home

What Obama Can Do Now On FISA

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:19:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Last night, on Countdown, Russ Feingold said we can fix it FISA if Barack Obama is elected President. Fine. Now here is what Obama can do now to help that happen.

Barack Obama can pledge, if he is elected President, to instruct his Administration to comply with FISA, as it existed prior to the passage of the Protect America Act and the most recent Amendment, passed yesterday. Barack Obama can pledge that in his Administration, the Executive Branch will comply with FISA (with the caveat that the one fix that was considered necessary, that telephone calls whose only nexus with the United States is the incidental passage of the communication through a United States based telecommunications node). Just because the Congress gutted FISA does not mean that an Obama Administration needs to act like the Bush Administration.

More . .

Barack Obama can also present FISA legislation he will propose when he is President. He can run on the FISA fix he will propose. He can win a mandate for that change (unfortunately, retroactive telecom immunity is now irrevocable.)

Finally, Obama can promise that when he is President, he will either appoint a commission or ask that Congress create a commission (along the lines of the Church Commission) to investigate what abuses took place during the Bush Administration. And I know just the guy to chair it - Russ Feingold.

My expectation of his doing any of these things is nil. But that is my point really. The time for Obama to stand up on FISA was now, so that he could stand up if and when he becomes President. His recent actions on FISA pretty much preclude a FISA fix when he is President imo.

There are a number of Obama bloggers who are upset that people like Glenn Greenwald are taking Obama to task for this. They want us to leave Obama alone. Some really never cared about this issue, as they themselves admit. But the ones who profess to care, seem not to understand that beyond the global political problem of Obama's propensity to triangulate in DLC fashion, the FISA issue has been severely damaged by Obama's actions. Feingold wants another go at it if and when Obama is President. Obama's actions make this that much harder to do.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Dampening Enthusiasm | Thursday Morning Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Obama Can Do Now On FISA | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    He's not going to do anything (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:21:06 AM EST


    Check (none / 0) (#109)
    by pluege on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, he certainly wouldn't undermine whatever grand strategy him and the geniuses think they're implementing by being republicans.

    Parent
    Suppose he does (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:23:33 AM EST
    promise all that.  Why should I believe him?

    Well, Feingold vouches for him (none / 0) (#57)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:17:45 AM EST
    that should be enough for the American left such as the American left exists as a coherant part of the spectrum.

    Parent
    Oh, please. Wasn't BO supposed to... (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:03:09 AM EST
    support Feingold in this piece of legislation?

    I am sick and tired of everybody - incluidng unnamed bloggers - of giving Bo a pass.  He blew this BIG TIME and cannot be trusted.

    If you think BO will do anything do change the road he's going down, I have a bridge I want to speak to you about.

    Parent

    this is what amazes me also.... (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    During the primaries the Obama supporters attacked Clinton because she would "do or say anything to get elected" and apparently Obama was PURE and completely trustworthy.  This was her biggest flaw other than the war authorization vote.  You couldn't believe her, yada, yada, yada....

    Now that Obama is doing exactly that (doing and saying whatever is necessary) and many of Obama's biggest supporters on blogs believe that is what he is doing and they believe it is necessary for him to get elected.  NOW, it isn't a problem for them.  NOW, the end justifies the means.

    I have one question for the Obama supporters.  

    There is a very old joke about a thermos bottle.  It was nominated as the most amazing invention of all time.  Because, you put in something "hot", it stays "hot".  You put in something "cold", it stays "cold".  How does it know?

    So, the question is...  How do you KNOW?  

    Was Obama just saying what he needed to say during the primaries to get YOUR unwavering support?  Or, is he just saying what he needs to say now?

    Hot?  or Cold?  How do we know?

    When Clinton attacked Obama for just giving pretty speeches in big events and not actually discussing policy...   Obama responded with the "Just Words?" speech he borrowed from Deval Patrick.  And Obama's adoring fans went wild with appreciation.  Words matter was their mantra.  Once again policy details didn't matter.  Just change we can believe in.  If you wanted policy, just go read the web site.

    I used to think the ...go read the web site.. meme was because Obama didn't really understand his policies well enough to be able to actually discuss them.  Now I believe it may be because Obama didn't want any actual details that he could be held accountable for coming out of his mouth.  That way his supporters could just make Obama into anything they needed him to be.  You know, the "blank slate" theory.  His supporters always have used that as a defense as you recall.  If Obama didn't actuall SAY it, it never happened.

    So, now we have one here with FISA that Obama DID SAY.  And, he has flipped on it and there is no question about that at all...   and guess what... IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER.

    Parent

    Great comment! (none / 0) (#113)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:16:36 PM EST
    It puts my frustrations into words (you know...words that MATTER) perfectly.

    Parent
    right... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    your snark is very dry today, dear.

    Parent
    would be like closing the barn door (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by athyrio on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:24:14 AM EST
    after the horses got out. The damage is done IMO.

    I have an idea (none / 0) (#112)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    Obama can pledge to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will declare the bill he supported unconstitutional.  That would work!

    Parent
    I thought (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:25:56 AM EST
    Feingold's defense and reasoning w/r/t Obama came off as pretzel logic. It would make more sense for Obama to simply vote against FISA than to vote for it and then "pledge" to do other things when in office. Honestly, though, how many people would even believe his "pledge" after his behavior over the last month?

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:31:25 AM EST
    Feingold is just being a good soldier for Obama IMO.  He is plainly very unhappy, but when you're an elected Democratic Senator, you can only go so far in criticizing the party's nominee.

    Parent
    I realize (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:34:15 AM EST
    that but it still came off as pretzels imo.

    Parent
    The low point (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    for me was when he used the phrase "hope for change."  

    Parent
    He'll never go back to this bill. Day one in (none / 0) (#133)
    by suzieg on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 04:56:13 AM EST
    the WH will become day one of his reelection campaign. He cannot afford to re-open this can of worms. He'll legislate right down the center/right as he said he would... It will be the worse 4 yrs for progressives!

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:35:35 AM EST
    I do think this is a logical next step for activist forces on FISA.

    Press Obama to make s some commitments on FISA if he becomes President.

    Parent

    Maybe press Congress. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:38:40 AM EST
    President's can never be trusted to release power.

    Parent
    Press Congress? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:39:42 AM EST
    Sure. Worked out well this time.

    Parent
    As well as pressing Obama did. (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:40:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Heh.... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    well, it worked on my 2 senators and Hillary but clearly that was not enough.

    Have to wonder if this fiasco will nudge them any lower on the congressional approval ratings scale - not that there's much lower to go since they're already in single digits.

    Hooboy...

    Parent

    He make commitments on FISA during the primary (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    He chose not to honor those commitments.  He can make all the commitments now he wants but they are meaningless since he has IMO lost credibility on this issue.

    Parent
    furgeddaboudit (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by pluege on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:51:28 AM EST
    Obama is NOT playing to "activist forces" anymore - that was the primary...he got what he wanted - he is done with that. Now is stroke republicans time, which includes that "activist forces" are icky...eeeewwwwwww.

    Parent
    HEre is another good idea (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:39:14 AM EST
    Feingold for AG.

    Parent
    That's not a good idea. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:41:15 AM EST
    It's a great one.

    Parent
    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:42:18 AM EST


    Parent
    I have to disagree. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:21 AM EST
    His imprematur made Obama more credible to the left.  And look what's happening now as the left wake up.  Feingold is vatly over rated as a legilator.  McCain-Feingold CFR is a walking disaster for instance.  

    Parent
    As a legislator (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:51:12 AM EST
    Seems irrelevant to me. The goal of having a Feingold as AG is to insure that FISA is fixed and the past transgressions are thoroughly investigated.

    Seems to me you can have confidence in Feingold on that.

    Parent

    Bush i likely to issue a slew of (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:56:26 AM EST
    pardon and the lawyers for the Telco' will wave this bill in the face of any legislator. I Think Feingold i being cruel in promising such investigations to the left.  We know that Obama favours the bill that Bush demanded.  It just seems sinister to promise action on this when the Senate and the Illinios senator clearly doesn't care.  

    Parent
    Even accepting your judgment on (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:52:51 AM EST
    his legislative accomplishments, he has been a consistently strong advocate in opposition to the administration's incursion on Consitutionally protected liberties and, thus, exactly the sort of AG we need.

    Parent
    He's been ever so strong (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:57:59 AM EST
    He seem to function as a sop to the left when the partyy disappoints the left.

    Oh lookie see there's St Feingold.  He's one of us, and he reckons Obama will revisit the issue.

    Pardon me for doubting his efficacy.

    Parent

    Remember as well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:15:20 AM EST
    that Feingold made sure that the Ashcroft nomination got to the floor.

    Parent
    And I don't see him as an administrator (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    after having watched Feingold for several decades now, as a state legislator prior to the U.S. Senate.

    If there is a position such as Secretary of the Conscience of the Country, or Official Maverick, I'm all for it -- but that's his position in the Senate, and my Senator seems to love it.  

    But administering an agency of thousands of employees does not seem suited to his abilities.  

    Parent

    Yeah, Feingold should stay put (none / 0) (#81)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:49:34 AM EST
    in the senate.  Possibly a WH run for him in 8 yrs, who knows.

    AG for Obama:  Gov Napolitano or John Edwards.

    Parent

    Yup and Colin Powell was a good soldier (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kimsaw on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:14:58 AM EST
    as a Republican Secretary of State and where did that get us. And while real soldiers are putting their lives on the line for our country we get this legislation from Congress and the presidential wanna bes.  Feingold and Clinton choose to be good Dems soldiers in support of Obama but at least they did the right thing by voting against the bill. They too are entitled to support their choice. But just imagine what would have happened if Powell resigned prior to the UN speech. The questions it would have raised. The history of the Iraq War may have changed.  There is a time to stand up for what you believe in and this is that time.  Those that voted against this bill stood on the foundation of American principles, Obama stood on political calculations. His shift cements that fact.

    What he can do after the fact is not leadership its custodial work and given his actions cleaning up a mess is not on Obama's agenda, helping to create one is.

    Parent

    Biden and Dodd voted against (none / 0) (#92)
    by Josey on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:08:34 AM EST
    btw - the media puts Biden on VP list, along with Bayh.

    Parent
    I've also read that Dodd confirmed that (none / 0) (#134)
    by suzieg on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 04:59:53 AM EST
    Obama's VP selection commttee asked him for all kind of paperwork and that he's under consideration!

    Parent
    It looks like a dumb argument (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:43:24 AM EST
    from Feingold.

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:47:51 AM EST
    he did the best he could with the issue. Unfortunately, there was really no way to make this sound good so a "dumb argument" might be the best thing he could come up with.

    Parent
    Once Buh issue his pardons... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:53:45 AM EST
    ... and the telco lawyers wave this bill in investigator's face there really is nothing that Obama can do about any law breaking during the Bush years. I really don't see Feingold's point.

    Parent
    my S key i malfunctioning. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:02:54 AM EST
    In theory, I know how to spell.

    Parent
    Here's my suggestion (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:05:31 AM EST
    Try using Z instead of S.  Authorize, prioritize, lionize.  Zee how easy it can be?

    Parent
    wait a moment (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:19:10 AM EST
    Thatz awezome dude.

    Parent
    Good point. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:03:55 AM EST
    I hadn't thought of that. It puts teleco immunity in quite a different light doesn't it? If Bush will pardon all of them why does he think he needs this bill?

    Parent
    He can only pardon for Criminal liability... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by jeffhas on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    not civil... this bill took care of that.

    Parent
    Because he can't pardon himself. (none / 0) (#47)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:04:35 AM EST


    Parent
    Well, you know how Nixon did it. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:42:19 AM EST
    Bush pardons Cheney, Bush steps down about January 10, Cheney steps up, Cheney pardons Bush.  Done.:-)

    Parent
    Murder on the Orient Express (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    Nixon was pardoned (in advance of any guilty plea) by Ford. But it did not work out too well for Ford, the pardon caused public outcry and was a key reason for his loss to Carter.  So how to pardon Bush? Cheney musical chairs? Too unseemly, even for them. The next president?  No, too risky for all.  How about the immunity provision for telecoms? You know, the part of the FISA bill that that was critical to Bush, so much so that without it the bill as a whole could be placed in the dustbin as far as he was concerned.  With the new and improved FISA bill, a pardon, in effect, was granted to Bush through distribution of responsibility by a large number of congressional members rather than a single individual--much like the wielding of the knife in 'Murder on the Orient Express'

    Parent
    sounds like you are saying..... (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:10:53 AM EST
    that we all are used to trusting and believing Feingold.  But, now, even Feingold is under the "I must support Obama in someway" spell.

    So, instead of just being honest about this, he tries to give Obama cover by saying  But, but, but, Obama can fix this as president.

    So, once again I ask, what incentive does Obama have to STOP doing this kind of stuff?

    That's 2 Feingold issues now that Feingold should be blasting Obama on and not providing cover for him.  Public campaign finance and now FISA.

    How much more to the core of Feingold's beliefs can you get than these two issues?  And what does Feingold do?  Provide cover for Obama.  Because, apparently, electing Obama is even more important than your own core principles and whatever dignity any dems might have left when this is over.....

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:22:54 AM EST
    Feingold has railed against Bush's dictatorial powers.  Now that the next president appears to have even more centralized control over domestic spying (more than Bush) he's gone all wobbly.

    It makes all the arguments the left have made about Bush's Straussian neo-conservatism, his trasing the constitution look like an act.

    Parent

    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    And Obama has no incentive to fix this. The FISA bill is what it is and neither McCain or Obama are going to lift a finger to change it imo.

    Parent
    Worse than dumb (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:17:39 AM EST
    it's an attempt at damage control that only the feeble minded will buy.

    Parent
    Exactly -- Obama's "pledge" (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by angie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    and $4 gets you a cup of coffee at the Four Seasons.
    Just like his "pledge" on public financing and his "pledge" to filibuster this very bill that he voted for. And spare me the quibbling on what a "pledge" is or isn't -- I should be able to trust the word of my elected officials whether or not they sign a blood oath.

    Parent
    Pledge? Isn't that furniture polish? (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    Maybe Obama's confused.

    Of course, his version and the furniture polish do have some similarities: you spray it on (give a speech) and it makes dull things shiny.

    Maybe we should send him a few cases.

    Parent

    Feingold is a politiican... (none / 0) (#93)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    and he knows he has to be a good soldier for Obama because there are many more issues to come.  He can't alienate the guy most likely to be President.  I wonder now how he feels about voting for Obama in the primary.

    Parent
    Maybe the only Change we (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by tek on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:29:20 AM EST
    can believe in from Obama is that he's going to change the name on the door of the Oval Office.  Everything else will remain the same.

    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:30:14 AM EST
    You want him, in effect, to issue a negative signing statement!

    I agree with the sentiment that if you believe in "hey, I'm doing this bad thing now, but I promise to fix it right after the election" you are a rube.  Anyone remember Arnold's promise to agree to a full investigation of the sexual harassment allegations against him right after the election?  Remind me how that one turned out.

    I agree that it would be great to have some tangible sign that a good thing is going to happen on this issue after the election.  I also agree that it is very unlikely to happen.  Maybe if the Obama campaign read BTD, because it is a good suggestion that would help make up with the left.

    My favorite suggestion is the Feingold Commission, but I'm pretty sure "turn the page" means "we're not going to investigate anything Bush did, in the name of moving forward."  The same thing Clinton did in 1992, as I recall.  All it does is let the crooks come back for another go, and you'd think we would have learned that.

    Oh I expect nothing from Obama on this (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:34:38 AM EST
    He'll want it to just go away now.

    Parent
    Of course you don't (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by talex26 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:07:35 AM EST
    Because, as you said yesterday, you are hoping Obama is lying to you and we all know once one lies then they must stick with that lie. Besides lying on this issue is OK with you according to you.

    So any 'fix' in the future as you proposed, real or imagined, is all besides the point, sounds nice, but is just blog rhetoric.

    Here is my take. Feingold is the key in fixing FISA  in the future. I have always held out hope that a Democratic congress would hold Obama in check with his Rightward ways - even school him on certain issues. Feingold is one who I feel will never fold to a Dem President because he has Principles. Clinton stepped up yesterday and showed that she is in that category also. If those two and others will step up the pressure and could rally enough votes then Obama would have no choice but to do a 180.

    The immunity of course will stay in place, save a successful challenge in the court system, which would be unlikely agreed with in the SCOTUS. But certainly restoring FISA surveillance to comply with our laws could still be possible through the congress.

    Again leaders like Feingold and Clinton will be the keys. They have the desire, passion, and more importantly the power and influence needed to get the job done. That is what we should realistically be hoping for and advocating for in the future should Obama get elected.

    Parent

    You mean, do something like issue the (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Steve Davis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:39:43 AM EST
    statement he issued three weeks ago saying that he thought the FISA bill still had problems that he did not like, and that he believed the Bush administration had engaged in illegal activity, but that as president, he would instruct his attorney general to monitor the program and rectify what needed correction? That kind of statement? :-)

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:54:23 AM EST
    That is a perfect example of an Arnold-like statement IMO.

    Parent
    Who cares what a Republican promises -- (none / 0) (#55)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    they famously lie through their teeth and break promises or do major-league flip-flops as a matter of routine.  And usually with complete impunity if they're the likable/charismatic types (Reagan, Arnold).

    But a more solid precedent for Obama on FISA reform would be Bill, who signed the semi-harsh Welfare Reform bill into law, which got him tremendous grief from the left, but he also pledged to re-visit certain of the more draconian aspects later.  Which he did, iirc, in his second term, along with the other tweaking and working the problem which led to a serious, impressive reduction in poverty.

    As for some commission to look into Bush admin lawbreaking, I'm all for it.  I wish Bill hadn't been so accommodating to Reagan/Poppy admin lawbreaking also, and the failure to have that investigated only encouraged the current crop of crooks.  Though I can't think of an historical precedent for a new admin to call for an investigation of the previous admin.

    And also, what does Hillary think about Bill letting 'em off the hook in 93 and the sort of unfortunate precedent that BC's don't investigate policy might have set?

    Parent

    Don't hold your breath (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:24:57 AM EST
    on any truth squad in an Obama administration.  He ran for the nomination on the pledge to make nice with Republicans.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:00:54 AM EST
    Oh, I forgot, only those scummy Republicans break their pledges!

    How you can sit here and suggest we ought to trust Obama, on the EXACT SAME SUBJECT that he broke a promise to us just YESTERDAY, is beyond me.  I think rube is a good word.

    Parent

    Most of the resident Obama supporters (none / 0) (#89)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:04:10 AM EST
    appear to be MIA the last few days.

    Summer vacation?  :)

    Parent

    I'm Here (none / 0) (#121)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:35:46 PM EST
    And I've been posting about my anger and outrage at Obama's shift.

    Parent
    I've been consistent here -- this ex-HRC (none / 0) (#101)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:30:11 AM EST
    backer -- as opposing O's unfortunate shift on FISA filibustering.  So I don't deny he comes to the issue of FISA reform in an O admin with unclean hands.

    I merely want to note that he's said he voted for a flawed but acceptable bill yesterday -- thus leaving himself plenty of wiggle room (something I know you purists feel is a reportable offense) for a revisit once he takes office.  And I believe the Clinton - Welfare issue is the key precedent, not your silly example of the power-hungry, promise-anything to get elected slippery ex-actor Gooper candidate for gov.

    I think a FISA revisit is plausible in an O admin.  Less likely the Feingold Commission.

    Parent

    Do you really think (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    the Obama White House will make a priority out of initiating a bill to limit their own power?

    I think it is foolish to believe ANY promise of the type "I'm doing the wrong thing now, but I promise to make it right after the election."  Why is Obama more trustworthy than Schwarzenegger in this regard?  Because you say so?  Oh, wait, it's because Schwarzenegger is a "promise anything to get elected" politician and of course we know Obama is nothing like that.

    Parent

    commission to investigate Bush lawbreaking?? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Josey on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29:32 AM EST
    You mean, initiated by Pres. Obama - the ONLY DEM to declare Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses?!?
    LOL
    Oh wait - Obama was lying then - right?
    But when he's president, he'll put on a white hat and jump on a white horse - and investigate all the corruption of the Bush administration...from an oceanfront condo in Kansas.

    Parent
    I failt to see what this has to do with Bill, (none / 0) (#61)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    but as to this:
    "the sort of unfortunate precedent that BC's don't investigate policy might have set?"

    Given her votes and her statement yesterday, perhaps experience taught her well.

    Parent

    the "unfortunate precedent" (none / 0) (#84)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    You don't see the conenction to Bill Clinton? It's always Clinton's fault, always.  All evils in this world can be traced back to something a Clinton did, or said, or thought, or believed.  Dude, get with the program!

    Parent
    Actually I'm probably one of (none / 0) (#94)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    Bill's stronger supporters on the internets.  But on this one, I felt when he came to office there was some unfinished business wrt the Poppy admin that needed to be aired out lest the Repubs think they were bullet proof.  And indeed that seems to be the lesson they took away from it -- the Dems would meekly extend an olive branch and naively expect the Repubs to reward their non-investigation by acting bipartisanly in governing.  Dole and Gingrich had other ideas.  

    Bill simply misunderstood the nature of his oppo, as he would later misread and underestimate the situation wrt the various pseudo scandal investigations the Repubs launched to thank Bill for his olive branch of peace to Poppy & Co.

    On this one, I'm with Rbt Parry.  On most of the rest wrt the Clinton admin and how it was viewed by the left, we part company.

    Parent

    The Left. (none / 0) (#96)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:23:49 AM EST
    What a disappointing joke some of them have become.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    So you blame (none / 0) (#116)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    Bill's Justice Dept and not the Congress for not holding hearings?  The Dems had the majorities in 93-94...THEN came the Gingrich revolution.

    Parent
    Welfare reform wa not really (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:24:24 AM EST
    revisited.  Are you refering to SCHIPs?

    Parent
    My recollection is that Bill did succeed (none / 0) (#70)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:34:27 AM EST
    in restoring certain economic benefits for legal immigrants that had been taken away in the REpub bill he signed earlier.  Then he worked very hard to get thousands of employers to hire ex welfare recipients, got tax breaks for lower income people, and other remedies such as more fed funding for child care, etc.  Basically the economy got revved up by 96, thanks to Bill's earlier economic moves,  and the job market became dynamic.

    Parent
    this bill is about surveillance. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:53:33 AM EST
    phantoms of lost liberty etc...

    The economy has its ups and downs.

    Parent

    You're not supposed to remember that! ;-) (none / 0) (#90)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:05:39 AM EST


    Parent
    And job training... (none / 0) (#117)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    don't forget.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:41:57 AM EST
    Not that type of statement.

    Something much more concrete and specific.

    I tell you how the statement you like would work - if Russ Feingold is the Attorney General.

    Parent

    How about (none / 0) (#115)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:46:32 PM EST
    Glenn Greenwald for AG?

    Parent
    What I realized with Hillary's statement yesterday (5.00 / 11) (#13)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:37:10 AM EST
    is voting no on FISA as a centrist is completely doable.  Even if public opinion is that the FISA "compromise" was acceptable, she laid out a perfectly centrist agrument for why one would vote no, and I think, had she been the presumptive nominee, and had she voted no, she would have swayed public opinion that the compromise was inadequate.  She really is one hell of a politician.  Let's nominate her.

    gee, (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:42:43 AM EST
    if sen. obama hadn't voted to break it, FISA wouldn't need "fixing" after he was elected, now would it?

    that kind of "logic" is just so transparently stupid, it defies belief that any sentient being would actually buy into it, with a straight face.

    unfortunately, you can't fix stupid.

    Nah (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:42 AM EST
    It would still be broken but Obama would have the standing and mandate to fix it.

    Parent
    You've got to be kidding, (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    he voted FOR the bill. What part of that have you missed?

    It's a done deal. Case closed.

    Parent

    His one vote did not change the numerical result (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:39:40 AM EST


    Parent
    That only shows his support for this bill. (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:44:09 AM EST
    He feels so strongly about this issue that he flew to Washington to put his vote in on something that was going to pass anyway.

    Parent
    follow the money.... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Josey on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:38:29 AM EST
    now that Obama is the standard "cash cow" bearer for the Dems.
    There was a graphic of Telecom donations to Rockefeller - huge spike began in 2007.
    Contrary to popular propaganda, small donors don't own Obama.

    Parent
    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:48:46 AM EST
    "If you're part of the problem, you can't be part of the solution."

    -- circa the "excessive '60s"

    Parent

    addendum: (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:18 AM EST
    i realize other dems. voted for it as well, but they aren't the putative party nominee for president.

    Well I like that (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:54:13 AM EST
    Just because you vote for something doesn't mean you're going to execute it the same way a Republican would.  

    Now that's a common sense approach to an issue that I've found sorely lacking on Netroots Obamablogs.

    I commend this approach.

    Obama should get out there now and give us the assurances we need that he will execute this new FISA legislation very differently than how McCain would.

    It is truly a wonderful thing to see this kind of thinking be applied to politics in this jaded and cynical day and age.

    Oh yeah (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by RalphB on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    that's really believable.  I voted for it but am against it's use.  Who in their right mind would buy that BS?


    Parent
    most of that was sarcasm and snark (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:40:04 AM EST
    but the background is a different vote and I think its incumbent on me to be consistent.

    If I believed Clinton would use war power authority different than how bush or mccain would use it, then its only fair for me to buy into any arguments that obama will use FISA authority differently than how mccain would use it.

    Either that or i can treat obama in the same ill mannered faux outraged moronic way Clinton was treated for the last six years.

    Parent

    That's a good point. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    To be fair to him the GOP will check him everyway they can and the tendency of the liberals in congress will be to argue with him---so the Checks & Balances will work on the Democrat in a way they did not with the Republican President. but I don't want to have to confront a security  issue where Obama says: "You were not listening carefully to me."

    It's him job to explain himself with real clarity.

    Parent

    It just makes it a flip flop, anyway (none / 0) (#102)
    by Emma on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:35:54 AM EST
    "I voted for the FISA bill before I vowed not to enforce it."

    Does that seem like a good strategy to anybody?

    Parent

    Those assurances may be enough (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    of a fig leaf to keep people on board for the election.

    But voting NO would have accomplished the same thing.

    Parent

    He doesn't need a fig leaf (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    Most of Obama's loyal subjects are so awed by the majesty of his new clothing that they are completely oblvious to the fact that he's as naked as the day that he was born.

    Parent
    It's usually the opposition which works to dampen (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by jawbone on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:56:15 AM EST
    enthusiasm, lessen approval, and lower turnout. Heh.

    well, how do you think anyone can PRESS Obama (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:59:40 AM EST
    on anything?  He keeps doing things like this and his supporters keep saying exactly what he wants them to....  

    "well I don't like that he did this, but I'll still vote for him because he's better than McCain"

    Why would Obama ever STOP any of his triangulating?  It isn't costing him anything in the polls at all.

    Maybe if people started to tell pollsters that they USED to support Obama, but now will NOT VOTE for him because of X, he would get the message.

    What incentive do we provide when the posts say Obama has done this horrible thing, but, I think he'll still win?

    Or, yes, he's flip / flopping, but he has to in order to win and I still will vote for him because i still believe he will govern the way I thought he would during the primaries.  He doesn't really believe the things he HAS TO SAY now.

    He isn't going to make any such (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:06:40 AM EST
    pledge. His vote shows where he stands. Even if he did it won't be worth anything more than many of his previous statements or he would make a pledge with contradictory wording. Neither he nor McCain want this to change.

    We have heard the last on the subject from Obama (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    In two weeks he won't even be able to spell FISA.  When he is in office I hope he does do all the things you say he could promise now - in fact I would not be surprised if he does.

    But since I beleive he voted this way for political reasons, I also believe that promising such things now would undercut the deal he just made with the devil, and he is not going to do it.

    It's more than just what Obama (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:18:03 AM EST
    can do now.  Isn't this the thinking after each and every bad piece of legislation the Democrats were terrorized into voting for?  That somewhere down the road, it will get fixed?  I'm sorry, but I have always thought that this slap-a-cr@ppy-band-aid-on-and-worry-about-it-later approach was going to not only overly complicate matters, but it was going to just get worse with each band-aid.

    People seem to forget that whoever is elected does not exist in a personal power vacuum, but will be pushed and pulled by those in the intelligence agencies and in the Pentagon and DOD who will be fighting tooth-and-nail to do things their way - who will resist pulling back or radically changing what has been the status quo for nearly a decade.  If we now have laws on the books that support that way of doing things, I believe it will be nearly impossible to fight the resistance - resistance that will come not only from the intelligence agencies, but from the Republican Congressional contingent.  

    As for Russ Feingold - he's a smart man, and I appreciated his stand on this legislation, but that stand was diminished considerably by his convoluted attempts to minimize the consequences for Obama; by saying that Obama could fix it later, he echoed Jay Rockefeller, for crying out loud.

    I find it hard to believe that Feingold did not talk to Obama about this before the vote; if Obama wasn't convinced then, what are the chances Obama will suddenly be moved to make the changes if he is president?  Less than slim-to-none, I think.

    Obama's inability to see the long-term consequences of his actions - because he is too busy making sure that his actions benefit him, regardless of what they might mean for others - is antithetical to real leadership, at least the leadership I want in someone whose decisions will affect millions of people.

    It's so touching to see the hopefulness (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:30:06 AM EST
    And it's so depressing to keep seeing people make the 'Charlie BrownLucyfootball' mistake.

    Mark my words, Obama will not rescind any of the 'special powers' the Executive has grabbed for itself. Obama has already signaled his intention to support the Establishmentarian status quo of wars for oil (recall that bit about the proposed Afghan pipeline?) and continued erosion of civil liberties at home. The Ruling Class is showing its' hand a little more openly than usual with all these moves to protect their handmaidens, the telcos. And Obama has shown he knows which side of the bread his butter is on...

    Governments don't willingly give up power or... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Romberry on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    Governments don't willingly give up power or restore rights once the power has been gained or the rights usurped absent some sort of catalyzing event.

    I understand the desire to think that Obama would seek to somehow walk this monster back into the closet, but it impresses me as a desire of hope that borders on the naive. Warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity for felonious government assaults on liberty are now the American way. Fits perfectly with the doctrine of "pre-emptive war" (that is, starting a war unprovoked to "prevent" a war), our new-found love of torture (as long as we, the pure of heart who torture only for good reason are the ones doing it) and various other bastardizations of what we thought America stood for...all in the name of defeating Goldstein...er, Bin Laden.

    (Say...isn't it time for the daily two minute hate?)

    Do you believe (4.50 / 8) (#5)
    by tek on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:27:01 AM EST
    his pledges?  He pledged to fillibuster this.  Didn't happen.  The best thing that could happen for the Democrats and the country now is for the SDs to change their votes and nominate a REAL Democrat:  Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Liberal leaders should, at this point, LEAD and turn away from Obama and demand that Clinton be the nominee.

    The longer Barack Obama campaigns, the better John McCain looks.  If only the Democrats could realize that no one is attracted to a group who eats their own.

    Truly (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:36:05 AM EST
    I don't know why anybody holds out any hope that Hillary will be the nominee. Please, you're making people like me who aren't going to vote for Obama look like bitter dead enders. There's plenty of reasons to not vote for Obama but using Hillary as a reason really doesn't help imo.

    Parent
    Tek, Obama COULD NOT filibuster (1.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Steve Davis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:25 AM EST
    the bill. There were 81 votes for cloture. That means the senate agreed that debate on the bill would be limited; hence, no filibuster. You know, it's truly ironic that those of us who actually support the democratic nominee routinely get accused of thinking our guy is the messiah, able to walk on water. When it comes right down to it, though, it's the folks who don't support the Democratic nominee who continually believe that is within his capabilities.

    Parent
    Dude just stop it (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:48:00 AM EST
    Obama could not SUCCESSFULLY filibuster (well we don't know since he did not try) the bill but he could have voted against cloture - the actual definition of a filibuster in the modern Congress.

    He voted FOR cloture and FOR the bill.

    Let me give you an example of how a modern filibuster works. The GOP effectively filibustered the Bingaman Amendment by agreeing to allow it to come to a vote in exchange for a 60 vote requirement.

    Just stop it. Really, you are embarrassing yourself.

    Parent

    Having the presumed leader (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:48:27 AM EST
    of the party switch position like that tends to deflate vigorous resistance.  Also that large a vpte on cloture should make you wonder about the real agenda of the Democratic party in the Senate.

    Parent
    There were 81 votes for cloture. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:15:40 AM EST
    And Obama's was one of them. It's hard to argue that his hands were tied against his will by a vote that he himself took.

    Isn't it?

    Parent

    Gallup Poll today: Obama 44, McCain 42 (none / 0) (#135)
    by suzieg on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 05:05:52 AM EST


    Parent
    I don't see any reason to expect that Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:38:59 AM EST
    would take any action to reverse what he has done here, though as a practical matter, I would expect an Obama administration to me much more sensitive to due process requirements in its actions than the Bush administration.

    I do think that it would be well nigh impossible for Obama to veto legislation coming out of the next Congress reversing this travesty of bill, but the question remains whether the political will exists int he Congress to push remedial legislation through.  I'm afraid without a change in leadership in both houses, there is likely no chance.

    There is no political will in Congress (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:40:56 AM EST
    It will have to come from Obama. Something you agree is unlikely.

    Parent
    And if Bush pardons the telcos? (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:48:00 AM EST
    I see this hypothetical commission accomplishing next to nothing.

    The best thing to do IMO is continue making a stink in such a way that Obama will feel that he owes us a turn to the left on some other issue.  Maybe if we tell him he sold out, he'll throw us a bone on healthcare.  Make him earn the left's love.  

    And dreaming about FISA fixes from the executive Obama branch, to temporarily alleviate the pain, does not facilitate that process.  Not that BTD is doing so anyway.

    Then they can not be prosecuted (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:49:22 AM EST
    That does not mean we can not learn the truth. In fact, it would eliminate any invocation of the 5th Amendment by individuals (if I remember correctly, corporations do not have the prohibition against self incrimination right).

    Parent
    this will be the pet issue of the (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:01:31 AM EST
    ACLU if Obama is ever elected to the Whitehouse.  You might even see Obama deride the calls for invetigations as loony leftiness.

    I just don't see Obama prioritizing this issue--especially because he voted the other way.

    Parent

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:43:53 AM EST
    Well, if he chooses to go forward with this, that will be good.  But I doubt the Dem leadership that he would be working with (Pelosi, Reid) would be interested in seeing their clearly bad votes in a yet harsher light.  Pelosi and Reid will matter more to Obama I think; Feingold was not as ardent nor as powerful a supporter.  

    This was simply the dumbest issue for Obama to shore up his foreign policy cred on.  Letting Bush and the telcos get away with this kind of crap goes completely against his anti-special interest stance.  If this is how serious he is going to be about special interest groups then it will indeed be the same-old, same-old from him.

    Parent

    Reid voted no... (none / 0) (#118)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    ...but allowed the vote.

    Parent
    Probably Can't Be Prosecuted Anyway (none / 0) (#88)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    The Government is estopped from prosecuting people it led to believe were not violating the law.  If DOJ told the telcos that, then the telcos most likely cannot be prosecuted for any of this.

    Parent
    I disagree, really, but if you want to hypothesize (none / 0) (#106)
    by Belswyn on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    then I think that the thing Obama could do NOW that would mollify me is promise CRIMINAL investigations and CRIMINAL prosecutiions. My understanding of the bill passed yesterday is that it only gives retroactive immunity to civil litigation. If he "pledged" to pursue criminal investigations after the IG's report comes out a year from now, then I would feel somewhat better, athough given his reversal on his pledge to filibuster I'm still profoundly disappointed.

    Civil vs Criminal Charges (none / 0) (#119)
    by SarahSoda on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:08:21 PM EST
    I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that criminal cases are much harder to bring since the burden of proof is greater in a criminal case than a civil case.  So I believe the likelihood of that happnening to be nil.

    Also, question to all you real legal experts.... Before Bush can pardon the telecoms, don't they have to be charge with a crime first?

    I think it is going to be very difficult for O to undo the damage once he is in office.  How can he possibly argue that he wants the Congress to fix something he himself would not support when he had the opportunity?  And, I have this sneaky feeling that perhaps he wants these same powers... perish the thought... but it did occur to me.

    No, They don't have to be charged first. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Romberry on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    Nixon wasn't charged before Ford pardoned him for any crimes he may have committed. No charges are necessary for a president to issue a pardon.

    Parent
    Plainer (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:46:00 PM EST
    Barack Obama can pledge, if he is elected President, to instruct his Administration to comply with FISA, as it existed prior to the passage of the Protect America Act and the most recent Amendment, passed yesterday.......

    In other words "we" won't obey the law.

    Hey, why am I not surprised?

    Missing your point here Jim (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:20:38 PM EST
    The suggestion is that Obama could voluntarily agree to refrain from using powers that have been given to him.  Not that he would exceed his legal powers.

    Parent
    What does your grandfather think? (1.00 / 0) (#124)
    by halstoon on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    That seems to be your standard for judging the worthiness of an issue.

    If your grandfather had been the kind of man who doesn't think women should have positions of authority over men--like a lot of Southern Baptists--would you have thought the Democratic party should give in to that thinking?

    I just want to see how far you'll go to keep your grandfather in the party.

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#125)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    I find it interesting that you assume that, if my grandfather doesn't like Obama, it must be the product of some backwards attitude.  This seems to be a common way of thinking among Obama supporters.

    Be that as it may, if you don't want to constructively engage with the reasons why the Obama movement has alienated a significant number of long-time Democrats, I'd simply ask that you not make it personal.  Hey, this is a democracy, you can take the party in whatever direction you please provided you have the votes to do so.

    Your strategy of deliberately antagonizing people seems to be a strange way of securing those votes, but another common way of thinking among Obama supporters seems to be that they already have all the votes they need.  It never seems to occur to them that Obama is out pandering to all these various constituencies because he does, in fact, need to broaden his base.

    Parent

    I never said anything about your grandfather. (1.00 / 0) (#126)
    by halstoon on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:56:15 PM EST
    What I said was that with Obama the party would shed a bunch of ideologues and demagogues. I did not say it would shed all of those types who inhabit the party, and I did not say that all those who jumped ship on Obama fell into one of those two categories. You chose to bring your grandfather into the conversation, and you chose to make it personal.

    As for strategy, my goal is not to secure one single vote for Obama. I'm not concerned with changing your attitude, your grandfather's, or anybody else's. I come here--like everyone else--to read and react to interesting debate. I don't come here to convert anyone. If you don't vote for Obama, or if you leave the party, or if you hold your nose and help him out, I don't care. I'm only here to engage intellectually; you make your own decisions.

    As to why Obama has alienated long time Democrats, I think there are a lot of reasons. Beating the one Democratic superstar brand didn't help his cause. It's kinda like people not liking Jordan 'cuz he disposed of Magic or not thinking Bonds should have overtaken Hank Aaron.

    Another reason Obama has lost some party faithfuls is b/c he refuses to move to the left on some important issues, like guns, faith-based initiatives, abortion, and the death penalty, all of which he has been criticized for being too conservative on. People also don't like his healthcare policy, at least not as much as Hillary's.

    At least here at TL, much of the criticism is based on some sense that Obama is not a fighter, that he's not a true beleiver on abortion, or that he's simply too preachy. People don't like how much his speeches sound like sermons, and they don't like his embrace of faith in politics.

    There are lots of reasons why your grandfather doesn't like Barack Obama. He is not necessarily an ideologue or a demagogue, but he may be one or the other, or both. I don't know, and I don't care.

    What I do know is that I believe the Democrat party should move forward with Barack as their nominee, beleiving that any losses they suffer will be compensated for by burgeoning party registration and Barack's national voter reigstration drive.

    Parent

    Your comment (none / 0) (#128)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:04:52 PM EST
    was that you saw losing a big chunk of the Democratic Party as a good thing, provided it got rid of a bunch of ideologues and demagogues.  Presumably dropping California into the ocean would accomplish the same laudable goals, but I think it unwise to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  And since you jumped into the completely unrelated thread to suggest that my grandfather is some backwards-minded sort we can do without, don't try to act like you didn't want to make this personal.  You could have easily dropped that discussion.

    Look, periodically the Democratic Party needs to be rebranded and not everyone is going to like it.  Kennedy rebranded the party on some issues.  Clinton rebranded the party on some issues.  My question to you is, Obama apparently wants to rebrand the party too, but what does he want to rebrand it AS?  I can't seem to work out a coherent answer of anything except "Brand Obama."

    Parent

    I would describe Obama's brand this way. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by halstoon on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    Obama's brand of the Democrat party will be one built on community service and personal responsibility. He will move the party to the right on things like states' rights and faith in politics.

    The easiest slogan to sort of wrap his candidacy in is his mantra that 'change happens from the bottom up.' To that extent, when the people unite on a grassroots level, they can drastically change their environment and directly impact the allocation of their resources. It's classic power to the people without all the anger and bitterness demonstrated by people like Rev. Jackson.

     

    Parent

    I'm sorry (1.00 / 0) (#127)
    by halstoon on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:59:06 PM EST
    I meant to say there are lots of reasons why your grandfather might not like Obama, though there very well may be lots of reasons why he doesn't like him.

    Parent
    Congress voted him a law (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:58:42 PM EST
    that is to be used for protection of the country.

    I don't see where he has the right to decide not to use it, anymore than he has the right to not have the FBI pursue bank robbers across statelines.

    Parent

    My obscenely annoying friend (none / 0) (#129)
    by IzikLA on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:28:59 PM EST
    Who has obsessively supported Obama and trashed Clinton throughout this entire year has just told me that he's not going to support Obama because of FISA.

    I just needed to share that with someone!  Part of me thinks the everyday American person does not care so much about this, but problems are starting to add up and it's not even convention time yet.  He better get his act together quick.

    This post is silly (none / 0) (#130)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:52:33 PM EST
    First, Obama voted for the FISA bill.  If Obama had any qualms about the way the bill was written he would have voted "Nay".  Second, once a bill becomes law, it's his duty to follow the law.  I know Bush didn't do that, but to ask Obama to be like Bush is something no American in his right mind should do.  Third, let's all sing to Feingold:

    But hes got high hopes, his got high hopes
    Hes got high apple pie, in the sky hopes

    Fourth, never put your hopes on any politician, especially one who promises hope, change and unity.

    Highly Improbable! (none / 0) (#132)
    by jxstorm on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:45:17 AM EST
    If Obama becomes President, will the Congress actually stick together on issues like this?  Southern and Midwestern democrats that are conservative will make overturning anything virtually impossible?  Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Tim Johnson, etc, need I elaborate more?

    Parent
    Obama collapsed under minor pressure! (none / 0) (#131)
    by jxstorm on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:41:18 AM EST
    Why should anyone believe anything Obama says ever again?

    What Obama Can Do Now On FISA | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment