home

Beltway Dems And The Blogs: Which Is Which?

Example 1:

Single mothers gathered at the laundromat are all talking about one thing: FISA. Don't believe it? Then - unlike many left-wing bloggers and activists, known as the "net roots" - you're in touch with reality. . . . They claim to want to win, yet they're determined to malign the Democratic nominee for doing what he always said he would do: make compromises and find the middle ground.

Example 2:

[P]rogressives and Democrats are up to the same old internal sniping: single issue people bashing Obama for moving to the middle or voting a certain way on FISA. . . .

Example 1? Fox Democrat Kristen Powers. Example 2? Faux Progressive and Talking Points Memo Clinton Hater Theda Skopcol. More . . .

To actually treat either of these pieces seriously would of course be ridiculous. Neither Powers nor Skopcol knows a damn thing about what the FISA issue is about. A couple of silly people. But it is instructive of what has happened to some parts of the so called Left blogosphere. I do wonder though if Skopcol agrees with this from Powers:

Grow up, net rooters: You're going to see more Obama compromises with reality, more shifts to address what the real Democratic base cares about.

And if she does, is there any "compromise" Obama might make that might earn a word of reproach for Obama from her.

Speaking for me only.

< Obama VeepStakes | The Exploding Number of Federal Crimes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You are talking a WHOLE LOT of (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    compromising...

    re - example 1 (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    since when does Obama's original pledge to filibuster telecom immunity sound like a claim that he would compromise to find middle ground?

    He may have talked about post-partisanship and compromise on other issues, but NEVER on telecom immunity.  Exactly the opposiet on telecom immunity.

    Maybe Sen. Obama just disagrees w/ (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    you.  Isn't that what he sd.?

    Parent
    Yes, he did say that. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    What he failed to acknowledge is that just a few months ago, he agreed with us on FISA.

    Parent
    Wrong (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    He SAID he agreed with us. We all know that what Obama says isn't necessarily what he means. WORM!

    Parent
    See, that's where you're wrong. You weren't (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:20:02 PM EST
    supposed to be snookered by what he sd. initially.

    Parent
    Running that through my translator: (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    "Stop paying attention!"

    Yeah, I can see that on a bumper sticker.

    "Stop paying attention! Obama/Hagel 08!"

    Parent

    i though the campaign slogan was going to be (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    "Obama 08, Not as bad as McCain"

    or

    "Be afraid of the Supreme Court Nominees"

    Parent

    You're thinking of the Democratic (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    Congresscritters' slogans:

    "Democrats: Marginally Better than Republicans" ;-)

    Parent

    Bumper Sticker (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    You Have No Where Else To Go OBAMA08

    Smaller text: (h/t to lambert) STFU and send money.

    Parent

    No Where Else To Go (none / 0) (#99)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    They must have fished this one out of the archives and painted the OBAMA08  on, because progressive independents like me have been told this by Dems since Carter's first run.

    Parent
    Yes.... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    very rarely have I voted for someone I really liked for President.

    Parent
    Carter Was My First Prez Election (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    How inspiring!

    And I was much, much, more lefty then.

    Obama is my first time getting to vote for someone I want, but FISA has eroded some of that for me, and...well, we'll see.

    Since I've had much more experience being on the other side of "where else you gonna go?" than on the side of getting to vote for a major party someone I actually support, I feel a lot of empathy for people who don't support/respect/whatever Obama, and are feeling jammed up by the Dems.

    Parent

    And as long as it works (none / 0) (#148)
    by Nadai on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:13:07 PM EST
    they'll keep saying it.

    Parent
    I'm Contrary (none / 0) (#157)
    by daring grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    So it didn't always work with me.

    But then, too, living in New York, I've had some cover for not pulling the Dem lever (yeah! we still have the old mechanical machines in my district).

    Parent

    is there some clue (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    we are supposed to be watching for to know when what he says is what he means?  Is is a "secret" clue?  Is there some discernable facial tick I should be watching for?

    When will we know which version of anything he "says" is what he really believes?  When it's too late to do anything about it?

    Parent

    a secret clue? (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Josey on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    perhaps paying attention to Obama's middle finger when he scratches his face?


    Parent
    How Seinfeldian (none / 0) (#158)
    by daring grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    They did an episode where they were trying to figure out the meaning of someone who scratched her face with her middle finger.

    Obama and the Secret Clue also makes me think of the title of a Nancy Drew.

    Parent

    Maybe Sen. Obama just understands (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by esmense on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:34:02 PM EST
    which side the mainstream media is on in terms of this issue -- the one, of course, that benefits their bottom line and protects their long term interests.

    The new leadership of the Democratic party, that Obama represents, has only one constituency they believe they must please; the mainstream media. You won't find any distance between them and the MSM on ANY issue. (Name me one.) This faction of the party was terrified of Clinton in larbe part because of the MSM's disapproval of the Clintons. (Many are losers, Daschle, Dean, Kerry, etc., who have been pretty well whipped by the media.)  Having become afraid of the media, they believe that followinb the lead of, taking their cues from, the media is the best way, the only way, the necessary way, to success -- and they are determined to do so whether doing so leads to policies that serve the interests of traditional Democratic constituencies or not.

    They may be right -- that a Democrat who doesn't signal a willingness to serve the media's interests first and foremost hasn't a prayer of winning. They most definitely are cowardly. And who can deny that we have seen so far from Obama has been pretty cowardly repositioning?

    Right or wrong, as long as the Democrats are primarily serving the interests of GE and other corporate media owners, they aren't going to be serving the best interest of the country.

    That won't change once Obama is President, or the Democrats control the Senate.

    Because having decided the media is the master they MUST serve, Democrats will have to serve that master not only to gain power but to hold onto it, too.  

    Parent

    I didn't know that the real Democratic base (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    wants people listening to their phone calls and hates, HATES public financing of elections.

    I learn something new every day.

    I definitely don't want universal health care (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    Of course I want the insurance companies to have a seat at the table. What could go wrong?

    Parent
    Ethos dude (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:12:50 PM EST
    Ethos.

    For some Ethos = OBAMA!!

    Parent

    Ethos, Logos, Pathos, Cheetohs = Obama (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    C'mon, BTD, you're being coyly selective again to skew your argument.

    Parent
    You forgot ... (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:20:13 PM EST
    Eggos!

    Obama needs his waffles!

    Both of the political and breakfast varieties.

    Parent

    Has there ever been a similar situation (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    Where the government takes over a huge moneymaking industry? Insurance agencies, HMOs, how many other business models would take a MASSIVE hit from Universal Health Care?

    No wonder it's so tough.

    Parent

    winners and losers (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:58:01 PM EST
    oh there will be losers.

    But there will be winners.  And the progressive profiteer would do well to invest in a company right now that will provide electronic record keeping for providers.

    That's just one example.

    There's gonna be winners too.

    Parent

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    that corporations will stop being responsible for providing insurance to their employees.

    Financially, that never made a whole lot of sense to me, and certainly the insurance companies have been able to drive up the cost of health care to an amazing degree as a result.

    Parent

    Employer-provided insurance (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by sassysenora on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    has hurt US companies badly in the global market. universal health insurance would be a huge boon to multinationals. and it would slow the exportation of jobs to other countries since providing health care drives up the cost of employing US workers. lack of universal healthcare makes US companies and US workers uncompetitive in a global marketplace.

    Parent
    Bailing Out Chrysler? (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    The recent takeover of IndyMac?

    Parent
    Reminds of the Tom Paxton Classic (none / 0) (#113)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:35:07 PM EST
    Part of the chorus:

    "I am changing my name to Chrysler.
     I am heading down to Washington D.C.
     I will tell the power brokers
     What they did for Iacocca
     Is perfectly acceptable to me.
     I am changing my name to Chrysler.
     And I'm heading for that great receiving line.
     When they hand the million grand out,
     I'll be standing with my hand out.
     Yessir, I'll get mine."


    Parent

    nothing! (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Josey on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:33:52 PM EST
    >>>>I want the insurance companies to have a seat at the table. What could go wrong?

    Absolutely nothing! because THE ONE took care of that by promising us the health care debate with ALL the principals would be on C-Span.
    lol

    Parent

    Put me down for some torture (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    though not of myself of course.

    But seriously, I want my stance on the issues represented. And I am going to give them hell when they compromise in hopes that the next time they will think twice.

    Parent

    Said before in other (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    threads. Nothing wrong in changing your position
    or compromising where necessary. It's quite another to say that you didn't "change" your position, and virtually, pat you on the head as if you are daft. A cheating husband/wife does this to keep his/her lie going....Where is the breaking point for some. For me, it was way back in the primaries, with his inexperience and constant parroting among other things. He has done or said nothing that has changed my perception. I will vote my conscience and country this year (dramatic, I know, but real).

    Curious (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    And you don't have to answer, obvioiusly.  Who does your conscience tell you to vote for?

    Honestly, I can understand not voting for Obama.  There are plenty of reason's to dislike the guy and I would never tell someone who to vote for.  I don't understand voting for McCain - which maybe you aren't.  But I was just wondering if your conscience is ok with him.

    Parent

    Not in my threads you don't (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:15:57 PM EST
    No reply is permitted to this comment.

    No asking about how someone will vote.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    I didn't know that was one of the rules.  I will never do it again.

    Parent
    Just in MY threads (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    That question would hijack every discussion.

    Frankly, I wish people would not discuss their voting at all in my threads.

    But you can say how you will vote of course. But do not ask people about their vote.

    Parent

    I totally agree, BTD (4.00 / 1) (#131)
    by bridget on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    absolutely that qs would hijack every discussion -
    and it has on many blogs esp. during the heated primaries.

    Posters are so intimidated by those who rule or dominate the sites that they wouldn't make a comment without writing first something like "I am an Obama supporter," or "Clinton is not my first or second choice," etc. Folks who didn't make their voting preferences clear right away were given a hard time until they discussed their voting preferences openly.

    I have always refused to start my own blog comments with disclaimers no matter what it was ... not just on political blogs. It always amazed me from the beginning how many posters are so intimidated by others that they feel they must start out their comments with disclaimers every time in order to be accepted on blogs.

    Parent

    guess this one hit someone's nerve (none / 0) (#153)
    by bridget on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:59:02 PM EST
    pourquoi?

    just curious

    Parent

    I can think of a couple of other (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    themes hijacking the discussions of your posts.    

    Parent
    We can laugh all we want (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Jim J on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    at dingbats like Kristen Powers, but she is typical of the people in power in this country: Process over principles, and appearance over substance.

    I believe the Democratic Party was long ago co-opted as sort of a fake opposition party. The Obama phenomenon is the crux of this development, where we have supposedly "progressive" supporters routinely indulging in the kind of hate-filled, content-free rhetoric commonly thought of as the province of the right wing, all in support of a candidate who displays little more than contempt and condescension toward actual progressives.

    Sorry, but I think the only real hope is at the hyper-local level at this point.

    I'm not laughing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:09:09 PM EST
    What happened to TPM is distressing.

    Parent
    It's called the politics of false choices (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by david mizner on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    Also known as the Myth of Taking Issues Off the Table.

    They'd have us believe that we just hold our tongues while Obama take the FISA issue off the table, then we'd will magically be granted an advantage in the battle over "real issues." (Because the Bill of Rights and holding Bush accountable aren't really issues.)

    Of course the truth is, having shown nothing but insincerity and fear on FISA, Obama is now in a weaker position to fight on other issues. The Democratic base has dispirited, the GOP machine has been emboldened, Obama's brand has been tarnished. Please tell me, you twits, how that help us on other issues.

    Oh the stupidity is blinding (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    Frankly I expect stupidity from Powers. I used to not expect it at TPM. I do now sad to say.

    Parent
    I Believe Them About Nothing These Days (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:57:33 PM EST
    I want back up on anything that folks cite TPM for, even anti-McCain stuff.  They've proven they'll say anything to advance Obama, so what's to say they won't lie about other things as well.

    Very sad to see a promising source of alternative news destroy its credibility, but that's where that site is for me.  If they told me today was Monday, I'd check a calendar before I'd believe it.  Sad, indeed.

    Parent

    Um, YEAH. (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:10:11 PM EST
    Of course the truth is, having shown nothing but insincerity and fear on FISA, Obama is now in a weaker position to fight on other issues. The Democratic base has dispirited, the GOP machine has been emboldened, Obama's brand has been tarnished. Please tell me, you twits, how that help us on other issues.

    Expect nothing but crickets from Obama bloggers when you bring up this excellent point.

    I would love to know what these people expect from Obama once elected. What do they want him to DO? And do they really expect him to care what they want, if they don't hold him to account for his failure to stand up for them now?

    Parent

    Your Blog-Fu is powerful today (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:38:51 PM EST
    They want a mascot as "marketable" as Bush, only that's the Best Speechmaker Evah on Whattevah and they'll fill in content as necessary.

    Cross-reference those who micro-obsess over framing and re-framing "our" bullsh!t to be more powerful than "their" bullsh!t with a list of the most passionate online WORM brigades and there's not much difference in the two.

    A new Clown Speaker and a change in the doofuses working the fry machines at the mass media drive-through are not what I signed on for.

    I want to restore lost rights and constitutional integrity, not have new idiotic overlords.

    Parent

    I think they expect him to (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:09:02 PM EST
    cut an album, go on tour, and show up for the reunion show next year.  Isn't that what the American Idol winners do every year?

    Parent
    Add to them Hendrick Hertberg (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by catfish on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    Flip Flop Flap:
    The same week, Obama said he didn't think that "mental distress" alone was sufficient justification for a late-term abortion, prompting the president of the National Organization for Women to rebuke him for feeding the perception that women seek abortions because they're "having a bad-hair day." In "The Audacity of Hope," Obama had written that
    the willingness of even the most ardent prochoice advocates to accept some restrictions on late-term abortion marks a recognition that a fetus is more than a body part and that society has some interest in its development.
    The leading reproductive-rights group, NARal Pro-Choice America, defended him, pointing out that his views are fully consistent with Roe v. Wade. Flip-flop category: nonexistent.

    Obama also wrote that "certain faith-based programs" could offer "a uniquely powerful way of solving problems and hence merit carefully tailored support." Yet his recent call for an expansion of President Bush's program came as a shock to some, including the Times, which called the program a violation of the separation of church and state. If it is, it's a minor one, like grants to religiously affiliated colleges; in any event, this isn't a new position for Obama. Flip-flop category: shift of emphasis.

    Well he picks on the netroots too. But I had to get that excusing of Obama's stance on women's rights in there. Hertzberg also said weeks ago that sure, sexism exists but racism is much more important and urgent to address. I wish Hertzberg would go away.

    He quoted me without linking to my piece or putting my quote in context:

    If Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President.

    Hilariously, Hertzberg sent me a rash of furious e-mails when I quoted him a while back, saying I took him out of context. As a sign of respect for him, I edited my post to reflect his concerns.

    Too funny. Turnabout is NOT fair play obviously. Man, that is eye opening.  

    Parent

    Had no idea. Please write him back. (none / 0) (#37)
    by catfish on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    He is so in the tank it's absurd. And I wish he would go away.

    Parent
    Yes, Hertzberg is still (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    one more guy who can't be trusted to give a fair account of any matter involving Obama.

    Just look at the lame-brain account the man gives of Obama's flip flop on public financing. He says Obama hasn't changed his "'position'" but has broken a promise.

    So let's see, Obama is favor of public financing, but since he wants to make an exception only in the very special case of Obama himself, it's actually fine in a crucial sense -- and does not represent an actual flip flop, presumably -- because he hasn't changed his "position" on public financing?

    So according to this idiot Hertzberg, it's actually shows more integrity in Obama, and demonstrates less of a problem, if Obama is utterly hypocritical in how he applies his "position"? He's not "flip flopping" in any relevant way on his position if he excepts himself, purely out of expediency, from his own dictum?

    Really, how far into the tank do you have to be to imagine that this moral logic actually makes sense to someone?

    What a pompous fool this man is. He can rationalize anything.

    Parent

    Ryan Lizza another one (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by catfish on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    did you hear his interview on Terry Gross? So she asks Lizza about Obama's connections to Rezko. Lizza says that other politicians were starting to distance themselves from Rezko long before Obama bought his mansion with Rezko's help. But "the worst Obama could be accused of is bad judgement" Lizza tells Terry Gross. Hello? How about negligence? Rezko was gobbling up tax dollars to develop property and leaving residence in illegally substandard living conditions.

    Ryan Lizza somehow became political correspondent for the New Yorker and he's only 30. He didn't follow up on numerous threads in that piece. Like which is the real Obama?

    How on earth did Lizza get that job? He breaks no new ground and shares no new insight in any of his pieces.

    Parent

    Absolutely Not (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:02:01 PM EST
    A word of reproach? You may as well ask her to set herself on fire.

    You're right, though: There is very little seriousness in either piece, which should be a telling point as to what TPM thinks of the election in the first place: IT'S ALL ABOUT OBAMA.

    4th amendment? Nope.
    Supreme Court? Nope.
    Death Penalty? Nope.
    Iraq War? Nope.
    Foreign Policy? Nope (just ask Pakistan).
    Gun Control? Nope.
    Freedom of Speech? Nope.

    None of these matter. ITS ALL ABOUT OBAMA.

    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    It isn't a telling point about TPM, it's more of a reinforcement. We knew where they stood several months ago.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by standingup on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    I never thought I would see the day the constitution was reduced to a single issue.  

    Totally (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    All those pesky rights and amendments... who needs specifics? It's all the same big tub o' bathwater where some are concerned.

    Heh. It's just the set of founding principles that this country was based on. Hey, look! Something shiny over there that REALLY matters!

    Parent

    Classic comment, sums it up perfectly. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    "is there any "compromise" . . . (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    . . . Obama might make that might earn a word of reproach for Obama from her?"

    absolutely
    picking Hillary for VP.


    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    Hey wait a minute! (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    Grow up, net rooters: You're going to see more Obama compromises with reality, more shifts to address what the real Democratic base cares about.
    Weren't these "low information" voters/racists that Hillary Clinton had an advantage with?

    CHANGE (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM EST
    is the issue they care about now you see.

    Parent
    Change to Obama (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:12:48 PM EST
     No issue, big or small, is actually relevant in that context.

    As usual, Lambert has another pithy phrase for this. . .

    Parent

    Who is it here that quotes "the wheels (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    on the bus"?

    Parent
    And as BTD said, (none / 0) (#32)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:13:26 PM EST
    Obama's cave on FISA did not win over the Democratic base, which, like it or not, made up more of Hillary's voters than Obama's.

    So who is Obama REALLY trying to win over here?

    My guess is, he's trying to keep The Village's love.

    Parent

    What's wrong with a single issue? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    My single issue is the war in Iraq.
    I want it ended.
    My interest in Obama rests in his dedication, or lack thereof, to ending the war.

    I do feel that all of our other woes, the failing economy, the rise in oil prices, the erosion of the constitution and evaporation of our civil liberties can all be traced to the war in Iraq.

    But even if this were not so, it is the most glaring example of immorality in contemporary America. People are being killed. People are being tortured. It is a nightmare. This is the issue I care about.

    If Obama distances himself from people like myself who think about the war every day, who feel like they are living under a cloud, I find myself totally disinterested in whether he wins or loses.

    But, the erosion of our Constitution (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    started well before the war in Iraq.

    Parent
    Warrantless wiretapping (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    was in place BEFORE 9/11.

    Funny how that little fact is never mentioned any more.

    Parent

    What I was referring to... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    when I linked the loss of our civil liberties and the gutting of the constitution to the war in Iraq was the Patriot Act. FISA seems to me to be but an elaboration of this first legislative abomination.

    But I do agree that the erosion of our civil liberties has been under assault for decades.

    But, as I say, even if the passive acceptance of the loss of our civil liberties were not linked to the war in Iraq and the accompanying calls to patriotism, the issue I care most about is ending the war.
    It is the single issue that I need to be resolved before I can begin to think about anything else.

    Put another way - what does it do to us that we have become numb to the suffering imposed on the Iraqi people? Doesn't it affect our ability to function that we have accepted the media's  not speaking of the war, or of its' casualties - both American and Iraqi? My thought is that if our souls are numbed, they are equally numbed to domestic disasters like Katrina, like Walter Reed, like the treatment of our elderly.

    Parent

    If you're going to pick a single issue, (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:46:10 PM EST
    the war is a pretty good one, IMHO.

    But for me, the Constitution trumps all.

    However, one reason I didn't want Congress to pass the AUMF was because I thought it gave too much power to the President in terms of declaring war. (Of course, I was against the invasion in any case, because you know, Saddam didn't attack us. The WMD issue was completely beside the point and is no excuse for attacking a nation that did not attack us first.)

    So the war could also cover Constitutional issues, if you look at it from my perspective.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#128)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:19:32 PM EST
    If the Constitution had been respected the war would not be happening. I believe that Congress is the body that is granted the power to declare war.

    The reason I put the war first as my issue is a visceral one.
    When the "shock and awe" phase was under way, a ten year old child lost his entire family - his parents and his siblings - as well as his legs.

    I can't get the horror of this event out of my mind. I think of those who are experiencing losses of this sort every day. I think of the families of American soldiers as well.

    So as much as I respect your point of view, the Constitution seems relatively abstract to me.

    Parent

    Which is why Sen. Feinstein, (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:23:43 PM EST
    in reply to my e mail requesting she vote against the current bill, sd. we have to get back to the original controls.  

    Parent
    Sigh. DiFi, you didn't live up (none / 0) (#63)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    to your promise. :-(

    Parent
    Last word (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:29:35 PM EST
    I do not really care that much that these folks do not care about the FISA issue and its significance. They can care about whatever they want to care about.

    I do wish they would let those of us who do care express our views for why we care without being accused of supporting Nader.

    Not... (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    Not that there's anything wrong with that...

    Parent
    I get tired of (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:24:52 PM EST
    hearing that, if you express a position that is contrary to Obama's, one is supporting McCain.  I'm sick of the 'Republican shill' mantra.

    Parent
    And it makes us racists (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    and bitter and clingy, while voting for Nader would make us loonies.

    But really, we just would be folks with the axle grease clinging to us from under the bus. :-)

    Parent

    I don't mind being under (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:02:19 PM EST
    the bus.  I do mind re-traveling the route to round up those that have crawled out... I'm getting road rash from being dragged around.  :)

    Parent
    Dishonest (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    I get tired of hearing that, if you express a position that is contrary to Obama's, one is supporting McCain.

    It is not about expressing a position that is contrary to Obama's it is when every expression is contrary to Obama that it is hard to imagine that one is not supporting McSame.

    We get a lot of that here, you included if I am not mistaken.

    Parent

    You ARE mistaken (none / 0) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:01:51 PM EST
    I don't support either of the remaining candidates.  Never have, never will.  I'm not interested in McCain in the least.  I have expressed that I am in a position to vote for McCain if I choose to take a swipe at the Dems and make a protest vote because I live in CA and it will vote for Obama so in this instance my vote is a big BFD.

    Parent
    Change The Subject? (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:33:16 PM EST
    No one claimed that you were actively supporting McSame.

    I get tired of hearing that, if you express a position that is contrary to Obama's, one is supporting McCain.

    What I pointed out is that it is dishonest to make believe that you, or others, are unfairly being called McSame shills etc, for only made a single comment contrary to Obama position.

    My point is that many here, including you, bash Obama with almost every comment you make (thousands of them), and have never said one positive thing about him. Many of the same commenters also defend McSame.

    It seems natural for any reasonable person to assume that such commenters are campaigning for McSame.

    Parent

    *Sigh* (none / 0) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:13:31 PM EST
    No, not a reasonable person.  A reasonable person can understand that when someone says they don't support either candidate they mean -- wait for it- -- wait -- it's coming -- they don't support either candidate.

    It's only in playground politics that everything your side does is genius! and everything the other team does is eeeeeeeevil.

    Parent

    Not My Side (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    My comment stands. Many here are still in playground politics. Not me, never was, never will be.

    Parent
    McCain shill (none / 0) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:04:08 PM EST
    I saved this one for those that go around calling others McCain shills.... here's a real shill.

    Parent
    It's a silencing mechanism (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    Funny, I was in the laundromat this AM (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    and 3 single mothers asked me about the FISA bill. One donated a buck to my campaign to unseat Herb Kohl in 2012.

    Not everyone does their laundry (none / 0) (#105)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    in Madison!

    Parent
    Not everyone in Madison (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:07:55 PM EST
    does their laundry.

    Besides, I've been noisy about Gov't spying issues since before the passage of the original FISA, so I tend to attract those who care.

    Parent

    Would that be the laundromat AND (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    computer cafe off State Street for the creative class?  'Nuff said. :-)

    Parent
    No, worse than that. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:33:07 PM EST
    Just off Willy Street.

    Still, ironic that the quoted piece refers to Laundromats.

    Parent

    The problem with this argument (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:44:36 PM EST
    "Single mothers gathered at the laundromat are all talking about one thing: FISA. Don't believe it? Then - unlike many left-wing bloggers and activists, known as the "net roots" - you're in touch with reality."

    Single mothers, and other "average dem voters" (which is what I imagine they are trying to say when they use the term single mothers) are talking about whether or not they can "trust" a candidate, so in essence, yes, they are also talking about FISA.

    In which I defend Markos (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:55:52 PM EST
    Though I'm sure he has defended himself from this idiocy. From Powers:
    Said Moulitsas: "I'm not ideological at all. I'm just all about winning." Yet there he was blasting Obama on MSNBC last week for his FISA vote, saying he may be one of those "spineless Democrats who are . . . afraid of controversy."

    She seems to think there is a contradiction here, since she seems incapable of understanding that spinelessness is what makes Dems lose, even when the public agrees with them on the issues.

    LOL! (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    Markos has hated Clinton for years.

    This was not about winning the GE, it was about Beating The B*tch.

    Period.

    And he's not alone.

    Parent

    That is true, but (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    he has also railed about Dem spinelessness costing them elections for years.

    I wish he hadn't suspended that part of himself for the duration of the primaries.

    Parent

    Markos is a single issue activist (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    and his issue is hating clintons.

    Parent
    As I said (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:59:55 PM EST
    The pieces are too ridiculous to even address in serious fashion.

    Parent
    I had never even heard of her before (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:13:57 PM EST
    I'm glad you have been taking the bullets for the rest of us.  Next time I will heed your warnings about the burning stupid and not even click the link.

    Parent
    I have to wonder how many laundromats were (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:23:25 PM EST
    visited to support her view. I do go to the laundromat on a fairly regular basis. I can't actually say I've ever heard a political discussion in a laundromat in my neighborhood.

    The Constitution is a single issue. Funny how many people died to obtain and preserve what was contained on that "damn piece of paper." Strange that the only requirement contained in the Congressional oath of office is to swear (or affirm) to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States.

     

    Blogs (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    I read blogs because I want to hear the truth. I gave on MSM with Bush. They caved in to him on every issue. NYT withheld info on wire tapping. Almost all MSM joined in propaganda of war. The list goes on and on. There was a significant period of time under Bush where any questioning of decisions was paramount to treason. The last thing I want to see is for the progressive blogs to become the water carriers for Obama or anyone else.  

    Powers' op-ed was so offensive that (4.83 / 6) (#112)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    I couldn't look at the other one.

    What I would give for mainstream writing, commentary and reporting that had some basis in reality...

    I am tired of being called stupid because some issues actually matter to me.  And I am tired of people like Powers thinking she can mock the single mother who uses a laundromat in order to - she thinks - prove her point that no one cares about FISA.

    She doesn't get it, and it's a pity that someone is paying her to write that drivel.

    Am I too Special and Interesting to be a Dem? (4.66 / 3) (#120)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    single issue people bashing Obama for moving to the middle or voting a certain way on FISA

    What drives me crazy about this lazy disparagement is the arrogance of presuming that invividual voters are voting (or will vote) "wrong" unless they -- we, I, you -- don't, en masse, turn our proxy over to some doofus in short pants media or some wrangler in a political party who'll vote "correctly" (whatever that expediently is at the time.)

    We are to turn over money and proxy when contacted and let the playahs play.

    It would be helpful to STFU except when required to read a pre-scripted outrage to the targets, often whimsically choicen, of the playahs.

    Sitting around quietly and respectfully like lumps is preferred to dissenting or disengaging, as that deprives the speechifiers of their rightful golf-claps and ad revenue in their noble climb to the bigger halls of greater influence to fight "the politicians in DC" and the knuckle-dragging "single interest" Straw Tribes.

    Lamentably, it still has to be pointed out to these aspiring kingmakers and lever-pullers that it's not their call to make on whether a voter belongs to the Straw-Tribe of "single issue people" and uses his or her franchise that way, or on frivolities like haircuts or skin color, or even because Obama got on their kewlness radar somewhere between the iPhone and rechargeable electric scooter as the Omigod I Totally Want That like Yesterday!!!! status symbol to show off to the other cookie-cut renegades.

    I became a post-pie-fight broken record on reproductive rights at Cheetoh HQ out of sheer bloody-mindedness. I was sickened by the knee-jerk Fauxgressive trend to trivialize multi-tiered constitutional issues and basic human rights to flatter the aspirations of influence that "objective" aspiring lever-pullers (all those Stay At Home Mommies and Daddies Who Blogged Against Reproductive Rights) importantly needed to OMIGOD HAVE LIKE YESTERDAY!!!

    Hmm, let's see, how to exercise one's choice ...

    (a) shunt aside the ongoing battle to protect, affirmatively, several amendments to the Constitution from continual erosion by extra-judicial, extra-procedural persecution and influence (assisted by playing the "refs" in govt and media) or

    (b) flatter a handful of "A-List" bloggers' need to do the Crotch-Grab of Victory when This Candidate gets in over That Candidate, and then lemmingly indulge the same bloggers' NetRootz Amnesia when they denounce who they picked as being a traitor to all that was good and decent in society, and demand that supporters grab the rakes and light the pitches and form an ugly (flash)Mob.

    Phew, tough one.

    Abortion rights, reproductive rights, religious and moral freedom of choice, franchise, privacy, security of the person, dominion of the body --

    Geez, are we at the Fourth Amendment already?

    The pro-choice "position" could only be labeled extremist on a planet made of orange cheese dust and the de-facto elimination of the FOURTH FREAKIN' AMENDMENT as a centrist thing they temporarily have to adopt or their candidate of the moment won't get media strokes.

    Yesterday's Dem the Fauxgressives had to have at all costs was Joe Lieberman -- and Mary Landrieu, and other "Blue Dogs" -- who have worked tirelessly to decalcify the vertebracy of the Dems.

    Today's Dem they have to have at any cost and vowing to dissolve Dem backbone more efficiently is Barack Obama.

    Me, I'll hang onto "my" issue, thanks.

    I'm sticking by my guns (so to speak) to protect global human rights and the neutrality of publicly owned spaces over personalities, parties, and neon fake cheese-colored pointers laughably inclined to provide wrong directions because they shift with the winds.

    Unity (4.66 / 3) (#123)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:51:17 PM EST
    Unity is about believing no issue is worth fighting for.  Yes.  That's what Obama has been telling you.  Don't be surprised, and don't be upset.  You cannot trust Obama that he'll fight for anything.  He has never fought for anything, and he has no fire in his belly for anything other than his desire for higher office.  If he were to win the WH, he'd be looking for a position as the head of some world empire.

    Larry? (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:04:07 PM EST


    Yes? (none / 0) (#26)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:11:50 PM EST
    A judicious reply. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:12:44 PM EST
    Judicious is my middle name. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    If you want a response to the post, this post attacks the nudnicks in the blogosphere / mediasphere.  While I'd like to see BTD take a more responsible approach to attacking Obama there's never a bad time to slag off the blogosphere in my opinion.

    Parent
    Could you point to my (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:20:37 PM EST
    irresponsible approach to "attacking" (your word, I prefer to refer to it as constructive criticism) Obama?

    Parent
    I have no interest. . . (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:23:57 PM EST
    in reopening our contretemps of the other evening in which I stated that a reasonable person, reading the totality of your work here, could become convinced (as many of your followers here state explicitly) that Obama is uniquely disqualified from being President.

    Parent
    Why would a reasonable person conclude that? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:27:15 PM EST
    I think I am reasonable. And not only do I not think that, I am voting for Obama.

    Parent
    But reasonable people may disagree. (none / 0) (#67)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    You write your stuff in the context of your certain knowledge that Obama is, hands down, preferable to McCain.  But your readers may not start from that premise.

    Certainly your posts serve as a major meeting point for people nursing an unhealthy grudge against Obama.

    If you combine your fairly relentless arguments that Obama is a compromiser and nothing more than a normal politician, having no dedication to core constitutional principles with the more severe attacks that take place, often unchallenged, in the comments you get a soup that might well lead someone to believe that it isn't worth coming out to vote for Obama.

    That, at least, is the gist of the contretemps I have no interest in reopening.

    Parent

    There is nothing unhealthy (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:39:28 PM EST
    in finding Obama unqualified, unelectable and illegitimate as a presumptive nominee. In fact, reasonable people can disagree about these things, and base their assertions on facts.

    I wholly reject the meme that people who will not vote for Obama have something wrong with them. I also don't think that people who WILL vote for Obama have something wrong with them.

    People not respecting each others' choices, and giving in to hysteria about both candidates, has led us into the morass we have now.

    I hope you will reconsider your language here.

    Parent

    Well, in the context. . . (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    There is nothing unhealthy in finding Obama unqualified, unelectable and illegitimate as a presumptive nominee.

    of partisan Democratic politics it certainly is unhealthy to find those things.

    In the general context of reality it is also unhealthy to find those things, since they don't exist.  Obama is qualified (he's over thirty-five and a natural born citizen), he's electable (having led every poll against McCain), and he's the legitimate presumptive nominee as determined by the primary process and recognized by all his opponents, not withstanding that I voted for someone else.

    And, BTD, this is what I'm discussing.  Are these attitudes you feel comfortable providing a home for?

    Parent

    This is an open forum (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:57:56 PM EST
    for folks who comply with the myriad of rules we have here.

    Let me blunt, if you think folks expressing those opinions did not form them before reading ME, I have a bridge not far from you to sell you.

    IF I channel their predispositions to focusing on issues when critiquing Obama, I think a step forward has been taken.  

    Parent

    Well. . . (none / 0) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    Let me blunt, if you think folks expressing those opinions did not form them before reading ME, I have a bridge not far from you to sell you.

    you seem to believe that it is simultaneously critically important to influence the public debate with your writing and that you have no influence over people's opinions.

    Certainly a number of people have arrived her with virulent anti-Obama attitudes.  But I do believe that your writing at least hardens those attitudes while possibly swaying others who aren't already in the "anyone but Obama" camp.

    I tend to think the influence of the blogosphere is overrated, but if you think your writing has influence you need to accept the responsibility for the attitudes it influences, good and bad.

    Parent

    I just explained what I think (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    is positive about my influence on those predisposed not like Obama - that they will focus their critiques on ISSUES.

    Holding Obama's feet to the fire on issues is good, whomever it comes from.

    Parent

    Yes it is... (none / 0) (#97)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    and if Hillary were the presumptive nominee, and she voted for telecom immunity, the outrage and critiques would be just as warranted.

    Parent
    Do you understand (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    that these are your opinions? Why are your opinions any better than mine? Because of "unity?"

    The facts behind my opinions are:

    Obama is not qualified. He has hardly any government experience and no foreign policy credentials. The country is on the brink of disaster and we cannot afford a newbie right now.

    Obama is illegitimate. He did not win the nomination according to the rules of the DNC. In fact, he has not won it yet. Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but I do not follow along with HRC's endorsement of Obama. She is doing what she has to do.

    Obama is unelectable. See: Wright, Jeremiah. (That is an opinion backed "only" by the results of the primaries, in which the Democratic base rejected Obama in every swing state. Nonetheless, it is an opinion.)

    Yes, I think BTD should "allow" these varying viewpoints to exist on TalkLeft. But of course, it is completely up to him and he can ban me if he so desires.

    Parent

    you sound as though (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    you are afraid that giving voters additional information and analysis about Obama that isn't "glowing adoration" might actually cause them to think about whether they should support him or not and that it would be dangerous for voters to be allowed to make their own decisions if they might not come to the same conclusion as you.  Based on this possibility, you would like to hide all criticism of Obama from the general population.  It sounds like "soviet style" information handling to me.

    Parent
    I am afraid that. . . (none / 0) (#76)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    giving voters an unbalanced view of any candidate may unduly affect their feelings about that candidate.

    If you click on my comments and read them, you'll see I have no problem criticizing Obama and do so frequently -- but within the context of understanding that he's far, far, far, far better than McCain.

    Comrade.

    Parent

    again, it's only your opinion (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    that he is far, far, far, far better than McCain.

    I personally feel he might be more dnagerouse than McCain for two reasons.

    1.  A dem congress would find it harder to be a "check" against a dem president than a republican president.

    2. I feel rewarding Obama and the DNC for their tactics this year would only encourage those tactics again in the future.


    Parent
    It's not only my opinion. . . (none / 0) (#95)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    it is, I believe, the official editorial policy of this web-site, as well as the opinion of each of the official contributors.

    Parent
    Maybe BTD will add a header to (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    each post stating:  I am voting for Barack Obama.  

    Parent
    Not even the point (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    Frankly, I do not consider engaging folks who are considering voting for McCain on their votes. Too me, that is too surreal to contemplate.

    I am talking about ISSUES. Every time. In every post.

    Larry wants a critique of McCain from me. Well here it is for those watching - he is promising Bush's Third Term.

    Nuff said as far as I am concerned.

    Parent

    Wouldn't matter. . . (none / 0) (#94)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    I think people know that BTD is voting for Obama and, furthermore, that he believes anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a nitwit.

    But even if he states that, if the gist of his argument is how awful Obama is it can't help but assist Obama's opponent -- McCain.

    BTD did the same thing in the primaries -- he was the supporter that Obama probably would most have liked not to have.  In that case BTD's anti-Obama support of Obama benefited my candidate (Clinton) so I was kind of tickled by it.  Now, however, it's getting serious.

    Parent

    I wrote it before he WAS a candidate (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:19:50 PM EST
    You wrote what? (none / 0) (#106)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    That you were voting for him?

    Parent
    My essential critique (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:36:12 PM EST
    See "What Obama Needs To Learn"

    Parent
    "Assist McCain" how? (1) By providing (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:41:59 PM EST
    McCain campaign with ammunition they somehow missed?  (2) By inadvertently persuading readers here that McCain would be a better option than Obama for President?  I don't think the effect of BTD's writing is to cause either result.  I agree w/you the people who say they won't vote for Obama may find solace and safe harbor in BTD's threads because he ignores them.  

    Parent
    Don't worry, you are providing enough (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    unbalanced views of the presumptive turkey that a lot of other "unbalanced views" are being drowned out.

    Parent
    Since at least half my comments. . . (none / 0) (#86)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    are slaps at Obama, I'm not sure how my oeuvre as a whole could be considered unbalanced.  And I certainly don't think anyone would accuse me of "drowning out" anyone else.

    Parent
    I thought in was your middle name (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    Hey Larry (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:14:24 PM EST
    I think you are possible the only Larry commenting in all of the blogs.  

    Parent
    Nay, I think there were. . . (none / 0) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:16:18 PM EST
    at least two others at various times on Daily Kos -- a "dancing Larry" and someone else.  But it is true that Larries are about as rare as common sense on the blogs.

    Parent
    Dancing Larry (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    How could I forget him?

    Parent
    We are all Larry now. ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    I'm Larry. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:24:22 PM EST
    And so's my wife.

    Parent
    Is Hussein your middle name also? (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:30:13 PM EST
    I promise you. . . (none / 0) (#56)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:25:03 PM EST
    no one would ever confuse me for Dancing Larry -- or Dancing-anyone-else, for that matter.

    Parent
    Loved his stuff. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    Cue the marching hordes (none / 0) (#43)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:17:58 PM EST
    of new Larryxxx troll names.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    Look at the "ninnies at Balkinization. Not to mention the ACLU, Russ Feingold, etc.

    I think it's bedtime there (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    There are only two kinds of time?  Laws depend on what time it is?  This sounds like it was written by a bad philosophy student trying to get in their professor's pants.  I love he quote from the historian used as some kind of support: "Time feels like an essential and defining feature of human life, yet when pressed to define it, we inevitably fall back upon duration, change, and ultimately, the tenses of our languages, past, present, and future."

    Um, well, perhaps we should fall back on reading feces.  Seriously, is this piece a joke?  What is time?  Hell, what is a watch if you can't explain time?  The whole clockmaking industry is at risk.  Meetings, schedules, starting times for cock fights...it's all in peril.

    If it's possible to have thoughts without thinking, I think this is it.

    Parent

    And they are right (none / 0) (#111)
    by s5 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    People largely don't care. Polling confirms it. FISA doesn't show up on the list of issues that people care about, and 75% of people don't think their lines have been tapped (and another 10% aren't sure), thus they're not inclined to care.

    Now I would agree that it's a bad thing that people don't care (more political engagement is always preferable to less), but it doesn't change the fact that people are voting for different reasons than FISA.

    And when you get down to it, FISA is one of those issues for the privileged (and yes, I include myself in that group) to care about. When your main concerns are getting through the month and paying your bills, things like FISA begin to look very abstract and irrelevant. Especially if you don't believe it has any effect on you.

    This quote in particular:

    Ridiculous: The average American voter can't describe what FISA is.

    has it exactly right.

    So, I agree that Obama shouldn't have compromised on FISA, but I also see exactly why our side failed to stop it: because the public doesn't care. If you want to stop things like this from happening, you have to do the hard, long-term work of building a public mandate for civil liberties. It's like progressives are trapped in some mindset that if a small group of activists scream loudly enough, that everyone else will instantly see why this important matter of principle is so much more important than everything else going on in the world. It just doesn't work that way.

    If an issue doesn't affect people personally, they won't care until they're persuaded why they should care. In the case of global warming, it was Al Gore and a series of high profile events (like Katrina and peak oil) that changed people's outlook. Civil liberties as an issue doesn't have anything like that, and until groups like ACLU figure out that they need to do a better job of educating the public, the movement is always going to be reactive and playing defense.

    Of course, you'll dismiss this post as "silly" and "ridiculous". It's much easier to blame politicians than it is to do the hard work of persuading the public to push politicians to do the right thing.

    Of course (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    I never claimed, indeed NO ONE has claimed, that it was a top issue for voters.

    So yes, your straw man is as silly and ridiculous as the articles I link to.

    It is much easier to create a straw man than to actually address the issue and the reasons why peole are criticizing Obama on this - to wit, he refused to "do the [rather easy] work of persuading the public" on the issue.

    Of course, your comment and argument raises the question - since no cared about this except a few of us, why not just pander to us? Why did Obama kick the only people who care about this in the teeth?

    Parent

    In addition to being tired of (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:10:52 PM EST
    the mindless drivel that people like Powers are getting paid to write, I am also tired of this attitude that we needn't worry our pretty little heads about these complicated issues like FISA because polls tell us that no one cares anyway.

    Well, I care.  And I care because it does matter. And it probably matters more because people like Powers see it not as a real issue, but as some pesky impediment to the coronation of her preferred candidate.

    Ugh.  It's all just so disgusting and irresponsible and antithetical to keeping the democracy healthy.

    Parent

    Well, we know (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    it was an important issue for the liberal blogs because most of them and their commenters were gobsmcked when Obama changed his vote.

    This damage control by the cleanup crew is making matters worse.  Bullying and feeble excuses will NOT work.

    Parent

    How long have you been (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    reading posts here?  I wonder when I see this:

    It's much easier to blame politicians than it is to do the hard work of persuading the public to push politicians to do the right thing.

    That's exactly what BTD has been advocating.

    Parent

    Issue vs party (none / 0) (#137)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:22:19 PM EST
    There was a discussion at dkos a couple of years ago that I've been thinking about lately because at the time it really illuminated for me the strategic thinking or lack of it that can be followed in terms of advocating narrowly for specific issues versus advocating at a broader ideological level (i.e., by supporting one party over another), so I just dug it up and reread it. Parallels to the current situation aren't exact, of course, and there are some ironies to be found in it, but I think the long versus short term strategic thinking expressed in it is still valid and definitive, especially since what's at stake now is an Executive with enhanced powers supported by a Congress of his own party as opposed to merely a Senate majority leader. There are lots of hidden comments, but I think the general sense of the discussion still should come through for those who are interested.

    LINK

    Completely different discussion (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:25:26 PM EST
    I see no relevance.

    Parent
    It's a question of (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:36:48 PM EST
    who is enabled to call the shots.

    Blind adherence to the leader is a mistake.

    But at some point tearing down the preferable politician's positives for the sake of an issue, particularly in a close race, is also a mistake. And you know his vote on FISA infuriated me. But I agree with what Larry is saying here. It's a matter of balance, and of being careful to keep longer-term strategic goals in mind as well.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#144)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:57:38 PM EST
    It's a matter of balance, and of being careful to keep longer-term strategic goals in mind as well.

    Then a more credible candidate should be the nominee.

    I don't believe Barack Obama.

    Parent

    Speaking of credible... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    What do you think the chances are at this point of anyone other than Obama being the Dem nominee?

    Realistically. A number please.

    Or are you just dealing in fantasy and indulging your sense of pique?

    Parent

    I see what I see (none / 0) (#139)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:28:50 PM EST
    And I see strategic parallels. Inescapable ones.

    How can you not?

    Parent

    Kristen Powers rocks. (none / 0) (#149)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:21:08 PM EST
    I said the exact same thing when the issue was going down, so it's nice to know that I'm not alone. Powers understands that the 'roots are not representative of the average American.

    I don't think she should have called you and your ilk emotionally stunted 5 year-olds or any of the other pejoratives she had for you, but she is in essence correct. You guys are all still beating this dead horse long after the American public moved on.

    You mischaracterize at least Powers' perspective. She never claimed to be an expert on FISA, so for you to dismiss her b/c you cliam she doesn't know a damn thing about the bill is irrelevant. She made zero arguments about the bill, and the one thing she did say was that those concerned with liberty should be skeptical of the bill.

    I've noticed that is a popular tactic around here. You take a statement or an argument, and instead of addressing the text, you choose to address some spurilous issue or concern. It may work to distract the audience, but it really does absolutely nothing to further the debate.

    As for not taking Powers seriously, there's no danger in dismissing her. All she said was that the party as a whole is not as lathered up as you guys about FISA. No doubt the issue will continue to reverberate in the secluded sound chamber you all largely inhabit.

    If she does not know what FISA is about (none / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    then who is she to comment on how important it is?

    You and she and the rest of you apologists should just leave those of us who DO KNOW what it is about fight our battles,

    Coming in and demonstrating your ignorance while throwing up straw men  does no one any good.

    You certainly win no respect from me. To be honest, I lose respect for you every time you insist on commenting on these you know nothing about.

    Parent

    Are you making the argument that you think (none / 0) (#154)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:09:42 PM EST
    the folks at the laundromat and the barber shop are talking FISA?

    I threw up no straw men. That was you, and I called you on it, and you hate being called out, which is interesting considering how much of your material is based on either promoting or chastising other people.

    You also like to think that you know the extent of others' knowledge base, which I find amazing. You are the only prominent blogger who I see doing that, and you do it all the time. You think you know what other people know. It's crazy.

    What I do know is that FISA is not an issue being discussed at bus stops, grocery stores, and water coolers. Those conversations are all about gas prices, food cost, and if we really linger, the mortgage crisis.

    I really think people 'in the know' like you could do more good by focusing on those three things.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:15:48 PM EST
    No one has ever made that argument.

    That is my point. Like Powers, you create straw men because you do not have a freaking clue what you are talking about.

    You and Powers et al need to do Obama a favor and shut up about issues you know nothing about.

    Parent