the crowd's adoration of Caesar:

        "When he {Caesar} came to himself  again, he said, if he had done or said anything wrong, he desired their worships to think that it was his infirmity. Three or four wenches where I stood cried, "Alas, good soul!" and forgave him with all their hearts. But you can't pay any attention to them. If Caesar had stabbed their mothers, they would have done the same thing."

    Still seems to apply to the crowd's darling.

    I watched a rerun of "South Park"... (1.40 / 5) (#62)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:16:06 PM EST
    ... the other night, and it was the one with Eric Cartman as the preacher. He was cruel and abusive -- like McCain would be as President -- but w/o the funny.

    I think the fact that a lot of young people have gotten excited about politics in general, and about Obama in particular, really has the Republicans running scared, don't you?    

    Parent

    They don't seem particularly scared to me. (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:19:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Are you relating that from ... (1.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:22:04 PM EST
    ... first-person experience? A poll? Tarot cards?  

    Parent
    No, it's based on (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:21:37 PM EST
    the ads that the Republicans are running.  They are featuring Obama and his own words. No hyperbole needed. They are getting out their message. John McCain is successfully raising money. I haven't heard that they're canceling convention events. No tarot cards needed. What would make you think that they are afraid of running against Obama except wishful thinking?

    Parent
    sheesh tortmaster (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:30:13 PM EST
    I think the fact that a lot of young people have gotten excited about politics in general, and about Obama in particular, really has the Republicans running scared, don't you?

     Are you relating that from first-person experience? A poll? Tarot cards?  

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:20:39 PM EST
    Not when he's lost other more reliable voters.

    Parent
    That (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:25:42 PM EST
    sounds more like Rev. Wright than anybody else from your description.

    Parent
    If I didn't know you were ... (1.00 / 6) (#113)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:30:33 PM EST
    ... a good Democrat, through and through, I'd think you were under the spell of that Sith Lord, Darth McCain. Such words coming from a Democrat. My, my.

    Remember, bring your picnic baskets to "Unity Friday!"

    Parent

    Are (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:55:43 PM EST
    you actually defending Rev. Wright? I've seen many Obama supporters do this so I wouldn't be surprised if you thought he was A-OK.

    Parent
    Your obsession with McCain seems (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    unhealthy. Look how many times you have mentioned him just in this thread. Troubling....

    Parent
    The disgust that I have felt for Republicans (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:54:06 PM EST
    over the years...I now feel for Obama.  Maybe even more ...now I have been betrayed.

    And, as for Howard Dean.   All the admiration that I once felt for him is now distain.  I am mad as h@ll that this primary was rigged.

    And Peloi!!! I felt such pride when she became Spaker.   Now, I can't even look at her or hear her voice.

    Betrayal....all around.

    I am no lawyer but... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by independent thinker on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:54:49 PM EST
    let's play devil's advocate for a minute. Picture this: you are driving down the road and come across a cop directing trafic away from an accident. The cop tells you to cross over to the opposite side of the road to bypass the accident...in effect causing you to break the law. Somewhere up ahead another cop stops you arrests you for driving on the wrong side of the road. In this scenario you would have a rock solid defence because a person in authority instructed you to, in essence, violate the law and you simply obeyed.

    Isn't the telco situation kind of the same thing? People from the government came to the telcos and essentially directed them to cross to the other side of the road.

    (1) Qwest; and (2) (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:57:40 PM EST
    telecomm companies have always required a warrant before doing a wiretap.  Fourth Amendment.  

    Parent
    Qwest (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:58:23 PM EST
    stayed on the right side of the road.

    Parent
    It is to a degree, but.... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:04:30 PM EST
    ...no one had a gun on their hip or was threatening them with anything.  They simply goose-stepped along.  The bigger problem, to me, is that holding telecoms criminally responsible is not half as important as HOLDING THOSE RESPONSIBLE IN THE GOVERNMENT accountable and prosecuting them.  But, sadly, we all KNOW that will not happen.  Why?  Because the now stacked Justice Department would have to prosecute in a manner a non-stacked Justice Department would.  In other words, the Bush Justice Dept. would have to be something other than the tainted body it is.  Will the next admin's Justice go after them?  With Obama at the helm, and seemingly willing to forgive and forget some very serious thing, I seriously doubt it.  

    Parent
    I actually agree (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:24:25 PM EST
    I don't think that we should hold people responsible for accommodating what probably seemed like a reasonable request from a person who should have known better than to make that request. The fault here lies with the government, which violated the law and incited others to unknowingly violate the law. Yes, the companies could have done things differently - but they were in a tough bind - the Justice Department told them this was legal. They didn't hold a gun to their heads, they held the law to their heads. The government officials, who should have known better, should be held responsible for this.

    Parent
    Telcos have buckets and buckets (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:29:14 PM EST
    of lawyers of their own.  Lawyers who in your scenario would be riding in the back seat and perfectly capable of hopping out of the car and arguing with the first police officer about the legality of the wrong-side order.  Lawyers who knew enough to tell you "you don't have to do what this guy is telling you."

    They could have said no.  Qwest did.  

    Your example just isn't on point.  Traffic laws aren't the Constitution.  The Executive Branch doesn't get to interpret the law, the Judicial Branch does.  Grammar school kids know that.

    There's no reason to give the telcos immunity.  They can go to court and argue they were acting under the direction of the government.  A judge or jury can sort out whether that's true and whether they should be held liable for their actions.

    If, because of the scope of their wrongdoing, it would genuinely have a catastrophic effect on the US economy, say, then Congress can limit liability, or only grant immunity from prosecution but not discovery.  There are all sorts of ways they could address this aside from a complete get out of jail free card for both the telcos and the Bush gang.

    Parent

    Is there any other way to get the information (none / 0) (#205)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:36:06 PM EST
    that discovery would have provided?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    How about this reaction diary, which I'd like to call Please, Barack, Throw Me Under the Bus Too!

    lol (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:34:00 PM EST
    that diary was a piece of work. It seems his supporters are just as spineless as he is going by their posts. There was one who got it though--the one who said if he caves on an issue like this that isn't really that big on the political radar then just wait until the bigger issues come up.

    Parent
    Best laugh of the day (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    that pathetic post and also some of the comments... I haven't been to that site since they did their purge so I appreciate there was no advance notice that it was MYDD or I would have missed the best pretzelification I have yet seen.

    ..'overall strategy, Obama will be left of center'..... 'Obama can frame this debate as he has gads more money than his opponent'..... har!

    Parent

    Holy cow! (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:55:17 PM EST
    We have to win.  Winning involves sacrifices, and some of them will be very painful.

    Yes it's painful to have to strip yourself of all your principles in order to win. But, hey, you get to win! ...And once you've won, then what?

    There's the rub.... If you no longer stand for the principles you just HAD to win for, then what's the point of winning? What is accomplished really?

    Parent

    I wish I could say that I am surprised (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    with that diary and the comments. Ah, for the good old days when I thought that only Bush supporters were capable of rationalizing all unacceptable actions.

    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:42:04 PM EST
    the comments..not only pathetic, as pointed out, but in many cases, uninformed and erroneous about the core issues....like what FISA actually is, was..etc...like one person saying that the current bill passed the House by a majority of Dems. Yikes

    Parent
    I have met Pragmatists, suh, ... (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:45:12 PM EST
    He seems positively Burkean in his pragmatism and I respect that.  Therein lies the problem

    And that man, suh, is no pragmatist.

    Postitively Burkean? I love the Creative Class. [/give me a large f*cking break]

    Parent

    No. NSA lacked authority, no accident. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:00:31 PM EST
    The analogy is more as if the NSA came to your house without a warrant & got your permission & cooperation to set up optics & listening devices to monitor your neighbors, for whom they didn't have a warrant either.

    Then you took a relief shift on the equipment every so often.

    Then you hand NSA old home movies of your neighbors at picnics & barbecues around your place.

    Then you pointed out other neighbors who would also be glad to rat out the subjects of the surveillance.

    . . . etcetera.

    And don't forget that ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:00:44 PM EST
    you knew that the Government should have a warrant because this isn't the first time the Government has asked for your permission and cooperation.

    Parent
    BTD, what would it take for you (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:00:32 PM EST
    to turn away from Obama and urge Clinton to resume her candidacy?

    Oh yeah, I had another thing to say (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:03:21 PM EST
    He's truly unifying America in the same way Bush unified America... and that is NOT GOOD.

    The similarities are piling up. Roberts, FISA, Death Penalty, Church and State, Inexperience, Words not Actions, close association with rampant Cronyism, etc.

    Getting. Out. Of. Hand.

    It goes deeper than that (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:16:26 PM EST
    To say  
    "willing to say or do anything to win?" Or if you prefer, the "new" politics.
    is not adequate.  My main concern with Obama is that he deliberately duped the voters on who he really is.  The longer he campaigns the more we find out who he really is.  Say or do anything to win and being a fake are two different things.   I think many who could vote over again in the nomination process would not vote for him today.  That is not true with Hilary.

    Of course, he did. It's the rope-a-dope (5.00 / 7) (#84)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:21:48 PM EST
    which is at the core of Chicago politics.

    I b'leeve it has been several weeks since I pointed out that I have been pointing out since January that it felt like a third party taking over the Dem Party.  But it was not until February that I realized that it really was a good ol' urban machine taking over the Dem Party.  Both of those insights have made everything since then make sense.

    Parent

    He duped the voters? (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:25:25 PM EST
    He is a politician.  Please, if the voters can't figure out that it requires a little additional work beyond listening to what a politician says, to know where they stand, they deserve what they get with their vote.  It wasn't very difficult to find out who Obama really is beyond the rhetoric either.  

    Parent
    The problem (5.00 / 10) (#109)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:28:34 PM EST
    is that it is not just the people who voted for him who "deserve what they get." I'm stuck with him too.

    Parent
    Yes. That's another way in which he (5.00 / 3) (#225)
    by derridog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:02:59 PM EST
    is just like Bush.  Those of us who didn't vote for him get him anyway.

    Parent
    Flabbergasted. (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:40:06 PM EST
    We, the voters, are the chumps for listening to what Obama says and not doing the work to realize that he is not really saying what he is saying. We should do the work necessary not to judge his actions as being indicative of his core beliefs.

    Parent
    True (4.50 / 4) (#118)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:35:29 PM EST
    but the average Joe did not get it at the time.  He or she was overwhelmed by the beautiful rhetoric.  Yes we who are more political junkies could see through the rhetorics but for many they thought he was the messiah and were brain washed and he took advantage of that.   Today if those average Joe is   following the daily news on him they just might have a different opinion of him. They see a different Obama now.

    Parent
    the average Joe (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:05:18 PM EST
    isn't following plitics right now.  IT's summer.  The 4th of July is coming up.  They won't be paying attention until AFTER the convention.

    Besides, the "average Joe" voted for Hillary anyway

    Parent

    LOL. On my class lists, though (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    the predilection for a decade now has been for J names for guys:  Jason, Josh, Jeremy, Jamie. . . .

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:38:20 PM EST
    I wasn't duped. If he duped anybody it was mostly the politically naive.

    Parent
    I count two flip-flops in two weeks. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:17:38 PM EST
    First on public financing (on which Hillary was pummeled after she told the truth).

    Now on this issue.

    Next up:  Are lobbyists people too?

    Yes, go ahead. Your hopey-changey (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    moment of anticipating "New Politics" is over.

    And look over there!  A bride was drowned on her honeymoon!  And any moment now, there will be a car chase in California!  

    I hope he had (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:20:32 PM EST
    his flag lapel pin on when he made this statement for the full effect.  

    Is that the new MO? (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:30:02 PM EST
    Write something totally stupid and then pretend it's snark?

    Absolut Obama (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:33:39 PM EST
    Is it just me, or does he have a habit of pretending that whatever his current position is has "always" been his position, and that whatever his past position was has "never" been his position?

    Not just on FISA, but also Jerusalem, single-payer health care, public financing etc.

    Just say you changed your mind, instead of claiming that contradictory positions are really the same. Vote against us, if you must, but don't insult us at the same time.

    Had the exact conversation (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:36:48 PM EST
    well "PRIVACY RIGHTS" ARE NOT THE TOP PRIORITY FOR HER.

    I said all our constitutional rights are the most important things to me.

    with a bunch of Obama supporters today. Privacy rights, civil liberties, the Constitution, the Bushies breaking the law - all supremely unimportant. What Obama does today is always the right thing, even if he was for doing the opposite yesterday.

    I do not want these people in charge. They are no better than Republicans. They are utterly devoid of principles. It's like Obama came along, they decided to follow him, and they forgot how to be Democrats with minds of their own. It's horrifying.

    BTD (5.00 / 8) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:42:53 PM EST
    Look up in the sky. It's a bird! No, it's a plane. No, it's a jellyfish that landed splat in your and everybody's elses faces.

    It's getting to the point that these statements from Obama are down right comical--if for the fact that it didn't affect our rights.

    Cut from the same cloth . . . (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:43:41 PM EST
    . . .  as Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, and Feinstein!  Right there for us when the chips are down? NOT!

    Reid and Schumer oppose the bill (none / 0) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:16:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Ron Wyden will (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:27:14 PM EST
    filibuster also.  

    Since industry has written so many bills the past decade, can't we just stick our heads together and rewrite FISA for the House Dems that didn't seem to even read it?  Heck, plenty of people here are much smarter than they are.

    Parent

    Barack Obama (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by This from a broad on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:00:18 PM EST
    Obama will do whatever Nancy Pelosi bloodywell tells him to do.  She put him in the White house and now it's payback time.  Just for the next 8 years, that is.

    Obama is pro-death penalty too (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:18:06 PM EST
    and is unhappy with the Supreme Court's decision to state that rape is not capital punishment crime.

    Personally, I am surprised and a bit disappointed in Mr. Obama's position.  I am anti-death penalty because I do not believe it it a deterrent to crime.  No murder thought that they would not commit a crime because of the death penalty.  

    People don't think about consequences when they are committing crimes.  

    Rape is a horrific crime.  Child rape unspeakable.  But the issue should be the effectiveness of the death penalty in a society, not revenge.

    Speaking for myself.

    no alternatives? (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by candideinnc on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:19:48 PM EST
    Obama knows liberals and progressives have nowhere to go but to his candidacy.  We certainly will be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if we turned to McCain.  HOWEVER, we can affect his moves to the right wing financially.  His candidacy counts on our funding.  I will not send a penny to his campaign as long as he continues to court the right wing and shove the progressives under the bus.  There are more deserving candidates to give to.

    Progressives can vote Green, as a protest. (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by Mshepnj on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:30:03 PM EST
    Nobody talks about that, but if Obama keeps up the pandering to right wingers, while simultaneously taking progressives and Clinton supporters for granted because "we have no place to go", I think he will find that we do have somewhere else to go -  even if it's the political equivalent of a domestic violence shelter.

    Parent
    Hmmm. (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    Looks like some bloggers are having sh!t sandwiches for dinner tonight.

    Toldja Obama was just another poiticiana.

    Hope and change?  No.

    Unity?

    He!! no.

    Slowly. (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:24:05 PM EST
    Politican.

    Parent
    Arrrrrgh! (none / 0) (#188)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:24:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Which (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    ones? I don't cruise a lot of blogs FYI.

    Parent
    The blue one, for one. (none / 0) (#201)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:33:59 PM EST


    Parent
    A better examle of the "new politics" (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:23:57 PM EST
    is his flip on campaign finance reform. Back in the early primaries Obama pledged to take public financing in the GE if the Republican does the same. This was an oppurtunistic move because it gave him an anti-Hillary talking point (since she wouldn't do the same thing), and because it allowed some in the media to cheer him about it.

    Now he is going against this (which is oppurtustic because it gives him a financial advantage), even though it is something he pledged to do. If he goes back on something he pledged to do, how are we supposed to know that he will keep his promises?

    How do most of his supporters not have a problem with this?

    So, I wander.... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:34:52 PM EST
    how is that sanctimonious, holier-than-thou self righteous indignation at those less than sainted and perfect working out for the Obama supporters whose relished demonizing Hillary Clinton?

    I said (5.00 / 4) (#223)
    by tek on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:59:43 PM EST
    from the beginning, this guy is no liberal.  He's as conservative as Lieberman.

    Can we please stop (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:22:08 PM EST
    picki ng folks because the media fawns over them now and it will be easier yet?

    Unfortunately, I don't find his current behavior (5.00 / 2) (#233)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:33:12 PM EST
    surprising. I never understood the perception that others had of Obama indicating that he would take a firm stand on issues, show strength as a leader, and would be fearless in the face of controversy. When examining his history, there were plenty of indicators that showed, in fact, that he would not perform capably in those areas.

    I sincerely wish that I had been wrong, because I want a president to embrace a progressive agenda and stand up for the people and the Constitution. Someone posted upthread that Markos said that this would be an excellent opportunity for Obama to demonstrate his commitment to "go against the grain," and show the other Democrats what he really stands for, and be willing to lead on this issue. But so far, he has shown me that he is unwilling to practice a different kind of politics, the type he so proudly advocated for in his speeches.  

    When given an opportunity to provide tangible evidence that he will take action in ways he talked about while campaigning, Obama has regrettably not come through for the country or his supporters.

    This is the type of behavior that I expected of him if he were president, and unfortunately, he has lived up to my expectations.

    I told you so (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by chopper on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:41:15 PM EST
    I have always said "Obama will say or do anything to win".

    That started in Chicago and hasn't stopped.

    Just look at the methods he used to "win" the caucus delegates for starters.

    Well, hmmm (4.61 / 13) (#56)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:12:07 PM EST
    The Devil you know, and all that.

    I'm starting to think that there are a lot of people who don't want to know what Obama's capable of, based on what we've learned about him in the past few months. Some of those people are his supporters, sticking fingers in their ears and singing 'nah nah nahhhh I can't HEAR YOUUUU'. Some of those people are Hillary supporters, watching in disbelief as a DEM NOMINEE throws his party's values under the bus.

    The term PUMA, after a few more weeks of this, is going to represent Dem voter's dissatisfaction with Obama more than anything else, including Hillary's backstab from the DNC.

    Party Unity My Auntie. That says it all; He's not interested in Unity; he's interested in getting Elected.

    He is not the nominee yet.... (4.60 / 5) (#80)
    by sallywally on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:21:06 PM EST
    What about the 18 million of us who supported another candidate who arguably won the popular vote, not to mention the hypothetical electoral vote?

    Suppose they would do a first vote on Clinton?

    There's time left and I wonder how many Obama voters will finally have to admit their mistake before the convention?

    Apparently he has remade the Dem Party with most or all power flowing to him....but there is one chance to take the party away from him, and that is to prevent his being voted the nominee at the convention.

    "Sweet Talk Xpress" (4.50 / 4) (#122)
    by OxyCon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:37:02 PM EST
    Obama's two strongest political attributes are his ability to sweet talk his way out of a jam and his ability to vilify his opponent. I'm sure Astroturf Axelrod has something to do with this.

    The "Best speech on race evah" was nothing more than Obama attempting to sweet talk his way out of the Rev Wright fiasco.

    Obama throws Scarlett under the bus (3.50 / 2) (#202)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:34:08 PM EST
    According to PerezHilton.com (I'd post the link, but I don't want to get deleted- go there yourself), Obama is distancing himself from an alleged email "relationship" with the actress, Scarlett Johansson.

    A couple of weeks ago, Scarlett was running around telling people how excited she was to get emails from Obama.

    Well, not to be caught up with another "scandal", Obama made it clear that he only had ONE email exchange and she didn't have his personal email.

    Poor Scarlett, she thought Obama was her friend.  

    Barack made a smart play by moving the focus (2.00 / 2) (#44)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:03:24 PM EST
    onto protecting the American people from a derelict president who wants to make up the rules as they go along. He stressed that it was that measure which brought him around on the bill. Because it's in there, the phone companies don't have to worry about being coerced into breaking the law, and ultimately, that's what matters, along with protecting the American people.

    Ultimately, this is an extremely esoteric issue that will not affect the race. Obama put the safety of Americans first, and that's what will be remembered by the folks who matter most: the media! (snark)

    Pathetic (5.00 / 11) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:05:15 PM EST


    Parent
    But just as you have described B.O. (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:10:04 PM EST
    As cutthroat a pol as anyone, unity schtick aside.  This might be the single more glaring example, with his positions being so opposite.

    Parent
    If all I did was come on here and call you names (none / 0) (#134)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:44:47 PM EST
    would you not delete my comment? Then why is it that you choose to do your drive-by insults on me? How can someone call for civil discourse and then proceed to be abrasive and hypocritical?

    All I'm asking is that if you're gonna call me names or insult me, then you let my responses stand when I similarly tear you down. As someone who prides himself on being all about democracy, that should at least appeal to your sense of fairness, no?

    Parent

    Your comment was pathetic (none / 0) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:19:26 PM EST
    If you think my comment is pathetic, feel free to say so.

    Parent
    Until, gasp... (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:08:43 PM EST
    ...one of the mainstream media are spied on.  Then, oh my word, can you imagine the outrage?  Suddenly it would all come clear to them.

    Parent
    Too late. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:18:01 PM EST
    Bush's Law, by Eric Lichblau:

    NYT review_r=1&oref=slogin

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:19:32 PM EST
    Honestly, being disappointed by another Dem on another issue hardly fazes me at this point.  But seeing this kind of twisted apologia makes me really concerned about the sort of folks I share a party with.  Amazing.

    Parent
    Do you disagree that the thinking in (none / 0) (#120)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:36:07 PM EST
    Camp Obama went something like that? I mean, it's essentially how Barack presented his position, ie, since the protections are in there down the road, that is what's important, along with the security of America.

    All I said, for myself, was that this is an esoteric issue that will not grow long legs. Do you disagree with that? Do you disagree that Obama made a shrewd--if not smart--decision that will pay off for him?

    Of course, HuffPo is already highlighting the distancing of the netroots from/by Obama. It's not women or whites who are gonna give him fits, it seems.

     It's the silly bloggers who thought they actually had power that they're not even close to having. The pull to the middle is far too great, and there are far too few people out on that Left branch to change that anytime soon.

    Am I wrong?


    Parent

    Pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:40:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:51:19 PM EST
    You want pathetic?  Bestest comment from the bestest diary of the day.

    Parent
    Bwaahahahahah (none / 0) (#232)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:01:04 PM EST
    Deep inside the tank. . . .

    Parent
    You are the pathetic one. To the utmost. (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:46:06 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm pretty sure (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:56:11 PM EST
    he was describing your argument, not you.

    I could be wrong though.

    Parent

    As I understand it (5.00 / 6) (#179)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:20:58 PM EST
    You are praising Obama for saying and doing anything to win and completely contradicting his statement from the primaries on a question involving a Constitutional issue.

    By my lights, that is a pathetic comment from you.

    Parent

    I think you are a perfect example of the (5.00 / 6) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:50:18 PM EST
    Obama movement.

    Parent
    And we're going to be guiding policy in the US (2.00 / 2) (#151)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:59:39 PM EST
    for a while. So thanks.

    And don't forget...vote Obama in '08!

    Yes We Can!

    Parent

    Ugh (5.00 / 10) (#167)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    we're going to be guiding policy in the US for a while

    This thought is frightening to me.

    I never would have thought I'd fear a Dem president more than a Republican one.

    Parent

    One point in our favor (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:03:18 PM EST
    If Obama is as committed to his policies once he's in office as he's been before, we'll have no fears.

    If you don't like this week's administration, just wait. There will be a different one the next week. He seems kind of flexible!

    Parent

    Bingo! And that's the real question (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    everyone will have to ask themselves this November, what do you fear most?  At this point split government looks like an acceptable option to me.  Obama with no constraints?  Think about it.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    Just like you're guiding policy on the FISA debate, right?

    It's supremely easy to be on the leading edge of public policy when all you do is roll over to the GOP's demands.  You and Steny Hoyer can congratulate each other for being on the winning team, hooray!

    Parent

    No, no, it's Vera Possum now! (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:01:01 PM EST
    You're not keeping up with the Obamamemo, Halstoon -- the slogan is in Latin now.  Complete with a cute li'l girl possum mascot as a mnemonic aid.

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:39:25 PM EST
    That seems to be a totally different comment than the one I responded to.

    To address the second comment, I do not particularly care about Barack Obama's political shrewdness.  The idea of praising my candidate for having the good judgment to take a position opposite of mine strikes me as a little sick.

    To address the first comment, no, I do not think it was particularly "smart" for Obama to focus his position on some particular nuance of the debate or another.  Maybe .01% of people will even find out about that.

    There are two groups of people who care about this issue: the telecoms and their lobbyists, and the netroots and associated activist groups.  I assure you the first group does not care one fig for whatever BS statement Obama issues.  The second group shouldn't care, either.

    Parent

    Oh, and by the by ... (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:07:21 PM EST
    ... the "1" ratings don't hurt a bit. Unless you mean someone's feelings. Check out my comments, a lot of people disagree with my support of Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic Nominee, on this site. I've got TONS of "1"'s!

    Senate just voted against telecom immunity... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:18:47 PM EST
    Roll call here.

    Obama missed the vote; Hillary voted for cloture.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:20:25 PM EST
    The link pretty clearly says neither of them voted.

    Parent
    She has to vote as he does -- (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:24:57 PM EST
    it's part of the unity shtick, clearly, on the eveof the Unity event, ugh.  Horrible timing for FISA bill.

    Parent
    Neither Obama nor Clinton cast a vote (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:27:10 PM EST
    on cloture.

    Parent
    Exactly. As I said. . . . (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:30:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Rats! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sallywally on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:26:24 PM EST
    Does this now discredit Clinton on this issue?

    Parent
    to me it does, on this issue anyway (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:29:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Weird, because... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    ...a moment ago the site said she voted Yes; I still have that window open. But I clicked the link into a new window and it said she didn't vote, as you said.

    Parent
    Kinda weird (none / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:25:13 PM EST
    to see Chuck Schumer, of all people, voting to filibuster the bill.

    I expect that before the final vote takes place, there will be a vote on an amendment to strip the telecom immunity from the bill, which would be an important roll call.

    Parent

    But Levin voted yea. (none / 0) (#119)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:35:32 PM EST
    He always votes the way I want him to!

    (Stabenow not so much.)

    It's not over until it's over.

    Parent

    Agree. Kerry voted "nay." (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:25:55 PM EST


    Parent
    A no vote (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    is no different than missing the vote actually. It takes 60 AYES.

    I am not ripping him for not voting. I am ripping him for his statement.

    Hillary did not vote by the way.

    Neither did Ted Kennedy.

    Same as a no vote.

    Parent

    Serenity Lost is the title on the Huffpost homepag (none / 0) (#89)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:23:24 PM EST
    some discontent among the netroots...

    Parent
    Your title line... (none / 0) (#125)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    ... confused me. They didn't vote against it. Cloture was agreed to 80-15.

    How many votes will the bill get on final passage? 70+? I think McCain and Obama will be absent.

    Parent

    You're right... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:38:24 PM EST
    ...it's been a long day, and I screwed up the subject line. :)

    Parent
    Is the topic ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:00:10 PM EST
    ... supposed to be holding Barack Obama's feet to the fire or attempting to create dissension among Democrats so that the Republicans can win in November?


    If Obama (5.00 / 6) (#165)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:10:03 PM EST
    Can't stand behind his own words now, when he's actively trying to solidify his base and expand it, why should anyone decide that at some magical moment he'll remember that he's a Democrat?

    Parent
    VP Pick will now have to be ... (none / 0) (#170)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:15:06 PM EST
    someone who will fight for the Constitution and the rule of law and fight for traditional Dem values - in short, the opposite of Obama.

    We are now getting a clearer picture of what post-partisanship means - it looks like it means caving in to the other party and pretending that that was always your position.

    You know... (none / 0) (#192)
    by ROK on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:27:57 PM EST
    Until he selects his VP (I'm rooting for Clark), the "war on terror" is his weak point. He is dancing around this so he doesn't give thr GOP more ammunition. I'm confident he will get rid of this once he is elected.

    Dems are awful at winning elections and have to learn how to game the system just as well as the GOP has.

    I'm not. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by pie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:32:33 PM EST
    I'm confident he will get rid of this once he is elected.

    The American people don't want telecom immunity.  Who speaks for them?  

    The telecoms want telecom immunity and will pay handsomely for it.

    Will no one be held accountable here?

    Boooooooooooooo, Obama.

    Parent

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:56:05 PM EST
    the Dems have resolved how to game the system just as well as the GOP by voting just the same as the GOP.  But I'm sure the Dems will fix the last 7 years of misvotes in the first 100 days?

    I do not want the party that votes for this bill to win.

    Parent

    We lose (4.25 / 4) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:31:46 PM EST
    because people like Obama act like spineless jellyfish. The reason he's bad on WOT has nothing to do with FISA. It has to do with his associations in Chicago and his lack of a military record. And the fact that he campaigned as and was defined as the "anti war" candidate during the primary.

    Parent
    I think we'll be ok; there are still (none / 0) (#228)
    by WillBFair on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:12:47 PM EST
    plenty of smart folk in the party, not to mention people from the Clinton administration. He'll have the best advice. And maybe he'll even bring our greatest policy experts into the process.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

    Yeah (none / 0) (#235)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM EST
    That's what they said about Dubya. They also said he   would govern differently (i.e., better) than how he campaigned? Were you fooled by it then? Dubya also billed himself as a uniter, not a divider. How'd that work out for us?

    The similarities between Dubya and Obama, whom I have longed called a Dubya in Democrats' clothing (and I'm not alone) grow more and more scarily apparent every day. The Speshul Preznitzential Seal, how different is that from Dubya's padded flight suit? Oy vey.

    B.S. artists of this sort are amazing! (none / 0) (#236)
    by crabbydan on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    It won't take long for the general populace to figure him out. His hubris leaves me speechless...he really does think he's the messiah.

    It will be interesting to see..... (none / 0) (#237)
    by Kefa on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    4 years from now......God willing.....if we are all here to see how we all feel about the Obama Admin.
    If the hope really brings as much change as some propose. It will be very telling. I hope it does, and all the grief the party is going through has been really for something and not for nothing.

    During the Primary (none / 0) (#238)
    by tlkextra on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    this kind of statement is exactly what made me question Obama's electability. He's made similar contradictions before.  It's almost as if he has never heard of YouTube. I kept imaging the ads with a split screen showing the blatant reversals.  That's not to say he can't change his mind, but he needs to stop rewriting history.  The media may have actually done him a disservice by letting him get away with so much previously. He may seriously shoot himself in the foot by believing the hype that he is Mr. Teflon.

    That Was Obama Then . . . | 196 comments (196 topical)