FISA Hold’Em
It has been a while since your have had a playable hand, and your supporters are antsy. But now you have a low pocket pair- the six of diamonds and the six of hearts. You push the betting pre-flop, and then it happens- the House flops an AK of diamonds and a K of clubs. You did what you could with your hand, but events beyond your control have left you in a really weak spot right now.
You are now out of position, you don’t have many outs, but the crowd is not cutting you any slack. Do you check, and try to limp into the turn to see what the Senate does there and on the river? That would be the smart play- the pot payoff is too low, the stakes are too high, and you need to get to the final table before you are in the money. Additionally, you don’t have much of a chip lead, as you spent the last few hours whittling away a really tenacious opponent, and while you eventually knocked her out of the game, others around you were growing strong as well, so you have to spend your chips wisely. But who knows, maybe something game changing will happen on the turn (a Feingold filibuster is sustained?).
Or do you, inexplicably, go all in? Just on the principle, and nothing else, because you really have no control over what the other players do and what happens on the turn and the river. That is what the crowd wants. They are catcalling and jeering, telling you to do it.
Choose wisely. Losing the hand will be bad, but knocking yourself out of the game before the final table would be worse, even if the crowd does not understand it.
Consider this an open thread, and no doubt one which will be marred by the inability to separate the politics of the FISA situation from the contents of the bill.
*** Update ***
Bonus poem my mother taught us all as we were learning to drive:
He was right, dead right
as he drove along.
But he is just as dead
as if he’d been wrong.
Michael D.
Fold.
shortstop
That is no doubt true. But since you demonstrated late last night that you have no idea what the contents of the bill actually are, resisting the urge to snark would have been the better part of dignity in this post.
Helena Montana
I posted this in the last thread too, but it certainly applies to this one, too.
I have given Obama way more than I can afford to, and would cheerfully have kept doing so, but his position on the FISA bill leaves me really dismayed.
Even taking that into account, he’s still a better choice than McCain or Clinton, but as far as I’m concerned, he just spectacularly flunked the first leadership test.
The Dangerman
You’ve got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk way, and know when to run.
Hey, that’s kinda catchy; I wonder how that sounds to music.
John Cole
I am not sure what else I can do- I have read
Greenwald, I have read Balkin, and it looks like so far the bill is pretty much a cave-in and near total capitulation. This Lederman post seems to be the best one.
It looks to me like the WH got everything they want, and the House Leadership decided to just give them what they want with a few minor concessions that Bush will probably ignore anyway.
It sucks, but I am not sure what Obama is supposed to do about this. Additionally, my only real comment on the contents of the bill have come in the form of calling it an epic failure on the part of the house leadership, and this remark last night in which I tried to somewhat put make-up on a pig:
That is the sum total of my postings on the content, and I oppose the bill. Not sure what exactly you want from me.
Dan
Yesterday’s “yes” votes are here, along with home page links.
James Hare
It still has to go through a conference with the Senate, correct? There are several Senators that have made it clear they won’t accept immunity in the past. As to expanded surveillance powers? Well I’d have to read the bill, but I think there’s a pretty good chance we’re stuck with something along those lines. Unfortunately, there isn’t some grand group of folks in Congress who are as devoted to civil liberties as we like.
Me, I’m most concerned about immunity. That’s been my concern from day one because it’s unlikely I’d ever be extended immunity for my own personal lawbreaking—that and the only way we’ll ever find out exactly what happened appears to be through lawsuits because the Congress either cannot or will not engage in oversight.
Asking for purity on this issue is probably expecting a bit much from our politicians. Really, I’m with John on this one. Wait and see what the Senate does. With luck this FISA compromise goes the way of the last one—dead in the water just like the last one because the House and Senate cannot reconcile their differences.
Balakirev
I was willing to toe the line and vote for Obama, despite preferring a far more progressive candidate, Edwards. But I’ve been uneasy about the people Obama has been gathering ever since his chief legal counsel posted an emotional plea for the forgiveness of Scooter Libby. Since then, we’ve heard that he’s hired a team of policy “experts” who are Very Serious People, mostly Conservative Democrats, and now…this.
So the vote’s off. I know my vote in the usual American way won’t count this fall, so I’ll either not vote at all for president, or write in Edwards. Four more years of McSame? It will be terrible. Catastrophic. And it just may finally touch the anger of enough Americans to get them to throw all the play-the-gamers out of DC, start up trials, and get good people, progressive Democrats, into the system in sufficient quantities to make a difference.
JenJen
If I understood poker analogies, I imagine I would have enjoyed this post.
Genine
Even taking that into account, he’s still a better choice than McCain or Clinton, but as far as I’m concerned, he just spectacularly flunked the first leadership test.
I understand how you feel. I am really pissed about his decision. The only reason I can think of why he did it is because of politics. He cannot afford to piss off superdelegates before his nomination is secure.
As Hillary supporters love to point out- they can change their minds any time between now and the convention. Sure, he has sway with the voters and he has some momentum, but he is still at the mercy of the Party Machine at this point.
I think its a tough call, but he did what he thought was best. He has the perception of power on his side, but he doesn’t actually have the power- yet.
I have no clue about hold’em. But I do know its easier to make judgments and pronouncements from the sidelines. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors?
Hell we still don’t know what Lieberman and Obama was talking about during that famous confrontation in the hall, out in public. Why would we know what goes on behind closed doors?
But it is obvious that the superdelegates Obama needs to win want this bill passed. And he cannot call them out in the media, charge them with being wimps, call them traitors and tell their constituents they people care more about the telcos than people and expect these same people to cast their vote for him in August. That might happen in Bizarro World, but not here, not at this point in time anyway.
nightjar
The contents of the bill are no doubt disappointing to many progressives, including myself. That is not the point we are arguing. The question is can Obama stop it now and the answer to that is no, unless your an idiot. Whining to force him to take a futile stand at this time is just stupid politics, and yes, again, Obama is a politician in the middle of a campaign for the POTUS, not for class president.
And in the current climate after 8 years of wingnut ideological governance, it would be political suicide for either candidate to paint themselves as ideological warriors, liberal or conservative (and Mccain is currently doing just that, hence the Newsweek poll of a 15 point lead for Obama). The American people just won’t stand for any more of that. And if you can’t see that then your just not paying attention, or blinded by self-importance. Save your indignance for when Obama IS the prez and screws up, not now.
You people are giving me a headache. I’m going for a long walk.
vg
For real, man. Like, what’s up with that clammyc dude on dKos? Offensively inane is the only way to describe it.
jenniebee
If this isn’t where you draw the line, where do you draw it?
I mean, when did the 4th amendment stop being a safeguard and start being a loophole? And when was it exactly, in your analogy, that the crowd and the chips started being one and the same?
What constituency exactly do you think supports this bill and would also ever in a million years support Obama, no matter how he votes on it?
Daniel Munz
I have to say, as much as I’m disappointed by this entire thing, it’s starting to seem besides the point. If you think the President is someone who (a) basically disregards the law and (b) is, as head of the executive branch, unwilling to prosecute others disregarding the law, it really doesn’t seem like passing a new law is going to work. At this point, we can all either just impeach the guy or just wait until he goes away.
John Cole
Pretty much. Even if the bill is passed the way the most progressive netroots voter wants, Bush will just issue a signing statement anyway. And since the Democratic leadership has taken impeachment off the table, you don’t even have the option you outlined above.
Otto Man
I do, and I did.
Laertes
Your problem, Mr. Cole, is that you brought reason to an emotion fight.
The people moaning about how Obama has let them down remind me of nothing so much as a teenage girl who’s shocked that her new boyfriend didn’t think to call her before school today. She now feels a little bit silly about having spent the previous evening doodling his name in her notebook, and she’s going to compensate herself for those feelings of embarrassment by indulging a brief snit.
Or maybe they’re more like a baseball fan throwing up his hands in disgust and stomping out of the stadium because his pitcher, in the eighth inning of a shutout, ahead six runs, just gave up a one-run homer.
Nancies, the lot of ‘em. We’ve got a smart, tough, serious-minded candidate, and he’s going to spend the next few months mopping the floor with Bob Dole’s retarded cousin. Come November we can all enjoy some great victory parties, and another round of them on January 20th.
There’s a lot of joy coming our way. Some people just can’t handle that.
The Dangerman
If it’s unconstitutional, won’t it be struck down by the SC someday?
As for retroactive immunity, GWB or the Telcos would be prosecuted right after pigs fly out my butt. Yeah, it sucks, but that’s the way it goes sometimes.
Bigger picture over purity.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Shorter first-time poster: “Nach Hitler, uns.”
shortstop
Look, John, this bill assuredly does not restore the “spirit of the law,” whatever the fuck that means, to “pre-Bush era” parameters. It expands warrantless surveillance powers in keeping with the Protect America Act, basically turns all judicial oversight into a show for the rubes and inserts huge honking loopholes against what court review does exist.
I am not arguing against your position that there was little Obama could effectively do to stop this in the House (although I will be watching his next moves with immense interest). I’m simply asking you to minimally familiarize yourself with the bill so that you don’t grossly mischaracterize it. That’s the least you can do if you’re going to blog energetically on this subject.
BFR
The administration doesn’t consider this legislation necessary in order to continue the eavesdropping program anyhow. As I understand it, they believe that the president’s Article II powers in wartime trump any legislation, so good bill/bad bill, it’s all essentially meaningless unless they’re willing to talk up impeachment.
What strikes me as really odd about this is that the congressional GOP is so behind it. “Let’s see just how much power we can invest in a future President Obama!”
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Disappointed? Sure. If Obama and the Senate can strip out immunity, though, I’ll count that as a win. Even more so than watching the GOP doing an insta-180 on FISA once Obama’s elected.
Cassidy
I thought we weren’t allowed to wear purity before Labor Day? I’m so confused by fashion rules.
MH
This analogy is complete strawman, excluded-middle failure.
RandyH
I am not sure that this is such a terrible “compromise” bill after sleeping on it, really. The part of the bill that so many seem to be upset about its the so-called “immunity” part. After a little review, it seems that this only relieves those facing civil lawsuits. It does not forgive any criminal liability of anyone in government or in the industry. They can still face criminal charges for past lawbreaking – if we have an administration willing to do the prosecuting. Some will argue that Bush will pardon everyone before he leaves office. Maybe he’ll try, but I doubt they could find everyone involved – and wouldn’t that be like publicly admitting guilt on the way out of office? Think about wht that would do to his “legacy.” And all of this this still doesn’t stop the facts about the past lawbreaking from being made public – which is the whole point of the civil suits going through the courts now.
The other part of the bill – the changes to FISA for easier surveillance by intelligence agencies – is, unfortunately, necessary when you’re in an election year against fear mongering Republicans who will stop at nothing – including engineering, assisting or just allowing another major terrorist attack in October. If such an event should happen and the Repub’s blame the Dem’s for not expanding FISA, the scared masses WILL go running to Grampa War Hero in November.
Keith
IMO, it’s a lost battle but not one worth getting so pissed off that we lose the war. The parallel to the right’s base regarding hostility to any compromise whatsoever is there (although not as all-encompassing), but it’s time to move on (no pun intended)
Ted
This is becoming a new genre of concern trollery. “Since Obama’s only 95% of what I wanted, and not 100%, THE WHOLE THING IS OFF! McCain will punish and teach you people!”
Are these people brand new to politics?
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
In this economy, you gotta earn those McCain golf balls any way you can.
eastriver
Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. Politicians don’t have to play the cards they’re given. They can effect the flop, the turn, and the river. If they can’t, they shouldn’t be in politics.
(And only an asshole would even think about playing a low pair with that board.)
Obama made a tactical decision, not a decision of principal. It was a huge mistake for many reasons, and a huge win for others?
Will it prove to be a sum plus or minus in the end? Who knows.
But misleading poker ananlogies will always be a minus in the end.
WereBear
Regarding the many who say they will throw away their vote so things get WORSE enough to get, maybe, better:
I think things are quite bad enough already. The latest polls show Obama up 15% over McCain, and that is what we want.
Ted
Not apparently what they want. They want a President McCain to teach us all a lesson. What we did to deserve that, I’m not sure.
John Cole
I have heard this somewhere else- I think it was phrased differently, though. Something along the line of “we create our own reality.”
128 votes against in the house. Not even half the caucus. But of course Obama could have changed all that. As it is now, at most only 32 will oppose in the Senate. But somehow, Obama could magically change all that.
wmd
I’m another disappointed Obama supporter. And I will be doing further volunteer work for him, and probably give more money to his campaign in the future.
That said both of these will be much easier if he shows some leadership in the Senate. He can make a clear case that extending the PAA into 2009 is enough to protect us; the immunity is just saying the rule of law isn’t important. Throw Kit Bond’s words back at him – disobeying illegal orders from the US government is what real americans do, have done since at least the underground railroad and the abolition movement.
He can filibuster. Dodds is down one helper with Ted Kennedy on the DL, so let Obama step up.
Huego
And on and on it goes. This really is the 9/11 of concern trollery. Seriously, has it ever, since the beginning of all internet traditions, been worse than the last 24 hours?Some people are totally fucking immune to issues of, say, trying to win.
Plan A:
(1) Win
(2) Fix Shit
Plan B:
(1) Gratuitously differentiate self from McCain on issue of national security in the minds of dimwitted but essential Ohio State fans, many of whom think you are both a bomb-throwing Muslim and pussy pacifist with a crazy Christian pastor
(2) ???
(3) Profit
I’ll talk a hot, steaming glass of Plan A, please
But, hey, having demonstrated himself so politically unsavvy and ineffectual in the primary, I’m sure he has no fucking clue what he’s doing and is just a big sellout after all.
rob!
we’ve built this system that punishes a politician for not doing everything we want the exact way we want it, then complain that they are spineless.
people have a right to complain about Obama’s take on the bill. i wish he had been more strident against it, and saying “i’ll look over it when i’m president” sounds lame to this die-hard Obamabot. i mean, come on.
but the voters who say “that’s it, i’m not voting for Obama! nyaaah!” are not looking for a politician to steer America away from the cliff Bush has us perched on; they’re looking for a personal savior. and no politician will ever be able to meet that standard.
maybe its good that Obama lets some people down once in a while, it keeps them from becoming too identified with the guy, too enamored. because when that happens, you find yourself running websites like hillaryis44.org.
BH-Buck
By a show of hands, how many here are going to vote for McCain in November (because of what Obama
diddidn’t do yesterday)?None? Oh, ok.
Question: Who are “they” and/or “them” that’s catching so much hell? I don’t see them anywhere.
Many people are upset by the happenings of yesterday, and rightfully so… who do NOT plan on voting for anyone other than Obama. These people, including myself, are getting tired of being lumped into the anti-Obama, pro-Hillary/McCain pile.
Could you people possibly take aim a little better. Or, at least, knock it the hell off?
Ted
Well, here is a good example:
And there are tons more in previous threads on this blog alone. And it’s getting really pathetic. They won’t even take the first step towards the ‘change’ they want (and the country needs), because it has turned out to be only 95% sufficient.
replicnt6
I think most of us have no illusion that Obama speaking out on this issue would have swayed enough dems in the House to sink the bill. However, we’d sure like to hear him speak out for what is right. Showing some spine is only damaging politically in the scaredy-cat-lily-livered-we’re-afraid-of-the-big-bad-republicans school of losing elections (cf. John Kerry). From where I’m standing, I can’t help feeling like he’s adopted some old-school dem advisors who are advising “capitulate, capitulate, capitulate”.
His response is weak, weak sauce. He say’s “I don’t like it, but I’m not going to put up even a little fight”. Yeah, that’s a great big political win. Forget those of us who care about the issue itself. It’s just not demonstrating strength or leadership.
He can’t afford to take time out of the campaign to fillibuster? That would be his campaign. It would get a ton of publicity, everyone would think Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It would be a striking contrast to McCain who has never stood up to Bush.
Your analogy, John, sucks. Folding when you’re probably going to lose is good poker. It’s often bad politics. In poker, it’s only the outcome that matters, not how you get there. In politics, it’s often how you get there. Did Clinton’s vote for the AUMF hurt her because it would have changed the outcome? No. It hurt her because she made a bad political calculation that it was going to pass anyway, and voting against it might be dangerous.
I agree with Genine, who says that perhaps Obama can’t afford to piss off and risk losing superdels before the convention. Even so, capitulating to your party’s congressional leadership shows neither strength nor leadership.
Of course I’m still going to vote for Obama, and contribute to his campaign, etc. But don’t ask me to respect his decision on this one.
Keith
Not with only 32 other Senators on his side.
Laertes
BH-Buck: Balakirev.
This has been SASTSQ.
RandyH
Is this only happening to me?
Every so often, when refreshing the page, a wide-format ad for Washington Mutual comes up in the rotation in the Pajamas Media ad column on the left side of the screen, widening that column and squeezing the center and right columns down considerably.
It’s annoying.
Ted
This is the same crap the GOP base is going through with McCain. What a great idea; let’s emulate their party base’s loathing of their own candidate due to ideological impurity. That’s a winning strategy!
Huego
BH-Buck, if people better aim at appropriate targets Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi, and you have a deal (with me anyway).
I think pretty much any disappointment with Obama is approaching hysterical, and the sheer volume of it (from the left) on the intertubes is gobsmacking.
Ted
No, it happens to me as well, on FF v2. Roger Simon screws up other people’s blogs as well.
PeterJ
Well some didn’t learn enough from what happened when Bush got elected and reelected.
Instead of having four more years for everybody, I think they should head for Special Ed. Cause I doubt they will learn anything more from four years of McCain.
BH-Buck
Ted and Laertes, arguing with such shallow people is no different thatn arguing with that pesky pro-Bush 28% crowd. The ignorant can’t be reasoned with.
But their numbers are small. I don’t understand why so many posts, so many comments, have come about over just a handful of idiots.
There is no helping these people. Is best to just avoid them.
wmd
If he speaks up, makes a strong effort to show a better “compromise” than the capitulation engineered by Hoyer he’s doing something different from “politics as usual”. If he doesn’t he’s demonstrating to an activist portion of his base that he will cave under pressure. he needs to drink some of his kool-aid and get out there on the floor of the Senate, say “Yes we can” stop immunity and stand for the rule of law.
He’s not lost my support. I still hope that he shows leadership in stopping the capitulation and offering a compromise.
EL
The choice is not between a candidate who is 100% of what I personally want, and one who isn’t. It’s between two candidates, and which one’s positions are more of what I want. I encourage people to see that these are two POLITICIANS who must make compromises frequently to run, to legislate, to govern. They are not our parents, idols or best friends. They will disappoint.
So the question comes down to “who is closer to my position?” Not even a contest as far as I’m concerned. Obama wasn’t my first choice, but he’s head and shoulders above McCain on so many issues I care about.
RandyH
This bill doesn’t make it to the Senate until next week. Who knows what will happen there. I suspect he will take the time out from his campaign to do a big performance in the Senate. But, most likely, the bill will still pass.
Helena Montana
No, we’ve got another weak, spineless, lazy Democrat who can’t be bothered to take the time to understand exactly what this bill does and to formulate a good valid argument against it. This reminds me very much of John Kerry’s flip-flop decision to vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. It’s a disaster.
Ted
Hope you’re right. But the wailing and gnashing of teeth at DKos and plenty of other major blogs, that comment thread a few below this one here with over 450 comments, etc, suggest they’re not that few.
Sojourner
If Obama can’t get ahead of a bill that the American public don’t want, WTF is he going to do when it’s a more controversial bill?
Laertes
Helena Montana says:
Well done. Go collect your golfballs.
BH-Buck
Ted, I don’t read DKos. And it’s probably good that I don’t.
Ted
Oh, lovely.
Newsflash to SoJourner: 90% of this country’s population doesn’t know what the hell this is about, if they’ve heard of peep of it at all. It just is not an issue that registers widely. Sure, it affects all of us, including the politically ignorant. But in a general election campaign, the population’s general political ignorance HAS to be taken into account in choosing your battles, or, you know, you LOSE.
Sojourner
Good for the left. If you want lock-step obedience to the party leader, join the Repubs.
John Cole
Every so often, when refreshing the page, a wide-format ad for Washington Mutual comes up in the rotation in the Pajamas Media ad column on the left side of the screen, widening that column and squeezing the center and right columns down considerably.
It’s annoying.
I will be rolling out a completely new site design in a month or so. It is on the agenda for July and August.
Many of the most vocal commenters are Clinton concern trolls who have not commented here since before Clinton conceded- MYIQ2XU is one of them. Sojourner, who I like, is another one who lurks here and has been here for a while and will probably pop up any time there is a potshot to take at Obama. We were probably linked in a Talk Left or Corrente comments section where most of the Clinton die-hards hang out and get their daily hate on, and they came over.
Other than that, we do have a lot of people who are already way to the left of any of the candidates save Kucinich and Gravel, and they have already, in their minds, gone more than halfway to meet Obama and/or Clinton or whatever centrist the party barfs up to run in the general election. So, for them, they really are genuinely let down by the events of the past week, and I understand where they are coming from.
That being said, I still do not think peiople have a realistic opinion of what Obama could have done, which I think can be best summed up as- “Not much.” The depth of support in the House and the fact that the leadership was in lockstep on this tells me the fix was in, and sniping at Obama because this went down the way it did looks to me to be the very definition of friendly fire.
John S.
Remember, Ted, that blogs are magnifying glasses that take the most motivated and vocal constituencies and amplify them to an unrepresentative magnitude.
The average voter who isn’t following this issue closely isn’t mad at Obama for his lack of leadership on it because they don’t care. People that don’t care won’t swarm blogs to say so.
Sojourner
The polls suggest otherwise.
So are you suggesting that Obama only need care about the parts of the Constitution the American people care about?
Interesting. Do we take a vote or how does this work?
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Because he’s had so much time to study it while campaigning and working on his Presidential platform.
I remain unconvinced this isn’t potential ju-jitsu on behalf of the Democrats. House passes bill, Senate strips immunity, House passes revised bill, Bush vetoes. Rinse, wash, repeat until January 2009.
Helena Montana
Go fuck yourself. I’ve given close to 1000 to Obama that I can’t afford. You’ll just have to understand that anybody who doesn’t agree with you isn’t some GOP troll.
corwin
The point is not so much about immunity. I, for one, would not be so troubled with letting the telecoms off the hook, at least when it came to civil penalties. The real issue is discovery. If the telecoms get immunity, there is no discovery, which means that whatever the administration did during its wiretapping stays permanently hidden. Given what we know about them, I think it is safe to say that a big part of their wiretapping program was more about their political opponents here, than about terrorists overseas. All that has to happen forward is for the courts to accept that the justice dept certified that the telecoms were acting at the behest of the government, and, presto, the whole program is buried forever.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Smart man. I second what John S. said too.
montysano
I’m not disappointed in BO. As I’ve commented numerous times: was he supposed to take a strong, principled stand while Pelosi and Steny cower in the corner? Was he supposed to stand strong with only Feingold and Kucinich watching his back? If he were to do so, here’s what you’d hear from the rightwing echo chamber in 5…4…3…2…1:
“Even the House Democrats understand the need to empower the president to keep us safe from terrorists. The only one who doesn’t seem to get it is Barack Obama.”
My father-in-law is a Methodist minister. Last week at a service, the woman leading the hymns suddenly veered off course to deliver a wide-eyed, trembly discourse about how BO is a Mooslim with terrorist ties and “America needs to wake up!!”. For sure, it was a wildly inappropriate thing to do, but she did it.
We just can’t afford to supply the flying monkeys with free ammo. I fucking hate, HATE, that Hannity and Limbaugh have that much control over the process, but that’s the world we live in.
Sojourner
Fair enough, John. Maybe he couldn’t stop the bill. So that means he should come out and support it instead?
Seriously, I do not understand his logic. Why not simply vote no and shut up? By actively supporting it, he comes across as weak and a flip flopper. First, I was against it, then the party I lead forced me to support it.
Hardly inspiring.
BH-Buck
John, if you’re sticking with WordPress and could use some help, I’d be glad to lend a hand.
Brachiator
I have given Obama way more than I can afford to, and would cheerfully have kept doing so, but his position on the FISA bill leaves me really dismayed.
Even taking that into account, he’s still a better choice than McCain or Clinton, but as far as I’m concerned, he just spectacularly flunked the first leadership test.
It’s really not about Obama’s failure. The recent Supreme Court decision on habeas corpus offered the country a way out of the excessive executive privilege mess, but somehow, for some inexplicable reason, the Democrats in Congress are addicted to failure.
There was no reason for this bill to come forward again, except that Bush (and others) are hot to try to get some wins in the last months of his term. And, for some strange reason, Nancy Pelosi wants to play Ms Machiavelli.
But this also puts Obama in the spot of possibly antagonizing the Democratic leadership when he is not in a strong position to do so. He is the presumptive nominee, not the president. And there are still Democrats looking for a way to dislodge him in favor of Clinton at the convention.
He is not the president yet. Perhaps we should stop acting as if he is totally responsible for the lingering cowardice of the Democratic Party.
So the vote’s off. I know my vote in the usual American way won’t count this fall, so I’ll either not vote at all for president, or write in Edwards. Four more years of McSame? It will be terrible. Catastrophic. And it just may finally touch the anger of enough Americans to get them to throw all the play-the-gamers out of DC, start up trials, and get good people, progressive Democrats, into the system in sufficient quantities to make a difference.
There are few things that irritate me more than the progressive wet dream that sitting back and allowing catastrophe to happen will somehow magically bring revolution.
The only thing that catastrophe brings is more catastrophe.
Anyone who sits out the election or votes for McCain will be complicit in the deaths of Americans and civilians in Iraq and possibly Iran. You will be complicit in the absolute increase in misery among your fellow citizens.
If you have progressive Democrats who can replace the cowards currently in office, bring them out. Bring them out now.
But stop pretending that you need the engergized masses to rescue you from your misguided fantasies.
PeterJ
Those that want a candidate who is 100% of what they personally want only has one option.
Run for office.
John Cole
I read DKOS. I think the diaries are often a must read. You have to watch out for the hive mind, but I like it over there. Often times I run into a lot of syrupy shit that makes me cringe, but other times you can find some quality stuff you would have missed otherwise.
As far as the front page, DarkSyde is one of the most under-appreciated bloggers out there in the blogosphere, period, and I also like McJoan and SusanG. Hunter is good, as well, but he is like my Jack Russell terrier- he does not know when to let go.
I also really like MYDD and Openleft and Booman. I dunno, I just like variety.
Captain USA
Shorter John Cole: Who cares about the Bill of Rights? Let’s gamble!
John Cole
In order for the shorter concept to work, it has to somewhat accurately but also sarcastically reflect what the longer piece stated. I oppose the bill, so claiming I don’t care about the Bill of Rights is, well, bullshit.
Ted
And therein lies a hilarious thing about your transition away from the GOP. You were used to rigid party unity behind the candidate (a winning political condition, as we’ve seen), and the circular firing squad of the Democratic party is new, and no doubt perplexing, to you. Welcome again! Perhaps we can throw this election too!
Seriously, though. The GOP base hated McCain before he got the nomination. Now, they’re ready for battle on his behalf, all the way. Wish we could pull that off.
montysano
We have a winner.
Horseshit. Then the polls are wrong. I don’t know where most of you live, but out here in flyover country, people have zero understanding of or concern with the issue. They’re more interested in drilling through the floor of their church in hopes of finding a cup of oil.
Genine
That’s pretty much my take on it. I will vote for him and contribute to his campaign and all and I hope he can get immunity removed from the Senate version of the bill. I am sad that he will vote for it but, since I do not know the full story behind it, I am not going to condemn him for it. I think those in power (and he’s not one of them -yet) are holding this over him.
Now, if he were President Obama doing this- I probably wouldn’t be so understanding. But let’s get him to the President Obama stage before roasting him over a pit.
Sojourner
I live in Ohio. The people I know do care.
Isn’t it a leader’s responsibility to educate people why they should care? Otherwise, he’s not leading, he’s following public opinion. I thought Obama was supposed to be a different kind of politician, one who was above the political BS?
BH-Buck
This is the one mom taught us:
The night was dark
The sky was blue
Down the trail
The shit wagon flew
A bump was hit
A scream was heard
John Cole got hit
By a flying turd
eastriver
128 votes against in the house. Not even half the caucus. But of course Obama could have changed all that. As it is now, at most only 32 will oppose in the Senate. But somehow, Obama could magically change all that.
Barack is the number one democrat in the country. If he had gotten on the phone and called every democrat voting for this and told them he was making a stand and they had to take his back the bill would’ve been defeated.
If he had threatened to do this last week the bill would’ve been defeated.
Leaders lead.
They effect the game around them.
Senator Obama made a decision not to lead, but to follow.
I don’t think you appreciate the anger, disillusion, and bitterness on the left.
Ted
Yes, I’m sure Obama could just give a speech that the networks may or may not decide to air, where he explains the ins and outs of FISA law and telecom companies (at this point the public’s eyes glaze over) and exactly what this is about. And they’ll watch, in rapt attention, instead of turning to whatever game they wanted to catch.
Good thing you’re not a political strategist.
John Cole
If he had threatened to do this last week the bill would’ve been defeated.’
We will be greeted as liberators!
The war will pay for itself!
Democracy will sweep across the Middle East!
Magical thinking is teh awesome.
Cassidy
Randy H- what you are witnessing has nothing to with web design. The influx of hysterical progressives is what has actually squeezed out the center and right. Think of it as electronic attrition.
Ted
Oh, and Sojourner? I’ve had enough of a “leader” who doesn’t give a shit about public opinion. So if you’ve come to the conclusion that Obama just follows polling about policy, see how that compares to the Bush “who gives a shit what the public thinks?” standard and tell me which one you’d prefer right now.
Elvis Elvisberg
See, this didn’t just drop out of the sky. The House passing a lousy bill happened after lots of work with the Senate, and there’d been public rumors that something was about to happen for a while.
I see it as, you have pocket jacks, the flop is three of hearts, seven of diamonds, ten of spades, and a notorious bully whose act is wearing thin goes all in. Call the son of a bitch.
(Why pocket jacks? Because people are hardly clamoring for this bill, it’s been out of the news for a while, and the GOP’s fearmongering just isn’t working like it used to).
The thing is, the Dems were kinda eager to fold here. Unless desire for campaign donations explains it all, I think there’s some secret reason why.
Sojourner
The telecoms broke the law under the direction of the president. Do you think a president should be able to break the law and give unconstitutional orders that impact your personal privacy?
Yeh, it’s rocket science, alright. Right up there with explaining why it’s bad to lie the country into a war.
Sojourner
The Constitution trumps public opinion.
ThymeZone
McCain hasn’t been raising, or spending, a lot of money. He hasn’t needed to because he did not have any elections he needed to win for quite a while.
That all changes soon. I maxxed out on Obama’s primary campaign and I will max out on the general too. I can’t really afford to put out $5600 for political contributions, but if I held back one dollar that I could have sent, and John McCain won, then I would have let down my country, and I won’t be in that position.
My opinion of anyone who would hold back money from the Obama campaign on account of FISA is that they are goddam fools and I am ashamed to have to share a party, or even a country, with the likes of them. It’s the same way I feel about people who think the earth is 6000 years old. I don’t believe in the melting pot America model any more. I now believe that the American experiment depends on the defeat of the stupid people, and I have no use for stupid people as a result. I don’t like sharing a country with them, I wish they’d go away and start a stupid country somewhere else. And if you are one of those who is barking that you’d withhold support from Obama over FISA, then I am talking about you.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Just posted that to the adjacent thread, and it needs to be here too.
I am not going to spend the day arguing over this as I did yesterday, I have other things to do, and I have said all I have to say on the subject. But my disdain for those of you who are on the wrong side of this is real, and considerable. You suck, and the only thing good about it is that there aren’t that many of you in the big picture. Outside of blogdom, your foolish and spiteful bullshit won’t have much if any effect. And that is a very good thing because the future of the fucking country depends on beating John McCain in November, and agita over this issue is a pimple on the ass of the things that are really important right now. You fucking people would apparently be content to see McCain win the White House in order to fully express your useless “outrage” on this issue.
America can survive the segregationists, the warmongers, the religious nuts, the Naderites, the Libertarians, but I am not so sure it can survive a full on coalition of stupid people if they all get together. Yes, FISA concern trolls, I am talking to you. You have joined the ranks of the stupid people who would put your emotional and foolish nonsense ahead of what is good for the country over the long term because you cannot tell a battle from a war.
RandyH
Isn’t it a leader’s responsibility to educate people why they should care? Otherwise, he’s not leading, he’s following public opinion. I thought Obama was supposed to be a different kind of politician, one who was above the political BS?
a) So now it’s not “polls” saying this, but “people you know.” Okay. You don’t know many real people I guess, because all most know is what comes from the teevee, where this doesn’t get reported. It’s a downer story. People might change the channel.
b) NO politician is “above the political BS.” That’s what at least half of politics is about. If you’re just learning that now, you’re forgiven. And I’m sure that if he gets elected, in spite of all the sniping from folks like you, he might have a chance to show us what kind of leader he is capable of being. Until then, he’s just a candidate- not yet a leader – fighting to win over the rubes, who are more concerned about many other things than what they see as the government “spying on terrorists.”
Ted
Shorter Concern Trolls: Why won’t Barack Obama use his bully pulpit that he doesn’t have yet, and never will after this outrage if I have anything to do with it!
demimondian
It’s actually a mixed bag—and Obama appears to have chosen a nice mechanism for splitting the difference.
The immunity provisions are a non-starter. The Prez can pardon for criminal violations, so that civil immunity provisions need to be stopped. But Obama seems to want to stop them—and focusing his fire on them is likely to work. The rest of the bill doesn’t seem so bad, though, and, frankly, in a lot of places, it’s actually an improvement.
So why not compromise on taking the parts where it’s better, and fight only on the parts where it’s unacceptable? I’m confused?
tim
Most satisfying, I must admit, watching Obama being revealed as just another craven pol with zero balls in the take a stand/leadership crotch area.
John, it’s not about wishing Obama would pretend we exist in a false reality, it is about wishing he would use that beautiful speaking voice for something other than empty, sunshine platitudes, like perhaps CONVINCING and PERSUADING and EDUCATING the american people about what is what, and raising pure holy hell in the media and on the bully pulpit he already commands, to stop cynical, corrupt bullshit like the FISA caper, and thus actually CREATE a new, actual reality.
Oh, and take a look at the list of Beltway old timers and crooks and liars on his national security advisory panel or whatever the hell it’s called.
“Change,” hell…Barry is changing NOTHING. He may, in fact, turn out to be one of the most cynically smooth operaters in American political history.
Did I mention I am enjoying watching the Obamaphiles’ heads explode. Welcome to the REAL reality, folks.
Sojourner
Then I’m proud to suck. The big picture is that what makes this country unique is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The president takes one oath: to protect the Constitution. My expectation is that all of our elected representatives will do exactly.
I will proudly wear whatever smear you and the others want to throw out. I get it all the time from the 28%ers I work with. I hear the same arguments from them.
JLundell
...Burma Shave
Tsulagi
The rest of it, from what I have read, does appear to have been a restoration of the spirit of the law to pre-Bush era setting. Others with legal training can fill you in more on the good parts of it.
There’s not enough makeup nor shorts short enough to make this ugly porker look good.
Well, I guess Obama thinks it’s attractive, though, as he said yesterday he now welcomed the FISA changes to confront “grave concerns.” Maybe that’s the gentler, progressive way of saying WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE UNLESS THE PRESIDENT HAS MORE POWER TO PROTECT US!
The changes transfer judicial oversight to executive. Not to worry, Obama has pledged that as president he would carefully monitor the program. Gee, Bush has said he’s done the same all along. I’m sure Abu Gonzales and John Yoo would certify that leaving no room for doubt. That’s a relief. Guess Bush got a early jump on that transcending thing.
Ted
You know what? Just shut up. Seriously. If you have total amnesia for anything I, and plenty others, said in threads here from yesterday, I have no use for your nonsense.
The telecoms broke the law. They should pay, and heavily. WTF is ANYONE going to do about it? Obama can’t, that’s for sure. So why don’t you run along now and find your Green Lantern?
D. Mason
I dunno about everyone else here but the only thing I expect Obama to do is vote no. If he votes yes then he is not the candidate I thought he was. But hey, look on the bright side, the H44 crowd will have gotten their female candidate.
Sojourner
Even Shorter Concern Troll: First Obama was against it but now he’s for it. But that’s okay because it’s Obama.
phobos
Speaking of squeezing things out, it looks like a certain concern troll woke up on the wrong side of the concern bed and is feeling extra-concerned today.
Sojourner
Well, no. Someone said the polls were wrong because people in his state don’t care. I’m saying the polls are right and I do know people who care.
I’m sorry I confused you.
Sojourner
What a compelling argument!
Huego
Congrats, tim, that is downright Olympian-caliber concern trolling.
If offered a spot on the team, would you be willing to go to Beijing to go for gold?
I’ll say it again. 6/20/08 is to concern trolling what 9/11 was to terrorism.
curtadams
Who does? I’ve only seen liberal one post saying they wouldn’t vote for Obama now, and that was by somebody in a non-swing state who can can protest votes harmlessly. I see a lot of people disappointed, and some saying they’ll direct their hard work and money elsewhere, and that seems a very fair response.
I’m really shocked that Obama didn’t stand up and say “Lawbreaking is wrong. I won’t allow it in my administration, and I will do everything in my power as a Senator to keep the Congress from excusing it.” Talk about a political win. I’m guess he didn’t want to embarass the supporters of the bill, but who knows.
Ted
Go ahead. Ask me, yet again, if I approve of presidential lawbreaking, on the basis of my not trashing Obama while he needs the most support. It’ll be funny.
ThymeZone
It’s not okay, it’s insignificant, not because it’s Obama, but because Obama is the best candidate this party has put up in almost 50 years, and his victory is essential to the country.
I am saying this to you because, of the concern trolls, you are the only one who is actually smart enough to understand this. The rest of them are a bunch of fucking morons. I am not wasting my time on them any more. But before I depart the thread to do other things this morning, I am taking this one last chance to appeal to your better nature on this topic.
And as for being for something and then against it, does anyone here seriously want a president—after living through the one we have now—who cannot change his mind, and more importantly, will not change his mind, and even more importantly, doesn’t have the guts to change his mind, when it’s the right thing to do? Whether you agree with the change of mind or not, poking fun at a candidate because he changes his mind puts you in the ranks of the stupidest of the stupid people, the Republicans, who mock all intellect, all process, all human ambiguities and inconsistencies because those are threats to their dogmatic and inflexible worldviews. Shame on you for descending to that level of intellectual depravity and then daring to masquerade as Democrats.
AkaDad
As a Liberal, the last 28 years seem like one long poker game, in which I’ve suffered mostly bad beats.
D. Mason
I know I am skipping ahead a lot here, I chose to sleep late this Saturday morning. This analogy is missing one crucial element. The one run homer hitting that fan right in the face.
Genine
Barack is the number one democrat in the country. If he had gotten on the phone and called every democrat voting for this and told them he was making a stand and they had to take his back the bill would’ve been defeated
This is a glimpse into Bizzaro World.
Sojourner:
He is NOT the leader of the party yet. He NEEDS the support of these people to become the leader. Get it?
Now, yes, he could have been quiet and voted no, but, maybe, those WHO WILL BE VOTING FOR HIM in August put some pressure on him. Can you, acknowledge, that you do not know everything that is going on behind the scenes? And there is definitely something rotten in Denmark for the Democrats to be so spineless on something so basic.
I totally understand the anger and I share it, but I am angry at all the Democrats for fixing things to be in this manner. It is not Barack, alone, who is at fault here.
What Brachiator said
shortstop
Christ, you’re tedious, Sojourner.
I know, I know: “I’m sorry if my concern for the Constitution is boring you.”
Right. Got it. STFU.
ThymeZone
Sorry, but my point is, you are now one of them.
You will put ideology and rectitude ahead of the practical imperatives of winning a critical election. That’s the whole point of the thread, see the top post.
You are on the wrong side of this. Seriously. Forget that it’s me telling you this, just think about it. Are you going to be happy with this choice you are making today, if you wake up on the Wednesday after election day to President Elect McCain? When you realize that you didn’t just get a pebble in your bean soup, you just got four years of rock lasagna, rock sandwiches, and rock milkshakes?
Step back from this thing and look at the big picture.
pillsy
I’m pretty irked that Obama didn’t decide to make a more forceful stand. He could pledge to vote no if they don’t strip the immunity provision. He could pledge to vote no regardless. He could promise a filibuster or pledge to support a filibuster. All of this would almost certainly be futile, but sending messages and making symbolic gestures are a big part of a politician’s job.
I think Greenwald’s basically correct: Obama should be fighting the right-wing narrative on civil liberties the same way he’s fighting it on foreign policy. I also think that by doing so he wouldn’t a really bad political hit.
That being said, I’m not particularly disappointed by this. I figured stuff like this would be happening from time to time back when I decided to support a centrist Senator for President about a year ago.
Sojourner
It’s condescending to talk about my better nature as if I’m not capable of holding a principled position. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being furious that Obama is choosing to support one of the worst bills that has been put forward in decades by a Democratic congress. Frankly, I am disappointed that you don’t share that anger.
Being angry does not mean voting for McCain, it does not make one a Clinton supporter. I did not vote for Clinton because she didn’t SHOW UP for the first vote. Obama, quite frankly, is topping her by voting FOR the bill. You’re arguing that I should be okay with that. I am not okay with that.
Will I vote for Obama? Probably. But not if he continues to capitulate on issues that I hold very dear. You want to look at Obama as a whole. Fair enough. But you are out of line when you attack those of us who have consistently held positions on issues that matter most to us. You have absolutely no right to insist that your position is more “right” or more “principled” than mine.
I expect better from you. And fuck the name calling. I don’t do it to you. I expect you to stop doing it to me.
montysano
Look, I’m about as left as they come, and I’m horrified at how Bush has trampled the Constitution, among a long list of other Bush horrors. I admire the passion about this issue.
If I thought:
A) That what would actually come out of the teevee, and:
B) People, upon hearing it, would actually say “Hmmm…... lawbreaking is bad. Let me ponder this.”
Then I’m all for it. But sadly, that’s not the field we’re playing on. What I want is to win big in November. Then we can get t work.
ThymeZone
On that note, try to keep in mind what the fate of the Constitution will be after four years of John McCain, and a couple of his SCOTUS appointments, and then tell me that this FISA thing is more important than that.
That’s just fucking nuts.
Just Some Fuckhead
lolz
shortstop
Yeah, I’m also not seeing as much of this as Ted et al. apparently are. Why the rush to assume that legitimately disappointed and annoyed people are walking away from Obama in droves? Who other than one or two outliers is saying this?
shortstop
This is so meta. Thyme Zone is giving a serious response to my premptive snarky quote of Sojourner’s likely response to my telling her how tedious she’s being. I can’t wait for the rest of this to unfold.
ThymeZone
I never said you weren’t capable of holding a principled position. I am saying that you are putting too much importance on the secondary principle here, while overlooking the more important one: Keeping John McCain out of the White House.
No matter how valid your principle is, it cannot be more important than that. You cannot seriously want to lose a war because you think the battle is so important?
If you really don’t care about the war, then ignore my posts, I have nothing to say to you. But I don’t think you are really that stubborn, are you?
Sojourner
There is absolutely nothing wrong with progressives expecting their candidate to do the right thing.
cybergal619
To all the whiners who were behind Obama until he fucked this up – even though he had nothing to do with the House vote yesterday – and are now either going to sit home in November or vote 3rd party and/or not going to contribute to this campaign: Please take your narrow-minded, twisted “logic” someplace else.
I’m on the side of what his record has been and what he’s stood for all along re immunity and I trust his judgment. I’m not on the side of the crystal ballers who are sure he’s going to show up in the Senate next week waving an “I love teleco immunity!” banner and then ceremoniously roasting marshmallows over a torched Constitution.
I appreciate a good debate as much as the next person, but arguing facts versus pure speculation gets exhausting.
Oh, Great Blog, John. You’re fast becoming my go to place – even before I open my email.
BH-Buck
That’s the point I tried, unsuccessfully, to get across. I don’t think it’s possible, really.
But, regardless, I’m still voting for Obama. It’s not a question of if or maybe. I HAVE to. We can’t survive four more years.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
I haven’t been touching the Dkos threads today. Yesterday, though, it wasn’t very pretty.
Sojourner
I think it’s important to remind the Dems of what they are supposed to stand for. I don’t see the value of meekly going along, letting them believe that what they’re doing is “okay.”
Ted
That’s just fucking nuts.
Don’t bother. This person is incapable of political and electoral calculation. “There’s a -4 in the equation!! I can’t even solve that at all now!”
montysano
Help me out here, BJ friends. My argument here is based largely on the fact that if BO were to take a stand, I can hear Fox News’ narrative in my head. Where’ I live out here in Red State land, it’s not news if it’s not on Fox.
Is this not as true in, say, the northeast, or Ohio, or Cali or Texas or Florida? Maybe my logic is skewed by having to live with the horror that is Fox.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah, same here. While it is awful tempting to sit around and poke fun at the stoopid, I got a to-do list that needs to-doing.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Um, it certainly sounds like he’s not voting for a bill with immunity attached.
ThymeZone
I don’t share that anger because I don’t agree with the premise. Over the last couple years I have argued this topic up, down and sideways here, and I simply do not agree that this FISA bill is worth this level of agita. Nor do I think its effects are irreversible. Nor do I even think that on the scale of fucking the Constitution and screwing our liberties and ruining our government, it even makes the finals in the reality show. It’s part of a dark quagmire of stuff that the government has been doing, a vast shell game, for 75 years now, games of deception and manipulation in the guise of “National Security” .... it’s just one of hundreds, thousands of insults to truth and justice that have been perpetrated by the people who would use security as a screen for their power grabs. Hopefully we can start to reverse some of that damage in the near future, but we sure as hell won’t get a start on that if we manage to lose sight of what’s really important right now … defeating John McCain.
You care about principles? Then put your energy into defeating John McCain. Otherwise, frankly, I don’t have a lot of respect for your understanding of principle right now.
Sojourner
Now there’s a strawman argument. If you don’t go meekly along with everything Obama and the Dems do, then you don’t care about the war. Sounds an awful lot like, if you’re not willing to give up your civil rights, then you don’t care about homeland security.
Come on, TZ. It’s not an either/or situation.
Sojourner
Whatever. I disagree with the way you’re framing the situation so your opinion is kind of irrelevant.
shortstop
No good can come of reading DKos threads. I’m not seeing a lot of vote-withholding idiots here.
ThymeZone
Until it reaches the level of nose, spite, face.
Then, there is something wrong with it.
We are at that level here. Ergo, my posts.
This is the most important election year in our lifetimes. Don’t blow it over this.
Ted
You should talk. You’ve been building strawmen for everyone else like a factory.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Then again, this turning into the TZ and Sojourner show isn’t anything good, either. Time to find something more productive to do.
Last note: The chorus of Dem heavyweights who are either against immunity or the whole shebang outright (Reid, Obama, Dodd, Feingold, Leahy) makes me think any bill with immunity is DOA. Which means the bill itself is DOA, ‘cause Bush isn’t going to sign it. This sturm und drang may all be for nothing.
PaulB
Not even close but thanks for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.
Sojourner
TZ, you want to support everything Obama does. Have at it.
No, really, if that makes you happy, do it!
ThymeZone
Politics is not an individual sport like golf. It’s a team sport like baseball and football.
You are having an argument with yourself, about your principles. But the game being played is about a team effort, a huge and incredibly complex and difficult team effort that requires putting one’s individual goals and priorities below those of the team for the purposes of reaching the team’s objectives.
Get on the team, or get off the team. Yes, it is exactly an either/or situation, Soj. You are the kind of person the coach throws off the team. Get on the team, or get off.
slippy hussein toad
The fainting couches have been deployed. I signed off for a week. Ech. Maybe longer than that. I’ll have to see if I miss it much. People are wringing their hands so hard they’re cracking their metacarpals.
PaulB
The Senate has already previously passed a bill with full immunity. Why would you think that they would be reluctant to do so again, particularly since they have a “compromise” figleaf to hide behind?
Ted
Sojourner’s new model, the Strawman-1000: “If you aren’t trashing Obama and reconsidering your vote for him, you don’t give a damn about the Constitution, and sanction presidential lawbreaking!”
On sale now!
Sojourner
Sorry, I’m not into groupthink. Throw me off the team – PLEASE!
wmd
There is and should be much wrath towards Steny Hoyer and Pelosi. How did we get from the house standing up and refusing to pass retroactive immunity in March to capitulation?
It sure wasn’t Obama’s doing. His tepid support means my shorter term donations will be going to thestrangebedfellows Blue America PAC (will be getting a new name soon). Notably they are targeting Hoyer. It is also worth noting that they are not targeting Obama for more than calls for leadership. So far they’ve raised over $260,000 with close to $200,000 in the past 3 days. Hmm, what does this say about the importance of FISA to grassroots donors?
I have hopes that Obama will be able to remove the de facto immunity in the Senate. And I also hope he’ll forcefully denounce Kit Bond’s statement: “I’m not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I’m sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do.”
I’d like to see Obama make a forceful speech on immunity.
The government told abolitionists to return slaves to their owners, it was wrong then and the abolitionists were right in their disobedience. Another government told its agents to commit genocide, those that resisted were right. Unquestioning obedience is not American, we value freedom and civil disobedience is a long honored American tradition.
Will Obama say something like this? I think he has better speechwriters, so I hope he says something much better.
ThymeZone
Nope, not letting you get away with that. I have no need to have a candidate who agrees with me all the time. I have been sucked into political action since I was seven years old, I am way beyond that kind of foolishness.
You are the one who needs ideological purity, apparently. At least have the honesty to stand up for your own view on this and don’t try to turn it into my view. I have a big mouth, I don’t need you to represent my views, I can do it myself.
My whole point here is exactly the opposite of the false notion implied by your blurb.
Philip A. Scalamogna
Dear John:
An excellent post. While much of the progressive blogosphere is gnashing their teeth in anguish (which only gives satisfaction and pleasure to the wingnuts), you offer a fresh perspective that makes this crisis less dire than it seems. Your analogy is very trenchant for this situation. Right now things are going reasonably well for Obama. He doesn’t need a “soft on terror” meme that the opposition, as well as the media, can use as a cudgel to beat him with and create an additional distraction. Because if it is one thing the Republicans are good at, its distractions.
Genine
I fully agree with that. We have to keep our politicians accountable and showing our displeasure in real, tangible ways is vital.
But this election is important and I think its important that we give all the support we can to getting Obama elected. I believe he is the best candidate, though definitely not perfect. But I think he, more than others, will heed the people when we put our foot down. He is just NOT in a position to do that right now.
Its great having principles, but those principles aren’t going to mean much and will, in fact, get trampled on if McCain gets into office.
ThymeZone
So be it. If you think teamwork is the same as groupthink, you are not cut out to be on any team.
Sorry I wasted my time talking to you, I did not realize that you were that kind of person.
This is a team sport we are playing, and it’s for keeps. People who don’t get that, as far as I am concerned, are not need on this team. Go away.
Sojourner
Shorter TZ: If you don’t agree with me, you’re not worth talking to.
Nice.
ThymeZone
Well, the clock wins, and the team-breakers and handwringers can have the last word, I have to go.
Have a pleasant day, all. It’s going to be 115 here and there are things to do before it gets too hot.
ThymeZone
Fuck you, Soj. Seriously. That’s not what I meant, and you know it.
shortstop
Correct. This is very likely to pass with immunity. Even Dodd’s no longer speaking against it.
What in his statement makes you think this?
Balakirev
The only thing that catastrophe brings is more catastrophe.
So if I understand you correctly, Brachiator, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover didn’t lead to a crisis that gave us FDR? Thatcherism’s catastrophic effects on (among other matters) the Welsh coal mine towns didn’t bring along the first Labour government in nearly 20 years? No, of course catastrophe never results in voters finally getting wise and “throwing the bums out.” Never happens at all. Thank you for pointing out that reality doesn’t count.
Am I supposed to be impressed by your rhetorical flourishes, such as repeated lines? Because I’m not, since we both know the progressive candidate for president lost. So should I bring out Edwards, now—whom I said I supported, earlier? Will that help anybody? Or do you mean bring out progressives on a state and local level? I have been supporting them with money. Perhaps you are unaware that a person can actually vote and work for candidates for federal and state Congress, without voting or working for candidates running for President. It’s hard to believe, but true. You might want to look that up.
I’m overlooking your remark about me being “complicit” in the deaths of millions in Iraq because I’ll do a write in vote for Edwards. It’s just plain silly. Not as funny as Robert Benchley, but hey, you can only try.
Sojourner
I don’t know what you meant. I just think it’s a shame that BJ has become so intolerant of other views. And it’s disappointing to me that you appear to be a part of that.
A. Hidell
I’m still waiting to see what he does when this hits the Senate. He’s shown a fine sense of timing so far. He’s also shown that while he’s not afraid of a fight, he’ll choose the party unity route over a public fight with other Democrats. I’m also interested to know just how progressive he will be as president. This is a good test case. I don’t think his play here will have much of an impact come November, so I want to see where his priorities lay once the bill actually arrives. Hopefully Dodd or Feingold can kill it for him so he can keep his cards unplayed.
ThymeZone
Obviously. I wish you did. I think I made it pretty clear.
Ted
Oh dear god. I can’t take much more.
And, had Edwards gotten the nomination, you’d be insulated from ever having to learn that he’d do EXACTLY the same thing in the same situation as Obama, simply because he’s no longer a senator. Your delusion is safe.
anne
The crowd is stupid. There is a difference between supporting everything Obama does and shooting yourself in the foot. The kossaks right now are shooting themselves in the foot. Man, it’s going to be funny to see what happens with President McCain. If I wasn’t American and had to live here too I would almost think they deserve it. It’s a case of a broken heart and I hope they get over it soon.
ThymeZone
You are willing to let John McCain have the country because the better candidate doesn’t agree with your views, and you think BJ is intolerant?
I have started to wonder if you are not just a spoof troll, that is just way out there on the credulity scale.
If you are not willing to let McCain have the country over this, then start talking like you are going to be a team player and get on the damned team.
shortstop
There is a rather large difference between “intolerant of other views” and “unwilling to spend the entire day arguing with someone who’s hanging to a pork chop like a pit bull while ignoring the entire deli behind her.”
Balakirev
I bow to You, All-Knowing One, who comprehend what Edwards’ position on FISA is in an alternate reality. Since known of us poor mortals could possibly determine this “what-if” with the certainty you possess.
Sojourner
You’re accusing me of supporting the war because I dare to be angry with Obama over the FISA vote.
You spew profanity at me.
All because I’m angry with Obama’s FISA position.
Well, excuse me but that sure sounds like exactly what I said. I disagree with you on one issue – I believe that people should speak up over the issues that matter to them.
I believe that everyone has that obligation. If you have a problem with that, tough.
shortstop
Hidell, there you are. LTNS.
Dennis - SGMM
We live in a country where Dunkin Donuts can be accused of supporting terrorism for having a woman with a scarf draped over her shoulder in one of their ads and where the reaction from that is so strong that the ad gets pulled. It’s going to take a while to undo the hysteria. That won’t happen if McCain is elected. Despite our disgust with the current administration, this is going to be a close, hard fought election. That any Democrat isn’t the runaway favorite right now proves that. The war on terror is the only strong issue McCain has so I don’t see how handing him a club on this one helps.
And yes, Sojourner, the Constitution trumps Dunkin Donuts.
anne
Seriously. I see some anger at them, but the democrats who voted and caved to Bush are getting nothing. But super Obama who should have saved the day is getting the most of their anger. I guess that’s what you get when you are the leader of the party, even if the party is spineless.
That’s why I think this would have happened about something eventually anyway. Obama let them down, which was going to happen. When Hillary let them down we all saw how that went, right?
Sojourner
OMG. I’m angry over Obama’s FISA position, therefore I’m willing to let McCain win?
What is the matter with you?
Conservatively Liberal
Unlike a lot of others out there, my rep (DeFazio) voted against this abomination and I sent him a message thanking him for doing so. Now, those of you whose reps voted against this should do the same for your rep, give credit where it is due. If your rep was one of the many who voted for this abomination, then you need to let them know your displeasure. Bitching and whining about Obama doesn’t mean squat because unless you are from Illinois, Obama does not represent you. One day he hopes to represent us all, but until then he is still the junior Senator for Illinois who has not voted on this issue yet.
Give credit or place blame where it is due. If your rep voted against this then be happy, if your rep voted for this then be pissed. At your rep.
For you whiny-assed babies who are crying in your tea about something Obama has not even voted on yet, quit trying to use this as an excuse not to support Obama. As our dumbfuck President says, ‘you are with us or you are against us’. You are either for McCain or Obama, even if you don’t vote for either of them your wasted vote will still help make the decision in the general.
Every person who comes in here and says that they are not supporting Obama is an automatic McCain booster. For example:
Shorter Balakirev: “I want John McCain to be our next President!”
That will be my translation of all posts of this kind because that is exactly what this person wants.
John, you may like Sojourner but I think Sojourner is just another whiny Hillary! supporter who is only here to try to point out why their girl was the better choice. People like Sojourner remind me why I hate the extremists on the left just as much as the extremists on the right, there is no reasoning with them. None. They don’t believe in compromise, they only believe in what they believe in and everyone else is wrong, so they whine endlessly to make sure you get their message loud and clear. Then they whine some more.
We have had seven plus years of that from the right, and I sure as hell don’t want more of the same from the left for the next four to eight years. People like Sojourner are the reason I quit the Democratic party in ‘92. Purity assholes to no end, who will harp on their pet peeves non-stop to the point that you wish both they and a crowbar were handy so you can shut them up.
Oh, and tim, calling Obama “Barry” lets me know who you don’t support and never have. No McCain points for you. We need to put in an order for better trolls here because the ones who have been slithering in are pretty lame.
Ted
Well, you’re so certain he would have done it differently in that situation (which luckily you don’t even have to consider), that you’re going to write his name in. Good for you! We’ll take our McCain punishment just as you wanted.
Now fuck off.
ThymeZone
Groan.
The “war” I refer to in this context is the war between us and the Republicans, for the country. Not the Iraq war.
We are in the middle of a war for our own country, Soj. That’s why it’s important to focus on the war and not a particular battle. You apparently would be content to lose this war in order to have the victory you desire in this FISA battle. I am telling you, the big picture is more important. Clearly you don’t get that.
I give up, you win. Fuck it.
Balakirev
Anne, wouldn’t you agree that whether or not the presidential candidate for one of the two main (ie, electable) parties can make an immediate difference on an important matter, the stand s/he takes is extremely important? It sends out a signal to all voters of what type of individual s/he is, what they’ll support, what they’ll fight against. In these days, even what they will respect in the Constitution—or not. At least, where FISA is concerned.
Obama may be the head of the Democratic Party at this time, but he obviously doesn’t control the Senate and House. Was it too much to ask him to take a stand in favor of the Constitution? Shouldn’t the symbol of the party embrace the symbol of the United States?
pinola
What’s the beef? Once Obama is elected, we’ll be able to spy on Republicans with impunity to our hearts’ content./s
Sojourner
You’re right. We will never agree on this.
It’s just a shame that we can’t politely agree to disagree.
Ted
Sojourner? We get it. You’re angry with Obama over FISA. Why are you still commenting about this? You don’t want anyone to get the impression you’re voting for McCain, but you don’t want anyone to forget that you’re ANGRY!!1 Don’t worry, we won’t. So do you have anything else to whine about? Or is this going to be it for a while?
John Cole
What on earth are you talking about? People are free to say pretty much whatever the hell they want here. I have banned a total of 5 people in the course of this blog, and two of them came back. You are arguing with one of them right now. I have deleted about 100 comments total in a few years, and most of them had to do with personal attacks that involved the c-bomb or various sexism/racism. Comments don’t get troll rated here, and unless a first time commenter gets sucked up into the spam filter, anything goes. This is one of the most open websites on the intertrons.
We are tolerant of other viewpoints. That isn’t the same as agreeing with them.
Sojourner
I was responding to TZ’s claim that I was willing to let McCain win.
phobos
Sojourner Says:
Yeah, whatever. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again—Democracy is a good idea waiting for proper execution.
D. Mason
If he votes in the senate the way he says he will vote then his record changes drastically. He goes from someone who takes a stand against something that’s wrong to someone who takes a stand until it really matters then folds. To me that is a major change.
Sojourner
Sorry but I get tired of the name calling. I think it has driven a number of people away who had interesting things to say.
Conservatively Liberal
Fixed.
eastriver
We will be greeted as liberators!
The war will pay for itself!
Democracy will sweep across the Middle East!
Magical thinking is teh awesome.
We can get something by doing nothing!
Blogging makes a difference!
People know who I am!
No, no, and no, Juanita.
(I bet you own a blow-up strawman for those lonely nights in bloggy wilderness. Sad.)
Balakirev
Now fuck off.
Ah, Ted, your sophisticated arguments and empathic understanding of those you enter into discourse with—so like the refined gentleman you are!—almost brings me over to your side…but no, I must, with genuine regret, decline. After all, if you read what I wrote, I never claimed Edwards would speak out against telecom retro-immunity from prosecution. I only addressed the fact that there are several things about Obama that I haven’t liked over time, that I regard him in general as too conservative for my tastes, and that this refusal to endorse certain Constitutional protection really takes matters over the top for me. As I wrote, I may not vote at all for president. So what Edwards might have done isn’t the issue governing my choice, but what Obama did do. Doesn’t mean I won’t work for progressives on a local or state level; I fully expect to.
Ted
Yet, you’ll still be commenting about this for possibly days. We got that you’re angry YESTERDAY. Either declare something interesting (like “I’m voting for McCain!” or “I’m sitting this one out!”) or just stop whining. You’re pissed about Obama, yet apparently will still vote for him and even donate. Yet you’re still arguing with people about it.
Shygetz
What very limited power I have to influence politics is based solely on my choice to give or withhold support from a candidate when s/he does something I like or dislike. If I refuse to exercise my discretion, then I have lost all power to influence the political process.
Obama did something I didn’t like. It’s not enough to make me not vote for him, and it’s not enough to make me not lobby my friends to vote for him. But it did probably cost Obama about $50 from me, and I’m not going to sit here and scream “Yay Obama!” about it.
Hmmm…now doesn’t that sound familiar…
A) Politics is not a sport, and it really pisses me off when people characterize it as such, and B) my vote counts just as much as so-called “team players”, so you might not want to actively throw it away with both hands. Just a suggestion.
D. Mason
Maybe you’re too much of an Obama supporter to see this, and I can appreciate that. If Obama votes yes on this bill, as he has apparently said he would do, then HE is blowing it. A yes vote on this shitpile is basically like a neon sign that says he is full of flowery rhetoric and nothing else. You can argue that fighting this bill hard would hurt him because of the division it would cause with critical dems and you could be right. Casting his one vote as a senator on the right side of this issue will cost him nothing because the republicans are already going to beat him to death with being weak on national security.
mark
Channeling Groucho Marx: I wouldn’t vote for anyone slimey enough to win an election.
Personally, Obama has won my trust. He has the right to make judgement calls and even be just plain wrong once in a while.
Ted
Just write in Edwards or don’t vote, and help the wingnuts give us McCain as president. Just like you said you thought would be good for the country (oh, in the long run) in the end.
Sojourner
Yep, that’s it. Every single leftie who is angry about Obama’s FISA bill is a former Hillary supporter.
pinola
If Blue Dog Dems are voting their constituency instead of their conscience, it may be for the best. We want to keep all the Congressional seats we have and thensome.
southpaw
Why is everyone fighting over a fait accompli? The bill, however hideous, is going to pass (unless someone has some super strategy for killing it off in the senate with 32 votes). So I think you need to approach the reality that this will be the law and go from there.
One (lunatic) response is to vote for McCain. Another is to challenge it in the courts. That seems pretty promising to me, since the immunity provisions are Schiavo-like in their encroachment on the judiciary. Another approach is to start building grassroots support for repeal. Yet another is electing a president who opposes immunity (Obama). In any case, sniping at each other over sunk costs is unlikely to have much effect.
BH-Buck
Glenn Greenwald, today:
Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion—neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it—and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don’t understand it or think that it’s wrong. That’s precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it’s shifted to a new Leader.
BethanyAnne
So, I’ve been sitting out these long threads, trying to think this through a bit. I’m disappointed, but the folk making the point that Obama has to focus on winning the big game make a lot of sense to me. And I realized something: Obama just really strengthened his hand with the superdelegates by playing it this way, including the “I’ll vote for it” bit. We are focusing some of our anger at him instead of them. He just gave them political cover. That he did it on an issue where I so profoundly disagree with him is truly annoying, but for whatever reason, large parts of the superD’s that he needs to keep in his corner wanted this bill. It really sucks that “well played” and “not what I want” are overlapping so closely here. And this may all be premature; the game isn’t over yet.
Sojourner
Thank you, Glenn Greenwald.
And thank you, BH, for sharing this gem.
Balakirev
Now, Ted! If you’re going to quote me, “blah blah blah” isn’t accurate. I realize you’re recondite humor reaches over my head, but still…! I really must request that you quote what I say, or not quote me at all. It is, after all, a standard you normally hold to, being such a demonstrably fair individual.
For the rest: you left out the part where I wrote that I thought four years of McSame would finally knock enough sense into the American public that they wouldn’t settle for half measures in government—and that means the spineless Democrats that run Congress, as well as the ostensibly moderate Obama who has just raised my hackles over his rejection of a portion of the US Constitution. So no, to clarify for you: I don’t think McSame would be good for the country. I do think McSame would lead to a rejection of the lice infesting DC right now, and bring in a genuinely progressive team to run things.
Is this proposed course of action certain? Nope. Not at all. Is it likely? Well, as I pointed out before, Harding and Hoover did yield FDR. Thatcher did yield Blair. (And yeah, I know there was a lot wrong with Blair, but at least it meant an end to nearly 20 years of Conservative rule in the UK.) So I think, purely on my own personal observation, that four more years of Junior’s latest incarnation would make everybody so thoroughly sick of the worst people and the most spineless leading us together that something would finally be done about it. At this point, I’m not convinced Obama’s going to make much of a change. That rejection of the Constitution did it, for me. I was really shocked. Sorry if that leaves anybody else here chuckling at my political naivety, but there it is.
D. Mason
This makes your view quite clear TZ: You’re either with us or against us.
ThymeZone
Well, quite a number of things, too numerous to list here. But not the ones you are thinking of.
It’s a team effort, politics. You are either on the team, or you are off the team. Yes, it’s one or the other. Teamwork isn’t compatible with inflexible individualism. Sooner or later, the inflexible individual either has to bend for the team, or go away. This is that moment.
You have to decide whether you are on the team that wants to take the country back from the crazy assholes, or not. Otherwise, it isn’t about FISA, it’s about you.
I have given up thinking that you will see that, but others may, so at this point I am only talking to you because you are an example of what can happen when individual “rightness” trumps teamwork. The team loses, in case you are missing my point. The team loses when the players make it about them instead of the team.
Barack is the manager of the team. You don’t have to agree with him. That is not your job as a team member. You do have to support him and play hard for him. That is your job as a team member. Do your job, or get off the team.
And I swear to Jesus MYM that I am getting away from the thread. Here I go …..
{ door noises }
Conservatively Liberal
Fixed, and we already know this from your endless rants during the primary. Anything new?
Sojourner
When you get back, read Glenn Greenwald. He says it the way I wish I could.
Brachiator
The only thing that catastrophe brings is more catastrophe.
So if I understand you correctly, Brachiator, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover didn’t lead to a crisis that gave us FDR? Thatcherism’s catastrophic effects on (among other matters) the Welsh coal mine towns didn’t bring along the first Labour government in nearly 20 years? No, of course catastrophe never results in voters finally getting wise and “throwing the bums out.” Never happens at all. Thank you for pointing out that reality doesn’t count.
You must be joking. You began by suggesting that people actively bring about catastrophe by not voting or by voting for McCain. Now you try a bit of rhetorical back pedaling with this passive voice contingency crap, “lead to,” “bring along,” “results in.”
But no one in the 1920s or 1930s ever said, “Let’s have more of that Depression stuff because something wonderful will inevitably happen.”
Am I supposed to be impressed by your rhetorical flourishes, such as repeated lines?
I write well and think clearly. You do neither. I am willing to engage your ideas. I don’t much care what impresses you.
We don’t know that at all. But thanks for playing.
Then it might be useful to name them or to provide links to their sites, especially those with a reasonable chance of winning an election.
If you write in Edwards name, you are not trying at all. And don’t overlook my accusation that you and others who think as you do will be complicit in the murder of thousands if you don’t vote for Obama.
The choice is between McCain and Obama. That is it.
If you write in Edwards’ name, you are no better than the Opportunists noted in Dante’s Inferno, souls of people who in life did nothing, neither for good nor evil, and the angels who refused to take a side in the battle between Good and Evil.
These souls are neither in Hell nor out of it, but reside on the shores of the Acheron, with maggots and other vermin drinking their blood and tears.
Or more simply, as the old union song says:
“Which side are you on?”
Balakirev
Good quote, BH-Buck. And Greenwald, as usual, offers commonsense.
So tell me, all those who say “You support Obama, or you wish to kill baby seals!” -What other options are there? What other political measures do I truly have open to express my extreme displeasure with Obama’s rejection of the Constitution? The only thing that comes to mind is a line Groucho Marx utters in one of his films: “I have a good mind to ring his doorbell and run away!” -Sending a letter of protest to his campaign isn’t going to cut it. What other serious options are there? Tell me.
BH-Buck
Sohourner, me too. I’m terrible at getting a point across sometimes. This is one of those times apparently.
I’m out. You all take care. And keep up the good fight!
ThymeZone
Duh. Yes, that is correct. In a two-team race, if you want to be on the team, you are either with us or against us. This is one of those moments in life when you have to choose.
Mock the idea as much as you like, but that won’t change the reality.
Shit, even Hillary Fucking Clinton managed to get on the team. If that giant powerseeking ego can do it, a few BJ commenters can find a way to do it. If not, fuck them. The team goes forward without them.
If Democrats think they can govern this country without learning how to play as a team, they will find themselves sadly mistaken. Knowing when to do that is a judgment call. This is a judgment moment. Choices matter. Knowing how to decide which choice is more important, matters.
President McCain can explain it all to you later.
Sojourner
Ah, the royal “we.”
LMAO.
Ted
Alright, here’s a quote from you:
Sounds like you think McCain will be good for the country in the long run to me.
Conservatively Liberal
For the rest: you left out the part where I wrote that I thought four years of McSame would finally knock enough sense into the American public that they wouldn’t settle for half measures in government—and that means the spineless Democrats that run Congress, as well as the ostensibly moderate Obama who has just raised my hackles over his rejection of a portion of the US Constitution. So no, to clarify for you: I don’t think McSame would be good for the country. I do think McSame would lead to a rejection of the lice infesting DC right now, and bring in a genuinely progressive team to run things.
Is this proposed course of action certain? Nope. Not at all. Is it likely? Well, as I pointed out before, Harding and Hoover did yield FDR. Thatcher did yield Blair. (And yeah, I know there was a lot wrong with Blair, but at least it meant an end to nearly 20 years of Conservative rule in the UK.) So I think, purely on my own personal observation, that four more years of Junior’s latest incarnation would make everybody so thoroughly sick of the worst people and the most spineless leading us together that something would finally be done about it. At this point, I’m not convinced Obama’s going to make much of a change. That rejection of the Constitution did it, for me. I was really shocked. Sorry if that leaves anybody else here chuckling at my political naivety, but there it is.
Shorter Balakirev: “John McCain will make everyone a Democrat so I want John McCain to be President!”
Gotcha. I’m with TZ so see ya later kids. It’s a weekend and I have better things to do right now than inhale the vapors that the vapid are giving off in here.
pinola
Unless he starts Iran-baiting, a major Hillary turnoff for me, I’m backing Obama. It would be particularly unfortunate to do this now, considering evidence of a potential Isreali strike against the country. I really hate to see this come to the forefront of the news right now. But at least it will give McCain another chance to demonstrate his blind war-mongering side.
mark
Criticism / anger -> healthy.
Not voting, voting for Nader, etc. -> Presidents W, McSame.
ThymeZone
Good for you, how noble. You want to make speeches.
I want to win an election.
I happen to think that the election is the overriding imperative. And I also know that it’s an imperative that will force people to choose, just as they will choose when they step into the voting booth: A, or B.
In this case, it’s Team, or Me. The team clearly needs your full support. Give it or don’t give it, but don’t pretend that you can have it both ways. You can’t. The team and its objective are more important than you are.
Fine with me if you don’t understand that, I don’t care any more, honestly. I am going to continue to work to take the country away from the bad people. That requires teamwork.
If you want an example of that works, observe Hillary Clinton for the next week. She is about to teach you a lesson.
John Cole
Greenwald offers strawmen- such as this:
Who has said you can’t criticize Obama? I know I haven’t. I have said you can be as upset as you want about this, I just think it is misplaced and misguided anger to flay him alive for something he does not fucking control.
Nancy Pelosi.
Steny Hoyer.
The leadership that put him in this position. Those are the people you should be pissed at.
I have, however, repeatedly stated that anyone who looks at what has happened this week and says “That is it, there is no difference between Obama and Bush or McCain, so I am not going to vote or not going to do evcerything I can to beat McCain” is a complete and total moron. Anyone who subscribes to the “maybe if things get bad enough, we can hit liberal nirvana” deserves 8 years of McCain and then another 8 years of Romney. Additionally, I have thrown some FU’s at Hillary concern trolls who have come out of a month long hibernation to crap all over the place.
And, I will note- all of this shit being heaped on Obama is pre-emptive trash talk. He hasn’t even voted on the god damned bill yet.
PaulB
No, actually it isn’t. There are far more choices available to me. Sorry if that bothers you.
ROFL… Oh, the irony….
Shygetz
Mock the idea as much as you like, but that won’t change the reality.
No, that is not the reality. I could be for neither. Regardless of your demagoguery, a nonvote is not as damning as a vote for McCain—it’s only 50% as damning. I could vary the level of my support for one, all the way from hardcore campaign volunteer to silent voter. I could up and quit this country altogether.
Fallacy of the excluded middle(s) does not look good on you, TZ.
PaulB
Um, John? Pot. Kettle. Black.
pinola
Oh, and what do we really expect from someone who was notably not present for the vote on Kyl-Lieberman?
tim
Congrats, tim, that is downright Olympian-caliber concern trolling.
Hey Huego, I’m not at ALL concerned…I’m enjoying the show.
Yours must be the Two Headed Dumbshit part of the act.
It is so pathetic and weak that anyone who disagrees with the main vibe here is denounced as a “concern troll.” What a wonderful, all encompassing, meaningless term; and best of all, you get to feel extra-special close to John cause you’re, like, all on his side and stuff. Spare me.
PaulB
And, of course, you can still vote for Obama while simultaneously criticizing him for his actions, or lack thereof, something that doesn’t do a damn thing to hurt Obama’s chances in the election.
John Cole
Really, the utter inability of people to realize what a shitty position Obama is in right now because of the House leadership (and, I might add, the members of the Senate Democratic caucus who will also not back a filibuster). Somehow, one of the folks who actually voted against this bill and worked to remove immunity is the one being blamed for it.
Maybe you all do deserve McCain.
John Cole
Citing Alegre gives up the game, Pinola. Have you guys hanged Steve Soto yet for high treason?
Michael Scott
I’m with demimondian and Doug H. (Fausto no more) on this one: It’s political ju-jitsu on Obama’s part.
Think about this: If Obama succeeds in stripping retroactive telecom amnesty out of this bill before it passes the Senate (with or without his vote), what’s left in the bill that Bush wants?
Longer delays before having to get FISA warrants?
So, with amnesty stripped out, before November, Bush gets to either: (a) sign it into law; or (b) veto it.
If he signs it into law, he and the telcos are still facing potential civil AND criminal liability. But he (for six more months, and Pres. Obama after him) gets a little more leeway on when to get warrants. Whoop-de-doo!
If he vetoes it, Obama gets to point out that the entire bill was a figleaf to cover up the retroactive amnesty.
And House Dems who voted for the bill get to campaign this Fall as “tough on terrorism.”
I can’t help but think Obama’s mapped out this whole Kabuki show in advance.
PaulB
ROFL…. Oh, the irony….
Balakirev
Brachiator Says:
Your point earlier was:
You didn’t add on, “Uh-uh! Can’t quote catastrophes that people don’t plan for! I made that rule!” Catastrophes don’t just bring in more catastrophes—and that was the point of yours I replied to. Are you suggesting that if a political catastrophe is deliberately caused, it is more likely to have only catastrophic results, than a political catastrophe that isn’t planned? Can you explain why this is so? Just curious.
If you really want to know who has a good chance, check out Crooks and Liars, and DailyKos. I do all the time. I also get mailings from Firedoglake and MoveOn, and usually, if not always, support the causes they present. Because I do believe in the difference those causes and people can make.
No, that’s your definition of it. I see a range of choices and a range of results, depending upon a large number of factors, some internal, some external to the presidential election. At the moment, I’m really, really pissed at Obama for jumping to McSame’s side of the fence and kicking the US Constitution when it’s down. If things get bad enough, it’s just possible more people will get as pissed as I am—and perhaps we can all vote to do something about it.
I only regret that enough people don’t see yet just how bad it has been. Something that I’ve been pointing out since 2001.
southpaw
Greenwald is characteristically lucid, but he takes his argument to an extreme that it can’t support. The theory of imposing political costs on Obama assumes that he’s going to take power. You need Obama in the White House for all your strategizing to have any measurable effect on national policy. If your criticism, boycotting, etc. imposes such grievous political costs that the Republican ends up getting elected, then you’re out in the ideologically pure wilderness again and the country lumbers on without you. So at some point, the imperative of getting a Democrat in the White House for the next four years takes precedence over strafing the Democrats for frustrating you today.
I’m disappointed with Obama; everyone here is. But this legislation is going to pass, and there’s a bigger battle to win.
D. Mason
I’m not a Democrat though. I’m an American citizen who is sick to fucking death of watching our “Dear Leaders” trample and trash the nation I once loved and it’s entire system of governance. I’m ashamed to be an American because of the last 8 years and I have no desire to see 8 more years of the same old shit. Obama has talked an awesome game and that’s why I like him so much, but so far talk has been all it is. This is an opportunity for him to show me, the pissed off American, that he really means business. All I’m asking him to do is vote no. Is that really asking too much? I don’t expect some superman shit, just for him to cast his own vote for the defense of the Constitution. If that’s too much to ask then he is not the leader or change agent he claims to be.
NR
John – I will still vote for Obama in November come hell or high water. I know how important it is to keep McCain out of the White House.
But if he doesn’t at least try to stop the FISA bill in the Senate, I will be extremely disappointed in him. I just don’t know what else to say. The man was a constitutional law professor, he of all people should know how bad this bill is.
pinola
I have no idea what you’re talking about, John. I noted in my earlier post that I was trying to be realistic in backing Obama despite all the criticism. My point was to illustrate that people should not be that surprised at his current position on FISA, given his past voting record. I say this as I am not an Obamabot, but a realist.
And I’m not citing anything. He wasn’t present for the vote.
PaulB
See, that’s the point. We haven’t seen any evidence yet that there would be “grievous political cost” if Obama were to take a stronger position.
ThymeZone
Oh, fuck off. It’s a two team race and one of them is going to win. Your parsing of the situation does not change the reality. If you want to be on the team, you support the team. You don’t flip off the team and then sit on the sidelines and say, it’s no big deal.
It is a big deal. Apathy, low voter turnout, a few people too lazy or too grumpy to get out and vote, or put a yard sign up, or contribute some money … these things count.
It’s a team. Get on the team and give it your full support or get the hell away from me, I have no use for you.
Punchy
Racist!
John Cole
NOOOO! Obama is supposed to take a stand! If only he had given a speech the outcome would be different in the chamber of Congress he is not a member! He has sold us all down the river! Why does Obama hate the netroots! Why does he not cherish the Constitution like Sojourner!
If he does not go down with the ship, Obama does not care!
pinola
Steve Soto? That was talkleft.
ThymeZone
It’s a team. Either support the leader of the team, or get off the team. Trying to pretend that you can second guess the leader of the team and bark about to anyone who will listen and that this is okay is the kind of behavior that earns you a boot in the ass.
Get yourself and all these whiny fuckers away from our team. You are as bad as the Hillbots. Worse, actually, because most of them are lining up behind this team in droves (see recent polls). Get that, the intolerable Hillbots are becoming team players, but the FISA whiners can’t bring themselves to do it.
Punchy
We get it, John. Understood. Go play outside for awhile and let TZ take over.
srv
The exasperated Obamamaniacs here are going to have a long, hard slog as they fight the clinton-trolls, libertarians, progressives, unsure dems, real-trolls and what-not as Obama tacks to McSame’s right.
Mark my words. If Barack doesn’t start playing Full McSame Jacket soon instead of this lipstick-on-a-pig routine and give the wankers months to get over it, the trickling surrender on one cause after another through election day is going to leave a lot of people who thought they were part of the base behind.
We all understand you Obamamaniacs can only rationalize with balefulls straw, and after the last 8 years, you are only capable of binary thinking. I’m not agreeing with anybody. I’m just telling you what is going to happen.
PaulB
Gee, weren’t you claiming that you were going to be out of here by now?
In any case, you are flatly incorrect. Those are not my only two choices. And, frankly, pretending that those are my only two choices is pretty stupid.
Um, people “second-guess” their political leaders all the time here in the U.S. It’s called “democracy.” You should look into it.
ROFL…. “Our” team? Sorry, but I see no particular reason to take you seriously when you resort to nonsensical assertions like this.
Dear heart, where on earth have I said that I would not vote for Obama in November?
ROFL…. Man, this is just too precious. I do so love an argument with someone who has so clearly lost it and has nothing rational to bring to the table.
Ted
The Horror
John Cole
How about we do this. What do you want or expect Obama to do. IN your analysis, include the political downfall, and the odds of success of your gambit. Give a realistic appraisal of the upside and downside.
John Cole
Really? Obama is now to the RIGHT of McCain?
You have lost all sense of reality. Not some. All.
PaulB
Q.E.D. Sorry, dear, but you’re just going to have to put up with us.
slippy hussein toad
Channeling Groucho Marx: I wouldn’t vote for anyone slimey enough to win an election.
Personally, Obama has won my trust. He has the right to make judgement calls and even be just plain wrong once in a while.
He’s won the right to play the game his way. When he stops winning the war I will kvetch.
Balakirev
John Cole says:
I posted some criticism of Obama, not here, but in other forums. I was told in various ways that you either support him unconditionally—which is the only way he can get elected—or you’re against him, and should STFU. So from my perspective, it isn’t a strawman Greenwald’s identifying. It follows upon my own experience.
The leadership that put him in this position. Those are the people you should be pissed at.
Hell, yes, I am, John. I’ve contributed to the MoveOn advertising campaign in Hoyer’s district. I’m thoroughly pissed at the Rethugs and the spineless Dems in the House that have voted for this particular FISA bill, but I’ve already financially contributed to a couple of the campaigns to oust them. (I’m not made of money. I just do what I can.)
As I wrote above, though, the man heading the party, running for the presidency, is a symbol. Embracing or rejecting the Constitution is another symbol. Obama had a chance to really stand up for something, to make a difference simply by a vote and a few words, even if it didn’t change the result. And he blew it.
That’s why I’m very disappointed and (in case you can’t guess) quite upset. I knew he was a moderate, not a progressive, and that was okay—but this?
He’s issued a statement, so the reaction—including yours—are to that. Those words really matter.
I may change my mind, but right at the moment, Obama’s done something I never expected to see from a Democratic presidential candidate.
PaulB
John, are you prepared to do the same? Because, thus far, you haven’t.
srv
George Bush could not have said it better. Kudos.
Please proceed to attack rather than cajole those who wanted to think Obama was different, but isn’t, and alienate them over their single-issues as they pop up into November.
You’re really Obama’s worst enemy here.
PaulB
This, I think, is what quite a few of us are disappointed about. From Greg Sargent:
Time and again, in his debates with Hillary, and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk “tough.” His candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security—that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong.
Obama has done this already in this general election—repeatedly. And no doubt he will do it again and again and again in the months ahead.
To be clear, I’m not even talking about whether opposing this would or wouldn’t have carried political peril. It really doesn’t matter. Because if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign—that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security—it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation.
And this time, he abandoned that premise.
[Emphasis in the original.]
John Cole
What Democratic party have you been following for the last 30 years? Clinton, the only Democrat to win since Jimmy Carter, will in the long-term be viewed as more “conservative” than Bush. DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Balanced Budgets, massive military spending, very few military interventions. Hell, many of the things that came to life in the Patriot Act were simply stuff from the establishment national security apparatus that Clinton wanted enacted after Oklahoma City.
What political scene have you been watching?
PaulB
In fact, that is the sum total of TZ’s argument above, repeated over and over and over again, ad nauseam.
NR
John – Again, I am still going to vote for Obama in November. As disappointed as I am, he is still better than McCain, and that is enough for him to get my vote.
As for my money and my volunteer time – well, locally I have both a House AND a Senate race where the Republican incumbents have not only supported this FISA atrocity, but also have supported every gawd-damned thing that Bush has done to fuck this country up for the last eight years. They both FINALLY have serious Democratic challengers and there’s a real chance that we could beat them both. That’s probably where my time and money will go now, since I think it’s a good place for them and it could make a big difference in the years ahead.
Punchy
This is all I got:
1) Was pissed yesterday, realized sun still came up today, about to enjoy a cold beer, so I no longer care
2) Figged the Senate will finish the job even if Obama filibusters by reading from his Koran and singing Ice Cube’s “A Bitch is a Bitch” lyrics
3) Dems will continue to curse their reps, but then go and vote for the bastards anyways
4) I dont have any international friends anyways, so they’ll never tap my phone, and if they want to tap my lappy, they’ll just get some cool porn and a shitload of downloaded crossword puzzles.
Hence, my suggestion to you to go enjoy your day and quit trying to defend yourself. You’ve done well thus far, grasshoppah.
srv
You have lost all sense of reality. Not some. All.
Iran, AIPAC, Jerusalem, FISA… What’s up for next week? I’m sure all those leftists can tell the difference.
You keep at it buddy, you keep telling all those leftists they’re crazy. And when they don’t show up in November, you’ll no doubt create a new reality and blame them for not asking for more beatings.
PaulB
From a comment by sysprog over at Greenwald’s blog:
Argh
Why are so many four-year-olds and fourteen-year-olds making comments on blogs?
Four-year-olds see their preferred politicians as god-like fathers (or mothers) whose virtuous character will guarantee good judgment. If a judgment looks questionable to you, then it’s because you don’t know all the facts that mommy and daddy know, or it’s because you aren’t as wise as them.
Fourteen-year-olds have had their illusions shattered about those devilish politicians so now they perceive the TRUTH - – that mommy and daddy make bad judgments because mommy and daddy are utterly corrupt.
Balakirev
Southpaw says:
I’m disappointed with Obama; everyone here is. But this legislation is going to pass, and there’s a bigger battle to win.
Well put; but I have to wonder how far a political candidate I have claimed for my own can go outside those boundaries, before they cease to be someone I would support? I have been willing to support Obama despite the DC-as-usual team of political advisors he’s built. Despite some positions on MidEastern issues that seem dangerously close to maintaining the conventional failed political viewpoint. But then something like this comes along, directly involving Constitutional issues. I have to step back and reevaluate the person I was going to vote for in lieu of Junior’s successor. Obama’s wracking up points that push him far to the edge of what I can believe, and with this, beyond. Should I hope to get him in office in the hopes of influencing him? That’s never worked, before.
Karmakin
#1. Obama really had the rug pulled out from under him by the conservative elements of the party. He would have been framed as a radical if he got in front of this. Wouldn’t be a smart political move.
#2. The logic behind the whole being upset thing doesn’t pan out. Pretty much everybody (including myself, even though it doesn’t sound like it sometimes) supports warrantless wiretapping of non-citizens. This isn’t something to be angry over. Is it a legally bad decision? Possibly. But from an ETHICAL standpoint, most people are in agreement that spying on the bad guys trumps privacy concerns.
Unfortunately, this really is the worst kind of emotional grandstanding, personally, I think the whole thing needs to be built from scratch, and every wiretap needs to go through some sort of independent control process, so the information is used for its intended purpose or destroyed. Full stop. Frankly, I’m more concerned with them getting information and using it to overthrow “unfriendly” foreign countries than I am tapping Kos’ phone line. (I don’t mean that as a personal jab at him, btw)
The progressive blogosphere lost when they declined to force a real showdown on FISA. Of course, that as well is a political loser I think…American Exceptionalism and all that. But all the same, this was a lost cause from the get go. It’s a horrible argument, and bad politics.
BombIranForChrist
I have always known, of course, that Obama would need to show his core supporters soon that he would have to disappoint them on some issues in order to win votes. The presidency requires support from a lot of different people with a lot of different views, so there will never be a president that represents my views 100% of the time, and that is probably a good thing. I’m no genius.
But I was really hoping he wouldn’t cower on this issue. Civil Liberties is very important to me, and it’s hard for me to stomach the lawlessness of this administration. What Obama is signaling is that he is going to let them off the hook, and set bad precedent in the process, because … why? He needs to win a few white votes in Indiana? Is he so insecure about his chances that he is afraid of not supporting the compromise created by a Congress and President whose approval hasn’t cracked 30% in several months?
I think this is bad policy AND bad politics. It shows that Obama is weak, and his late response to it shows he is disorganized.
I am still going to vote for him, of course. And I still think he is going to be a fantastic president. But I also think he flubbed this one, as he will sometimes flub other issues in the future. He had a chance to do something courageous and instead he blinked, following the conventional wisdom argued by John Cole yesterday and today. If he’s going to be a transformational leader, he needs to do better than this. He needs to do better than the tired pragmatism that John Cole is suggesting we support. You can’t change things in this way. This only guarantees the status quo. This is a part of the problem.
Anyway, I am withholding money from his campaign for a while. There isn’t much one person can do, but this is how I am going to express my disappointment. I’ll get over it for sure. He’s going to do a lot of great things. But he failed this time.
Rome Again
I think its a tough call, but he did what he thought was best. He has the perception of power on his side, but he doesn’t actually have the power- yet.
Obama couldn’t take a stand because Pelosi and Hoyer couldn’t take a stand. The problem is not with Obama, he had to follow leadership while he’s trying to get elected. The problem is with the Madame and her wannabe Steny. So far Pelosi and Hoyer make me wish someone else had gotten those positions.
Balakirev
I said:
Obama’s done something I never expected to see from a Democratic presidential candidate.
John Cole says:
I have always said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president of the 20th century.
John, I’m referring to the Constitutional issue, of course. Clinton to my knowledge never trod on it. Bush—well, we needn’t go there. It’s too depressing. And McSame? Of course; it’s expected. But I didn’t expect Obama to indicate in his words a willingness to disregard certain provisions of it.
This one. Which makes me just another lunatic in the asylum.
I’ve got to head off. Wife and I have tasks to run.
John Cole
I have repeatedly given an appraisal of how I see things. You dismiss them or ignore them. From my perspective, the ship has already sailed, and the fact that the House leadership pushed it so quickly and so forcefully, as well as got so many votes for it (again, only 128 no votes) that the fix was in. Why they did this is open for speculation.
Maybe they are complicit and this is just CYA. Maybe they have so many conservative Democrats who are already in a lot of trouble in their districts and needthis issue disappeared and off the table. Maybe some of them believe this bill is necessary. Maybe they have just been yanking the netroots chain the entire time with the issue, ala Republicans and social conservative issues. I don’t know. But the overwhelming support from Democrats yesterday says something,.
For Obama, the downsides are multiple here. He came out against immunity, but right now it looks like no matter what he does, it will pass. One article I saw said as many as 68 Senators will support the bill, meaning a filibuster is unsustainable. What can Obama do?
Well, he can come out and vehemently oppose the bill. In the process, he will be saying that all of the Democrats in the House, people he needs campaigning for him, are hacks who supported an unconstitutional bill. Hopefully even you can see the downside to this. This will also hurt him in conservative districts where you better believe Republicans will use this and last week’s habeus ruling to attack him, hurting downticket Democrats.
He can try to lead a filibuster with Dodd and Feingold, but as noted earlier, that will fail. He will then be portrayed as a feckless liberal with no political clout who was rejected by 2/3 of the Senate, and you better believe the media will have a field day with it. They have already had their meal ticket stamped with the unity crap after months of the Hillary/Barack rift, this will just me more fuel for the fire. Again, I hope you can appreciate the political downside of that. I can see the GOP commercials now- “obama, the most liberal man in the Senate according to the National Journal, is too liberal for even the vast majority of his own party!”
He can work to have Reid shelve this, but that will not happen- I think Reid and the Senate leadership want this passed. I think Rockefeller has a lot to hide. At any rate, he is now wasting political capital he needs for the General.
And all of this, and I say again, all of this is in vain, because the bill is going to pass. And even if Obama does somehow get immunity stripped from it, Bush will veto the bill. If they alter it in any appreciable way, Bush will simply issue a signing statement accompanied with a middle finger or it will quietly get stripped out in conference.
And, of course, it goes without saying that if he does anything, he will be portrayed as soft on terrorism. So he has that going for him regardless what happens. The only thing he can do is what he did- get out of the way of the speeding train and, as I noted in the poker analogy, try to limp into the Senate and see if the dynamic change.
Right now he is trying to make lemonade out of lemons, and you all are pissing in the water and not taking one minute to appreciate the dynamics of the situation. Probably the best outcome will be for him to try to remove immunity and if that fails, vote against it, but should he fail and vote for it, I will not hold it against him- that is a judgment call, and there just is no upside for him either way since the bill is going to pass with or without his vote.
That is how I see things. I thought I pointed all this out three or four times already, and I thought you all would figure it out with the poker analogy. Michael D. did in the very first comment. His only option right now that makes sense to me is to fold. Going down with the ship may make some of the egos in the netroots self-satisfied, but it does not help Obama or Democrats in the general.
TenguPhule
When I dream, I dream of ice cream.
The difference is, I will get that ice cream.
NR
Pelosi and Hoyer make me wish that Hastert and DeLay were still running Congress. They weren’t nearly as effective in advancing Bush’s agenda as Pelosi and Hoyer have been.
PaulB
He’s already being “framed as a radical.”
Sorry, but based on your analysis, it’s pretty clear that you have no idea what’s in the bill. Accordingly, I’m not even going to bother responding. I will suggest, though, that you visit the ACLU website and look into this a bit. Keep in mind that this is far more than “spying on the bad guys.”
Um, who is the “they” in the above sentence?
Sorry, but the above statements make absolutely no sense. Do you have any idea at all as to what you’re saying?
TenguPhule
And if ponies could fly, Iraq would be buried in flowers and candy.
Rome Again
Not me, I don’t, and neither does TZ, that makes two, so, no, we can’t have McCain. ;)
Sojourner
John, you’re losing it. You and TZ need some time away from the computer.
TenguPhule
On that John, we disagree.
If he can’t stop the vote, he damn well better be in another state campaigning when the final roll is called for it.
Hillary fucked up by going with the tide.
Obama should be smart enough to get out of the water.
Sojourner
A good start would be to not vote for it.
John Cole
The bill is going to pass anyway. Why can you not comprehend this?
ThymeZone
Yeah, this material is the PaulB argument and the Sojourner argument in slightly different clothes.
Which is: I know better than Barack Obama what the best course for Barack Obama is here. I have no proof of this, but I assert it anyway, and on that basis, I will sit here and criticize him, and bash anyone who gets in the way.
My argument is slightly different: Obama is the best and smartest candidate I’ve seen at this level, and he has proven to me that he knows what he is doing. I defer to his judgment and support him fully. I also know that there is a lot more to the FISA story than we are reading on the blogs. There is a vast empire of deal-making spaghetti behind the scenes, and while we have every right to hate the idea that there is, the fact is, there is. And there is a vast empire of backstory of fucking over democracy behind this national security curtain, and if we don’t elect somebody like Obama, we’ll never get to fixing it. Another reason I support him fully.
So, it comes down to Obama’s judgment versus PaulB’s judgment. Let’s pick and choose how much we will support the only candidacy standing between us and a collossal tranwreck and disaster for this country, and if anyone criticizes us, we will complain that it’s okay because, you know, it’s just criticism. Except when it isn’t, such as when it’s “I wont vote for him” or “I wont contribute to him.” Which is, you know, okay, because, you know, what effect would that have anyway?
The term “no brainer” comes to mind here. I choose Obama’s judgment over the complainers’ judgment.
And, bonus, I seem to be making PaulB sick to his stomach. Those are the little things that make life really worthwhile.
Rome Again
John, obviously a few people here don’t understand risk assessment. Don’t take it personally, it’s not you.
Sojourner, do you want a Democrat to win the next election or would you rather that we lose that ability with this FISA bullshit?
TenguPhule
So let it pass without Obama’s vote.
If he can’t stop it, the best defense is to not be there.
Sojourner
So if a bill is going to pass, then he should vote for it?
Clinton voted for the Iraq war bill. It was going to pass anyway so what’s the big deal? Right?
Sojourner
It’s not Obama that is the issue. It’s the fourth amendment.
Sojourner
You are assuming that criticizing the Democratic candidate means losing the election.
ThymeZone
John’s 2:13 post is the best piece I have seen on this so far in two days.
Says it all, says it well.
With that, I must adjourn to another electronic venue where I can earn a crust.
—-//
Hmm, yes. John 2:13
Haaaahahahahaha. Goddam, I am one funny sumbitch.
cleek
JC is absolutely right here – there’s is very little Obama can do at this point, either as a Senator or as the nominee. the politics are bad in all directions and he doesn’t have the power to change that.
as for all of you saying you’re going to note vote for Obama, or are going to withhold donations, etc: McCain, the other option in the race, is going to happily vote for the bill, along with every other Republican in Congress. Obama got boxed-in by his leadership and the political reality of not wanting to fight 3/4 of Congress over such a (frankly) esoteric issue during an election year. McCain is going to vote for it with glee. watch where you aim that angst – don’t shoot yourself in the foot.
Rome Again
Obama did not authorize an illegal war, what he is doing is authorizing the administration to do the dirty work it’s already done so they can finish it and then when Obama becomes president he’ll be able to start with a clean slate and start taking names. BushCo is hanging themselves here, there will be questions later. This makes the current administration more complicit.
ThymeZone
I ask you, how is the republic to survive if its citizens have NO FUCKING CLUE how the processes actually work?
John 2:13. BJNTB (Balloon Juice, not the Bible).
Read it. Dig it.
TenguPhule
Then I suggest you direct your outrage to the Ratfuckers in the House.
Until Obama actually votes or does not when this comes up in the Senate, the whole thing is much ado about nothing.
Obama is not the nominee yet. He’s still trying to change American minds that ‘Habus Corpus’ does not mean ‘OMG the Terrorists are going to run wild’ that Fuckstain and his GOP brothers in arms are pushing. He’s also standing up on ANWR, which IS costing him political capital thanks to the ratfuckers who can’t imagine not wasting gas as an American right.
Let’s see how he does next week before the perpetual outrage machine is set into gear.
Rome Again
I’m not assuming that at all. Don’t presume to tell me what I assume. I am assuming that Obama needs the leadership to help get him elected, and he does.
Just Some Fuckhead
Not to stomp all over Sojourner’s efforts to see how many different ways she can say “I know you are but what am I”, I think the fundamental divide here is between idealists and pragmatists. There may indeed be a few fourteen year olds posting and TZ may in fact be papering his chicken coop with the constitution but it appears this little kerfluffle falls into the typical camps of idealism and pragmatism.
Obama is not an idealist, he is a pragmatist. If that wasn’t already obvious you haven’t been paying attention. If this is a problem for you, by all means write in Kucinich on election day. You will change nothing, as you are surely accustomed to by now.
Sojourner
The latest poll I saw showed that Democrats have a harsher view of the Congress’s performance than do Republicans. Polls also show that most Americans are against giving immunity to the telecoms.
So why wouldn’t Obama take a public stand against the bill and the breathtakingly incompetent Democratic leadership (Pelosi & Reid)? He would certainly get the attention of the growing numbers of independents as well as rewarding the left for their support.
The assumption that voting for immunity is the politically savvy choice is questionable, unless you’re trying to win over Bush’s base.
Sojourner
Um, the leadership needs him as much as he needs them. They desperately need a Democratic president to help keep them from continuing to shoot themselves in the foot.
myiq2xu
Telco immunity is unpopular with just about everyone outside of Washington DC
The Bush administration loves it, the Village idiots think it’s a great idea, and the lobbyists for the Telcos are very generous.
But voters hate it.
So what would be the downside to bold leadership in this case?
TenguPhule
With all due respect, no.
Obama should not give authorization on anything Bushco does. He is running as the Anti-Bush. Going along with the flow was a Hillary mistake. It wrecked her credibility and judgement perceptions.
If he gets his hands dirty by actively helping this FISA decapitation, he’s fucked.
Either work to stop it, or stay out of the way. Do not hop on board the crashing train.
ThymeZone
I am not assuming, but asserting with confidence, that whining and bitching that you didn’t get your way is anathema to teamwork, and that teamwork is what we need to save the country.
Get on the team. Stop bitching and whining.
Yes, I said bitching. Bitching, bitching, bitching.
In other words, what Hillary is NOT doing these days.
Rome Again
You do realize a bunch of those people he would be pissing off are SUPERDELEGATES?
Sojourner
What is pragmatic about voting for an unpopular bill?
TenguPhule
And Hillary Clinton looked back and said nothing.
dslak
Kudos to Balakirev et al for making the perfect the enemy of the good. Let me know how that works out for ya.
ThymeZone
Okay, last night it was the rooster, today the chicken coop.
I feel a strange pull toward a poultry force, a feathered doom that is approaching me from
BAWK!
OH MY GOD
Rome Again
In case you haven’t noticed, the Dems are not looking at losing seats in this coming elections, the Repubs are. The Dems still will have jobs when this is said and done.
Michael D.
I have to step up and defend Cole here. I used the c-bomb and was warned. Other than that, I can post whatever I want.
As long as it’s not too gay.
Rome Again
That’s not allowed in city limits, is it?
TenguPhule
Because, as has been explained several times already, Obama CAN NOT KICK DEMOCRATIC RATFUCKERS IN THE BALLS UNTIL AFTER THE AUGUST CONVENTION. He is not the nominee yet. Calling out Superdelegates who can still send Clinton as the nominee is fucking suicide.
In the end, all that matters is 41 votes in the Senate.
Do Obama and Dodd have that? If they don’t then they can’t stop it. And all the calls for ‘reward the supporters’ is bullshit.
ThymeZone
What could possibly be going on among those 600 of the most powerful people in the country month in and month out that I might not know about and which actually drive the public face of it that I seen CSPAN? Why don’t they realize that my feelings are more important than their machines of power, and that Mister Obama should be listening to me, me, me no matter what?
Why is it all so confusing and upsetting? Waaahhhhhhh!
PaulB
Sorry, but you really haven’t. You’ve been ranting, snarking, offering up silly strawman arguments, pretending that the legislation doesn’t really do anything wrong other than immunity, and basically insulting people right and left. Your privilege, of course, since it’s your blog. But please don’t pretend that you had really sat down, thought this through, and issued a coherent, thoughtful analysis, because you pretty clearly had not done so.
I agree that there is little that be done to derail this now. The Senate is almost certainly going to pass it, as is, with Obama voting in the affirmative. I really wish I knew exactly what was going on and why the House leadership committed to something that was, in my opinion, politically very, very stupid, over and above the damage that this bill will cause.
See, here’s the thing: I’m just not seeing all those downsides, even in a losing cause. I don’t really expect him to do a “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” last stand, but he could still do such things as:
– Take a stronger stand against this bill and point out its shortcomings. His statement yesterday indicated support, not opposition, and it listed the bill’s supposed strengths, not its weaknesses.
– Take the fight back to the Republicans, as he’s done so successfully in recent months. His statement yesterday contained a couple of assertions that were not only flatly false but that bought into Republican memes instead of confronting them. He’s given up too much ground. See, for example, this analysis over at the Technology Liberation Front, much of which I agree with.
– Announce that he will vote “no” and then do so. His statement yesterday gave a pretty clear indication that he will vote “yes”. (As for his his statement that he will “work” to remove retroactive immunity, that’s a Kabuki dance that I’m not buying.)
That’s really all I want from Obama. Now you tell me: were he to do these things, what would the political cost be? My own assessment is that he would suffer little, if any, cost. And the gains, supporting a view shared by not only his base but by the majority of U.S. voters, refusing to buy into Republican memes, demonstrating real leadership, and so on, would outweigh those costs.
Um … do you really think he’s that unskilled politically? Democratic politicians disagree with one another all the time without those catastropic effects you fear.
But here’s the thing, John: they’re going to do this, anyway! Hell, they are already doing this. One of the reasons I liked Obama is that he actually fought back, refusing to buy into their memes, reframing the debate in such a way that he countered these arguments quite successfully. And yet, here, he abandoned that approach, one that I think is critical to Democratic success, both now and in the future.
Personally, I happen to think that’s the best scenario. Because when the Republicans try to pretend that the Democrats have left the nation “undefended,” they have a quick and easy counter.
And, again, he already is. You don’t win that battle by capitulating. You win that battle by reframing the debate, making a compelling case supporting your views, just as he has been doing with respect to Iraq and the “war on terror.”
I do appreciate them, John; I just don’t agree with you as to what the dynamics and costs really are.
ThymeZone
No. But fuckhead has some poultry plan, I just know it.
I am trying to understand it, but it just doesn’t cluck. I mean, click.
Rome Again
Soj, 50% of the electorate don’t even know there WAS a vote, and come next week when this has blown over, they STILL won’t know. If you think this bill is going to change the election, you’re dreaming.
Just Some Fuckhead
You’d prolly do better sticking to what you know, ;)
ThymeZone
No, you tell me. Who is the better judge of it, him, or you? And since you are asserting that you are, please explain why I would be wise to choose your judgment over his.
Because that’s the choice you are asking us to make here, isn’t it? Yours, versus his? So, sell it. Convince me, or anyone, that you are the better judge of it all.
montysano
And while compiling your analysis, imagine the voices of Hume and Krauthammer and Hannity talking about it.
No takers so far…........... thought so.
Fwiffo
This sort of logic is surely what led so many Democrats to support the Iraq war authorization. By all means, let’s keep making that same mistake over and over again, hoping against hope that cowardice will lead to electoral success. Cause hey, it worked so great for Democrats in 2002.
Rome Again
Will you let the man get elected first? Geez!
Sojourner
The superdelegates have already made it clear they’re going to follow the voters.
PaulB
That’s the four-year-old argument, as noted by sysprog:
Q.E.D.
ROFL…. Like I said, a drama queen. Dear heart, it is, in fact, “just criticism.” Deal with it.
Do tell me where I’ve ever made either of those statements, won’t you? I eagerly await your reply.
ROFLMAO…. Dear heart, you give yourself far too much credit. I don’t take you seriously enough to give a shit about your opinion or to be upset by anything you write, particularly when it’s so clearly unsupported by anything resembling logic, reason, or data. You see, TZ, you’re funny, which is why I had so much fun trolling you yesterday.
Sojourner
Which means nothing concerning whether Pelosi and Reid will keep their leadership roles.
ThymeZone
I seriously doubt that. But on that line of thought, I more and more think that there is a large bowl of hidden spaghetti in Washington that represents all the ways the government has fucked with principles in order to grab power under the guise of national security … and that if you pull on the wrong strand, it all would fall apart.
My hunch is that this is the reason why you can get strong bipartisan support for keeping up the pretenses. And that this thing is bigger than either party, and bigger than any candidate.
I have no illusions that Barack can sweep all this away, but I also have no illusions about what happens when John McCain gets sworn in as president: The vast empire of deception gets vaster.
PaulB
Dear heart, you do realize that an “appeal to authority” is just much a fallacy as is “argument by assertion,” do you not? That’s the difference between us: I don’t assume that those I support never make mistakes or that they should be supported unquestioningly.
Mosty because there actually is some small, but real, evidence that supports my point of view (e.g., the House special elections this year, opinion polls, etc.), not to mention the fact that Obama’s statement of yesterday was flatly incorrect in at least a couple of his assertions regarding the bill.
Desmond
Oh please, he’s the fucking nominee! You honestly think the superdelegates can still overturn that? It’s a done deal, and stop acting like his nomination is still questionable.
Rome Again
Don’t change the fucking subject, you were wrong. Dems are not going to lose the election over this issue.
ThymeZone
Shorter PaulB: Why won’t anyone listen to me?
No, actually, I do self-deprecation better than just about anybody around here. I don’t give myself a lot of credit, I leave that to others.
So, how’s your credit thing going? Do you think you are winning this argument here?
Discuss.
Sojourner
Great. Then what’s the harm in voting the way he has to this point?
People do know that Bush has trashed the Constitution. Obama could have used this as a perfect example of how he’s going to restore the Constitution. It’s a perfect opportunity to give one of his speeches on regaining America’s moral authority and respect for the law and the Constitution. Most Americans love that stuff.
What’s he going to say now? I didn’t want to piss off the congressional leadership of my party so I voted for a bill that I know is wrong and enables McCain to say that even Obama understands that the commander-in-chief was right to break the law.
Somehow I don’t think even Obama could come up with a noble speech on that topic.
Cassidy
You must be one of those new to this whole Democrat thing.
Rome Again
The Supers have the right to change their mind, no matter what they said previously, until the convention nothing is safe. Obama is not the nominee, is the PRESUMED nominee. Let him get elected first.
PaulB
ROFL…. Dear heart, I could give a shit about whether anyone “listens” to me. Unlike you, it appears, my ego isn’t on the line in these interactions. This is a blog comment area; I know precisely how meaningless these discussions ultimately are.
ROFL…. Q.E.D.
See above about “giving a shit.”
Since I actually have a life, I’ll move on for now. Feel free to engage in whatever snark makes your day. I’m sure it will make you feel all warm and gooshy inside. TTFN.
Sojourner
The Democratic leadership, who is pushing this bill forward, want to keep their leadership positions. That is the “fucking” subject.
Fwiffo
What I can’t understand is how people can believe there is a political cost for standing up to Bush at this point. Standing up to Bush is like curing cancer. Nobody’s going to get mad at you for it. Taking a heroic stand against this kind of thing would win political capital, not lose it.
Rome Again
He would say that in order to get into a position to change the ballgame, he had to play by the old rules and now there’s a new umpire on the field.
Desmond
Exactly! This is why the negatives of supporting this travesty so far outweigh the positives. By doing the “safe” thing (notice I put that in quotations) he opens himself up to all kinds of criticism, both from the left and the right. But if he does the right thing, he endears himself to his progressive base, and closes off a line of attack from the Republicans (that he’s weak and flip-flopped on telecom immunity).
Sojourner
Yes, they have been so bold and forthright to this point that they certainly would happily change their votes and watch their party go up in flames.
Right.
Just Some Fuckhead
PaulB sez:
Dawg, I haven’t really weighed in on the merits of whose judgment is worthiest of consideration but even with Obama being my fourth or fifth choice, it’s sort of a no-brainer to go with his judgment over this motley assortment of Clintards, ratfuckers and assorted agitpropists in an anonymous comment thread.
No personal offense to you, of course. You’re clearly different and better than all the other folks on your team. They’d do well to elect you king.
ThymeZone
Nor do I wrongly assume that supporting them at critical junctures is the same as “unquestioning support,” or unwise. Knowing how, and when, to pick battles is a large part of what happens the next few months. I have seen Obama’s work in this respect, I like it, and I support it. I have seen yours, and I don’t like it, and I don’t respect it.
I don’t agree with your choices in this context. I don’t agree that you are the better judge of when it is appropriate to support, and when it is appropriate to criticize. That’s the basis of our disagreement, and I stand on that disagreement as it currently is framed.
Desmond
Oh yeah, after months of being the nominee, rallying the party against Bush, a few asshole congressmen are going to vote for Hillary at the convention and throw the entire party into disarray. Give me a fucking break.
Rome Again
Why don’t you email that to Pelosi? She’s the one who doesn’t understand this. Pelosi is the problem here, NOT Obama.
Just Some Fuckhead
Beg pardon?
4tehlulz
PROTIP: Neither McCain nor Obama are officially their parties’ nominees until the delegates actually vote at the conventions.
nightjar
This is the fault in your argument. It is not a republican meme when 105 House dems vote for it and as many as 20 or more senate dems may vote against it. It should not have been brought to the house floor before the election and that’s not Obama’s call. For him to take the fight to repubs, as you say he should, he would also be taking it to about half the dems in Congress. And again how is that smart campaign politics, other that to smooth the feathers of a few nattering nabobs of negatism on the left wing.
*sorry for the Agnew quote. I just always wanted to say that in a blog comment.
Sojourner
Except, of course, it’s the Dems who control the bills that get to the floor. And if he votes yea, he is indicating his support for the bill. It’s pretty darn tough to explain why you voted against something, and then voted for it. Just ask John Kerry how that worked for him.
ThymeZone
Only when you are in them.
D. Mason
AHAHAHHAHAHA
John Cole
The support of the house and senate democratic leadership sort of threw a monkey wrench in that. That is kind of my point in the 2:13 post listing the downsides. he really got thrown into a touch situation.
And even then, who knows what he will end up doing?
Desmond
There’s this little concept called “facts on the ground”...
Rome Again
Right.
If you have forgotten, there is another Democrat who was fully willing to be in that position. The party would not go up in flames, it would become a very heated tent with a lot of anger, but it would not go up in flames.
ThymeZone
I’m grandfathered in, sorry. And by that I mean, literally, since I am in fact a grandfather.
But you are the next generation. You are laying the eggs … er, foundation … of the future.
Bawk!
John Cole
Speaking of Clintards, talk left has at last count 8 posts flaming Obama for any number of things, to include my personal favorite, Jeralynn complaining that Obama is not bailing out denver for hosting the DNC.
But they support Obama. How do I know? Armando and Jeralynn have said so, convincingly. No mention of Dame Hillary’s position on FISA, sadly.
Rome Again
I guess you’ve never heard of that word called “EXPEDIENCE?”
Just Some Fuckhead
A handful of anonymous commenters. “Mark my words” is always a sure tell for a prophet.
Desmond
Yes it would! There is no way that Hillary can suddenly become the nominee in August after Obama has already run a general election campaign for several months with everyone treating him as the nominee. At least, no way it can happen without the Dems then getting trounced in November. It would be the most stupendously idiotic political move in generations, and there’s no fucking way that any superdelegate would be responsible for that just because Obama disagrees with them on telecom immunity.
Rome Again
I can’t help it that everyone treats him like the nominee, that’s the people’s fault for not understanding the process. He is the PRESUMED nominee. He is not the nominee until the convention, no matter HOW you want to frame it.
Sojourner
Oh please. The same people who didn’t want to support her when she was a candidate are now going to switch their votes to her?
dslak
So long as Obama votes against giving the telecoms immunity from civil suits, what’s the damned problem?
The courts have already ruled against attempts at a criminal case because the plaintiffs could not provide evidence that their rights were violated.
Before Obama expressed support for this new bill, how did people expect a criminal case was going to be possible? It’s because they thought an Obama administration would bring the details of criminal operations in the government to light, right? The basis of that belief still hasn’t changed, so it’s unreasonable to jettison it simply because Obama doesn’t vote the way you want on one particular bill.
Sojourner
Except the majority of Dems in the House were able to vote against it. Why can’t Obama?
Desmond
Like I said, facts on the ground. Obama is going to be the nominee, and to think his position as nominee to be would be put in grave danger by principled opposition to telecom immunity (which in fact has been his position all along; if anyone would be betraying anyone, it sure wouldn’t be Obama) is quite frankly insane. It’s so insane that I can’t believe otherwise reasonable and intelligent BJ commentators are pushing it.
Rome Again
Absolutely!
People are getting their panties in a twist because they don’t realize that there is a process and it’s not as cut and dried as they’re making it out to be.
ThymeZone
OT This Has To Be Said: Watching Shawn and Gus of Psych sing “Ebony and Ivory” is maybe the best thing I have seen on tv in a long time.
Teh awesome.
Rome Again
You wanna bet there aren’t a bunch of Hillary supporters out there watching this and thinking there might be a way to get her back in the fight? Nothing is final until the convention. The supers can vote for anyone they choose. If they chose to not support Obama due to this vote, they could technically put her in as the nominee.
Rome Again
Teh awesome.
TZ are you getting your work done? I’m waiting for you. ;)
Rome Again
Ask Nancy Pelosi.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah, that crossed my mind when the nth Clintard showed up insisting Obama piss all over House dems and immolate himself in the Senate.
Sojourner
There’s a bunch of Al Gore supporters who would love to get their guy in the fight as well. So what?
Good grief. If Obama can’t take on Pelosi, how the hell is he going to handle foreign leaders?
Rome Again
You must have been a loner in high school.
If the leadership opposes Obama’s nomination for one reason or another, do you want to take bets that others won’t fall in line behind the leadership?
Rome Again
Who said he can’t take her on? He has to continue to maintain unity for the party, you idiot! If he breaks away from the party (the leadership) he can be presented as a renegade candidate. It’s too risky at this time to fall away from the leadership.
Go out and take a sunbath, will you? This stuff is too hard for you.
dslak
How do you propose that Obama “take on” Pelosi? Please include in your answer the significance of the fact that Congress has two independent chambers.
Rome Again
Al Gore’s name wasn’t in the hat. Clinton’s is, and her delegates will be counted at the convention, hopefully they will be supporting Obama.
Phoenix Woman
By the way:
Anyone who thinks that Clinton is “any better” on this issue needs to think again.
Sojourner
The leadership won’t oppose his nomination. They’re hanging onto their own leadership jobs as it is.
What unity? The majority of the house Dems voted against it. The American people, including Democratic voters, are against it. The bill has been largely successful because of the Repubs. Is that the unity you’re talking about because I don’t really care what the Repubs want.
Sojourner
OMG. He votes with the majority of the party and in a way that’s consistent with his previous record. Are you really that afraid of the Democratic leadership? OMG
Afraid of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
Sojourner
Boo
Pelosi is one very scary woman. Look how she has put the Bushies and the Repubs in their place.
Oh wait!
dslak
When you traveled to the future in which Obama had voted for this bill, what other interesting things did you see?
ThymeZone
See your mail.
Rome Again
As the leadership goes, so goes the current candidate. That will pretty much always be true. Obama does not want to make waves with the leadership while he is trying to secure the nomination. As I said, you really need to go out and play with a beach ball or something.
Sojourner
I thought Obama already had all the delegates he needs.
dslak
This is not an answer to the question, but a dodge. I’m afraid that’s a FAIL.
Sojourner
Didn’t have to travel to the future
Rome Again
It’s not about fear, it’s about respecting the leadership while they are trying to get him elected but, of course, you wouldn’t know that.
Soj, if you don’t like the way it all works, perhaps you should get yourself elected and go to Washington and learn the ropes first hand. I’m sure you’ll come back with a whole different perspective.
Sojourner
Obama is the leader of the party.
Just having some fun with the Pelosi fear factor. Best laugh I’ve had all day that some of you are afraid of her.
dslak
I’m not seeing a mention there of Obama having voted for the bill. Could you point it out to me?
Sojourner
Respecting the leadership that put him in a terrible position for no good reason other than their own self-interest. With friends like that… yep, the Dems may once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Rome Again
Since he hasn’t voted yet, yes, you DID travel to the future. He can say he’s backing it and still vote present if he chooses. You have no idea what he may have up his sleeve, but you seem to act like you not only ironed his shirt but dressed him yourself.
Brachiator
Your point earlier was:
You didn’t add on, “Uh-uh! Can’t quote catastrophes that people don’t plan for!
I didn’t add it because it’s not relevant. Your words:
You are not just planning for catastrophe, you are yearning for it, solely because you didn’t get your way in seeing your preferred candidate, Edwards, secure the nomination.
By your own words, you want to bring about death, oppression, and misery, under the delusion that the survivors might come around to your way of thinking.
Those who don’t survive—what are they to you—acceptable losses?
Not to stomp all over Sojourner’s efforts to see how many different ways she can say “I know you are but what am I”, I think the fundamental divide here is between idealists and pragmatists.
Actually, the divide here is between those who support the Democratic nominee for president of the United States and those who are still looking for room to subvert his candidacy or to rationalize their refusal to support him.
Rome Again
Not until he’s the nominee.
myiq2xu
The rationalizations here are comedy gold!
I’m sure that in just a few short years y’all will be arguing that The Precious needs to be reelected so that he will finally be free to unleash the MUP magic.
dslak
Why should I believe this to be the case?
I’m glad to see that you have not lost your talent for taking down strawmen. It’s plain however that you have conceded that Obama really can’t “take on” Pelosi in any meaningful way, since you cannot offer any examples of how he might do so.
Wolfdaughter
I, too, am disappointed that Obama didn’t make a stronger statement against immunity for the telecomms. But like ThymeZone and others on BJ, I am more of a pragmatist than idealist. If Obama is elected, and that’s still a big IF, I believe that he will be able to start reversing some of the trends that we’ve seen, particularly in the last 7 1/2 years, and to a degree ever since Reagan was elected. These trends have been a long time building and it will take more than 4 years to reverse them.
This is how I read Obama, based on his speeches and past votes: central-leftist, but that he REALLY REALLY wants to work towards more unity, more comity. If he’s elected, I think we’ll see a lot of trying to work with people of different viewpoints and a fair amount of compromise. More than I as a committed leftist would prefer, but still a vast improvement over what we have now.
Think about when you have personally been involved in disputes with others. What worked best in the long term, you getting everything your way, or the other person getting everything their way? Or instead, the two of you figuring out a way for each person to get something of what they wanted? I think that’s Obama’s driving principle. Yup, he’s a politician. But what I think he’s going to do will be not triangulation, although it can appear that way, but trying to figure out ways that everyone gets something they want, recognizing that in that case nobody gets everything they want. I also see him working to bring people who disagree along by persuasion rather than brute force.
My 2 cents.
Phoenix Woman
So Obama is all-powerful? That’s a new one on me. If that were the case, Blue Dogs like Oklahoma’s Boren wouldn’t be threatening to back McCain over Obama.
Thing is, the FISA foofaraw’s been going on for quite a while, and nobody, not even the sainted Chris Dodd, has exactly covered themselves in glory here. Hillary skipped the vote in February to strip the Senate FISA bill of the immunity provision, one month after she showed up at FDL to promise to oppose immunity. Obama at least managed to be there for that vote, and to vote for stripping immunity from the bill, which is something that the No Quarter types have been ignoring when they try to pretend that their candidate would have been better on this issue.
Sojourner
Cool. He was against it before he was for it before he was against it.
That definitely helps things.
Genine
Actually, there is a way for Hillary to become the nominee. And, if Obama fights the supers on this bill, they might make it happen.
Look, outside of the political blogsphere, most democrats support Hillary and Obama equally. For a lot of them “Any Democrat ‘08” is still their mantra. The supers who get pissed at Obama will just put some media narrative out thre on why they have to switch their support. That’s not a hard thing to do. They’d only piss off political junkies, a third of whom are Hillary dead-enders anyway. The rest of the people will go along with it because they don’t follow these things as much as we do.
Also, keep in mind, that towards the end of the primary, a number of supers switched their support from Hillary to Obama when she really started getting caustic. Those supers that changed their minds had a press release or statement which explained why they changed their minds in perfectly reasonble language that soothed the average joe voter.
So, yes, its possible for the supers to back Hillary and get away with it, too. At this point Obama does NOT have a large chunk of the Democratic party behind him. That’s slowly changing, but you still have your hold-outs. (I think that is part of his reasoning for having some establishment Dems on his advisory boards, etc). Hillary and her supporters are waiting in the wings “ready on day one” to be the nominee. Of that, I have no doubt.
The real question for me is why the Dems want to capitulate so badly? To stand up against Bush is a good thing and helps in the eyes of the voters, so why is the Dem leadership “caving”? There is some major shit going on, I think. Because this is a huge capitulation. They’re not doing it out of deference to Bush. But I don’t know what the reason is.
Also, the fix for this “compromise” has been in for months. Months before the primary season was over and the race was still “up in the air”. I think Obama made his statement of support because, like Bethany Anne said, it was to provide political cover. They knew the netroots were going to be on their asses, so they had their “golden boy” cover for this by throwing his “support” behind it. I really wish he didn’t do that, but the votes he needs right now are those of the Superdelegates for whom CYA, Telco Money or SOMETHING is more important than the Constitution.
dslak
Which part of the bill was Obama against before that he now supports?
Sojourner
What strawman? Aren’t you the one claiming that Obama is following Pelosi’s lead on this?
Just Some Fuckhead
Actually, not even then. It appears we have a lot of new converts to the Democratic party who think the organization is top down like the Republican party or Clinton campaign
In fact, we have many many leaders in the Democratic party.
See Healthcare, 1993 Reform of for one recent example.
Sojourner
Because he is acting as if the general election as already started. By your logic, he should not.
dslak
One plausible explanation that Greenwald gave is that the Democratic leadership actually believes in some version of the unitary executive. Why are Democratic politicians only ever considered cowards when they side with the opposition, rather than vicious?
Sojourner
No, but presumably powerful enough to vote consistently with the way he has done so recently. If not, he should not be a senator, let alone president.
dslak
The “you’re afraid of Pelosi” one.
I’m not claiming that, but even if I were, it would be irrelevant to any of the arguments you’ve advanced so far.
This claim is ambiguous, and some meanings of it do not entail that Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. Why don’t you just explain how Obama can be said to have this position?
Sojourner
Oh, okay. You don’t think Obama is the leader of the party. He is simply a senator working for the Democratic congressional leadership.
So when it comes time to vote, we are actually voting for the Democratic congressional leadership.
Given the polls, the Dems really are screwed, aren’t they.
dslak
Instead of setting up and knocking down more strawmen, why don’t you just explain how Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, as you claimed he is?
I realize that the answer is probably “because I can’t,” but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubht.
nightjar
The rationalizations here are comedy gold!
You mean like the rationalizations for the hilarious past episode when HC voted for Kyle -Lieberman giving Dick Cheney a green light for his wet dream to bomb Iran on the way out the White HOuse door. (and Obama voted no) or the olde but goldie AUMF HC voted for that has given us the thing we call Iraq Quagmire.
Now those were funny rationalizations in a blood soaked kind of way.
Sojourner
How about because Obama will be responsible for the platform that is put forward at the convention? How about because as the Democratic candidate, he will be defining what the Democrats stand for?
How about because he will be leading the charge on how to win the White House and, if he wins, he will be defining the direction HE wants to take the country.
Leaders define goals. Leaders define strategies. Obama is expected to do that now that he’s the nominee.
The convention is just a formality. How do I know that? Because there was much moaning and screaming about Clinton still being in the race during the convention. She’s gone now. Obama is on the front page of the Democratic website.
dslak
Sojourner, your argument appears to be that Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party because he will become the leader of the Democratic Party. Or are you trying to say something else?
Sojourner
I’m saying that a true leader takes the leadership role. He doesn’t wait for permission.
dslak
In other words, you’re not answering the question the question at all. Quelle surprise.
Genine
They’re not doing it out of deference to Bush. But I don’t know what the reason is.
One plausible explanation that Greenwald gave is that the Democratic leadership actually believes in some version of the unitary executive. Why are Democratic politicians only ever considered cowards when they side with the opposition, rather than vicious?
Yeah, maybe they believe in some version of it. I should hope a more moderate version, but I can’t be sure. After all, authoritarianism isn’t exclusive to one side of the aisle, its just more prevalent on one side of the aisle.
But that still doesn’t seem right to me. Of course I can imagine all kinds of scenarios, but I don’t know the real answer.
I am really looking forward to the day when we have more progressive leaders, but in the meantime, we have to work with what we’ve got.
Punchy
This thread has become soiled. Fresh one, por favor?
dslak
I’m from Oklahoma. The closest I’ll ever get to having a progressive leader in national politics is in the presidency.
dslak
So TZ ran out of Depends. Give the guy a break!
Sojourner
Quelle surprise you didn’t understand my answer.
You want someone to give Obama official permission to become the leader of the party. My position is he IS the leader of the party and he should act accordingly.
Genine
Jeez Louise! Sojourner, Obama is NOT the nominee. He is the PRESUMPTIVE nominee!
I totally understand what you’re saying and I agree with the principle behind what you say.( Although I am leaning more towards pragmatism at this point.) But your insistence that Obama is the nominee and is leader of the party is just sheer stupidity. If that was the case there wouldn’t even need to be a vote at the Convention in August.
The common perception is that Obama is the nominee but that is NOT locked up tight at this point. He and Hillary are VERY close in voter primaries. Its all about the supers now, WHO CAN CHANGE THEIR MINDS.
So please leave the whole “He’s leader of the party. He’s the nominee” thing alone. Because it is not true!
Pasota
My take is that Obama means it when he says that he supports the bill except for the immunity aspect, which he is willing to acquiesce to. I don’t think it’s all about not squandering political capital on a lost cause. Rather, I think he is laying the groundwork for his administration—this legislation will give him more power to do the good things that he’s aiming to do, and he’s not worried about his abusing it. He will see to it personally.
In other words, what he said in so many words in his statement.
The saving grace is that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, etc. will suddenly discern the original intent of the framers in prohibiting warrantleff wiretapf.
dslak
You seem to be confused. We are not discussing the qualities of “a true leader,” but how Obama can be said to be the leader of the Democratic Party. What is there to understand when a description of the former is used in an attempt to show the latter?
Sojourner
Then by all means write to the Democratic party and have them take him off the main page of their website that is devoted to their presidential candidate.
If Obama is scared of the superdelegates at this point, he doesn’t deserve to be president. The superdelegates have repeatedly shown themselves to be spineless.
I’m sorry but you are naive if you think the superdelegates will change their minds – unless he commits murder or something equally horendous in the mean time.
Obviously, you don’t understand power. Leaders grab power and they use it. If Obama can’t handle the likes of Dean, Pelosi, and Reid, this country is seriously screwed.
Sojourner
Isn’t it obvious?
dslak
Pasota, have you considered the possibility that investing absolute power in one man, no matter what his intentions, might not be such a good idea? On the other hand, thanks to your post, myiq and his ilk can feel vindicated in saying that we’re all Kool-Aid drinkers for Obama, so it’s not a total waste.
dslak
Isn’t it obvious that it’s not?
Can you, Sojourner, or any other similarly brain-damaged person, explain the nature and function of the office of “leader of the Democratic Party” and what kind of powers a person has by virtue of holding that office? Once you try that, you might begin to see how facile any arguments which depend upon the power of that supposed office really are.
Genine
If Obama is scared of the superdelegates at this point, he doesn’t deserve to be president. The superdelegates have repeatedly shown themselves to be spineless.
I’m sorry but you are naive if you think the superdelegates will change their minds – unless he commits murder or something equally horendous in the mean time.
I never said Obama was scared of the supers. He needs their votes in August. It would not be out of the realm of possibility to switch their allegiance to someone who almost get 50% of the vote. Hillary and Obama were nearly equal in terms of voter count. The supers are the ones that brought Obama over the edge. Those same supers can change their votes, just like some changed their vote from Hillary to Obam, during the primary.
Anyway, I’m done.
Later!
Laertes
Rome Again, this entire line of argument about how Obama isn’t technically the nominee is beneath you. It’s unutterably silly and childish.
On November 5, 1980, Ronald Reagan was the president-elect. You’d have looked pretty silly on that day, standing there with your arms crossed, rolling your eyes, loudly insisting that you don’t understand why everyone was talking like this was a done deal, because nothing’s official until the Electoral College votes.
No, you know what? Obama is the nominee. Full stop.
Also, this bit (indulged not only by you) about how Obama isn’t “the leader” of the party because his power isn’t absolute is also silly. Obama is the Leader of the Democratic party. His power isn’t as great as it’ll be after he’s elected, but he’s still stronger than anyone else. Pointing out that there are other, lesser, leaders doesn’t change anything.
Sojourner
Thanks, dslak. I think I’m beginning to understand one difference between those who are fine with Obama’s FISA position and those who aren’t.
The pro FISA folks are concerned about rocking the boat, about pissing off the Democratic leadership in a way that could keep Obama from winning the WH.
The pissed FISA folks expect Obama to act as a leader. To take the principled position and move the party towards him.
Interesting.
Pasota
Pasota, have you considered the possibility that investing absolute power in one man, no matter what his intentions, might not be such a good idea?
Yes.
What?
dslak
And what would be the major difference in his powers after he’s elected? It’s a pretty important one, isn’t it?
dslak
I’m beginning to understand that you’re incapable of putting forward an argument that isn’t a strawman.
You should try addressing the actual claims made by your opponent, rather than the absurd claims you would like them to have made because they’re easier to refute. You might find that it makes a significant difference in whether people consider you to be a dishonest hack.
Sojourner
I already have. Someone who will define the positions of the party and lead the effort to attain those goals.
Hopefully, Obama won’t feel the need to wait for a job description that meets your needs.
Sojourner
You want a job description and a title. I don’t. What’s strawman about that?
Laertes
You’ll have to help me out, dslak. Since I’m not in the dock, I’m not compelled to answer you through whatever elaborate chain of questioning you’ve got planned. So, where you going with this?
For my part, as I read this thread, I saw a number of terribly silly people quibbling about whether or not Obama was the leader of the party, some going so far as to advance the farcical argument that since his power over the party wasn’t absolute, he by definition couldn’t be called the leader.
So I piped up with my $0.02, calling silly where I see silly.
But apparently you feel I’ve trod upon your ground in so doing. So. Where you going with this? Shall I presume you’re one of the people arguing that Obama’s power isn’t great enough that he could have spiked this bill if he wanted to?
I think that’s probably true.
I’m taking a radical approach here: I’m taking the man at his word. I trust him. So, for instance, when he says something like “I like the bill that was just passed, except for the bit about retroactive immunity and I’ll try to get that part taken out” then I figure, and stay with me here because this is confusing, that he likes the bill that was just passed, except for the bit about retroactive immunity, which he’s going to try to kill. I imagine he’ll try this when the bill reaches the Senate, where he wields some technical power, whereas in the house his power is entirely of the “bully pulpit” sort.
So. What part of all this makes you give me that squinty look and start asking leading questions in a belligerent tone?
dslak
You’re right. I asked you to substantiate your claims when I already know that you’re incapable of doing so. You have my sincerest apologies.
Sojourner
You want a job description and an official title. I am, frankly, amazed that you don’t think a party’s presidential nominee is not the leader of the party. If not the candidate, then who?
If it’s not the candidate, then who is deciding what his platform is? I’d like to know that so I know who I’m really voting for. If it’s Pelosi and Reid, I’ll stay home.
Sure, you can argue on technicalities. Have at it. I’ll be evaluating the candidate on his ability to lead. My experience is that leaders lead. They get in front of an issue and don’t worry about whether someone has authorized them to do it. I’ve done it myself.
FISA was an opportunity for Obama to do that. He didn’t. That’s the gist of the issue for a lot of us.
If you’re fine with Obama waiting for permission, or waiting for a job definition, or whatever your beef is, have at it.
I’ll still be looking for the guy who can lead.
dslak
I didn’t see anyone make this claim. Could you give an example?
In my experience, beginning a dialogue with an attempt at psychoanalyzing your opponent is not conducive to winning friends and influencing people, but your mileage may differ.
I was actually pointing out that there’s a distinctive difference between someone being leader of the Democratic Party simpliciter and being President. I’m not sure where the squinty looks or belligerence come into it.
dslak
And I’m amazed that you continue to speculate about what I think rather than offer basic support for your claim.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Anticorium
Fixed. How’d that work out for you?
Sojourner
Actually, I don’t really care what you think. I was simply thanking you for (unintentionally) helping me to understand at least one distinction between the pros and cons.
And contrary to what you think, I’ve got a pretty good understanding of what constitutes effective leadership. It just doesn’t involve what you think it does.
dslak
Shorter Sojourner: I was making up completely absurd things and claiming that you believed them.
If by ‘leadership’ you mean what most other people mean by ‘magic,’ then I agree.
Sojourner
Yep. Absurd claims about expecting leaders to lead. That’s fine. No magic. Just committing to an issue and having the commitment and ability to get people on board.
As opposed to doing what you’re told and waiting for permission to take a stand.
Thanks, dslak!
Laertes
Just Some Fuckhead did, when pointed out that the party had several leaders and therefore no one person could be called “the leader” of the party.
You, for your part, are squirrely about exactly what you think. So, I’ve answered you. Simple question time: Do you think Obama is the leader of the Democratic party?
Simple question. I bet you can’t give a simple answer. Probably more evasion like “what are the precise duties of the office? What does the office letterhead look like? Where in the bylaws is the title of leader defined?
Right?
I mean, there’s no possible way you’ll give a simple answer like “Of course he’s the leader of the party, simply by virtue of being the nominee. But that doesn’t mean his power is absolute, and in fact his power is a good deal less than both his most avid supporters and his most rabid opponents would like to expect. I hesitate, however, to admit that he’s the Leader of the party because it’s more fun to be evasive and to answer questions with questions, and admitting that he’s the leader of the party means that I have to admit that he’s at least in some small way responsible for telco immunity should it pass.”
D. Mason
Clearly, leadership is following orders from people who have pissed off over 80% of the people you’re asking to vote for you. Get with the times dummy.
Sojourner
Uh, yeh. That appears to be the gist of it.
Just Some Fuckhead
With Laertes help, I seem to have wound up on both sides of this fight so I’m going to declare victory over myself and move on. Well done, Fuckhead, we’ll fight another day.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
304… 473… 414 and counting…
Don’t some of you have, y’know, actual lives away from the keyboard? I know the xkcd rule is in effect, but c’mon.
D. Mason
Soj, just to let you know. Some of the people you’ve been arguing with here would follow Obama into hell to sell space-heaters because he has a (D) beside his name.
dslak
I thought that’s what you might have in mind, but he’s saying that since the Democratic Party has no leader, Obama can’t be it. The position you describe however was that no one could be a leader who did not exercise absolute power, and it’s not clear that JSF meant that.
Yes.
I bet you’re not a very good gambler.
So you are either Sojourner or are for some reason taking my dispute with her personally? Or is it just general paranoia that makes you think I’m trying to cut your legs out from under you?
Sojourner
Apparently so. I just find it fascinating to see what the Obama followers will tolerate from their candidate. The same people who argued he was the second coming of Christ, above politics, bringing about real change, would never execute a political vote, are good with his capitulating on an important bill.
Strange times, aren’t they?
dslak
I just find it fascinating that Sojourner is pushing a Clinton meme from four months ago that was false even then.
Sojourner
What meme might that be?
Other than BJ’s favorite: anyone who challenges Obama must be a Clinton supporter.
dslak
I also just find it fascinating that Sojourner likes to play dumb when she’s not taking down strawmen.
Laertes
Naw, I’m not paranoid. Quibbling is a pet peeve of mine, that’s all.
About the rest, you’re half right. I’m neither a very good gambler nor Sojourner. I think Sojourner is one of those disappointed Obama supporters who feels personally betrayed because she spent a recent afternoon doodling “Mrs. Sojourner Obama” in her notebook. And I think YOU took advantage of the fact that Sojourner isn’t very good at this game to indulge in a lot of quibbling about what exactly the leader of the party is or isn’t. I think that if you look upthread at some of your posts, you’ll realize that you’d have written a number of things a lot differently if you’d taken Sojourner more seriously as an adversary.
Sojourner
Nice dodge.
Sojourner
Yep, I cry myself to sleep every night.
dslak
Actually, I was trying to get her to consider the content of what she was saying. It’s all well and good to say “Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party,” but before he can be blamed for certain failings of the party, the power of that office relative to the offices held by others has to be considered.
Sojourner and I have a history which precedes this thread, and she rarely if ever argues in good faith. If I am guilty of anything, it is of viciously abusing the ignorant.
Just Some Fuckhead
Swing and a miss.
Strike two.
Out!
Conservatively Liberal
While waiting for grain filler to set (repainting a guitar of mine) I decided to drop in and see how things are going here. Nothing changed from the last visit earlier today and I see that Sojourner is still skipping like an old record, singing the same old song.
/yawn
I think these Hillary supporters are hoping that they will be able to bitch, moan and groan about Obama so much that the super delegates see the error of their ways and crown Hillary in August. It is easy to dismiss Sojourner and the other Clintonistas because they do not come in here to engage in constructive criticism, their point is to make Obama look weak and ineffective so the super delegates will hopefully dump him and vote for Hillary. That is the only explanation that makes sense to me. This battle is not over until after August, and I will bet that Sojourner and the other Clintonistas will be in here hyperventilating every time they can find an excuse to do so.
They will never accept Obama, so the best thing for them to do is to try to take him down in any way they can before August. The fact that Sojourner came out of nowhere and just in this thread alone has posted sixty six of the four hundred and three current posts shows that there is an agenda being worked on.
I get your point Sojourner, Obama is BAD and you are a fucking idiot. I am sure the latter was not your point to make, but you have made it anyway.
Sojourner
Sorry but I don’t remember you. Rarely argues in good faith but is ignorant. Yet you haven’t produced a convincing argument. Poor baby.
Sojourner
Ah yes, BJ’s favorite argument: if you’re not totally infatuated with Obama, you are a Clinton supporter!! Whoo hoo!
I’m so relieved to see the old lame arguments trotted out like they’re brandy new!
LMAO!
Thanks, CL!
Laertes
Just Some Fuckhead says:
...
Well, not really.
dslak
That hurts. You can begin to refresh your memory here. If you don’t remember me, why would you mention Rarely Posts as though I have some kind of history with her?
Laertes
Also, Fuckhead, you’re a lousy umpire. That first swing was definitely a miss, but the other two were dead on.
Conservatively Liberal
No problem! I enjoy pointing out the obvious to the oblivious. I think I will go watch filler dry on wood because it sure is a hell of a lot more productive than watching Clintonistas and ratfuckers bitch and whine about Obama.
Sojourner
Perhaps because I didn’t.
Michael Gass
Sorry, but our men and women in the military don’t have the choice of how much flesh they are able to give for our constitution. How many have paid for it since our American Revolution with their lives, limbs, sanity, families?
Anyone who thinks we should “compromise” our very foundation, our Constitution, for any reason, doesn’t deserve to call themselves Americans.
Sojourner
That would be good. Perhaps you would be able to distinguish what you want to believe from what really is.
I wish you luck with that!
D. Mason
Villification of anyone who doesn’t support their guy is a hallmark of a fanatic. I was dreading pulling the lever for Hillary, if she was the nom, but I was willing to do so despite her being a little too Bushie