Hint: Obama wants the left mad at him

[ruggerson]

At least for the time being.

This is all good politics.

If the left is pissed off, it consolidates the middle.

Thus, you are now Obama's Sistah Souljah.

The thing is, the left is not staying home this fall - they will come out in droves.

Obama knows this and he is more concerned with tacking right, to nail down purple states.

I'm fine with him doing this as long as it's issue related. If he starts putting rightwingers out there as possible cabinet members or, God forbid, as a Veep selection, that will be much more of an issue.

Let him move to the center. It's what all good politicians do when they start focusing on the general.

Tacking to the center on a few votes while the campaign is on does not make him a bad man. It makes him a smart candidate.

[tyne]

1. Link to his "hint" please.

[ruggerson]

3. here you go

www.ruggersonsopinion.com

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thewiseguy]

11. Your link does not work

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grantcart]

29. ok that is funny lol

[Bluebear]

36. - - -

:spray:

[Hippo_Tron]

2. At the same time, he's also driving a wedge between the center-right and the far right

Which is very smart politics.

[Solon]

4. What if it backfires and the left stays home?

That is the danger, we've had enough of politicians who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Whether or not our vote is needed isn't the question, just ask Gore, but the question is, is it worth alienating us now?

[Patchuli]

14. Left won't stay home

We're smarter than the average bear. :dem:

[ruggerson]

17. exactly

[Solon]

18. That may be true, but the only thing keeping us in line is fear of Republicans winning power...

and I thought this was the Hope candidate. I guess that was a lie.

[Peregrine Took]

21. But don't you see that's how they ALWAYS keep us in line - "Who else are

they gonna vote for?" etc. One of these days it won't work, I hope.

[Lilith Velkor]

67. It didn't work in 2000

You'd think learning from that mistake would be a factor, but noooo.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. We didn't have the hindsight of 8 years of George W Bush in 2000

[Patchuli]

28. It's only June and you get slanted MSM

Let us give it a little while to see how it plays out. I will say though that the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican candidate...

[blondeatlast]

64. You said in another thread that you won't even call your Senator. Mine are McCain and Kyl,

and they know very well how I feel about FISA.

Put up or shut up, but if you want to stay home in November, that's fine by me. Just don't come back to DU whining about McCain's policies THEN.

[JVS]

121. Left also won't stay home because we got our pick this time.

Obama's base was mostly to the left end of the party's spectrum,

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. I think you can rely on this man to ensure that doesn't happen.

[sendero]

59. Puhlease..

... stay home against McCain? Are you fucking insane?

Nobody is going to stay home except a few fundies.

[tpsbmam]

118. What if it backfires on US and McCain wins....

and has this new fucking FISA disaster bill to consolidate power with....along with the Supreme Court he'll pack with Alitos.

[Eric J in MN]

5. If that's true, and Obama succeeds in convincing liberals

...not to donate or volunteer for him, it doesn't seem like a great move.

[uponit7771]

10. RIGHT!!

[rpannier]

6. Provide proof please

If this is the case, then he's following the same tactic that has been used over the past two-plus decades and only Clinton got into the WH.

It's dangerous to throw your base under the bus.
They're more likely to stay home or look elsewhere if they get pissed off enough

[rox63]

57. He is not throwing anyone under the bus

He is trying to lock down enough votes to win in November. The purest of ideals are useless unless you get a chance to implement them. What good would it do if he tacked more to the left and lost? All that would get us is 4 years of McBush.

[anonymous171]

8. I agree. I expected him to move to the middle for the campaign,

although I wish he hadn't done it on the FISA bill.

[ruggerson]

15. Where he primarily feels he has to shore up

the center is on national security.

I"m not wild about his FISA vote, but I can live with it.

The fact is, with a Democratic congress next year, and him as President, they can call the shots and withstand the Repubs and the media trying to portray them as "soft on terra".

[uponit7771]

9. THIS IS STUPID !! His donors are US... US, net folk not JUST the "left" US!!

We are the ones keeping up with the details etc and the hundreds of thousands of netroots are the ones who'll be pissed and not "motivated" to donate one month or something.

I'm pissed I guess, I'll calm down but I don't see this getting him anywhere

[Terry_M]

13. You know what...

There's been enough good politics. We've had NOTHING but "good politics" from the democrats for almost 8 years now. Do you really think it will ever stop? Why would it?

[Raksha]

46. Why would it stop? Because it no longer pays off!

The candidates are going to have something of a learning curve in that department--some more than others, obviously. But the old rules don't apply because the "activist base" is ALSO "the donor base." They are one and the same...and they stay informed.

The sooner Obama figures out that he can LOSE that grassroots financial support that is the backbone of his campaign, the better off he'll be.

[Blue_Roses]

16. WTF?

:wtf:

[OwnedByFerrets]

19. Is it worth trashing the constitution?? NO

[Peregrine Took]

20. They always win the primaries by going to the left, then turn and run like

sissies to the squishy center. Ugh!

[BlooInBloo]

22. I have no idea what his strategery on FISA is, I think it's pretty shitty tho.

[BeatleBoot]

23. Smart Candidates always

Trash the U.S. Constitution.

It's the smart thing to do.

[Eric J in MN]

25. I disagree that Obama was trying to anger the Left with that statement.

statement here

The statement seems like it's meant to please everyone-including Nancy Pelosi-by praising her bill while criticizing the retroactive immunity aspect which disgusts liberals.

If Obama wanted to anger the Left, he could have praised the bill unconditionally.

[lxlxlxl]

26. The Sixteen year plan

I do not think any serious liberal expects a progressive shift with an Obama presidency. He is going to be fighting race, war, and environment issues that are absolutely beyond the scope of anything we've had to deal with in a long time. American culture has already shown a great deal of passion for ignoring real progressive instead of convenient caricatures, and there is no way Obama will be able to fix that.

[Larkspur]

27. I will not donate to Obama's campaign

I'll vote for him in November but he won't get any more of my hard earned money or any volunteer time from me. His capitulation on telecom immunity is a vote for fascism.

[NoFederales]

63. I have to agree, and I told an Obama donation solicitor this yesterday. He seemed

stunned that I could withhold money support for Obama in the GE. At first, for me, it was probably going to be OK with Obama as long as HRC did not appear as a VP on the ticket. And now this. What else is going to happen? I'm on that slippery slope, clutching for grip, and not seeing it.........

I am beyond weary of gaming.

NoFederales

[BadgerKid]

72. I'm waiting to see whether/how he votes

in the Senate.

[Skip Intro]

30. Know what? I don't want to play stupid fucking games.

Speak the truth and let your actions follow or stfu.

[last1standing]

33. At capitalhillforum.com you say you're voting for McCain anyway.

So why should anyone here care what you think?

[Skip Intro]

34. BACK YOUR BS UP WITH A LINK OR STFU!

[last1standing]

35. Ok. How's this for a start?

http://capitalhillforum.com/single/?p=93603&t=359047

[Skip Intro]

37. Quote me as saying I'm voting for mccain, as you assert. Do it or retract it.

[last1standing]

38. You state that you won't vote for Obama. Does that mean you're just going to sit at home?

And cry about how abused you were?

[Skip Intro]

39. In other words, you can't back up your accusation.

[last1standing]

40. In other words, you won't deny you're voting for McCain.

n/t

[Skip Intro]

41. You made the accusation, you back that up.

[last1standing]

42. You've just done that for me. Thanks.

n/t

[Skip Intro]

43. .

:rofl:

[last1standing]

45. You find subverting the Democratic nominee funny.

Interesting.

[cbc5g]

119. You're not voting for Obama?

Go away troll

[Forkboy]

75. Not one to stick up for Skip, but you didn't prove he's voting for McCain.

You proved he's not voting for Obama, but that isn't a requirement to remain on DU. :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

87. He's been at the center of every flamefest I've stumbled into

In one evening no less than four separate threads with him at the center of anti-democratic-nominee rhetoric creating flame wars.

Supporting the democratic nominee may not be an absolute requirement to avoid being banned from DU, though it most certainly is an expectation, but unfortunately Skip fits the definition of what Skinner said would not be tolerated after the primaries were over to a tee.

And he just got this post from Skinner upon locking HIS THREAD:

My post from months ago refers to a "sincere, non-disruptive statement of intention".

If you are on record refusing to support our nominee, and then you start a thread misrepresenting our nominee's position, then you are neither sincere nor non-disruptive.

I suggest you read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And let me be clear: If you are trying to figure out clever ways to undermine our nominee, you do so AT YOUR OWN RISK.

[Forkboy]

91. Oh, don't get me wrong.

Skip will do himself in here, and probably soon. The people getting tombstoned were fully aware of the rules but couldn't help themselves anyways. Skip will do the same thing.

I was just pointing out that he didn't say he'd vote for McCain.

[last1standing]

94. I gave him a dozen or so opportunities to say he wasn't voting McCain in another thread.

He absolutely refuses to simply say that he won't vote for the repub so I'm taking that as his intent to do so.

What it really comes down to, though, is his intention to disrupt DU and to demoralize Democrats. I'm not too concerned about his feelings or misinterpreting him when it's obvious his whole purpose for being here is to do that.

[Forkboy]

96. I think he's holding onto his last bit of (supposed) power.

I truly doubt he'll be voting McCain, but in his mind there's no purpose in telling people he won't, because then he lets go of the last bit of leverage that he has....such as it is.

I'm not demoralized yet...are you? :D

[last1standing]

111. Yep, he still has some small power to hurt others and he's using it.

He might not vote for McCain but that means nothing. He's working to keep others from voting for Obama and as such, I don't have enough respect for him to worry about whether I got that wrong (really I knew it would piss him off so I went with it. lol).

And demoralized? Not a bit! Hell, he actually encouraged me because of all the fun I had toying with him. :evilgrin:

[genna]

127. Seriously if you won't be backing Obama with "money, cheerleading, or my vote" what will you be doin

[dailykoff]

44. O. M. G.

"Yes, it is bigger than her now, and she does have to "play her part" - but I think she's doing it with a silent wink.

Whatever - I love you Hillary, but I won't be backing Obama, with money, cheerleading, or my vote.

2012!"

:wow:

[Political Heretic]

48. This guy seems to be the definition of what was not going to be allowed here during the general.

In one night - no in fact in less than 30 minutes of browsing - I've stumbled into four different threads this guy has shit all over, turning them into flamefests, flaimbaiting the candidate, lieing, and so on.

I don't think the fact that someone's been around for a long time should give someone immunity from the rules.

[rox63]

58. I'm suprised he hasn't had a granite pizza delivery yet

Ah well, one can hope...

[Gabi Hayes]

116. really.....what an

what's the name of this forum.....I forget.

and it clearly states that it won't vote for the, uh, Democratic candidate

so what's it doing here?

[Gabi Hayes]

117. so stop broadcasting the fact that you aren't voting for the democratic candidate:

what you're doing, I'd say, constitutes an exammple of the following:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6344459&mesg_id=6344459

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

[JVS]

122. PWNED!

[1Hippiechick]

61. Why the Hillary bumper sticker? Time to change to Obama, isn't it? Hmmmm..to alert or not to alert

THAT is the question.

[MonkeyFunk]

71. It's an avatar provided by the administrators of this site.

Do you alert on everyone with a Biden, Kucinich, Edwards or Richardson avatar, too? I don't recall Howard Dean avatars being banned in '04.

[1Hippiechick]

77. Your point? Mine came from the same "avatars provided by the administrators of this site."

I haven't alerted on ANYone and actually don't plan to--ever--there are plenty of others on this site to fill that bill. My query is this: based on the ill-will between the HRC supporters and BHO presumptive nominee, and the efforts being made to create party unity, why would anyone supporting Obama want to still display a Hillary avatar? It's a legitimate question. BTW, I don't recall the other 2008 Dem candidates' being in such a hotly-contested debate.

[MonkeyFunk]

86. Why would anyone sport an Edwards, Richardson or Kucinich avatar?

Or a Biden avatar? People do.

There's nothing wrong with showing support for a Democrat.

[1Hippiechick]

88. My point was that the race came down to BHO & HRC, and it was divisive. No divisiveness w/others

[MonkeyFunk]

89. so it shouldn't come as a surprise that a lot of people

supported Clinton. That's why the race went on so long.

Skinner has addressed this - there's nothing wrong with sporting a Clinton avatar. What's divisive is people like you claiming there's something wrong with it. Demands for purity are rarely well-received.

[1Hippiechick]

92. "What's divisive is people like you claiming there's something wrong "

with it.Demands for purity are rarely well-received." WTF? edited to add: Read comment #87. I rest my case.

You OBVIOUSLY did not read back up the thread, particularly to skip intro's very first remark to the OP's talking about Obama's strategy. Skipinto STARTS it with "I don't want to play no fucking games. STFU....." May I suggest that you start reading THERE and read down and when you do, you are going to feel rather sheepish, I believe. lastonestanding has called skipintro out because he isn't going to vote for Obama, and skipinto protests with his "prove it or STFU" repeated rants. SO.....last1standing produces a link to a website entitled Capital Hill with some sort of subheading about "for supporters of Hillary Clinton." In the left sidebar is skip intro, intern with two posts, and beneath a very ugly post about wondering if Hillary will be in chains when she appears with Obama there is this response from skip intro:

Skip intro:
Whatever - I love you Hillary, but I won't be backing Obama, with money, cheerleading, or my vote.

2012!

So, Mr. or Ms. MonkeyFunk, my posts are NOT about "demands for purity" it's about calling out an obviously hostile wolf in sheep's clothing! He's ranting about providing proof, and proof has been provided...in his own words.

Are DU posters not supposed to be supporting our presumptive nominee, Obama? Otherwise, why do we need their hostile posts?

[MonkeyFunk]

99. this subthread began with your silly

faux agonizing over whether to alert because somebody had a Clinton avatar.

That's all I've discussed in this subthread - whether or not having a Clinton avatar is against the rules.

It is not. Skinner has made that clear. As much as you would like everyone to wear your specific brand of symbol, it's just not going to happen, any more than Pat Robertson can make us all wear a cross.

It's tough for zealots when people disagree with them, I understand. But the burden is on you to cope, not me.

[1Hippiechick]

108. "It's tough for zealots when people disagree with them, I understand. But the burden is on you..."

to cope, not me." LOL
I just LOVE to post in here. I asked a question not even directed to you, and you attack.
I directed you back up the thread and rather than leave it to you to read, I summarized what had transpired, including an edit to read post #87. What did you do? Totally ignored that information and stayed on the same rant.:rant:

Go back and read your responses and mine and see which post reads as that of a "zealot"

[MonkeyFunk]

110. Post 87 was not in a subthread I participated in.

Why should I have commented on it? It's not at all germane to what we're discussing, which is whether or not a Clinton avatar is alertable. Well, anything's alertable - it's just a question of whether the mods will think you're a flaming jerk for doing so.

You're really getting twisted over this, requiring me to respond to other posts by other people in other sub-threads.

[1Hippiechick]

112. "It's not at all germane to what we're discussing," WRONG

You continue with your rant :rant:
by ignoring my responses of explanation.
I haven't required you to do anything.
I'm the one who is getting twisted? LOL
Game over.

[MonkeyFunk]

115. Let's keep it simple

post 87 is not about whether a Clinton avatar is alertable, is it?

No, it's about somebody else's opinion of another poster here. It has nothing to do with what you and I are discussing, does it?

Now, the issue you and I ARE discussing is whether having a Clinton avatar is in any way against the rules here. Skinner has already answered the question, and the answer is "no".

So, I'm not quite sure why you want to continue this. The question has been answered.

[last1standing]

120. MF and HC, maybe you both need to stop fighting the same war from different angles.

I think in practice you both agree on just about everything but in theory you differ. Maybe you both need to let your minds work differently and accept that you've both come to the same conclusion in reality.

Whether someone still has a Hillary avatar is meaningless as there are many here who still have the avatars of other primary candidates who didn't win and all of them are now supporting Obama.

Life is good so let's keep it that way, huh?

[Marrah_G]

125. You attacked posters for having Clinton Avatars and for no other reason then that

[1Hippiechick]

128. You need to read back up through the thread. I attacked? LOL And which post of mine might that be?

[Marrah_G]

133. Post 66- YOU started the shit- YOU are the one acting like a first class asshat

edited to correct the post number

[1Hippiechick]

144. Post 66 is mrone2 ??

Maybe you need to correct again?

[Marrah_G]

124. You were the jackass doing the attacking. Your fear of an avatar makes YOU the zealot.

[1Hippiechick]

129. Read post 128, dear. You & MF are the ones attacking and doing the namecalling. Doubt it? Read my

posts. Point out one where I attacked anyone OR called anyone names.
Yours and MF's posts are hostile and therefore suspect.

[Marrah_G]

131. Post 122- you were the one acting like an asshole

My posts are suspect? If someone like YOU finds them suspect then I find that a good thing.

[1Hippiechick]

135. Post 122 is JVS

[Marrah_G]

137. Post 66- I read the wrong line number

You are the one that gave a poster shit for having a Hillary avatar and talked about alerting over it.

You got what you wanted.

You acted like an asshole and foolishly MF and I took the bait.

You are nothing but a newbie shit-stirrer.

Good thing DU has a nifty way to banish you and your nastiness right off my screen.

Buh-bye.

[1Hippiechick]

143. Post 66 is mrone 2 ??

[Forkboy]

73. Oy vey

:eyes:

[Marrah_G]

126. You know..........

It's the ones like THAT that I truly believe are here to disrupt and in no way are supporters of Obama and his message. Real Obama supporters like you don't need to go into a tizzy over an avatar of a senator.

so I agree...........OY VEY............

[Marrah_G]

123. Wow what a jerk you are. You go ahead and alert on an avatar- I've alerted on your assholeness.

[1Hippiechick]

130. Read post 129.

[Marrah_G]

132. Post 122- YOU started the shit- YOU are the one acting like a first class asshat

[1Hippiechick]

136. Post 122 is JVS

[Marrah_G]

138. Post 66- I read the wrong line number

You started it. You got the response you wanted. Now you are gone.

POOF!

[1Hippiechick]

141. Post 66 is mrone2 ??

[Skip Intro]

31. double post

:shrug:

[depakid]

32. "It makes him a smart candidate."

That's the American CW, isn't it? -and it's managed to consistently lose Democratic candidates elections on the whole for almost 30 years.

30 fucking years. Not only that- but it's enabled and legitimized fundamentalism and irrational public policy in the states that other heathy economies and democracies in other western nations have managed to avoid.

Think about it.

How smart is that?

[Political Heretic]

47. EVERY politician rolls center in the general.

It's all theater. You figure out what kind of candidate you've got in the PRIMARY and then you HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE when he is SWORN IN. In the general all you do is donate and volunteer.

PS - if people would have paid attention to the Republican Primary in 2000, they would have seen George Bush as he truly is.

[my3boyz]

55. Yup! Obama has to do it if he wants to win. nt

[PassingFair]

93. Wrong.

He needs to be seen as FIGHTING the Bush Administration
if he wants to win.

NOT capitulating to them.

We need a LEADER!

Not an ACCEPTOR...

[FourPieRun]

49. so how do we know what his 'real' position is on the issues? nt

[BeyondGeography]

50. The economy is dominating peoples' thoughts and will continue to do so through the campaign

By compromising on FISA, sounnding a few hawkish notes on Iran and FP in general, he can keep the pressure on McCain's bankrupt economic and domestic policies. Obama could probably be elected president on the issue of economic fairness alone right now. To the extent that he takes being "soft on the terrorists" off the table, he is free to press McCain where he is weakest.

Now if he starts caving in that area, i.e. backing down on the need to increase the capital gains tax, I won't be pleased. As long as he limits his ideological retrenching as it were to where McCain and the Repubicans are counting on an advantage and where they may have a perceived advantage with the electorate, we'll be fine.

[Maureen1322]

51. This still makes his upcoming vote on FISA political.

I don't like the Constitution being used for those purposes.

[Dawgs]

52. Is the "left" stupid?

Why would they be mad at him?

[my3boyz]

54. He can't run to the far left because that is not where the country is

If he does that then he will lose those independents or moderate Republicans that are considering him. He is going to have to run more towards the center if he wants to win. I see all the people complaining about this decision by Obama but you all have to know that Obama is better than having McCain in office.

[dkf]

56. Unfortunately, pissing off your base isn't very good for fundraising.

[rucky]

60. Yep. After all, he is "the most Liberal Senator"

[NorthCarolina]

66. More Liberal than Feingold?

I doubt it.

[rucky]

84. I wish.

but for some reason, the RW is using "liberal" as an attack.

[terrya]

62. Is that what this talk about Sam Nunn is about?

Because it's pissing me off, that's for sure.

[shayes51]

65. Sort of takes away the hero or savior status

he has come to enjoy with some, though.

[ProSense]

68. No. n/t

[ruggerson]

70. link? n/t

[ProSense]

81. Did I miss

the link in the OP?

[ruggerson]

83. I've never seen you linkless

you look unadorned and beautiful.

[Hutzpa]

69. ssssshhhhh.... don't let the KAT outta the bag

you know better than that.... leave this thing to cook for awhile...

:evilgrin:

[hulka38]

74. Ridiculous nonsense.

[Forkboy]

76. He doesn't have far to tack. He's a centrist. Always has been, always will be.

I'm not worried about this as it was totally expected.

[Catherina]

80. Were you really expecting this?

I expected AIPAC, I expected NAFTA, I expected a few other things I didn't say PEEP about despite my disappointment but I didn't expect a constitutional lawyer to "compromise" on eviscerating the constitution. Especially since the compromise is only a smokescreen with a stupid CYA memo for the telecoms, a memo may I add that they already all have on file. I don't like having my intelligence insulted which is what they're all doing with this, including Obama sadly. What he just did has put into turmoil all my reasons for throwing HUGE stones at other candidates for past politically calculating votes.

[ruggerson]

85. The problem on this particular vote

is that many agree with you and feel that restoring the constitution is a number one priority and see FISA as a litmus test of that.

While I agree that reversing course from *'s disastrous, intrusive policies is near the top of the list, that damage, imho, is reversible once we take power.

Centrists are currently far more concerned with economic issues, so Obama needs to stay strongly progressive and populist in regards to his positionint there - where he needs more bona fides is in the Commander in Chief threshold thing, and evidenly both he and Axelrod see this vote as a way to bolster that.

IT's unfortunate that most politics is about positioning and strategy during a campaign, and even in office when one is already thinking about reelection.

We get to see who Presidents really are, ideologically, in their second terms, unfettered by the coarse business of politics. Then they start to worry about their legacy.

[crankychatter]

98. I respect you

but if you look left, and look right right now?

you are shoulder to shoulder with green party recruiters and gop disruptors

they're coming out of the woodwork here like roaches

there is a big difference between civil and criminal immunity

there is a big difference between centrism as a function of corruption and compromise to get legislation passed, and get on with business

There is a big difference between THIS Fisa bill and the last one

The REAL DEAL is that Bush ordered the Telecoms to do what they did... the immunity arrests civil litigation that would get to the bottom of that issue... but CONGRESS has FAILED to do it's job... it ain't Obama's fault

there are political parties from the whole spectrum that claim a unique understanding of the constitution

they are ALL watching the debates at home on the couch, like righteous religious fundamentalists, and planning their symbolic votes for November

they are politically neutralized... marginalized, by their own stubbornness

[Catherina]

101. That's just great crankychatter. "Green party recruiters and gop disruptors"

Thanks alot.

[crankychatter]

103. I know it ain't you.... you are 100%er... but they're here - nt

[Catherina]

105. I'm sorry. Thank you for clarifying.

I still support Obama but I'm hurting in suspense until he clarifies things so people like me can get our groove back. Maybe some of these discussions about FISA need to be moved to the Obama forum. That reminds me I haven't checked it in a while. Thanks Cranky, I shouldn't have known that wasn't directed at me. I'm sorry I was so touchy. :hi:

[Catherina]

100. Do you truly believe the damage is reversible? When have they ever returned rights they removed?

This is a bit more than restoring the constitution because they're going in the opposite dicrection by gutting it and putting that into law so I don't share your faith they plan on reversing anything later. I wish I could but none of them have given me any reason to trust them and now Obama is giving me reason not to place him in a different category which was his biggest selling point with the American public.

The more I read about it off DU, the more disappointed I am but I'm also incredibly hurt at in how our intelligence is being insulted. The attitude of our politicians is the same as it was during the IWR vote :(

You know what you're asking me here ruggerson? It's to continue trusting a virtual unknown in the hopes that 4 years from now he might live up to my hopes when he starts worrying about his legacy. He's better than the alternative but you must admit it's infuriating.

When do we get to hold our servants accountable? We elected and tolerated these fools to protect the constitution yet all they've done is roll over. One reason I admire Obama's style so much was because he came across in a very straightforward way, until this. I'd prefer he hadn't said anything rather than the pandering statement that has everyone up in arms. For our country's sake, I hope he's taking careful note of the uproar, will note that many of the new voters he's depending on are in no mood to play games and adjust his strategy accordingly.

This article sums up how I feel right now. It comes from The Moderate Voice. If this is the moderate opinion, Obama better really watch out because the Centrists don't seem too happy either. Thanks for the conversation

If there is anything more nausea-inducing than the Democratic leadership’s complete capitulation to Pres. Bush’s Constitution-busting wish list, it is the self-serving narrative they spin of “improving FISA” and “firmly rejecting” unlimited executive power, and “compromise.”

“My constituents are saying ‘don’t cave in’,” announces Jane Harman, after she caves in.

“‘There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy,’ Nancy Pelosi said, announcing her support for the bill” that gives the president the authority to do whatever he wants.

“… The telecommunications companies ‘come out of this with a taint’ for their actions and should not receive immunity,” declares Pelosi, as she agrees to a bill that gives the telecoms immunity for their actions.

...


“It’s bad enough,” Glenn Greenwald writes:

watching the likes of Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel and a disturbingly disoriented Nancy Pelosi eviscerate the Fourth Amendment, exempt their largest corporate contributors from the rule of law, and endorse the most radical aspects of the Bush lawbreaking regime. But it’s downright pathetic to see them try to depict their behavior as some sort of bipartisan “compromise” whereby they won meaningful concessions:

“When they saw that we were unified in sending that bill rather than falling for their scare tactics, I think it sent them a message,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “So our leverage was increased because of our Democratic unity in both cases.”

Not even the media establishment and the GOP can refrain from mocking this pretense they’re trying to peddle. What’s amazing is that they’re actually as devoid of dignity as they are integrity.

...

This is the same doublespeak we got from Nancy Pelosi. This — “Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people.” — is technically true, but only because the bill changed FISA to give the president the powers he wants, minus the accountability he does not want. In other words, the House has enshrined the president’s entire illegal warrantless surveillance program in law, called it “FISA,” and now has the chutzpah to claim that the bill “restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance.” Steve Benen notes that the Bush administration got significantly more than it had asked for, and provides some cold comfort:

Looking over the final roll call, most House Dems voted against the measure, while House Republicans were nearly unanimous in their support. Specifically, among Dems, 128 voted against it, while 105 voted for it. Among Republicans, 188 voted for it, and just one (Illinois’ Tim Johnson, whose work I’m not especially familiar with, was the lone GOP lawmaker to break ranks.) Plenty of Dems spoke out forcefully against the bill, but the one quote that stands out most for me came before the debate began. Sen. Chris Bond (R-Mo.), who negotiated with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on the legislation, told the NYT, “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get.” (The extra words are the Times’s error, not Steve’s.) When the White House, which isn’t exactly known for its timidity when making demands of Congress, gets more out of a negotiation that it expected, it’s a safe bet it’s not much of a “compromise.”

...

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/bush-administration/20543/fisa-compromise-%E2%80%9Cit%E2%80%99s-christmas-at-the-white-house%E2%80%9D-guest-voice/

[Forkboy]

90. Yes, I did.

I also expect a lot more things to come that won't please me.

But to be fair to Obama, I never saw him as anything other than a politician, and they almost always do things I don't like. x(

[Catherina]

102. I saw a politician

but I genuinely and passionately defended him against accusations of being a demagogue, especially against me own mother. I was ready for things that wouldn't please me even certain shameful actions I overlooked and forgave as political necessities but this isn't a political necessity. The political necessity in this case was just the opposite.

I guess we're just along for the ride now.

[Forkboy]

106. We're all along for the ride.

But a politician is just one vehicle among many. :)

[Catherina]

107. That's what I like about you Forkboy

Always bucking people up with your optimistic attitude :rofl:

[Forkboy]

109. Mr. Positive...that's me.

:silly:


:)

[Marrah_G]

142. It's the nature of politics I am afraid

Obama IS a politician. People sometimes forget that.

He is doing and saying what he thinks he needs to to get elected. All of them do it, including those I like.

It's sad that it is the way it is. For once I would like to see someone elected for who they truly are, but because of human nature, I don't see that ever happening.

When you get discouraged just remember: McCain is crazy as a loon and should never have control of weapons of mass destruction OR our economy.

[LWolf]

79. He doesn't have to go anywhere to "move" to the center,

unless he moves a little to his left. That might put him in the "center."

It's good for him that he wants the left "mad at him." I've been "mad at him" since he declared his candidacy.

"Tacking to the center while the campaign is on?"

What do you think he's done in the Senate since he was elected? If he's going further, it's not to the "center," it's further to the right, away from "center."

I'm curious to see what happens at DU if he names a republican as his running mate.

Which DU rule will prevail?

[GreenPartyVoter]

95. Oy! What a headache if he does that!

[cascadiance]

82. He should move to the middle on things like social issues, NOT Korporatist issues!

Issues where 80-90% of the people should be aligned against the Korporatists SHOULD appeal to both the left and the right if voiced properly.

Threats on people being spied upon and corporations getting immunity are things that IF talked about properly should get a supermajority of American support.

[FourPieRun]

113. yeah, throw the gays and muslims under the bus... nt

[cascadiance]

114. I'm not saying that at all!

But if you ONLY talk about them, and just give them lip service, nothing gets solved. The Korporate ownership of this country is at the root of just about every problem we face now, INCLUDING those faced by gays and muslims (war profiteering is what gives us wars in the middle east, which is what screws over muslims civil liberties for example!).

You can't be dancing around tackling symptoms, as attractivs as they may be. You need to find the root cause of the cancer and rip it out and kill it, or you'll eventually die.

[Imagevision]

97. McCain can't even read a teleprompter let alone run a country...!

[Skittles]

104. LOL

uh huh

[Larkspur]

134. Pissing off Obama's base means hurting his fundraising machine

If Obama wants to piss off the Left, he can pay for his campaign out of his own pocket.

[Catchawave]

139. What about uniting the country...?

I'd get behind that.

[NorthCarolina]

140. I won't stay home, and I will vote for Obama but I have to admit

I don't have the "warm and fuzzies" that I once had. Something "strange" is afoot, I feel it but I can't yet pin it down.