Hey DU, don't be fooled...

[onetwo]

...there are lots of still-sore losers lingering about that have been chomping at the bit in anticipation for the perfect moment to scream, "I told you so!" in the faces of Obama supporters for being so unbelievably naive to HOPE that Obama could actually CHANGE anything. So, while there are those who are genuinely disappointed about the FISA thing, there are many more who, frankly, couldn't give two sh#ts about the issue and are doing all they can to magnify the negative feedback.

The sooner people realize that change doesn't happen on the campaign trail, the sooner they will calm down and resume helping our candidate win.

[wyldwolf]

1. or...

1. There are those genuinely concerned about FISA and..

2. There are those who never really "vetted" Obama in comparison to their personal political leanings and are now doing so.

I don't think there are many people here laying in the grass waiting for Obama to screw up.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. I think you're right; however they vetted him in relation to the other choice, which was Hillary.

Hillary = DLC. Does anyone sincerely believe that she would have been any different? That's why Kucinich was my first choice, then Edwards. The rest of them, aside from Dodd, would have been the same.

I also believe that there is a good number of people who want to see Obama fail. Here, in the media, and elsewhere. That's why he is criticized for every little thing he does...AND MCSAME ISN'T.

We should be targeting McSame, but just like any good Democrat, we attack our own.

[wyldwolf]

5. Interesting

Speaking of "vetting" candidates, Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" reads like a DLC policy manual complete with welfare reform and Social Security companion account policy beliefs.

Chris Dodd was involved in the New Democrat movement (DLC) from way back.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. But Dodd is standing up against telecom immunity. I think Obama is a Blue Dog centrist.

This idea that he is liberal or DLC is baloney. He is not. In fact, Harold Ford, Jr. made many attempts to urge Obama to join the DLC and he refused. He is a moderate Democrat who sometimes votes "Blue" and sometimes votes "Yellow," depending on the issue. Though he is corporate, he is NOT DLC. He is to the left of the DLC and to the right of the Yellow Dogs. Because of that, he will never please everyone all of the time, which is the important point that we're missing here. Liberals like myself are pissed off at him for some of his recent choices, but conservatives are pissed off at him because they think he's too liberal. He's far from being perfect, but he's what we got. We would have been bitching and moaning had it been Hillary Clinton, and that's the point I'm trying to make. Neither of them are perfect but they are 100% better than McSame.

Al Gore, in your avy, was also a DLC, "New Democrat," by the way. He's become more liberal now but he wasn't before.

[wyldwolf]

9. "members" of various factions seldom march in lockstep

This idea that he is liberal or DLC is baloney. He is not. In fact, Harold Ford, Jr. made many attempts to urge Obama to join the DLC and he refused

Hey, you can't argue with Obama himself. His book is full of "Third Way" policy stances. He just isn't a member of The Third Way's official arm, the DLC.

Do you have any links supporting your contention about Harold Ford?

You do know blue dog dems are more conservative than the DLC?

Al Gore was a founding member of the DLC in the 1980s. I've certainly seen no real policy changes from Gore since then.

[Kahuna]

13. Uh huh. If Hillary was the nominee what do you think she would do?

Thought so.

[wyldwolf]

34. is this relevant to the conversation I'm having?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. Please read this...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050321/berman

I am well aware that Blue Dogs tend to be more conservative than DLC and I agreed that Gore is no longer DLC. I also stated that Obama is to the LEFT of DLC and Blue Dogs, but slightly to the RIGHT of Yellow Dogs. That makes him a Centrist. I wouldn't say that he is a Blue Dog. Check his record. He does have the more progressive record that is not in line with Blue Dogs. The article above makes the case.

I'm finding info on Ford and will post it here when I get back from work.

[wyldwolf]

33. what, The Nation??

Might as well ask me to read KOS.

WHO are the Yellow Dogs??

I have checked his record:

Pro-welfare reform, pro-social security companion accounts, the same voting record as Hillary on Iraq, etc. etc.

He's staked out DLC positions on nearly every major issue.

[KittyWampus]

19. give us a fucking break about the "vetting". We knew perfectly well Obama's record so take your

crap and peddle it elsewhere.

[wyldwolf]

35. ahem

No.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. Grow up. This is bigger than Obama. This is the Constitution.

I wrote some of the first journal about how Congress was trying to sell us out on FISA last fall

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/72

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/74


way before there was a single primary and I have been writing about it every single time out chicken shit Congress tries to sell us out.

He is just one member of Congress in this matter.

[still_one]

4. If for nothing else Obama must win for the sake of the Superme Court

[Heather MC]

6. I am an Obama supporter, but I don't understand

If this FISA bill has enough support without him, why doesn't he vote against it?
I mean if it's going to pass with or without his vote. Why not come out against it.

I believe Obama is very intelligent and calculating with each decision he makes, so I have to believe him when he says he will work to Overturn this bill. But, I don't understand why her would support the Telecom companies getting a pass on prosecution. Wouldn't he have a stronger argument to Overturn it down the road, if he opposes it now. Like he did with war Vote?

On the flip side, I personally don't think the telecomm companies should be blamed for something the Bush Administration, knowingly and willingly authorized, Bush and Cheneny are the real violaters of the Constitution and the ones we should be focusing our energies on, holding responsible.

[johnlal]

7. Look, all Obama has to do is this...

He needs to do some damage control. He needs to come out and say he "misspoke". Then he needs to use his influence as the Democratic nominee to bring Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in line. He needs to keep the Fisa Bill from coming to the Senate Floor. Reid can do it, if he has the will to do so. Obama needs to hammer him. They need to remove the amnesty provision from the bill. They need to scale back the power of the government to spy on Americans without a warrant. Then, all is forgiven.

I will vote for Obama either way, but this will make a difference as to how I will support him.

[Ilsa]

10. Some of the biggest changes we need don't show up on the front page

of the newspaper or as the lead story on network news. Little things, like leadership of the FDA, Health and Human Services, EPA, etc, make a HUGE difference in the lives of Americans.

[BooScout]

11. OR..........

Perhaps some people actually did their homework and their concerns from were legitimate all along but were ignored while the media had a lovefest and didn't do it's homework?

The facts are, you are NEVER going to agree with the politician of your choice on every issue. You make your decision regarding your vote on which candidate best suits your interests and the interests you want for your country, state, city, etc......and if they don't win then you turn to your 2nd, 3rd or even 4th choice.........and you hope to hell things somehow will work out.

[LWolf]

16. Good point. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. The media's "lovefest"??

Yeah, the media was so in love with Obama, so much so that Hillary lost! :sarcasm:

http://people-press.org/report/427/m...favor-of-obama

June 5, 2008

Many Say Coverage is Biased in Favor of Obama
But Obama Controversies Registered Widely

Over the course of the primary campaign season greater numbers heard about controversies associated with Barack Obama than heard about other campaign events. Nonetheless, far more Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than think it has favored Hillary Clinton.

Nearly four-in-ten (37%) say that in covering the Democratic race, news organizations have been biased toward Obama while just 8% say they have been biased toward Clinton; 40% say news organizations have shown no bias in their coverage. Substantial minorities of Republicans (45%) and independents (40%) say the press has been biased toward Obama; somewhat fewer Democrats (35%) see a pro-Obama bias.

The weekly News Interest Index finds that Obama has clearly been the dominant figure in the campaign thus far, both in terms of press coverage and public visibility. Despite the widespread belief that the press has favored Obama, many of the events that have registered most strongly with the public centered on controversies involving either Obama himself or his campaign.

Of nearly 40 campaign events that have been measured, Obama's relationship with his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright remains the most widely heard about campaign story. In early May, 62% of the public said they had heard a lot about Wright's speeches dealing with race and the presidential campaign.

Aside from the Wright controversy, more than half of the public (52%) heard a lot about Obama's statement that some small-town Americans facing hard economic times become bitter and cling to guns and religion. An additional 51% said they had heard a lot about the videos of Rev. Wright's sermons in late March.

There also was extensive public awareness of more favorable developments involving Obama. A solid majority (55%) said they heard that Obama in late May had amassed a majority of all pledged delegates from the Democratic primaries. And 54% heard a lot about Obama's major speech on race and politics in March.

For Clinton, about half (52%) said they heard a lot about the debate in mid-May over whether she should end her campaign or stay in the race until the last primary. Four-in-ten Americans heard a lot about Geraldine Ferraro's comments that Obama would not be where he was today if he was a white man. Ferraro was loosely associated with the Clinton campaign at the time. Roughly the same number (39%) heard a lot about Clinton's claims that she had dodged sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia while Bill Clinton was president.

[McCamy Taylor]

12. Obama the pres. candidate has to look tough on terror. No one else has to.

He can vote "yes" but that does not excuse even a single other Democrat. I do not give a rat's ass how Obama votes. I care how the other Dems vote.

Here is what Obama should do. He should blame it on W. say he keeps vetoing all the good laws that Congress passes because he wants telecom immunity, the country is left without protection. Bush is soft on terror. We need to be strong. So, Congress needs to pass something temporarily to get us through the election and when he (Obama ) is president, he will make sure that he and Congress undo it.

That makes it sound like Obama and the Democrats have been trying to do their job and Bush has been obstructing them because he is in the pocket of big business.

[johnlal]

21. Giving telecom companies amnesty won't make him look tough

Think of this in terms of how the political cartoons are going to look the day after he votes for the compromise bill will it show:

1. Obama, with a sword and shield valiantly slaying a dragon representing terrorism OR

2. Obama, looking around in vain for his backbone while Bush and Cheney shake hands with an enormous pig with a top hat and monocle, representing the telecom companies?

[JVS]

14. You are right. A brief scan of a certain supporter subforum reveals a lot of evidence of that.

[newmajority]

23. Not to mention certain other forums

where supporters of said candidates capitalize on the most hillarious talking points, openly slandering the party nominee, and yet are allowed to remain here.

[goldcanyonaz]

17. your concern is noted

[Doityourself]

18. Uh yeah..goes without saying..I've even met some off line..I call them "shit" trolls

[KittyWampus]

20. Highly recommend this post.

[Cha]

22. I believe me I know the difference after

being on this board practically every day for the last 6 years..especially during this primary season of change.

[dana_b]

24. you're right, we should try to pick out those people (if we can)

and ignore them. However true debate and concern from those who are "genuinely disappointed" (as you stated), shouldn't be discouraged. Thanks for bringing it up.

[crankychatter]

25. if Obama doesn't cast a symbolic, useless vote this week

instead of casting his lot with the majority, and bartering it for political capital later...

then, some of these folks threaten to cast their symbolic vote for some other politician in the General Election...

...or undermine his campaign with incessant whining

Obama has to deal with a hostile, PAC corrupted congress on BOTH sides of the aisle... now AND as President

there ain't no somethin' for nothin' on the Hill

once again, they support their candidate like old people fuck

edited to add: I've re-instituted my ignore list to keep my blood pressure down... that does NOT include serious supporters with serious questions... just the usual suspects that were stirring the "race-gender" shitpot in the Primaries... and sleepers that are coming out of the woodwork to undermine the campaign again.

They will shield their disruption behind the "constructive criticism" clause until November. I reckon you veterans have been through this before, eh?

[Demi_Babe]

26. never forget the bigger picture...you may have to lose some battles to win the war...loyalty people

[jgraz]

27. You're reversing the polarity on the loyalty here.

WE got Obama the nomination.

WE busted our ass for him.

WE put aside our doubts about him and supported his campaign.


HE owes US. Not the other way around.

[jgraz]

28. We know who the sore losers are. That shouldn't shut down the debate on this issue

Some things should be above politics. I was hoping that the 4th amendment would be one of them.

[Liberal Gramma]

36. Don't you wish people were as rabid about supporting the 4th as they are the 2nd?

In fact, all those Second Amendment activists SHOULD be on our side on this one. All 10 amendments on the Bill of Rights should be afforded equal protection.

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. Thanks for your concern

[A-Schwarzenegger]

30. Thank our lucky stars you came along just in time to tell us!

:* :radio:

[Two Americas]

31. this can only hurt

These divisive and suppressive posts hurt the party and the nominee.

There is absolutely no evidence that critics within the party hurt the party, any more than critics and dissidents within the country hurt the country.

However, suppression of dissent, within the party or within the country, does harm the country and the party.

After decades of listening to right wing apologists screaming "America love it or leave it" it surprises me that any Democrats are still confused about the principle involved here and that there is any controversy about it.

[crimsonblue]

37. Anyone that expects a politician to believe 100% what they do

is crazy, irrational, and plain dumb. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, because there is no such thing as a perfect person. Even the purest of politicians is still a politician, and Obama's primary goal is to get elected. Plus, criminal liability has not been removed with the new FISA law, so the AG could easily go after these companies for criminal civil liberties violations. A conviction in criminal court would then reopen the flood of civil cases, because a finding out guilt may hold more sway than some bullshit law saying to leave the telecomms alone (not to mention that ANY bill of ex post facto nature is by law invalid).

[blues90]

38. And if this does not sound like the damage control squad has

arrived. Why not be a bit more obvious?