Once Again, We Eat Our Own

[SidneyCarton]

For as long as I can remember, every election year has turned out the same. We Democrats get together, have some internecine primary bloodletting, choose a candidate, and unite behind them, for all of five minutes. At that point the whole dang opera falls apart. Then we rip into our candidate with even greater gusto than the Republicans. He isn't right on Gay rights, his position on abortion isn't quite right, he doesn't endorse the health-care plan that I like, he won't withdraw the troops from Iraq within 24 hours of his inauguration, etc...

Every time, without fail we fall into this trap. The candidate fails the ideological purity test and like in the book of Daniel Mene Mene Tekel Upharisn, he is weighed and found wanting by the fractious and unrealistic idealists who make up a small but very loud fringe of the party. Since at least 1968 this fringe, while not particularly decisive in getting our candidates elected, has been all to able to severely weaken them in the face of determined republican opposition. Hence, when McGovern supporters crashed the 1968 convention, we lost to Nixon. In the interests of party unity we backed McGovern in 1972 as the Ideologically pure candidate, which in turn resulted in a 49 state rout, the most humiliating defeat our party has ever known.

And yet, we never learn. As a case in point consider the current FISA legislation. While the capitulation of House Democrats on this bill, which would extend immunity to telecom companies for their warrent-less spying on American citizens, a provision which is unacceptable in the extreme. So now the vote goes on to the Senate, and lo and behold! Our candidate for the Presidency is a Senator! And up arises the chorus of doom and gloom: "Obama hasn't yet openly condemned the house... Obama promised to filibuster this bill if it came up to a vote, why isn't he filibustering... Dammit! Why isn't he on the Senate floor right stinkin' now screaming his opposition to this bill with his last breath, collapsing and dying for our civil liberties! We're liberals for heaven's sakes, we need more martyrs! The premature deaths of every major voice of change in this country is not enough, we need yet another tragic might-have-been to fill our pantheon!"

Yes, I know. Its all about the 4th Amendment though! It's all about our civil liberties! If we can't trust Obama to guard our civil liberties than we can't vote for him! Spare me your righteous indignation. We currently live under an administration in which our civil liberties mean exactly jack and squat, and jack left town during Bush's first inauguration. Understanding that the exact same people that back the current administration will back a future McCain Administration, one can quickly surmise that our civil liberties will mean exactly squat under him as well. Obama can do nothing to insure our freedoms until he is in power. The parliamentary procedures of the Senate, while important and formidable in their own right, have proven ultimately fruitless in the face of Mr. Bush and his cronies with their disdain for the Legislature and their theories of the Unitary Executive. In order to undo this mess, we must have a Democrat in office this November. Waiting until 2012 for the "perfect candidate" will be waiting too long, we may no longer have a nation worth saving.

In summation: an Obama Administration gives us the chance to reclaim our civil liberties, a McCain Administration insures they remain lost to us. Our choice is clear, lay off Senator Obama and let him do what he needs to do in order to win.

[Peacetrain]

1. I totally agree with you

It is like a disease almost, be the first to pick apart our canidate.. we cannot have 10 minutes of a unified movement forward..

[chimpymustgo]

79. I totally DISAGREE. It really is not too much to expect our nominee to stand up for US.

This series of cave-ins and backtrackings is scary.

Scales falling off eyes here.

[Cheap_Trick]

82. then vote for McCain

he'll stand up for you :sarcasm:

[chimpymustgo]

92. That is not an option. I am HOPING to vote for someone who'll stand up for me

who's a member of the party I support.

[Cha]

100. Then it's going to be Obama because he's

our candidate.

And, all your pissing and moaning rings hollow because your primary candidate could do no wrong but your venom for Obama knew no bounds.

You're hypocritical and anyone who's been on this board for the last year knows it.

[Jakes Progress]

119. We do get it.

You are still fighting the Clinton wars. You call the poster hypocritical. How about a little honesty from your side. If the primary were still going and Hillary made the same statement that Barack made about supporting the vote, what would have been your post? Do you think we should believe that you would be exhorting the crowd to lay off a possible candidate, that she should be allowed to do any political deal she wants because she is trying to get elected?

We all knew Hillary did deals. She's a political creature. We supported her because of other qualities. When we were called on to switch, the reason given was that this man was new wave, a new way of winning without deal making. You are defending your guy for the same things that you condemned her for. That's hypocrisy in my book.

I didn't say don't vote for him. I didn't say mccain would be better. I do say that the fourth amendment and letting bush off the hook for his crimes aren't trivial matters. If you didn't like Hillary's deals, you should be able to gut it up and call on our candidate to stop doing them. I am proud of some of the most ardent Hillary attackers from six weeks ago who are huge Obama supporters, but who are being consistent and true to their beliefs by registering their disgust with this bill and all of its supporters.

FWIW, I just replied to a letter from Clinton asking for help to retire her campaign debt. I had planned on doing so, but in the letter I said that no funds or support would be coming from me if she voted for this bill or allowed it to pass without some fight.

[Cha]

135. The poster has had a thread locked and

a sub thread removed because of still frothing over Obama after the Primaries were over but before this came out about FISA..so yes, I get it.

[Jakes Progress]

140. Well I haven't had a thread locked.

I moved on after the primary and offered my support to the Obama campaign headquarters. I have sent one check so far. I know we need a Democrat elected, but i also think we need to let that Democrat know from the beginning that we are tired of the same old groveling and giving up that we have had from too many of our congressional Democrats.

And far from being a hindrance to his campaign, helping him to do right here will only help his run. I said in another post that the best thing he could possibly do here is to stride into the well of the Senate and burst forth with all his oratorical skills to explain why this is a bad bill and offer up a solution to how we can protect the country and the Constitution. It isn't an either or. He would get full coverage on all networks and youtube would run it for the next six months. He would pick up a couple of million undecided vote for being the real straight talking candidate.

I don't think we do our candidates a service when we bow and scrape like they were the employer instead of us. His stand on this has been wishy washy and cannot possibly help him in November. Giving up freedoms to fight the "terrists" is a republican game. They do it better and anyone who falls for that shit is going to vote for the real jingoist, not the war-lite candidate.

In addition, I think all of the ruckus raised here and on a number of other sites, as well as the massive efforts to contact our congressmen here, has done some good. Now there seems to be a filibuster planned. The ones who do so will garner all of the good press. It should have been our candidate. I sent his office an email suggesting that he add an amendment along the lines of this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3510558&mesg_id=3510558

[styersc]

154. Standing up for what is right is too hard and may impede election.

This should be about getting Obama in the Whitehouse, not about any sort of deeply felt principles.

Why should the former editor of the Harvard Law Review and Law School instructor know anything about civil liberties anyway?

(Note: All allergic to sarcasm should avert eyes).

[Cha]

159. Bullshit..it's all about hypocricy with some posters..so

your sarcasm is wasted.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[MissDeeds]

143. Terrific post

We have to have Democrats who are willing to stand up for true democratic principles and ideals, regardless of how difficult it may be. And we must acknowledge that many of us here have been burnt by supporting DINO candidates in the past, and are therefore a bit leary.

[katandmoon]

149. No YOU vote for McCain - you seem to have the Republican mindset of blind obediance

[hokies4ever]

153. Why do your posts reflect so much hatred of Obama?

:shrug:

[populistdriven]

168. McCain didn't love America, until he was tortured into it. There are no atheists in foxholes either

Its the general election stupid, lets save these battles for after he is in the WH

[IowaGirl]

184. Amen......

[Orsino]

242. Yeah. We are not lock-step Republicans...

...and get disappointed when our so-called leaders act like they are. The Dem machine can still rattle on, and can win elections, even as we gripe about its failures. "Our own" are eating us, and we should never forget that.

[JimGinPA]

2. Nice Post

Welcome to DU.

K&R

[SidneyCarton]

3. Thanks.

n/t

[Barack_America]

4. Thank you. I couldn't agree more.

K&R.

[blondeatlast]

5. A rejuvenating dose of sanity this morning! Thank you, and welcome to DU! nt

[DevonRex]

6. I agree. Thank you. nt

[Hepburn]

7. Heya and welcome!

K&R...:hi:

Great OP!

[bluerum]

8. A cogent and realistic summation.

I recall from another post that Obama's staff said that he would support a filibuster, not that he would initiate a filibuster.

[BklynChick]

9. very true and thanks for posting!

[QueenOfCalifornia]

10. I get it...

We are never to question .... Goose step right down the line and get on the train.

I have to say, Gee thanks for wagging your finger at those of us who can see beyond the silver lining.

But isn't blindly following without criticism the GOP's job?

As far as I am concerned, It is the job of those of us who are paying attention to make certain that things as glaringly important as the unconstitutional wiretapping and spying on Americans is not allowed to simply be swept under the political rug. And hell yes I will criticize this kind of RIGHTWING voting in congress. No matter who it is.

And before you step all over yourself telling me I do not support our candidate you are wrong. I voted for him in the primary, have sent donations and have a sign in my window and a bumper sticker on my car. I have talked several neighbors who were fence sitting into voting for Obama. But I sure as hell will be critical when the occasion calls for it.

(edit to remove bee-u-tee-fullll typo)

[SidneyCarton]

11. Or you can goose step into oblivion.

And rant and whine for another four years about the ruin our nation is coming to. I have to wonder sometimes if some members of our party actually want to win elections, because with victory comes the responsibility to govern, to put our money where our mouth is instead of merely criticizing. Mope if you want, I choose to act.

[DevonRex]

12. Amen! nt

[QueenOfCalifornia]

17. And to you and the horse you rode in on...

I am never considered by anyone who knows me to be a whiner. I also do my fair share which of course you would not know.

I just elect to not stick my head in the sand and pretend shit is not flying past my house.

[Zodiak]

28. The accusation of "whining" is to infantilize you

It really has no place in a political debate, and is a bully tactic.

As is the accusation that you demand "ideological purity"...which is to paint you as unreasonable, even though there is no evidence that any DUer at all expects 100% agreement.

This sort of argumentation is meant to stifle debate, not encourage it.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

20. oops dupe

dee-dupe

[QueenOfCalifornia]

21. bad dupe problem

sorry but the internets tubes are clogged

[Ken Burch]

104. Do we have to cave in to Bush on everything that matters in order to win?

The public is AGAINST FISA. Give me one good reason why we gain from surrendering on it.

[SidneyCarton]

109. We dont.

That said, I hope Obama fillbusters. If he doesn't though, my realistic options are rather slim.

[Jakes Progress]

121. It's not an either or.

I can support a candidate without having to fawn all over him. He is asking me for a job. As his potential employer, I can tell him what I expect of him. He got the job of nominee. During this interim position, I think he needs our guidance about how we want him to do the job if elected.

But then, I vote for men and candidates because of what they do and who the are, not because of their cool factor or how gorgeous he is or how much I really, really, really want to have a beer with him.

[question everything]

13. Get him elected, first

then you can criticize him all you want.

What do DUers and others on the far left expect? He is not going to cave to Moveon.org and DU and others. If he will, moderates and independent will abandon him and bye bye to any chances of tilting the Supreme Court back.

Good by to any chances of offering some fixes to the health care.

[SidneyCarton]

16. Precisely my point

I don't intend for him to get voted in and then get a free pass to do whatever he wants. By all means feel free to put his feet to the fire to pass a progressive agenda as soon as he gets elected. Just get him elected first.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

24. I am working on him

being elected. Did you read what I posted or are you trying to be difficult. I support the guy but will not let an important issue slip past like I am sleeping.

[SidneyCarton]

27. I'm not saying stick your head in the sand

I'm saying that our opponents are rather macchevilian, and as such the only way we will get what we want is to be as macchevilian as they are. Without control over all the levers of power we will not be able to fix anything done over the past 8 years. I salute you for working for him, and I freely admit that we will all have to hold his feet to the fire if he is elected in order to ensure a progressive agenda is implemented. You don't have to be ignorant of the shit flying past your house, just don't get so distracted by it so as to not notice the man stealing your TV.

[tavalon]

200. Be careful that you do not become the monster you seek to defeat.

[HousePainter]

191. Do you think it's slipping by him (Obama) like he's sleeping?

So far the Obama campaign's read on the path to the White House has been pretty sharp.
I, for one, trust Obama's vision and his resolve but also his pragmatism and political skills.
To suggest that he needs you to make him aware of the issues involved is an amusing idea.
To suggest that he lacks a respect for our constitutional rights is insulting
It makes me wonder who you really think he is.

Have you even read the bill ?
John Dean commented on Countdown the other night that the bill is pretty sloppy legally and leaves a big road open to criminal action against the Telecoms despite what is being stated by its critics, many of whom I'm willing to bet haven't even read the bill or haven't read it with a lawyer's eye.

The problem, as the OP states, is not that we are expected to fall in zombie-like behind the Beautiful Leader, it is that we desperately need to have Obama in the White house in January. Because if he isn't, McCain will be. Questioning his credibility (which is what you're doing) plays into the Republican strategy of painting support of him as "taking a chance" it gives legs to the "what do we really know about him" or "so much for change" memes. This will hurt him with Independents and disgruntled Republicans and will narrow his margins. For him to lead the charge against passage would leave him vulnerable to an "October Surprise" that could also shift those undecided voters against him and cost the election.

It's POLITICS.
And the bottom line is : If you don't win you don't get to shape or steer anything.

My advice is that if you want a guy who will stand up and speak his mind straight out every time and who will champion a progressive agenda regardless of the consequences then Dennis Kuchinich is your man, just don't hold your breath waiting for him to convince enough of the populace to sit him in the White House.

Have a little faith, Obama is not selling us out. He's picking his battles and if he thought this battle needed to be won here and now he, I believe, would fight it.

[Zodiak]

33. Who is on the far left?

Maoists? Stalinists?

Or people who respect the Constitution and understand that this is legislation with holes in it big enough for a truck to go through?

You are the one throwing out the terms, so please explain "far left". Most of this country is against this legislation, just like the war. So is the "far left" anyone who doesn't like this legislation, didn't like the war, and wants something to be done for accountability?

You have to understand, "far left" changes definition so many times that it confuses us.

Moderates and independents like Obama, but not because he caves in to Bush. If you haven't checked, moderates and independents cannot stand Bush and the Republicans, but apparently still wants us to cave to them anyways. Strange definition of "moderate" if you ask me.

[demokatgurrl]

37. Alas, alas, the "far left" is dead.

The DLC is now the "center" of the Democratic party. Sad, but true.

[Zodiak]

39. They are the corporatist wing of the party

...and they run hard-right on everything Bush wants.

If they are considered "centrists", then our tent is too damned big on the conservative side and not big enough on the liberal side.

[tavalon]

202. You would actually, sadly, be dead on correct in that characterization

I wish you weren't.

[question everything]

115. The DLC, hated so much on DU, gave us Bill Clinton

the first Democrat to be re-elected since FDR. Under whose administration the economy expanded across all income levels. Clinton, who nominated two liberal to moderate Supreme Court Justices that allows us to hope for a better court once Obama is in office.

Sure, the economy may have expanded anyway. Sure, any Democratic president would have appointed liberal to moderate justices. But the fact is, it was Bill Clinton, and he won because he moved to the center.

[cui bono]

177. I think he moved to the center after he won.

"He campaigned as a progressive and governed as a moderate." - Thom Hartmann

[The Wizard]

207. He won for a number of reasons

chief of which he's the most talented politician since JFK. He got people to support him because he could communicate better than his opponents. He picked his battles wisely and wouldn't let the Republicans put him in the frame they wanted him to be seen.
It was during Clinton's presidency it became apparent that the corporate media was a subsidiary of the GOP. At least that's when I stopped going to traditional sources for news.

[question everything]

54. From what I read on DU

Far left want a tax rate of 90%, does not support any trade agreement unless it gets the stamp of approval from Labor, wants out of Iraq in one fell swoop, wants to eliminate all "Corporate America" and have a national health insurance that has no room for private ones.

Oh, and stop all work in Congress that may, just may, affect our daily lives, concentrate, instead, on Impeachment (never mind that Bush is out of office in six months, or that if he is removed before, we end up with Cheney).

[QueenOfCalifornia]

61. That is insane and you know it

I am as far left as it gets with a few exceptions. No one wants a tax rate of 90%. No one. I would like to see taxes fairly distributed -

You better believe I am against the corporations who own us. If you hadn't noticed the oil companies are once again reaping record profits while I pay nearly $5 a gallon for their overpriced fuel.

If we had impeached the criminals - yes all of them, 5 years ago things would not have spiraled this far out of control.

Fucking pisses me off when I read a post like this. More GOP ass kissing. Congress has given the neocon agenda a big thumbs up - there's your government workin' for ya.

[ieoeja]

94. "No one wats a tax rate of 90%." Actually, there are.

There are a lot of Green Party members on this board. And the Green Party wants a top rate of 100%. They call it a Maximum Income Rate. I have seen the idea advocated here by people claiming to be Democrats (which is probably a lie).

To be fair, you do not see it very often. Because that post gets inundated by the rest of us denouncing it.


We could not have impeached them 5 years ago. The GOP controlled Congress 5 years ago. Heck, they still controlled Congress 2 years ago. We did not take control of Congress until last year.

[Lilith Velkor]

152. That is a distortion

The Green Party wants a top rate of 100% after minimum wage x 10.

The higher minimum wage is, the more you get to keep. Linkiness:
http://www.greenparty.org/program/progecotax.html

[ieoeja]

235. So how was what I said a distortion?

I did not give all the minute details, like at what point that rate would start. I also did not mention their plans for health care or a whole host of other things.

They still want a 100% top rate. And I have heard many Greens call it a Maximum Wage. That is all I said. I don't really see where what you say changes that point.

[Lilith Velkor]

247. Because a top rate of 100% means you keep no income.

That seems ludicrous. Personally, I think 90% is fair, in addition to cutting off their welfare, of course.

[ieoeja]

250. I assumed the other poster understands the concept of income brackets.

And that they would keep income they made LESS than the maximum allowable amount. 100% tax on all income over the Green's proposed maximum wage seems completely ludicrous to me. But that is what they propose.

[Zodiak]

77. You are exaggerating and ignoring the mood of this country

"Far left want a tax rate of 90%"

This is most likely a mischaracterization. Can you show that a significant percentage of DUers feel this way? Is everyone to be taxed this way? If not...it is a strawman. Deal with people's real positions, please.

"does not support any trade agreement unless it gets the stamp of approval from Labor"

Is this "far left"? Really? I think that if Labor is not on board, then the free trade agreement is not negotiating with the principle people affected by these policies. I would argue that setting in place free trade agreements without the approval of Labor is a hard neo-liberal position (aka neocon). Calling anything outside of that "far left" when elements of both the left and the right are against these agreements is rather broad-brush, don't you think?

"wants out of Iraq in one fell swoop"

Many people in this country want this, not just fringe elements amongst the left. If you have no checked, a great majority of Americans are against this war and want out as soon as possible. Reclassifying this position as "far left" is something Bill O'Reilly does, and may have been applicable 4 years ago, but it is no longer applicable now. Effectively, you are calling Murtha's position "far left" because his phased withdrawal would have taken place years ago and would be finished by now.

And you are also ignoring the conservatives who want out of Iraq yesterday because of the costs...are they now "far-left" because their position differs so much from yours?

Here is last year's poll by the BBC

"But an immediate pull-out was much less popular in Australia (22%), the US (24%) and UK (27%) - the countries with most troops deployed in Iraq."

So is 25% percent of this country "far-left"? That was last year's statistics, which are probably worse, now.

"wants to eliminate all "Corporate America" and have a national health insurance that has no room for private ones."

Got any evidence for this because I have seen many DUers who rail against corporate America, but I see so very few who say it should be "eliminated" (aka we go full-on communist)? As far as private health insurance, I see a lot of DUers arguing for single-payer health insurance. But then again, with the entire western world with a system of single payer health insurance that works better than ours, I would say that this position also is not "far left", but "moderate" or "pragmatic". It is only because our system is so heavily skewed to benefit profiteers that those arguing against it seem like "far-leftists".

By the way, 70% of Americans want to move to universal health care. Hardly the position of a bunch of "far-leftists". I would say that arguing for a system that has ground so many people into the dirt and left so many behind but still costs more than the rest of the world is hard neoliberal (aka neocon) position.

"Oh, and stop all work in Congress that may, just may, affect our daily lives, concentrate, instead, on Impeachment (never mind that Bush is out of office in six months, or that if he is removed before, we end up with Cheney)."

There is no evidence that impeachment proceedings would shut everything down. That is how the Republicans pursue impeachment, by hijacking the entire legislative agenda. Many would argue that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Also, a great deal of Americans favor impeachment....at least 30%, so would a third of this country be considered "far-left" for having such a position? Especially in the face of evidence?

The bottom line is, you are just name-calling with little or no evidence. You figure if you can relabel these positions as some sort of "kooky", then it is easier to marginalize these positions. Well, that kind of talk does not fly around here with a great deal of us. Sean Hannity talks like that, not DUers, so I would recommend that you be more honest and less derogatory in your comments. You are not dealing with the far left, but rather people who used to be considered moderates before the neoliberal takeover of this country. The "far left" was squashed out of existence during the McCarthy era.

If you like private control of healthcare, gradual withdrawal from Iraq when things "become safe" (or not withdrawal at all), free trade deals that discounts Labor or excludes them from negotiation, and no accountability in Congress for illegal and unconstitutional acts by the executive branch, then you are the one out of step with the American people. But you are in-step with the Republicans and the DLC. Should I call you a "far-righter" or a "neocon" to strengthen my position? Would that advance the discussion? No? Then why do you do it other than to denigrate?

Clean up your language and only say what is demonstrably true and you will find your discussions on DU to be far less frustrating for you and the need to denigrate your fellow DUers far less compulsory.

[question everything]

97. Thank you for a detailed reply

a nice change from the one or two-word name calling that is often the norm

I accept that the ones who want 90% top tax rate are in the minority, but I have seen this on DU. I have seen many suggestions that are over 50% which does not make sense: at this point you end up keeping less when what you are being taxed.

The grand old days of Labor are over. We are talking manufacturing job, of course, No one is shipping out jobs in the service industry.

I don't have number - no doubt you do - but people who are part of union are now a distinct minority in the work force. Not only that, I once asked on DU and the reply was that employees of Toyota and other foreign car makers, who are not unionized, are quite happy in their jobs and work conditions.

As our economy has moved to be about 75% service driven, big labor will not draw much sympathy from most voters. Last year strike at GM, I think, demanding job security elicited bitter smiles from many that I know. Yes, who would not want a job security? Tell this to the airlines who lay off so many, or the banking industry. And the steel industry.. oops, we don't have any.

And as long as many continue to shop at Wal-Mart and other places for cheap products, Labor will not have much to say about trade agreements.

(Of course, were it not for shipping so much jobs to China and India that helped created their middle class and increased demand for cars and for above basic foodstuff, prices may not have soared..)

Yes, I know that all of us are sick and tired of the war in Iraq. But it is generally acceptable that just pulling out in one day may create chaos and, yes, we should hold some responsibility. I don't know if withdrawing in six months or in 18 months will make a difference, but we have to at least try and this is what Obama is trying to accomplish. Of course I support with Murtha phased withdrawal, but that's not what many, including Kucincih and Richardson have been promoting.

I vaguely remember the impeachment deliberations in 1974 about Nixon. It appeared that this was the only thing that was taking place in Washington. Or, perhaps, this was the only thing reported by the news outlets, then only 3 major networks.

I do think that we need an independent committee to investigate how we got into this mess, and how we kept getting deeper and deeper. But Bush and Cheney already hold the lowest approval rates of any president in recent history. I think that it was Nicholas von Hoffman on the "Point CounterPoint" on "60 minutes" who said about Nixon - he is like the dead rat in the kitchen floor. Just pick him up and throw in the trash.

I don't see what impeachment can accomplish at this time, except divert most people's attention from the more important things and, yes, there are many more important things, like helping the victims of the flood in the Midwest, for example. Or the ones who have their utilities shut for lack of payment.

I know that 70% of Americans want a single payer health care system. Most Americans have not stopped to think of what it would mean in their lives. Many, like Kucinch, say, just remove the "over 65" from Medicare. The reality is that once baby boomers become eligible, in only 3 years, Medicare will start the rapid descent into insolvency. I think that we need to be taxed to pay for it. Have a tax replace our premiums that we and our employers pay. The difference would be that when we need that care, the system will be there for us. We will never be "dropped" from the system. But how many, do you think, stop to think that it would make sense for a progressive tax to pay for it?

No doubt, a universal health care will ration some treatments. Should an 85 year old heavy smoker, diabetic woman have a heart bypass operation? Only to die a month later?

Who should be ahead on a liver or heart transplant list? Who should not be at all? How long should someone like Terri Sciavo be kept alive? How much should be spend on a terminally ill patient in his 90s? About 90% of medical costs occur in people's last year of their lives. Would this make a difference in who gets what type of care?

I certainly do not want to be the one making a decision, but you can be sure that at some point such decisions will be made. I think that they already are at some hospitals.

We, Americans, are used to get the best that there is. Will we be willing to be limited by available funds? Will many tax payers demand this when the alternative would be steep increase in taxes?

What I consider far left, or far right, for that matter, is insisting on a issues with no compromise which is, of course, what politics and governing is all about. I may have said it on a different thread: I lived in California in the 90s and saw how the Republicans lost all state offices because they insisted on "stick with principles."

Whether it is the war in Iraq, health care, impeachment, the economy - Obama is moving to the center which means, he is willing to compromise, not to stick with the positions that won him the primaries for the sake of sticking with them. I think that this shows that he can govern, that he has the leadership qualities to know when to compromise. Of course, if he compromises too much once in office, this will be a different story.

[Zodiak]

101. Interesting points, not all I agree with, of course.

But tell me....if Big Labor (which isn't Big Labor anymore by your own admission) doesn't speak up for the workers...who will? I do not think that our lopsided free trade deals were made with consulting ANY labor, service or otherwise. The weakening of labor representation does not reflect the fact that Americans no longer care about their labor rights...just that the avenues for their rights have been eliminated. That 25% number you cite is from attrition due to moving industries in pursuit of profit, not from Americans rejecting the unions.

Eliminated by what? Reagan for one, and then neoliberalism which took the manufacturing base away in pursuit of bigger profits by cutting the leashes of the corps.

We have a major deregulation problem, and we do not serve ourselves very well by misdiagnosing the cause.

[mvd]

138. As for the tax system..

I consider myself almost to Kucinich's level, and want 50% the highest rate for most income.. but once it gets to multi, multi-millions, I believe a certain level of income can be taxed higher (70-75%) in order to help pay for the many social programs that work.

BTW, I also don't think single payer health care is an extreme position. It only seems extreme when the insurannce companies and Repukes lie about it. Our system is about the worst imaginable for a country such as the U.S.

An orderly withdrawal from Iraq as soon as possible also doesn't sound outlandish to me.

[Zodiak]

165. Yes, the way it was presented, 90% was to apply across the board

Which is misleading.

Other matters like 90% for income over a billion dollars, etc. are not extremist positions. They are just permutations of the tried and true progressive taxation system. We have even had such tax levels in this country...in the "prosperous" 50s that the right-wingers are so nostalgic about.

It is my contention that what is designated as "far left" by the media and those that believe them is really just the former moderate, status quo American moderate position before Reagan started eating this country alive.

True "far-left" would scare the crap out of Americans.

[tavalon]

205. Yep, I'm personally much further left than even Kucinich!

But I recognize that A) I'm a political minority in this country and that B) my political leanings are quite idealistic and therefore less than realistic on a grand scale.

[tavalon]

204. Ok, you just landed on my buddy list

I too often fall for the game around here and you have plenty to teach me about debating skills.

That said, I enjoy snark too much to give it up completely (see my previous comment to this same poster).

[fascisthunter]

102. far-left wants 90% tax????

wuh... I'm far left and no I don't nor have I seen one person who wanted such a thing.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

160. Why do we need private insurance?

Other than to provide bells and whistles for the wealthy, that is. (Fine by me, as long as everyone gets basic government coverage. Private insurers are thieves, sort of like people who tap into your power line between your meter and your house and siphon off as much as they can get by with.

[question everything]

188. Please read some of my comments about universal coverage

above #97.

We all want it, yet few take the time to find out how it will be administered and paid for. Whether the Canadian or the British system - there are going to be problems with either.

I have often compared a proposed universal health coverage to our public education. Everyone is paying into the system and the ones who want a private system pay for it from their own pockets.

[eridani]

220. That's exactly what universal health care is like

It would be administered like Medicare, and paid for with the money people are now wasting on private insurance premiums. The British system has doctors as government employees; no single payer American activist proposes that. Canadian health care is paid for under the general tax system, where it competes with roads and schools, etc. Single payer advocates here propose that Medicare money be put in a separate trust fund like Social Security.

[tavalon]

203. Well, I wouldn't characterize it in quite such negative terms, but yeah,

that about covers it, except that I want both Cheney and Bush impeached and have wanted it for about six years, not six months, but thank you for noticing what the left wants. It's nice to be noticed. :hi:

[Creideiki]

230. Not really. I'm further Left than about anyone.

I fully support NAFTA--but in order for it to work, we'd have to give up some sovereignty EU-style. And somehow the EU can manage to have a trade agreement, open borders, a single currency, and single-payer universal healthcare.

I'd agree, though--if it keeps the Democrats from caving on everything the 25%ers want, shut the damned thing down until next January. We keep sliding to the Right and the Democrats seem just fine going along with it.

[HousePainter]

192. Are you a lawyer and have you read the bill?

[Zodiak]

225. No I am not a lawyer, but I have read the bill

As well as analyses from a number of lawyers and scholars.

It is not a good bill.

[tavalon]

201. Wow, you are really good at this debating stuff

I'm not being sarcastic. You have laser sharp skills.

[rodeodance]

110. He is an elected Senator -as the Leader of the Dem Party he needs to lead NOW>

[SidneyCarton]

112. Please explain how.

Understand that the Senate is not the House, Senators can do effectively as they please, hence Harry Reid's emasculated state stems somewhat from the fact that the Majority leader has the unpleasant task of herding cats. That said he can go it alone, but there are risks to going it alone, risks that Senator Clinton understands all too well, having been subjected to the media meat grinder herself.

[Jakes Progress]

141. No one said he had the power

to control the votes. But we would hope that he had the leadership to do so. That is why we nominated him, isn't it? Barring that, the least he could do is oppose the bill instead of supporting it.

The senator that filibusters or speaks forcefully about the perils of surrendering our right of privacy to the whim of whatever party is in power will get the attention and the acclaim. That should have been our candidate. This is not protecting his ass, it's passing up a chance to slam dunk the election.

[rodeodance]

173. I want him to stand with Feingold and Dodd on this. It is the least he can do.

[Barack_America]

15. With all due respect, this is the wrong occasion.

Come Mid-November, you're free to complain all you'd like.

And no, saying that does not make me a freeper. It makes me somebody who knows what's at stake.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[mtnester]

199. I am sure your condescending tone

was appreciated.

And of course, let me tell you that if any of my elected officials do something that is completely against what I feel is the right thing to do, they will hear from me, NOW, not in November.

[Maureen1322]

14. I am waiting for the vote. I support him and I've sent him money.

If he votes yes on FISA he's wrong.

[SidneyCarton]

19. We don't totally disagree...

I will be greatly disappointed with him if he votes to pass FISA, that said all is moot if McCain wins.

[Maureen1322]

26. Voting for McCain or not voting never enters into for me.

I just know how disappointed I'll be if Obama votes yes, and I don't look forward to that.

[SidneyCarton]

32. Nor I...

But I have gotten used to disappointment from my leaders in the last 8 years. My one hope is that I can be a little less disappointed, and perhaps even have a reason to be proud of them in the next 4.

[slipslidingaway]

36. It does not matter how Obama votes on this issue, there are

enough votes to pass this legislation if the February vote is any indication.

If it was an important issue then the Democrats should have made the case to the American people, they did not.

Why not?

[SidneyCarton]

55. If that is the case...

Then all of this is sound and fury signifying nothing.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

81. It does matter

how HE votes. Are you serious? Just go along with the wrong side because it's popular... Holy shit.

[slipslidingaway]

95. Here's what I mean, this battle has been going on for months

if not years and that was when we needed people who were in front of the cameras to step up. Just voting no will probably not change the outcome now, we should have been building support for this issue long before this week. Hope that helps :)


Please see...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6406062&mesg_id=6406062

"A party at risk - A country at risk"

A few snips from this post of last year by DU'er welshTerrier2 that are relevant to the current FISA legislation and what our party should have done.

The particular issue does not matter, how you go about gaining support for an issue matters greatly.


"Here's the major point: You need to separate the legislative process from the "platform" process....

Passing legislation doesn't start in the Congress; it starts with the American people. If the Party really wanted to make this critically needed reform, they would be raising the issue every chance they got. They aren't...

The problem with the party is NOT about which bill they pass; it's about the party's message to the American people. You don't need a veto proof majority to put out a message..."


And...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6400838&mesg_id=6401073

Obama did not speak on the floor that day, although he was there to vote on all the amendments. If he had made it an issue the media might have covered his speech that night and Senator Clinton could have done the same thing if she had been there for the votes.

And as I've said over the past few days, and to a lesser degree back in February, if our party really wanted to defeat this bill, or strip the immunity clause, they could have rallied support from the American people in their travels across the country and interviews in the media.

To come in at the 11th hour and say 'I'll try' knowing full well 67 senators voted against removing the immunity clause in February is a little late.

As they were campaigning against the Republicans it would have been easy to mention the illegal wiretapping under Bush and that the Republicans now wanted retroactive immunity for the companies that broke the law.

There is only one reason I can think of that this issue was not brought to the people and that is because too many in our own party wanted the bill with immunity to pass.

If you want to fight for an issue then use all the tools available.

[lumpy]

85. It does matter how Obama votes on this issue whether it

passes or not. His vote tells us where he stands on the issues, in other words, is he with the majority of Americans or not. He has to prove that he sticks with his principles more than ever now.

[slipslidingaway]

96. Please see my other post, 68 senators voted to pass a similar

bill back in February, so his vote might not change the outcome and that is what I meant by saying 'it does not matter how Obama votes now.'

What COULD have changed the outcome by rallying people to defeat the bill was NOT DONE when it could have made a difference.

:(

See my reply here on the same topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6405767&mesg_id=6406761

[FatDave]

88. How does voting against the new FISA w/ telecom immunity hurt Obama?

That's what I'm not getting. Is anybody dumb enough to think this makes him "weak on terror" going to ever vote for him in anyhow? Far as I see, it would only help him, as most democrats seem to be resolutely against telecom immunity. If we let republican scum frame the debate in "weak on terror" terms, and Obama votes for a bad FISA bill because of this, he's then fallen into the exact same trap all the democrats who voted for the war did. Can't look weak on terror, after all!

The republicans force democrats into positions of capitulation by controlling the language of the debate. They've done this for decades. What we need is for our leaders to stand up to them and speak out, not to run for cover every time republicans try to label them.

[HousePainter]

195. I won't use the word dumb, but yes, there are undecided voters

who are leaning Obama who can be pushed to McCain with a mini "October Surprise" type event combined with finger-pointing at Obama as the "wannabe Commander-in-Chief" who will tie our hands in the war on terror.
That is a very easy scenario to imagine since the Republicans have used similar tactics to great effect in the past.
And Democrats alone won't be able to put Obama into the White House. It will take Independents and disgruntled Republicans also.

Anyway, this is law we are talking about not concrete. The law is fluid ,election campaigns are also. However the campaign ends in November with one of two men in the White House. The law goes on changing and being refined and interpreted , by the people in power come January. This is not capitulation, it is election year strategy.

Politics like the rest of life is rarely a strict black or white situation.

[slipslidingaway]

18. Disagree...

Obama is one of the few senators who has had media attention on him for over a year and also gave speeches and held meeting across the country.

And as I've said over the past few days, and to a lesser degree back in February, if our party really wanted to defeat this bill, or strip the immunity clause, they could have rallied support from the American people in their travels across the country and interviews in the media.

Now Obama is the nominee, we had EVERY opportunity to bring this issue to the people.

Why did our party not do that???

We complain about the media, but do not always use it to our advantage and sometimes hide behind the media as an excuse IMO.

[SidneyCarton]

23. So where is the rest of the Party leadership on this?

If you haven't noticed Senator Obama has been a little busy over the past few months, what with dodging "Kitchen Sinks" Muslim rumors, Rev. Wright... oh yeah, and winning the nomination. Where has Speaker Pelosi been? Senator Reid??? Even now Harry Reid can fix this mess, all he has to do is not bring it up to the Senate floor for a vote. All he needs to do is let the Senate do what it excels at: delay. If you worry about this issue, call his office.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Nice excuses, but I'm not buying them n/t

[SidneyCarton]

31. Fair enough...

I respect your right to disagree, go in peace.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. This thread has been up for 20 minutes ...... and so far ......

...... not one single person in here saying "Oh sure, lockstep." "I'm not voting for anyone just because he's a Democrat" and a whole host of other unhelpful crap.

I am amazed. Lots of people mush have slept in today.

I agree with you completely. K&R

[TBF]

45. Give them time. It's alot to read when you're used to responding to titles only. ;)

[blondeatlast]

53. ...

:spray:

[Barack_America]

48. I regret to inform you...

Of post #10.

The OP has already gotten the "What? Are you suggesting that something is more important than my personal opinion? That's what freepers do!" canned response.

[Zodiak]

25. C'mon DUers, forget your principles

Never question our leaders because the other side is so much worse.

We have heard this crap for years...all of the finger wagging at people with principles as our country goes down the shitter...at the hands of Democrats.

No thanks....we criticize our own on our side because we all believe in representative Democracy. When you are represented, you have a right to criticize and pressure your representatives. And our representatives are acting like right-wingers, not moderates. Only right-wingers trash the Constitution on secret evidence and fear...it is NOT a centrist position to give Bush everything he wants.

Blind allegiance and silent complicity do not sit well with many Democrats. Sorry that bothers you to the point where you have to come here and "j'accuse" the left after just a few posts, but if you want blind allegiance, you will have to become a Republican. This sort of "conformity" message resonates over there.

And this isn't about "purity"...we have swept a LOT of issues under the rug over the years. No one expects 100% agreement, but when it comes to the Constitution, it is not negotiable.

As you can see, I am voting for Obama, but my support does not extend to blind loyalty and unearned trust. He has my vote and my money, but he does not have carte blanche to do anything he wants wthout criticism.

[SidneyCarton]

30. You're right, the Constitution is not negotiable

That said, the current behavior of the Bush Administration suggests that much of the Constitution is not in effect at the moment either. If we won't impeach the shrub, and can't get him to live up to his oath, the best bet we have is to make sure this mess ends in 2009, not 2013.

[Zodiak]

38. Then Obama should not be taking chances with the enthusiasm of his supporters

Because that is the REAL threat here. All of those people who believe in him to do the right thing are going to get a major disappointment outof this, and it will hurt donations and volunteer time.

What does Obama gain from supporting this legislation? Nothing as far as I know. No one will change their vote to Obama because he voted to help Bush on FISA, and that is why I find his actions on this so confusing.

If I saw evidence, I might be convinced otherwise, but all I see are anonymous assertions from nervous blue dogs and our leadership.

By the way, our leadership sucks in Congress (leaders and whips), and it is time for us to get some new blood. These people have gotten nothing at all done except move us closer to fascism. Ineffective and risk-averse leaders.

[SidneyCarton]

47. Agreed.

You make excellent points regarding Obama's base, to which we both belong. He will have to step lively and carefully in order to avoid being made to look a spineless fool on this issue. I think he can do it.

As to our Congressional leadership, I couldn't agree with you more.

[HousePainter]

197. How about this simple scenario

It deals with people who might change their vote to McCain

Obama stands up against the bill, it drags on into the Fall, a nice little "terrorist" plot is thwarted through "intercepted"
messages and John McCain blasts Obama as soft on terrorism, as too weak to do what needs to be done to keep us safe.

If you don't think that can be sold to the American people and move a decent block of voters from the middle to the right you must have missed it the last time. Or the time before that, or the time before that.....


And if you don't think that Obama needs Independents and moderate Republicans to insure his victory you must be looking at a different map than I am.


I trust him to do the right thing (to read election year strategy correctly), to get to the White House and to change a lot of things for the better.
My enthusiasm is for him as an accomplished politician who shares my values, not as some Progressive Messiah.
I sent his campaign another small donation last night because I've lived long enough to know that you need to pick your battles
and I believe he is smart enough and focused enough to know when to stand his ground and when to cede the day and conrinue the fight another day. For instance after he is in the White House and Congress is tipped further toward the Democratic side.

[YankmeCrankme]

218. You can use that scenario 100% of the time to argue against ever doing what's right.

You don't think this argument can be used after he's elected? The fact is, it's irrelevant. We are arguing against the government giving telecoms immunity for breaking the law. It's not about whether intelligence agencies can use the resources they have to intercept actual plans to commit terrorist acts. They have the resources to do that already.

If they left that part of the bill out, it would be just an debate over whether the original FISA law was adequate and needed to be changed in the way that those proposing the bill believe. Granting telecoms immunity for any lawbreaking is just wrong and doesn't have an effect on the way intelligence agencies can legitimately collect intelligence. It's all about allowing government to break the law and let those telecoms, who know better, to aid them without consequence.

[madfloridian]

43. BUT..they are negotiating the constitution away tomorrow.

That is exactly what they are doing, and they are expecting us to fall in line and be good while they negotiate our rights away.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html

[Zodiak]

60. You are correct

And we are not being quiet on this...at least I am not. I've written a number of congresscritters.

Let the authoritarian Dems amongst us cry for unity and groupthink while our rights are being trashed. That kind of talk no longer holds weight with the grassroots because we are moving from a top-down to a bottom-up strategy for the Dem party. It is like trying to dam a river with a popsicle stick getting people to stop from grumbling when their Constitution is in shreds at the hands of our leaders. They will just have to get used to hearing people's opinions, even if it makes them nervous, and trust their fellow grassroots Democrats to do the right thing even if their leaders are not.

I trust Americans, not politicians, anyways. Show me 100% trust in a politician, and I will show you what a useful fool you are.

[tavalon]

206. You are exactly correct!

That's the thing that the Congresscritters haven't figured out yet - sometime in the last 4 years (I'm not exactly sure when it happened), the internet changed everything. With Google and YouTube and well, here, we have the ability to watch and respond in record time and I think that's why the game is changing from a top-down to a bottom-up strategy. No matter what our actual ages are, the internet savvy folks are the whiz kids running circles around the non savvy folk and Obama has tapped into that and I think he even gets it, but perhaps not completely, because the sword cuts both ways. He doesn't get our unquestioned support - he gets well informed people who expect him to walk the walk as well as he talks it.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

70. Well apparently

we who believe in preserving the Constitution are becoming the minority on this discussion board. Now we are told to STFU and tippy-toe around so we do not upset the GOP. Lie, cheat and steal to get elected. It's the American way. If Obama helps push that FISA POS through I will be calling and writing his office 10 times a day. I have already called and vented about my feelings about placating the rightwing.

I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND that the Grand Old Phucks have pulled the rug out from under us and all the while with the help of people who do not want to upset their little feelings who call themselves progressive liberals. Bullshit.

In this OP, I have been told that I have no right to critical thinking. Do not question the people you vote for, what will the neighbors think? Do your part by not using the analytical part of your brain.

Holy fucking shit... I am shutting this laptop and having a bloody mary before I scream at the cat.

Poor kitty.... :)

[K Gardner]

34. First sensible post I"ve read here in days. K&R

[madfloridian]

35. I am sorry but not speaking out on what our Dems are doing it just wrong.

All of a sudden new people are appearing here to make us feel guilty for questioning.

Giving Bush more power is wrong. They know what he is. They are forgiving him the past, giving him more power to spy on us.

Why are you okay with this?

They are doing it at this crucial time hoping everyone stays on board in spite of their evil FISA legislation. They are using us.

[SidneyCarton]

41. My intention was not to make you feel guilty

I merely sought to vent my frustrations. I am not okay with this, and should Obama choose to lead a fillibuster against this abomination, or should better yet Senator Reid simply neglect to schedule a vote, I will strongly support him. Should either of them fail to do so I will be greatly disappointed. Either way though, I fear that we will play into the hands of our enemies, and enter into yet another November divided, and lose once again. Yes we are being used, the question is how we ride this mess out. I have read your posts, you give excellent analysis of these things and understand them better than I, if there are options we can consider that will regain for us the initiative in this situation, I would be glad to hear them.

[madfloridian]

44. The leaders do what they want....we are to fall in line. Period. Bottom line.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html

They do not care what we think.

[SidneyCarton]

50. Then we are lost.

And all of this is truly pointless. I hope such is not entirely the case, I hope you do as well.

[madfloridian]

51. I hope it is not the case. But they have done it over and over.

[tomp]

226. that's bullshit.

your intention was obviously bullying and guilt-tripping. and you repeated it several times through the thread. you're backtracking and expecting no one to notice.

[TBF]

40. I happen to be quite far left in priciple, but that and a quarter will buy

me - absolutely nothing in this day and age. I've read Obama's books and understand his ideals. They are very similar to my own. The difference between us is that he knows how to play the game to get himself into a position to actually direct change, and I am willing to support him 100% to get there. He may have to say a few things I don't like to get elected, and I trust him to do that. This guy is on our side, and we need to support him or we will be living through 8 more years of battles and crashing economy. How many of us can afford that?

[madfloridian]

46. Your rights don't mean anything? Read this.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html

[TBF]

99. I know, Madfloridian, but we've got to get him elected. Winning battles only to lose the war is

pointless.

[Jakes Progress]

169. Some battles are worth winning.

But I reject your premise that skulking behind this republican wet dream is a winning strategy. Every time we play republican lite, we lose. There is no either or here. Amendments can be offered. The vote can be delayed. Alternative proposals can be made. Most importantly, Senator Obama needs to use his considerable oratory skills to demonstrate to the public just why this is an unnecessary bill and demonstrate that he has the leadership skills to both protect the nation and the constitution. Playing second fiddle to george's desires won't get him elected.

I like to think that he was going for Hoyer and Pelosi support by agreeing with them. He should have read the bill, and he needs to learn that all of the bad guys in the senate aren't republicans.

[TBF]

187. Well you've got a point about the "Republican Lite" thing - and it is true that our

nice guys (dukakis, gore, kerry) all finished last. I'm so afraid of support splintering, when we're having a hard enough time holding it together after a tough primary. But you definitely have made some points that are making me reconsider and think about this some more.

[lumpy]

86. Waffling has proved to be one of the most odious rules of

political game playing, it has become a mainstay of media hype and scrutiny. Part of Obama's call for change is to change the rules to bring honesty and integrity to the forefront of leadership. There is no way he should let himself fall into the category of saying one thing and then doing another. Voters shouldn't allow themselves to be included as players in political gamemanship. We should stick to our guns and principles even if our favorite politicians want to play that game of convolution.

[CakeGrrl]

49. Good post. It's pretty basic: Obama has to *GET* to the White House first

For good or ill, Republicans at least understand how to unite behind someone to get them where they want them to be, even if they don't personally agree with or like them. Eyes on the prize.

I won't be confident about Obama getting to the WH until he completes the oath of office.

Until then, the Repubs are going to go after him with any and everything they can, and they'll get an assist from the media.

That includes any opportunity to show Obama as a candidate who is weak within his own party, and the FISA vote is perfect fodder. If people think McCain will ever be taken equally to task by the media for far less favorable comparisons, they're wrong.

Do what we can to get Obama in the WH, then do the watchdogging...either that or we get to complain a hell of a lot more about the rights we'll lose under the McCain administration.

[Jakes Progress]

243. Two things.

First. He won't get to the White House by playing republican-lite. We have always lost that game and he is less equipped than the others for that game because he has spoken out against doing that kind of thing. The more republican he acts, the less he makes himself viable.

Second. If the Democrats are no better than the republicans, we also don't stand a chance. As Democrats we need to stand for what we profess. Bowing down and scraping before an almighty leader is what the republicans do. Some things are worth fighting for. The Bill of Rights is one. If Obama can't demonstrate the leadership in this case he surely can't on smaller matters. This is an opportunity to show what he means by his speeches, that he walks the walk to go with his wonderful talk.

[DaveT]

52. I agree with your point, but

you have your history of 1968 a little off kilter.

"Hence, when McGovern supporters crashed the 1968 convention,"


George McGovern was a late entrant in the primary race in 1968, but he had very few supporters because almost nobody had ever heard of him. He won 146.5 delegates out of about 2700 at the convention and he got a smidge of national attention for his effort to "stand in" for the murdered Robert Kennedy.

Although there was a police riot in Lincoln Park while DNC was in session, the Yippes and the "MOBE" leadership who organized the Chicago protests were not "McGovern supporters." And none of them "crashed" the convention.

In 1972, McGovern won the nomination of the Democratic Party by winning more primaries than any of this rivals. Hubert Humphrey dishonored himself that year when he carried a crendentials fight concerning the California delegation to the convention -- attacking the "winner take all" provision in that state after campaigning to win all the delegates. Once he lost the California primary, Hubert suddenly decided that he had a big problem with the whole idea of "winner take all." Sound vaguely familiar?

There were a lot of problems with George McGovern as a presidential candidate, but the picture painted of him as a "radical" was the creation of the Nixon political machine. McGovern was a senator from South Dakota, for crying out loud. Millions of Democrats voted for Nixon that year, for a variety of reasons -- but it is definitely wrong to suggest that they were driven away by the "purist" politics of McGovern.

That election marked the high water mark for The Southern Strategy and it solidified The Emerging Republican Majority which lasted until 2006. Far left crazies are always with us, and the GOP will always try to embarrass the Democrats with their hijinx. But it is a mistake for us to buy into that line of bullshit as if it were literally true.

We need unity in 2008. We will not agree with everything that Obama says or does, but we still need to support him. I'm with you on that score.

[SidneyCarton]

57. Thank you for your correction,

I was a little hazy on that point, being that it was 14 years before my birth.

[grantcart]

56. Very well put

also having rational discussions about the fact that subcontractor immunity is well established and the fact that the retroactive immunity, while bad policy, in facts no siginificantly new understanding of the law while Senator Obama has taken dozens of more substantive steps for restoring the constitutional balance of the country (for example reviewing every single signing statement made by Bush)and receives no real credit for it.

[SidneyCarton]

58. Thanks

I read your post on the subject and found it also very well reasoned.

[grantcart]

63. I didn't expect it to receive much attention so I rushed it and it wasn't as well written as yours

The whole survelliance operation by the government needs to be completey reviewed and new controls put into place. Senator Obama has already indicated that he not only wants to do it but do it with the cooperation of Congress.

Moreover any system can be abused by those that apply the warrants. Eliminating warrantless wiretaps is of course a minimum (and nothing to do with this compromise) but you can still abuse the system with warrants - depending who is holding the keys, who is nominating the judges, etc.

[Asgaya Dihi]

59. Eat our own?

Anyone threatening to not vote for Obama is a fool but anyone who says we can't hold him to a higher standard and expect performance is a fool as well. There's lots of different types of fools out there. The OP in general wasn't bad but it's based on what I see as a set of false premises, most of them I'll skip but one in particular I have to deal with here.

The parliamentary procedures of the Senate, while important and formidable in their own right, have proven ultimately fruitless in the face of Mr. Bush and his cronies with their disdain for the Legislature and their theories of the Unitary Executive.

That's garbage and we know it. The repubs can manage to pull together 41 Senators and block anything we try to do, but we can't come up with 41 to block what they want to do? Nonsense. We've got headlines just today with a Federal judge asking our congress why they don't just get off their ass and arrest those who defied the subpoenas, we've got one bill after another where we let them block our ideas so we just capitulate and give them their way, we've got strong anti-war, anti-wiretap, anti whatever claims that all seem to fall apart as soon as it comes time to translate those thoughts into action. How the hell is it that when they have the majority we can't stop them but when we have the majority we still can't stop them, but they DO manage to stop us every time?

Our problem isn't ideological purity, it's a lack of ideology at all and a dedication to triangulating and compromise. It isn't with eating our own, it's with forgiving repubs just because they decided to hang a D behind their names when they ran for office. We'd make Sybil look like the model of single mindedness with the way we flop between one rational and another in a rush to abandon our principles and find an excuse why it's ok to capitulate yet again. I'll quote another line from the OP to finish this I guess.

In summation: an Obama Administration gives us the chance to reclaim our civil liberties, a McCain Administration insures they remain lost to us. Our choice is clear, lay off Senator Obama and let him do what he needs to do in order to win.

Yes, it gives us that chance, but I'd disagree with the conclusion. Our choice is clear though. Don't let this one compromise his way out of the principles he stood on, don't let him think that triangulating is the better way, don't let him assume like so many have done before that we've got no choice so will support him no matter what. Yeah, in the end we really don't have a choice, especially this time, but there's no good reason to tell them that and there's no reason to let the tacking to the right go on without us letting them know we're watching and concerned. The fastest way to lose those civil liberties is for the "other side" to make him think the fight is one that would be costly and for us to offer the impression the loss of those liberties is a cost we'll bear without complaint. How much more can we afford to lose and still remain the United States in any real sense of the term? We have to draw a line somewhere and this, finally, has to be it or we're done as a nation.

[SidneyCarton]

62. Short of calling me a fool, you raise excellent points

In the end, we face the problem of partnership in a democracy with a party that doesn't believe in it. As such we can never negotiate in good faith. Nevertheless, we are not yet strong enough to do this on our own. Triangulation is not the better way, but politics is the art of the possible, and while I feel we should hold Obama to a higher standard, we should be careful how high we set the bar, we may find we have placed it above the ability of any mortal man, or woman to achieve.

[Asgaya Dihi]

72. Apologies

It hadn't even occurred to me that it was directed at you, that wasn't the intent. It's more with frustration at simplifying what seem to me to be complex issues, and most of all with the trend here recently to tag everyone who disagrees as "concern trolls" or something. Don't those people even understand that in the first years of our objections to the war, loss of liberties, increasing executive power and all the rest of it WE were just concern trolls to the media and to some extent to the nation as a whole?

I didn't mean to say anything accusatory toward you, your post was more thoughtful and better written than most. That's most of why I replied here I'd guess. Some of them I wouldn't have had anything civil to say to. In the primaries we fell in love with the tools and tactics of the neocons to attack each other and now that they are done we're still acting more like the other side does than like what we claim to be. The message seems to be 'fall in line and value what *I* value or sit down and shut up'. Which party was it that did things like that? I was under the impression that it wasn't us, that's why I considered this party closer to fixable and more worth the effort. If we're just going to slip into that mindset so easily when it suits us though then we really don't have any hope left in this nation, we're as bad as the other side is with the only difference being that it's in service of our goals rather than theirs. Those goals don't seem to be based on issues, but with seeing how many "D's" we can put into office even if they do vote repub as often as not. Yeah for the home team, even if it doesn't change anything in the end, and even if we know it won't. The values were supposed to be what mattered. Not the letter behind the candidates name, and I really think we forgot that part.

Apologies if I caused any offense, it wasn't intended, but with what I'm seeing in the nation these days I'm feeling more like it's time to get out of this nation while there's still time. Not less. I expected things to improve after the primary but instead we're caught up in attacking our own when they expect leaders to do what they say and we're excusing yet more compromise. If things keep going in this direction there's no reason to expect more out of this administration than we got out of Clinton and that'll be the end of us as the nation we thought we were.

[SidneyCarton]

74. No harm done...

Your frustrations are understandable. I didn't post in GD-Primaries for that very reason, though I often saw the mess there. I appriciated your post, it contributed greatly to the discussion.

[tavalon]

209. Well done, Mr. Carton!

It's hard when people disagree so vehemently with one's points to find a level head but you've done it over and over, even managing to diffuse a subtle accusation of being a freeper.

While I don't entirely agree with your OP, I've been very impressed with the way you've handled yourself on this thread.

BTW, welcome to DU. I hope to see you around for a long time. We need reasonable, reasoned folks here.

[grantcart]

65. just out of curiousity

and I mean this completely sincerely what specific constitutional principle, not public policy, but specific increase in government power and elimination of rights do you see that the controversial compromise breach - I must be simply be over looking something.

[Asgaya Dihi]

75. The telecom compromise?

Amendment IV: Search and arrest warrants
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now if we go to the telecom bill there are a couple of problems with it but the one which speaks specifically to this issue of the Constitution is the demand, not the ability but the requirement, to immunize any telecom that shows a note saying that Bush said to do it. There is NO judicial review or discretion, no legal warrant issued, no oath of probable cause, they are bound by law to dismiss and to hold the details of the case to be secret, from both the plaintiff and from their lawyers. You'll never know why, what happened, anything, and no warrent or judicial discretion is included in the law.

An article I read the other day on it might be useful. I'm sure there's more and better articles on it since more time has passed but I haven't kept up with it the last couple of days. Findlaw.com occasionally has John Dean and others write articles so maybe I'll browse by there and look for more detail later.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html

[Jakes Progress]

170. Elsewhere here on DU

there was a youtube of KO with a constitutional scholar named Turley that discusses the manifold problems with the bill. Mostly it make the kind of unsupervised and widespread wiretapping and eavesdropping that we are all so mad at the telecoms for into a legal act. This would mean that if cheney decided to wire tap Greenpeace, the only one checking on him would be his own justice people - Gonzalez for instance. This is a breach of the fourth amendment. I would rather my candidate didn't support a bill that decent Supreme Court would declare unconstitutional, especially if he is a constitutional law instructor.

[tavalon]

208. One of the most galling things I have seen since We The People,

brought the Democrats into a majority in Congress is watching the Rethugs school us, over and over, on how to be a minority opposition party. And the sad thing is, we haven't learned how to be that or the majority party. I swear we should trade in the donkey for a dunce cap.

[madfloridian]

64. We are being used. We are to fall in line while they give our rights away.

That's pretty rotten, you know. They don't even count us as important as they do the right wing whom they are catering to now.

[tavalon]

210. It's not a point of how important they think us,

it's how steadfast. We are seen as the folks who won't take our vote elsewhere. Those who will must be pandered to. It sucks and it sucks even more to know that they are right in their assessment.

[johnlal]

66. It's not about voting for McCain

I'm not happy with the House's passage of the FISA amendment. I'm not happy with John Yarmouth, my representative, who caved into the Republicans on this bill. I'm not happy with Nancy Pelosi, who again showed no backbone and gave Bush what he wanted. AND I'm not happy with Barack Obama who issued a statement in support of this amendment.

HOWEVER, I have not threatened to vote for John McCain.

To me the difference is between
A. Contributing money, wearing the t-shirt, feeling hopeful and enthusiastic, and spreading good word of mouth about a candidate I am truly excited about OR

B. Losing my enthusiasm, going to the polls, holding my nose and voting for a candidate who I know won't bring much of a change.

He still gets my vote.

[SidneyCarton]

67. In that my friend, you speak for me and many others

I'm sorry if I made it appear that I was accusing others of threatening to vote for McCain, the point was to note that our bickering could weaken Obama. However, if he backs FISA, it makes all the difference between enthusiastically voting, and holding my nose and voting.

[johnlal]

73. Then I agree with you.

There's little we can do to hold Obama accountable right now.

[tavalon]

211. Now, or ever, apparently

By the time the next election rolls around, they'll still know that we'll vote for him. There isn't going to be any accountability for any of them until there are other parties that are viable. And there will never be a good time to go to a third party as the wolves (in Rethug clothing) will always be at the gate.

[johnlal]

239. Well, that's not necessarily true...

It depends on how he does during his first term. If he delivers what he's promising then he may well be very popular and it may be hard to hold him responsible for and misdeeds. However, if he fails to please his base during the first term, he may have to face a democratic challenger for the nomination for his second term. We'll have to see how he does.

[Fovea]

68. A point about McGovern

we backed him against a president who was subsequently removed.

Carter proved a lot of liberals right. Then Carter was removed by a president who should have been impeached for Iran-Contra.

The failure to impeach in both counts has led to where we are today.

But blaming McGovern for the Democratic party's problems in that election may not be the no brainer it seems.

[SidneyCarton]

69. Okay,

you have a point, the post was a rant, and like all rants, the facts tend to be softer than they ought to be. Also the dirty tricks of Nixon's cadre, which included the mentors to Rove, etc... certainly had a hand in the 1972 debacle.

[Fovea]

83. That is not to say that we havent had our circular firing squad moments

But I get a strange feeling that the Repubs will be the ones to delaminate in an ugly way this time.

I think Ron Paul is going to hit them like an atom bomb.

[tavalon]

212. Best use of delaminate in a sentence!

We should have DUzies for that skill. It's like the opposite of Hugh Morans.

[Fovea]

249. Thanks man!

Sam Clemens said that the difference between the right word and the almost right word was like the difference between Lightning and Lightning Bug.

I agree with him totally on that one.

Again, Thanks!

[Donkey_Punch_Dubya]

71. Great post. They ALWAYS have solidarity, we never do

Remember Clinton's Slight Tax Increase/Budget Balance Act in 1993. It ended up being a roaring success, helped turn a ridiculous deficit into surpluses, and didn't hurt the economy at all. We had 58 senators, and 255+ representatives. This should have been easy to pass, but every single republican voted against it in both houses, and some Dems did too because they were scared by GOP scare tactics. It passed like 219-216 in the House and 50-50 in the Senate with Gore being the tiebreaker.

In 1995 when the Contract with America bullshit was in full swing and the repubs had taken control of both houses, they passed many bills in both houses with smaller majorities because they all stuck together even if some members had a broblem with individual parts.

Just watch this fall: McCain is hated by many many conservatives. Some of his ideas disgust them, more than this telecom immunity situation does us, but yet they will all come out in droves to vote against Obama in solidarity. They understand winning elections and getting votes on bills better, and I guess they obey leadership for the greater good better.

Politics are dirty sometimes, and we need to get Obama elected at all costs in these terrible times, then make things better and undo all the damage. Some dems shot us in the foot in 2000 by voting for Nader because Gore wasn't liberal enough. Some people didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 because they were butt hurt about Dean losing and look what happens. Now this year some Hillary lovers are voting McCain because they are butt hurt about her losing, and people are getting all upset and shocked that their matinee idol perfect image of Obama is not perfect.

We need act and speak in terms of helping Obama get elected at all costs so we can get the greatest country in the history of the world back on track after the hell of the 2000s.

[blondeatlast]

98. Indeed, the RW splinter groups ALWAYS suck it up to get their man elected, every damn time.

They will this time too, even though they despise McCain.

This country--the WORLD--needs every Democratic vote we can get in November. I never thought it could be any more crucial than 2004--that's TWICE I underestimated the malevolence of the RW. NEVER AGAIN.

[tavalon]

213. They are fascists, we are not

I don't, in this aspect, wish to emulate the Rethugs, even if it wins us the big prize.

[Blue_Roses]

76. once again...the voice of reason.

and it's about time:hi:

[JudyInTheHeartland]

78. Thank you for saying this!

I've been lurking on DU for a while, and finally bellied up to the bar and signed up.

We need to quick sniping at each other and remember that we need to WIN in November. We need to take back the White House, otherwise all this talk is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[cbayer]

80. I grow increasingly ambivalent about this.

While not wanting to damage Obama's electability, I also find a compelling argument from those that say that there are some issues that are too important to ignore. The question for me (still unanswered) - is FISA one of those issues?

Part of the problem seems to be that he made a relatively vague statement last week and has been silent on the issue since, despite the firestorm it created. That is disturbing to me. I may need to understand a bit more about his reasoning on this before I can decide whether this is a line in the sand issue or not.

[tavalon]

214. Is the Bill of Rights worth standing up for?

My answer is yes.

[MoonRiver]

84. But, Dems (including Obama) are keeping their powder dry,

REALLY, REALLY DRY.

[anonymous171]

87. I fear you will meet the same fate as the character you are named after, if you post this here.

[SidneyCarton]

91. If so,

Then it is "a far, far better thing" than facing defeat in the GE.

[proud2BlibKansan]

89. I am getting sick of this lesser of two evils nonsense

But I have hope that Obama is less evil than most we have had to choose from in the past.

This FISA thing is scary. We absolutely do need to hold our ground on this and insist the telecoms not be given immunity. I can see a way to do that without trashing our candidate.

Bottom line - we are not march in lockstep koolaid drinking Republicans. We are free thinking Democrats. And I am proud of that. I would hope good Democrats see the value of our free thinking and tolerance.

[JamesA1102]

90. Excellent post!!!

Obama will do more to protect our right by winning the White House then by filabusting this bill.

[high density]

93. Oh! But if we don't eat our own, we're lockstep Nazis!

:crazy:

[ihavenobias]

127. Isn't that a false dichotomy?

Isn't there a nice middle ground between "eat our own" and "lockstep nazis"?

You know, people who support the party and great candidates but also avoid kissing their asses and being as bad as Republicans who still maintain that Bush is a good president in spite of all evidence to the contrary?

I'm not a fan of "both parties are exactly the same" arguments. I think that's nonsense and overly simplistic. CLEARLY the democrats are better overall, and much, much better in some ways.

With that said, I don't see anything wrong with people expressing anger and frustration over their many failures, especially failures against the worst president in American history. Oh, and OF COURSE I'm voting Dem this fall, it's not even a question.

Well, that's my moderate position, and I'm sticking to it.

[SidneyCarton]

131. Thank you, I strive to achieve the position you have espoused.

[tavalon]

215. Nope

Just fascists! :evilgrin:

[Ken Burch]

103. Actually, your 1968 convention history is inaccurate.

"McGovern supporters" did not CRASH the 1968 convention. What happened that year was that the peace Democrats(Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy)won 80% of the vote in the primaries, but the regular Dems decided that this didn't matter and forced Hubert Humphrey through as an all-out hawk. You can go back to the Gallup and Harris polls throughout the summer of 1968 and they showed(after RFK's murder)that McCarthy was always the stronger candidate than Humphrey.

You aren't really arguing that we'd have won if only we'd given up on ever stopping the war and said "All The Way Again with LBJ"? Or that such a victory would have mattered?

And there was no candidate we could have chosen in '72(other than maybe Teddy, but Chappaquiddick took care of that)who wouldn't have got creamed by Nixon. Humphrey would have to have lost 49 states, so would Scoop Jackson. CREEP and the China trip guaranteed a Nixon landslide.

[SidneyCarton]

107. An earlier poster pointed this out, and I have acknowledged the error.

As with every election, there were numerous factors that led to the 1968 and 1972 outcomes, CREEP not the least. The OP was a rant, and like all rants included more bile than brain. Hence the errors.

[Ken Burch]

155. OK. Fair enough.

n/t.

[cameozalaznick]

105. Hurrah and well said

Anybody who goes through the meat-grinder of electoral politics usually gets the sheen taken off pretty quickly. It was bound to happen. But we must hang tough and keep remembering what's at stake. And the next time your idiot brother-in-law (or even brother, aunt, sister, whatever) starts spouting RW talking points, refute them. Soundly. Loudly. And. Don't. Back. Down.

You know, the right-wingers have been able to have certain ideas become conventional wisdom just through sheer repetition. For example. Why are Republicans so great on fighting terror? The largest terrorist attack occurred when they were holding all the branches of government. That would be the largest single failure of intelligence in the history of everything and yet somehow they have this reputation for being so great at fighting terror. How about preventing terror, you nitwits. That's the kind of people I'm interested in electing.

Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press basically gave away the Republican playbook against Obama. They're going to paint him as wishy-washy. "Like nailing jello to a wall," was how Graham put it. Then Rove decided to use the Elite brush yesterday. So I think we need to paint McCain as old and out of touch. Guy can't even use a computer for crying out loud.

So everytime you have a conversation with someone about the election, no matter what the talking point, just counter with, "Yeah, but McCain is old and out of touch." Let them refute that.

[ut oh]

106. Waiting until 2012 for the "perfect candidate" will be waiting too long, we may no longer have...

From my somewhat cynical p.o.v., there honestly is no 'perfect candidate'...

Waiting for said perfect candidate, is just going to frustrate and prove to be moot and in the end, we'll get stuck with much worse by 'holding out'.

[annabanana]

108. Pfft. Thank you for your concern. . . . . n/t

[SidneyCarton]

111. If you think I'm a troll, do feel free to alert.

[tavalon]

216. If you are a troll,

you've added far too much useful to this discourse for anybody to alert and if they did, I have great faith in our moderators.

[happygoluckytoyou]

113. WIN FIRST.... we can divide the spoils in 2009...time for the f(*&ing gop to hit the road

[woolldog]

114. k&r

[Tippy]

116. K&R

[Truth2Tell]

118. Sorry. I will not

"spare you" my righteous indignation.

Yes, McCain is worse then Obama. Nice argument, well made. We get it.

Enjoy your FISA.

[SidneyCarton]

120. So long as you accord me the same privilege, I see no reason why not.

[awoke_in_2003]

122. This episode should illustrate

just what politicians do- look out for themselves and their corporate masters. Obama is no different. There really is very little difference between the two parties, and those don't matter as they do not serve us anymore. Elections do nothing but keep up the facade of a republic.

[SidneyCarton]

124. If so, why bother at all.

Cynicism is cool, sure. But if there is nothing to be done, then DU, and all the other sound and fury stirred up by the Progressive community is nothing but noise. And if that noise comforts us, than why crap on us by telling us that it is wholly fruitless. I know that politicians look out for themselves first, so do most, if not all of the posters here. Our hope is that we can get them to understand that in the end, our good is their good, for in the end the wreck of this nation will profit no one. If we are truly living in the hopeless tyranny you imply, you would be better served in retreating to the hills with canned food and ammunition than arguing with me here.

[awoke_in_2003]

128. The only thing that will ever change this

country back is armed insurrection. But I will play along and vote, maybe one day I will be surprised.

[tavalon]

217. I've been reading your responses throughout this thread,

and I just now actually read your sig line. That was the sig line I was trying to remember a week or so ago when I decided it was time to retire my current sig line.

[Guaranteed]

123. Outstanding. The whiners need to shut up for once.

Just this once- be quiet, and let him get in.

It's an important issue, but look at the bigger picture.

[Kahuna]

176. AMEN. Everybody should take their leads from African Americans..

who have uttered nary a peep for fear we might mess it up for Obama. We haven't put any expectations or demands on him and don't expect anything from him once he gets in other than to make EVERY American proud. But he has to get in first.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

125. Completely agree...You know, no candidate can be all things to all people. Not possible

You vote for the one who shares the most things with you. It's that simple. Any bitching and moaning in the meantime will only be counter-productive.

[Doug.Goodall]

126. why isn't he [Obama] filibustering... Dammit!

My question would be:
"Why isn't the Honorable Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, conducting the filibuster in Obama's place?"

She is a team player, isn't she?
She does want a Democrat to win the White House, doesn't she?

[SidneyCarton]

129. That is an issue for Senator Clinton.

However, those who direct their criticisms toward Senator Obama are justified in the fact that, this year he is the party standard bearer, and therefore there are certain obligations and expectations placed upon him that are not placed on Senator Clinton, but would have been had she won the nomination. The woman has been slimed enough, we need not add insult to injury.

[roseBudd]

137. YES!! Hillary must filibuster, it's much better, NY is as blue as can be & we wouldn't

risk using our King. Any other Senator is just a Knight.

[GeorgeGist]

130. Civil liberties? Have you forgotten that ...

America was created by the exploitation and extermination of 'Native Americans'?

[SidneyCarton]

132. Yes, surely

And for that fundmental flaw we definitely deserve to be enslaved and eradicated ourselves, for the mere fact that we were born here and did not strangle ourselves with our own umbilical chords when our mothers declined to do so for us.

*SARCASM*

[barack the house]

133. The article is perfectly right we can't afford to be particular this election we have to shove them

through the door whatever happens. The consequences are far too grave to get upset our party is half corrupt. Yes, we knew that but they are manageable and can be guided back on course. Do I believe Obama is corrupt no this one instance isn't enough to say he is going to be another dictator type.

[Joe Chi Minh]

134. Very interesting, and sounds right on the mark.

[roseBudd]

136. Thank you! winning the election is a Job One, without winning all else is moot

[NobleCynic]

142. Yes. Asking for clear strong positions is obviously the same as a circular firing squad. n/t

[Peacetrain]

144. Let's get him elected..

[bertman]

145. Since I'm one of the FOOLS who said he wouldn't vote for Obama if he votes

Yes on the telecom immunity bill I feel obligated to offer a different perspective on this issue. I know I'll be flamed like a frickin T-bone on a grill on the Fourth of July, but I can take it.

First, I'm a Democrat since '69. I've supported Democrats in every election ever since. I've contributed money regularly on the state and national level, just as I did for Obama in the primaries.

BUT I have had it with the fucking Democratic leadership in this country. They are complicit in enabling Bush and Cheney on this absolutely critical issue, just as they have been for every treacherous bill our Omnipotent Leader has put forth since he was selected by the Supreme Court.

But here's the rub with Obama and immunity for the telecoms. Obama is now THE LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. By remaining silent on this issue to date he is further enabling the dismantling of our constitutional government. As has been pointed out so many times by so many--on this and other threads--he may not be able to defeat this disastrous miscarriage of a bill, but he sure as hell ought to go on record LOUDLY AND PROUDLY as being opposed to this bill. If he doesn't, he is not worthy of our trust and our vote. And, God knows, that's a very very difficult thing for me to say because I hate John McAnus and everything he stands for.

It's been stated here that we Democrats can't seem to win elections. That's pure unadulterated BULLSHIT. We won the last two Presidential elections but our cowardly leaders refuse to even talk about how the elections were stolen from the American people who voted for Gore and for Kerry. And not only do they not talk about it or try to bring attention to it, they fail to make the case for getting rid of those computerized unverifiable voting machines that have given the fascists the last two national elections.

Now our Democratic leaders are about to tell us that our government can stick its nose into any aspect of our lives it wants with impunity. It can declare us to be terrorists or enemies of the state without evidence that anyone is entitled to see, except our government overseers. Our government can now imprison every single person who is speaking his or her mind on this thread if it SUSPECTS that person MIGHT be posing a threat to our nation. It can listen to our phone calls, read and record our emails, force our doctors and insurance companies to give them all of our medical information, wiretap our phones, force our banks to disclose our financial information, and send law enforcement officials of the local, state and national level to monitor our every move--all under the authority of the Executive Branch.

All of this is the direct result of the failure of the Democratic Party leadership to defend the constitution of the United States. We all know that there are some of our Reps and Senators who are doing their part, but they are few and far between. The rest are like the German legislators who cowtowed to Hitler and his brownshirt bullies for whatever fucking reason they made up in their head. Bottom line is the results are the same. No congressional oversight--how many of Bush's minions have been arrested for defying congressional subpoenas? NOT ONE. You let this kind of violation of basic constitutional constraints and individual liberties stand and you have lost the war for our freedoms, just as the American people have been losing skirmish by skirmish.

Obama could be the game-changer. I'm hoping beyond hope that he is. Will he stand tall as an American and the next LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD or will he appease the corporate powers that be? This is his chance to stamp his brand on the Democratic Party. If he fails we're all screwed.

Let 'er rip.

[gaspee]

147. Agree 100%

And this "support the candidate, no matter what he does" is complete bullshit. It's one of the huge problems I have with Republicans. They support Bush no matter what he does. He's a damn war criminal and yet they still support him!

I call bullshit. The constitution is non-negotiable.

[HousePainter]

198. This is not a constitutional amendment being voted on

This is an amended Surveillance Act. Which can be re-amended, repealed, interpreted, challenged etc.
The law is fluid. It is shaped by those in power.
So let's have a little faith that Obama is carefully stepping through the election campaign minefield to get to the White House
where his Justice Dept. will never abuse our right to privacy.

[JamesA1102]

236. Exactly!

Better to win the war than just one battle. Too bad so many fail to see the forest for the trees.

[JamesA1102]

150. But will you take responsibilty if McCain wins?

Will you take responsiblity for the wars McCain launches and the lives lost? Will you take responsibilty for the further erosion of civil rights because McCain appointed right-winger to the Supreme Court? Will you take any responsiblilty for enabling McCain's victory and all his subsequent actions because you decided not to vote for Obama?

This will be a close election and any non-vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. Therefore in the end it it you that is enabling the GOP and the right. The reason Dems don't have more backbone is because the so many people like you don't have their back. You demand purity and take a my way or the highway additude then walk away if a candidate doesn't fall 100% in lockstep with you. The reason you can't count on them is because they know they can't count on you. That's what happened in 2000 and that's what could happen in the fall.

[bertman]

172. No. I won't take responsibility if McAnus wins if I don't vote for Obama.

I'll let the energized electorate decide who's best for America. Y'all still have faith in the system, well then, y'all can pick the prez.

I'll be hopin' for Hopey.

Right now I'm hoping for the HopeMaster to stand and fight . . . like a true American patriot. Fight for what he knows is right. Even though there's little possibility of victory.


If he took that stand and used his stature as the Democratic Presidential nominee to get national media time to explain to ALL AMERICANS what is at stake in this fight HE COULD TURN THIS THING AROUND.

The man could convince the American people of the righteousness of this battle and get them to mobilize to stop this assault on our most basic freedoms. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he could speak so eloquently and so passionately about what we are and what we mean to the rest of the world that he could make even some of the deepest maroons see the light.

He could make it easy for people who are afraid for their "jobs" in our elected bodies to do the right thing for America. He could stop this thing simply by rallying the frickin Dems and a few decent Republicans like Chuck Hagel to his side. This abomination could be stopped NOW for the next administration to sort out. Along with the Democrat-controlled Congress, of course.

He got national media time for his scintillating conversation in Philadelphia. And he wasn't even THE nominee then.

If the President-To-Be took the reins from "Dirty" Harry Reid, do you really think anyone other than wrong-wingers would be pissed.

NOT.

[JamesA1102]

189. That's the problem, You won't take responsiblilty for your actions

that enable the GOP. Yet you hold Obama to a much higher standard.

[Catherina]

254. Other than you subtle disdain for the hope dispensed, I agree with you

"If he took that stand and used his stature as the Democratic Presidential nominee to get national media time to explain to ALL AMERICANS what is at stake in this fight HE COULD TURN THIS THING AROUND.

The man could convince the American people of the righteousness of this battle and get them to mobilize to stop this assault on our most basic freedoms. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he could speak so eloquently and so passionately about what we are and what we mean to the rest of the world that he could make even some of the deepest maroons see the light.

He could make it easy for people who are afraid for their "jobs" in our elected bodies to do the right thing for America. He could stop this thing simply by rallying the frickin Dems and a few decent Republicans like Chuck Hagel to his side. This abomination could be stopped NOW for the next administration to sort out. Along with the Democrat-controlled Congress, of course.

...

If the President-To-Be took the reins from "Dirty" Harry Reid, do you really think anyone other than wrong-wingers would be pissed?"

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[autorank]

194. Excellent. He won't be a "game changer" unless we make him. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

146. Amen!

:kick: :kick: :kick:


:patriot:

[katandmoon]

148. I will criticize the crap out of Obama if he doesn't live up to his word, and he isn't

I consider him a HUGE disappointment. Just like I considered Bill Clinton a huge disappointment. I am not a blindly-in-lockstep Democrat. I will call them on their shit.

[Two Americas]

151. no we don't

We have an ongoing free and open vigorous debate and fulfill our duty as responsible citizens to be ever vigilant and keep our representative democracy healthy by questioning everything and listening to all points of view. That is because we are strong, not weak as the opposition is.

We aren't Republicans. We are not afraid of ideas, and do not need to play clever little "say no evil" games or live in the world of sound bites and phony fan clubs and group think. We don't need to. We are better than that, and we are stronger than that.

Dissent within the party does not hurt the party or "help Republicans" any more than dissent within the country "hurts America" or "helps the terrorists."

[jgraz]

156. Exactly - Don't blame the politicians who failed us, blame those whiney "voters"

Seriously, all this crap about "democracy" and "rights" is really getting on my nerves.

We don't have time for a Constitution!! We've got a president to elect!


Oh yeah: :eyes:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

157. call me supremely ignorant - but I don't understand why the

immunity thing is that important. The Bush government probably strong-armed and
threatened and scared these companies shitless

[Truth2Tell]

161. because the civil suits

were the only avenue left to get the complete story of what has been done. This was a way to learn the truth. In all likelihood the telecoms would've made a deal to rat out the administration in exchange for immunity anyway. The only difference now is that we will never know the full extent of the crimes, or who was behind them.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

162. thank you very much

[FunMe]

158. How hard is it to say NO to FISA?

"Obama can do nothing to insure our freedoms until he is in power."

You are wrong. He can say NO to FISA

Sounds like you are saying "trust our politicans". Why? Look at all the good it did us when we elected a Democratic "majority" in the House and Senate.

We have to demand LEADERSHIP from our candidate. Anything less is pretty much business as usual and NOT change.


It's not about winning elections - it's about protecting the US Constitutioon, civil liberties, and YES the 4th amendment.

Sounds like to you it's "no biggie"

Geez!

[crankychatter]

163. they were all callin' him a big deal lefty before... then a righty

and now he's a middley

frankly, they're so irrationally, all over the fucking board, spewing any anti-Obama shit they can dream up, or gets handed to them by right wing think tanks.... under the guise of "constructive criticism;" one can only surmise it's one of two things:

1) They're pro-War Profiteer agents of the right (paid or unpaid)

2) They're racists

In either case it's just post-Primary disruption, morphing under the cloak of "unity."

[crankychatter]

164. BTW, if nobody's told ya yet, Sidney, Welcome Home... NT

k/r

[MasonJar]

166. Obama needs to know that we expect him to stand by his word. Let McCain

flip flop like a fish on land. Let Obama stand tall for what he knows is right, not for just what he thinks will elect him...that is where dems keep failing. On edit: that does not mean that we do not support him...he is a strong candidate and apparently a fine man.

[Spiffarino]

182. If he stands on principle, he wins

The American people are sick of liars and weenies. With the GOP, you get liars. With the Dems, you get weenies.

Barack Obama must prove he's neither. I pray he will, because I want him to become president like nobody I've ever supported before.

[papapi]

167. We eat our own and repugs pick the bones . . .

will I ever in my lifetime see a united Democratic front? I'm beginning to wonder.

[Jakes Progress]

171. If we vote like they've already bought the meat

then I guess we're their bones to pick. I want a united front also, but I prefer that the front represent Democratic ideals rather than republican ones.

[rg302200]

174. I agree with you 100%

You said it better than I ever could...

[readmoreoften]

175. Yeah it's gays and women and "support the constitution types" who are the problem.

Ideological purity. Do you even fucking know what that means? How about stand for SOMETHING? SOMETHING. ANYTHING. Pick ONE THING.

Our candidate stood up for naming a post office for a friend and sending some aid to Kenya. That's what he's put his neck out on. And he'll do nothing when he gets elected either. God forbid anyone should expect our politicians to do their fucking jobs and uphold the law.

Idiots.

[gaspee]

190. You caught that too?

It's the gays fault, dontcha know? Silly people, thinking their human rights are *important* -

[Creideiki]

229. Come on, readmoreoften! The back of the bus is comfy!

So's being under the bus because we've got the shade!

[madfloridian]

178. Why don't we just lay off all of them, and let them do what they do best lately.

Cater to the right wing.

I posted what was in the bill....it is dangerous. I posted that Hoyer was not honest about bringing it up...he was secretive and dishonest.

Your post has more recommends than all of mine put together.

That tells me we are fully assimiliated, we are all accepting all of it now.

There's a sadness to that.

[bertman]

180. We aren't ALL fully assimilated yet.

You may not have the recs, but you do have the quality content.

[Catherina]

255. No.

They work for US. I'm with you MF. There's great sadness to what's going on right now. :hug:

[ekwhite]

179. Once again, here we are

trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama is not perfect, by a long shot. But he is the best alternative we have right now to four more years of Republican rule. Right now, getting a Democrat - any Democrat - in the White House is the most important thing we can do.

[Spiffarino]

181. I disagree on one key point

Obama needs to hear from his supporters when they think he's wrong on a big issue. He stood up on this once before, and he needs to stand up now.

What we are asking of Barack Obama in going after him on FISA is to be bold and not cave in to political expediency. Ultimately, the winner of the next election will be the one who is perceived to stand on his core principles. If Barack Obama doesn't remain strong on this issue, the whole premise of his candidacy shatters. He then becomes just another politician and there isn't a slogan, speech, or dazzling smile that will fix that.

[mrbluto]

183. This is not a matter of perfection - it is a matter of principle.

If you google my posts you'll see that I make the same point about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This current FISA bill does not pass the smell test.

Besides that - why the rush?

Considering the lawlessness we've seen in the Whitehouse for the past nigh-eight years it's worth the risk of waiting till a democratic administration is in charge in order to not give yet another free pass to those who abuse their power.

[JDPriestly]

185. My candidate, Edwards, would have stood tall on this issue.

Obama has failed me. I'll still vote for him, but . . . . . I'm very disappointed. This is not a difficult issue. If you have a sense of right and wrong, you vote no on this. That's all there is to it. Obama is a lawyer. There is no excuse other than moral laziness.

[windbreeze]

186. Hear Hear!! Agreed...n/t

[autorank]

193. Open, frank debate shapes policy, platforms and what candidates do

Please not another round of this nonsense.

You should read more history. There's always been fierce debate.

If these politicians, any of them, think that they can get away with jerking our chain, they will.

What you propose is "faith based" politics. We've had enough of that. NO more, NO unearned trust.

Make them earn the level of support that you can give.

THESE POLITICIANS ARE "PUBLIC SERVANTS."

WE DO NOT HAVE KISS UP. WE HAVE TO MANAGE THEM OR THEY'LL RUIN US, ALL OF THEM.

There are a whole lot more of us who don't "rule" than those who do. Should be no problem
unless we bury our heads and "trust" - "have faith" and other nonsense.

[hardtoport]

196. Tell me something.

Does anyone here really think that voicing displeasure with Obama's stance on a very important piece of legislation is going to prevent him from getting the WH? As much as we might like to believe the world hangs on our every word, and although it is true that when we band together the netroots can accomplish a lot, I think we might just be overinflating the impact of the liberal blogosphere just a bit. I don't think Democratic Underground does the same damage as the MSM playing the Rev. Wright non-story on a loop 24-7.

Some people on the internet are starting to sound almost superstitious. Will his campaign implode if we don't chant " I believe in change " until Nov.? I mean, if you can't talk about your party leadership's failure to uphold Democratic values or the Democratic party agenda on a board named Democratic Underground, where can you go? Geez, I thought I could at least be spared the " libruls r commies " far left bashing garbage here.

Can we please dispense with the preaching to the choir? I have donated my time, money, and my truck's bumper to the cause of getting Obama elected. I voted for him in the primary and will vote for him in Nov. I draw the line at having to wear an Obama lapel pin or telling everyone " I don't know about you, but I've ALWAYS been really proud of my nominee. "

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

219. I can criticize Obama

if he does something disagreeable to me. It doesn't mean I have to vote for McCain, because on balance, Obama (or Clinton, Kucinich, Edwards, or Richardson) is a far better choice than that thug.


I don't expect a perfect candidate. But the candidate should not expect completely quiet support with unanimous agreement on every issue.


Yes, we need to work on restoring 4th amendment rights. But I'd rather work on it with Obama in the White House instead of McCain.

Now, if you really want to see us eat our own, start a discussion on the 2nd amendment. I'll make popcorn.

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

224. Well put n/t

[Mad_Dem_X]

221. AMEN!!!!

As a country, we cannot afford Bush 2.0 - we need to get behind Senator Obama and support his candidacy in order to get a Dem president!

For the record, Obama was not my first choice, nor my second. But he is the Dem candidate now, and as such he has my full support to beat McSame.

[treestar]

222. You could be right; it explains why we allow the framing

that the Democratic candidate has to defend every absurd charge the repukes make, while making no such countercharges. It lets the repukes run things, because they are shameless, whereas we are introspective.

The FISA thing is at second remove, too. The evil is that the government did the wiretapping and claims that it had the power to do so. Attack that, rather than secondary considerations. Suing the companies that complied is too indirect. Go right for the wiretapping itself.

[TechBear_Seattle]

223. Translation: Shut up, I don't want to hear about our party's failures

How is it "eating our own" to point out campaign promises that the candidate cannot be bothered to keep while campaigning?

Added, just so I'm clear: I will vote for Obama, and I feel better about him than I ever did about Kerry, Gore or even Clinton the second time around. However, I will not remain silent when Obama fucks up big time, as he is doing right now on the FISA measure or as he has repeatedly and consistently done with regards to equal marriage.

[GihrenZabi]

227. Political loyalty

Should be bought and paid for with kept promises and ideological stances which remain intact.

Compromise has brought us to this place in American history. Decades of compromising American principles of freedom, free expression, and general democratic thought.

Obama wants to paint himself as the agent of change. Fine: so fucking DO it.

Stand up against this bill. Filibuster it. Throw caution to the wind and do something like a fucking LEADER, someone who is willing to be dynamic and take risks, someone who is willing to make an ideological stand because he knows it is RIGHT.

If he really wants to bring about CHANGE which means a damn, THIS is the sort of change he needs to bring. Not just a change in how you raise money for or conduct yourself in a campaign. I could give fuck-all about either of those things if the candidate doesn't then conduct himself in a manner which is truly different for an American politician.

I've been discussing with friends of mine how Obama is either the savior or the death-knell of American democracy. If he gets into office with this broad mandate on a promise of change and then does not begin attacking the broken institutions of our government with a very broad sword, do you know what you're going to wind up with?

MILLIONS of disillusioned Americans who put their hope in a man who promised to do things differently and then who didn't - and without some broad changes in how we live our lives and run our country, the economy isn't going to improve, social justice, education, and health care aren't going to improve, the military isn't going to get reigned in...

So many people on this board are parroting the weakest argument I can think of: "He's doing what he has to in order to win. Relax and wait until he's in office, and then he'll stand up for what we believe in."

Isn't that the fucking DEFINITION of "the way politics is played?" Where's this "change" that Obama has been spewing about for months? "Yes, we can." Yes we can WHAT?

If all he has to offer is raising his money outside the PAC and lobbyist system and running a cleaner campaign than most, that isn't change which means a fucking thing.

The change we need is politicians willing and able to put their personal ambitions on the line, to risk LOSING power in order to campaign for ideological causes which are right and true and which need to be championed and fought for. The Progressive movement in America has been dealt blow after blow since Vietnam, and unless someone stops the bleeding we're going to quickly find ourselves the dinosaur of the Western industrialized world, too conservative to recognize the need for change and losing the resources we need to be able to make a great correction like we did during the Great Depression such that when the next major calamity befalls our society, we're not going to be able to handle it.

You want to talk about putting aside temporary goals in order to see the big picture? Think in terms of a CENTURY. THAT is the challenge which faces us, folks. If you have any knowledge of history then I challenge you to look at the United States of America and the cycle of Empire which has repeated itself since the beginning of recorded history.

Do we really have much more "compromise time" left to us?

Obama has the chance to be the leader we need. He has the moxie, and he has the base of support - he is the first potential world leader since JFK who has the ability to chart a NEW course for us.

That begins with things like standing up against this FISA bill and stopping shit like coddling up to the ethanol industry. No more politics as usual - because that's what got us into these straits in the first place.

[Catherina]

253. GihrenZabi, has anybody told you that they love you lately?

If not, well I do.

Thank you from an earnest and long-time Obama supporter who agrees with every word you wrote. I've already let Obama know that my future level of enthusiasm for his campaign depends on his conduct towards the FISA bill.

[PassingFair]

228. It is a far, far more milktoast approach than I have ever seen before.

He will not win.

He will not have the PUBLIC backing or financing,
if he is not seen as a FIGHTER.

Fighting for our rights against illegal searches
is just a good start.

This is a chance for him to LEAD.

I DO NOT understand all of the posts calling for
"dry powder" around here.

We have EIGHT YEAR'S worth of dry powder.

LET'S USE IT!

[crankychatter]

231. use it on mccain

or you're doing his work for him

[PassingFair]

245. Fighting this FISA bill IS fighting McCain.

:eyes:

[AlbertCat]

232. Thank god

we don't all march in lock-step like the Repugs. It makes things harder, but the results are superior. What, do you want us all to agree with Pelosi?

[dogday]

233. With all the voices we have, one thing is constant, diversity

And the ability to support our candidate while still asking the questions.. It is important to know the answers, even if they are not the answers we want to hear...

[natrat]

234. bullshit-gay rights abortion is one thing domestic spying is totally unacceptable and nonnegotiable

[TechBear_Seattle]

252. How nice to know my fundamental human rights are optional n/t

[redqueen]

237. Hear hear! Our mission - to get him elected.

Apparently some here think the mission is to pretend he's silly putty and try to mold him into Kucinich between now & November.

:crazy:

[Seabiscuit]

238. Could we indulge in any more histrionics? Please? Could we? Could we?

Are you trying to stifle dissent within our own party?

Look, no one's threatening to refuse to vote for Obama over this. But we can and should criticize any stance he takes which undermines the Constitution. If enough of us make enough noise, perhaps he'll listen.

But noooooo.... we musn't "eat our own" over the 4th Amendment, eh? Heck, we've got plenty of Amendments that talk about fundamental rights... who needs due process, for example? A bunch of terrorists in Gitmo? Fuck 'em. Let's scrub the 5th Amendment while we're at it. And the 1st Amendment? Hell, we don't have a free press anyway, so who needs it? Screw the 1st Amendment.

As long as we've got the 2nd Amendment and can shoot anyone we disagree with, who needs all those other silly superfluous Amendments?

[Frank Lemadeer]

240. Absolutely. It's just one Amendment at stake

It's not like we really need it or anything. There are lots of other Amendments left.

[Jakes Progress]

244. Sure. Take away number four

and nibble at a couple of others and you still have about 78%. That would give our guy a C plus on protecting the constitution. george was a C student too wasn't he?

Guys this isn't funny stuff. This is the chance our candidate has to shine. What is it they say about winning players in basketball? When there's six seconds on the clock and the team is two points down, the winner wants the ball in his hands.

Well, the clock is ticking, This is where he can show us what he's got. I've heard him speak. I believe he can do it. We just have to give him the ball.

[kentuck]

241. If we look at it closely..

I think we will find that most of the liberal base votes for the nominee without fail, probably in a higher majority than any other group of Democrats. They may bitch and moan but, in the end, they usually support the nominee.

We have lost the elections because Independents and Democrats in the middle have been easily persuaded by the Republican attack machine and end up divorcing the Democratic Party. No matter how much we might vilify Ralph Nader for getting the votes that he did in Florida, George W Bush received many more "Democratic" votes than Ralph Nader took from Al Gore. Sad, but true.

Either we are not communicating with these folks good enough to persuade them to our side or we have been too passive in defending our positions and our Party, in my opinion.

[MyNameGoesHere]

246. hey as you said, Spare me your righteous indignation.

If i cannot disagree and be strongly opposed to more erosion of the constitution then maybe i should move? Right now Russia has about as much rights as we do. But hey if you want to take a chance and enable someone at the cost of "Spare me your righteous indignation" then by all means have some fun.

[liberalfella]

248. No candidate is perfect, but Obama sure comes close to perfection

Except for a few little issues, Obama and I share the same views. That's why I support him

[depakid]

251. Obama didn't need to support the sell out to win

any more than he needs to keep calling his plan "universal healthcare."

So please, spare me your mealing mouthing memes about ideological purity. The Dems have FAILED year after year, not because we "eat our own," but because our representatives and putative leaders cower and pander to the far right, rather than standing up for what they (supposedly) believe in.

And all the while, like the suckers we've become- every year we're spurred on to accepting Republican lite losing "strategies" and policies by opinions like the OP.

[Douglas Carpenter]

256. your view of history is flat-out anti-historic

first of all Sen. McGovern in 1968 stood on the podium with Hubert Humphrey and did everything possible to unify the party; including making deeply emotional appeals on T.V. which was carried repeatedly by all the networks.

Second of all, even when it was clear that Sen. McGovern had secured the Democratic nomination in 1972 by winning far more caucuses and primaries than any other candidate, certain party regulars led by Hubert Humphrey, Richard Daley and George Meany attempted to steal the nomination from him in a last ditch effort through the most unscrupulous of tactics which they carried out publicly and shamlessly all the way the convention floor - including changing the party rules that they had all - without exception previously agreed to, engaging in a relentless smear campaign which the Nixon people were only to happy to pick-up on, and flat-out refusing to do anything to help unify the party or support the nominee because they couldn't get their way on everything.

Third of all is is downright silly and brainlessly automatanic to demand from people who are doing everything possible to support Sen. Obama unconditional subservience to every aspect of the Obama campaign; every dotting of the eye and crossing of the "T'. This is what is unprecedented. This demand for purity of unconditional support of every aspect of the campaign is something I have never, ever seen before. This sounds like the democratic-centrism of Lenin; not the rational debate of Democrats.

[SidneyCarton]

257. Welcome to the party

You are now the third to correct the inaccurate version of history that I gave in the OP. If you read the thread (I know it is a little long now) you will see that I acknowledged the error to the other posters, as I now acknowledge it now.

As to your second point, Good Grief man this was a RANT! I honestly don't give a flying care whether or not you criticize our nominee, it is after all your right. It is also MY RIGHT TO CRITICIZE YOU for your position, democracy my friend is a two way street, your opinions and views are no more sacred or correct than mine. I do not expect mindless obedience, I do expect common sense, perhaps my expectations are a bit much...

[Douglas Carpenter]

258. I believe it is extremely important to elect Barack Obama

I also believe that democracy ONLY works when ANY candidate gets the message loud and clear that their supporter do have certain minimal expectations.