Sometimes the Stupid takes you by surprise...

[gcomeau]

Here I was, all these last few months, reveling in the fact that we have a superb candidate. A big factor in his excellence was his ability to do what? Oh... that's right... his ability to appeal to people outside the damn base of the party so he could actually get elected and do us some good.

And then, with the primaries over and the time of talking primarily to the base of the party about how he's going to try to address their concerns IF he gets ELECTED finished, Obama starts to do the unthinkable and run a GENERAL ELECTION campaign so he can do exactly that. Here's a tip boys and girls, the reason it's called a general election, is because you are trying to get elected by the general voting public...not 100 million democratic political activists. If you run the exact same campaign in the GE as you run during the primary you are being an idiot. Obama is not an idiot. That's another big part of the reason we voted to put him out there for those who have short memories.

So along comes the FISA bill. Obama has issues with it. He says so. But he also knows that if he comes out too hard against the entire bill because of those issues he is handing the GOP the propaganda point they need to hit the one issue on which public perception has him as most vulnerable and they'll call him soft on terror, weak on defense, and everything else under the sun to make sure people are scared for the safety of the children of the nation at the thought of Obama becoming president. And if he screws up the election and actually manages to lose then this entire process we've been going through has been for nothing. He knows it. I know it. Every goddamn one of YOU knows it.

And even if he votes against it it's going to pass ANYWAY and every goddamn one of us who isn't completely blind knows that too. So his choice is FISA passes with him in a strong position to be president and do something about it later, or FISA passes with him giving the GOP an opening to make McCain the president and not do a damn thing about it later. Well damn, which one should he pick?

And then the stupid takes you by surprise.

Obama does the correct thing... the smart thing... and a whole mob of people here who follow politics religiously and know damn well better spontaneously combust because the candidate they've spent the last year trying to get elected didn't completely pointlessly sabotage his efforts at getting elected. SURPRISE! We've been infiltrated by idiots. People who are devoting massive time and effort to getting a guy elected president but who are outraged that he's doing the exact same thing.

But the stupid isn't done. Oh no. It's got a friend waiting to jump out and catch you napping again just when you think you're through the worst of it.

Because there's another huge reason Obama was considered a superb candidate. He has unifying appeal. He's "post-partisan". Icons of the conservative movement cross the party lines and throw their support behind him he's so damn appealing and we celebrate and dance and cheer and say "Will you look at that! Woo! Obama is the MAN!!!!"

And then, moments later... the stupid takes you by surprise.

"Wait a minute... did he just say something conservatives would LIKE? Who is this guy? How DARE he! What does he think he's doing appealing to conservatives on anything!?!?! OH MY GOD, WE'VE BEEN HAD! HE'S NOT A LIBERAL!!!!!". This time it didn't just surprise you, it knocked you on your ass. The stupid brought a sledgehammer and smacked you in the face with it. Can it really be that these people supported a unifying candidate that they expected to run as the consummate textbook liberal ideologue? Apparently so... because we've been infiltrated by idiots.

And then along comes the Supreme court ruling on the death penalty, and Obama expresses disagreement. That's it, just makes a statement of disagreement... and *smack*. Just when you were picking yourself up off the ground along comes stupid jumping out of the shadows to drop you right back on your butt again. "Obama disagrees with me about something I consider important! This cannot be permitted! Omigodomigodomigod!!!"

Now to close this off, just to be clear, I'm not talking to people who casually express simple disappointment that Obama didn't or couldn't take a position they wish he could or would have taken and then move the hell on with focusing all of your energy getting that same guy who DOES take 95% of the positions you DO want him taking elected because that is what we are all supposed to be doing here right now. Oh no. That's fine. That's understandable. Hell, that's commendable.

No... I'm talking to those others. The people who fly off the handle and start parroting GOP talking points about Obama being "just another politician" who won't change anything because you don't like where he took a stand on one damn issue. The people who start launching paranoid rants about Obama not being a liberal at all because he only agrees with 57 out of your personal list of 61 things a liberal absolutely must believe no exceptions "raaaargh no more donations from MEEEE if he doesn't do what I want on this one!".

You see, I expect stupid from the general public. You can't help but expect stupid from a population that cast tens of millions of votes for Bush. Twice. I even expect a degree of stupid right here on this board from casual visitors who aren't really paying attention to what's going on or juvenile adolescents who only show up to push people's buttons.

But, even though I should know better, when it comes from people who have invested serious time and effort and attention in the political process for an extended period of time and have no excuse it still manages to catch me off guard. So yeah, I'm guilty too. Did I really just expect the people on a site absolutely and officially devoted to the election of the Democratic candidate for president to be able to maintain focus on that goal and not start shooting themselves in the foot at the first opportunity for a self destructive dispute over some bullet point of ideology?

Yep... I did.

Sometimes the stupid takes you by surprise. Especially when it's your own. Because oh boy, should I NOT have been surprised by the rest of it. Taking a golden opportunity to make things better and completely fucking it up over pointless ideological bickering and tantrum throwing is what the Democratic base does best ain't it? But here I am... all surprised that it's happening again... thinking that this year those people couldn't possibly not grasp the importance of putting it aside for a few damn months and getting the primary objective accomplished before reverting to type. And being surprised by that particular brand of stupid... well, that's kind of stupid in itself. Shame on me.

[truedelphi]

1. Obama won the primaries because he remained true to himself.

He even attracted people who normally vote Republican for Pete's sake.

He needs to avoid being lead down the path of wishie-washie by his handlers.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Yep. Though some people will tell you he can't win unless he guts at least 3 constitutional rights.

[grantcart]

2. the Democrats gained about 35 million votes in the primary process

for us to take power from the Republicans we have to double that number. We actually have to run a GE campaign. Many people seem to think that we simply have to win over a majority of the 35 million that voted in the primaries.

Moreover in addition to the normal problems Obama has to carry the additional burdens of a muslim sounding name, a crazy pastor, being black, being mixed race,being a completely self made man.

But now prepare yourself for the comments on this thread that will quote the ACLU that Obama is going to destroy the Bill of Rights.

Oh and by the way the ACLU just endorsed Obama.

Now he will still get all of the criticisms of the ACLU and those that worship its every word but he will now lose all of those folks, including some independents, who despise it.

I say give the man some room.

Nice post.

[genna]

133. I think I understood what you meant but being black and looking outward

I'd say I never had a problem with being black.

I'd state it in the reverse the majority had a problem with me being black far more than I ever did.

As disgusting as I find it for Obama, one of his saving graces for that same majority is that he does not have 2 black parents. If he is able to cross this barrier of the majority, the child who is born with 2 American born black parents might have a shot because they are not going to be able to fall back on some of the 'softening' factors Obama has as far as the "is he one of us" argument.


I think all of us need to take a step back those who are offended with Obama's conflated positions on FISA, campaign finance, and other substantive issues and those who think that real disagreement should start after Obama wins the presidency.

Sure, rant and rail and be good n upset with other people's foibles. I accept that we reached and stepped pass a huge milestone today between Obama and HRC. I can wait on truly griping on other people's foibles for another day. Today I'm relieved that this milestone has been crossed.

[babylonsister]

3. Great post! Thanks for putting everything in perspective. nt

[MarianJack]

4. Here's an ENTHUSIASTIC K & R for you, gcomeau!

Well said and "HERE HERE!"

PEACE!

[Coexist]

5. .

[polmaven]

45. I really wish you wouldn't be

so WORDY! GAWD! I'm at work and barely had time to read your post! :hi:

[Coexist]

50. ..,.:'.

:P

[ellacott]

6. You said much better than I ever could

Very well written. I am shaking my head reading all these threads of dispair and outrage.

Shame on me too.

[CakeGrrl]

7. Well-said. And if people don't think the Right and the MSM will exploit Democratic infighting

...

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

9. They are salivating as we speak.

They are thinking, maybe if the base can be depressed enough, OBama won't get the donations he needs to get himself elected.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama was defeated by his choice to forego Public Financing and his own base?

[John Q. Citizen]

10. If Obama doesn't vote to gut freedom of speech he's soft on terror - Terror, terror? Rudy?

[gcomeau]

14. Hey, thanks for providing an object lesson.

Obama doesn't vote against a bill that he has zero chance of preventing passing anyway and he's "Voting to gut free speech".

Uh-huh. That's a pretty picture perfect example of the subject of my post, well done.

[dflprincess]

18. Wellstone stood up and voted against a bill (the IWR) he had zero chance of

preventing from passing even though he was told that vote would cost him his reelection.

He took a big jump in the polls after casting that vote.

[SidneyCarton]

19. Tragically we will never know this, but...

Had we run Wellstone for President, what are the odds of him winning?

We all admire the principled stand, especially when it's against overwhelming odds and sure to fail, but fail gloriously. A victory for principles is pointless if its a Pyhrric victory.

[gcomeau]

One...

...your response here didn't in any way justify your first ridiculous post suggesting Obama "voting to gut freedom of speech" so I assume you're going to retract that bit of nonsense?

Two: FISA is a very different issue from Iraq in the minds of the electorate, and please don't try to pretend you don't understand that. Obama voiced his specific opposition to the aspect of the bill he didn't like, but casting a pointless vote against the rest of the bill that was guaranteed to pass regardless would be begging the republicans to beat the snot out of him on national security in the minds of the average voter for NO gain.

[dflprincess]

21. Check the names on the posts oh wise one,

I never said Obama was gutting freedom of speech - though I do have qualms over his attitude toward the 4th Amendment. And I give the public a bit more credit than you do. I talk to neighbors whose political activity is limited to voting, but who do pay attention and have concerns about rights being infringed on. Some of them use to be Republicans.

[gcomeau]

24. Oops, my bad on point one.

But on the subject of giving the public more credit.... Bush. "Elected". Twice.

On an issue as important as making sure the next 8 years don't go like the LAST 8 I'll give the public more credit when they conclusively earn it, thank you very much.

[dflprincess]

32. No one has ever disputed that Gore won the popular vote

and I don't think there's much doubt that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. It was the Democrats' spineless, "don't rock the boat" philosophy that let Bushco get away with it.

Senator Klobuchar found out how much the public pays attention when she voted for FISA last summer. I had to stand in line at her booth at the State Fair to let her staff know what I thought of that vote - and, from what I could hear, that was the only subject anyone was bringing up. Her staff person told me they were surprised how much people cared about that (which elicited another outburst from me) and did I have anything else I wanted to talk about. I don't think it was only active DFLers yelling about it.
The next time the vote came up, she voted against it though as of yesterday, I still haven't heard a straight answer about what she plans to do this time.

I think both we, and especially our elected officials, shouldn't underestimate how much attention is being paid. This seems to be especially true the older the voter is. A lot of us on this board have told stories of older people who have been Republicans all their lives, but who have switched in the last 7-1/2 years - so somebody must be paying attention.

[Enthusiast]

90. Man, I AGREE with you.

The voting public deserves no credit. The way they abandoned Kerry in the face of swiftboat attacks, for example. The voting public doesn't do nuanced thinking.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

129. Karl Rove & Diebold

selected Bush along with the SCOTUS. Remember?

President Gore was fucked over by them.

[Enthusiast]

144. I can't disagree that it was a big factor.

But it is framed as big conspiracy theory on the network news.

[rucognizant]

63. So do Kucinich!

But he didn't win the dem primary!

[merh]

97. and how well did Kucinich do during the primaries?

baby steps - get the votes, win the office - he promised to listen to the people when he is president and he will - we have to get him into office.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. No, that will be the next Repo hurdle to pass. They got what they wanted so easy here, all

the Repo propaganda machine has to do is proclaim if a law isn't passed to limit dangerous speech, then those who oppose it are pro terror.

Why didn't Rudy win the Repo primary? He was even pro torture. Or is the Repo base soft on terror?

If Obama is scared of the Repo propaganda machine, I don't think he looks like he has the guts to stand up against the terrorists. By gutting our rights, the terrorist have won.


I donated to Obama repeatedly and worked hundreds of hours organizing meetings, phone banking, canvassing, and tabling. Obama pledged to filibuster any FISA Bill that contained immunity.

Far as I can tell he flat out lied.

Is your point that lying is the best way to get elected? All he needs to do is out - lie John McCain?

[Duke Newcombe]

43. Wait a minute...

...Florida Democratic legislators failing to vote against rescheduling their primary and complying with the party are asshats, but Obama failing to take a stand with his vote on FISA gets a pass?

Not exactly getting this.

Duke

[JDPriestly]

85. Obama could have gotten a better compromise.

This bill is really, really bad. It has a thousand loopholes (exaggerating a bit, maybe not a thousand, but a lot) to allow all sorts of avoiding any restraints on eavesdropping and no repercussions whatsoever for the violations of law. Remember, the telecoms have lots of money, and they spend a fair amount of it on lawyers to advise them on how to avoid legal consequences of all kinds for their acts. There is simply no excuse for what they did. And who do you think is the first person the Bush administration will be putting under wiretap surveillance? Obama, of course. After all, he has ties to Indonesia where there probably are terrorists since it is in part a Muslim country and there have been terror attacks in Indonesia. Perfect excuse. Democrats in Congress including Obama are fools to go along with this bill. It is the Trojan horse of this election cycle.

[blondeatlast]

11. Somehow you channeled my anger and put it into words. Word, friend! nt

[JVS]

12. In a lot of the cases here people are not being stupid.

A lot of the times when a person repeats republican talking points against the nominee it is because they share the goals of the republicans. They want to cause division and defeat.

[blondeatlast]

16. Not all the trolls are on the right; in fact, far from it. Spot on, JVS. nt

[yeswiican]

40. That sounds right.

[JVS]

44. welcome to DU

[southern_belle]

13. k & r n/t

[depakid]

15. Stupid = failing to learn from past mistakes

and this post pretty well sums up the STUPID conventional wisdom that's managed to lose every for the Dems election (and damn near every policy debate or nomination fight() for the Dems since 1994- save only 2006, when the Dems actually appeared to stand up again for traditional Democratic values (before going back into a and 18 month slumber that even now- in an election year continues.

I guess it's just like the old saying:

Stupid is as stupid does.

And there's a sucker born every minute.

[Orsino]

25. Yep. Standing up for our rights isn't stupid.

It's a winner, for a candidate with sufficient courage. It would be mighty tough for the GOP to criticize him for not offering Big Telecom retroactive immunity.

Obama could lead on this issue, and is instead going with the flow, promising to look into maybe-sorta undoing it later, after it becomes law.

The time to stop it is now, before the precedent is set.

[gcomeau]

33. No, quite right, standing up for your rights isn't stupid.

"Standing up for your rights" in a manner designed to fuck yourself out of them by helping the candidate who couldn't care less about them take the White House... THAT's stupid.

[Orsino]

35. I don[t see that as a major risk.

Yeah, the GOP will try to spin their FISA-fucking as having something to do with the War on Terror, but Obama is a powerful speaker, and if he dared, he could make the case--that should already be obvious--that FISA already grants the fascists all the power they could need to "fight terror."

He's afraid to stand alone on this.

[gcomeau]

36. He's averse...

..to spending political capitol he needs to win the war, fighting to the death in a single battle he can't win.

[Jakes Progress]

77. Still not clear on the whole Bill of Rights thing

are we. Yeah, I won the war. I gave up my principles and my soul and the US Constitution. But I won the war.

Do you have any tiny grasp of what the Bill or Rights means for our country. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken arms, put themselves in danger, and sacrificed their lives to protect those rights. You think of them as poker chips. Sad.

[gcomeau]

81. You're not clear on a lot of things.

#1 being Obama isn't in control of whether the damn bill passes. He isn't giving up ANYTHING but a pointless battle that will not in any way change the outcome. And he's more than welcome to give those up any time he wants as far as I'm concerned because I LIKE my candidate to have a functioning brain.

He has voiced his opposition to the damn legislation, but he CAN NOT stop it from passing. Get that through your skull. CAN. Not. STOP. IT. Not with the votes they've got lined up behind it already. And if he throws a continual big public fit over it the way you seem to be demanding he do the ONLY think it will accomplish is to:

A) Draw everyone's attention to the strong impression that they're watching Obama the impotent senator who can't stop a piece of legislation going through while fighting tooth and nail. "Guy who can't get things done" is NOT the image you want to project when you want people to make the guy president.
B) Make sure everyone is paying attention to FISA and associating it with Obama, so when the Republicans start telling all the low info knuckleheads out there about how Obama was voting against "keeping them safe from terrorists" they're going to go "hey, yeah, I remember that!".

[Jakes Progress]

112. I clearly understand

what you don't believe.

You don't believe that Obama is a leader. You state that he must compromise his principles because the really powerful leaders are Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hower and Orin Hatch. Your statement indicates that you do not believe he can lead the people.

You don't believe the Bill of Rights is important. Your statement that he would lose a pointless battle to protect it gives that away.

You don't believe the people of this country are as smart as you. Along with the fact that you don't think Obama has the stuff to lead people, you don't really believe that people are worth fighting for. They aren't as clever as you, so the best thing to do is trick and fool them.

You don't believe very much of what Obama has been saying since he started campaigning. You support him for reasons that have nothing to do with his character, his abilities, or his vision. This must be so because you espouse the exact opposite of almost everything he has said as his best course of action.

You do not believe in fighting for something unless you know you will win.

Here are some things I am clear on.

We don't have the same values. That's okay. I do understand what you are saying; giving up is easy to understand. You think that because I don't agree with you that I don't understand your point. Mine is not the impenetrable skull. For you a functioning brain is one that sees no problem with lying and scheming and cheating to achieve a personal goal. So we disagree because we have differing values. I can't get you to change your outlook on life and you won't get me to agree that chicanery is wise or that defeat is the ultimate end for any who try to behave morally.

[gcomeau]

115. Oh my good god...

You already made this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6414174&mesg_id=6415359

And I already answered it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6414174&mesg_id=6415387

Are you stuck in some kind of loop waiting for your neurons to kick in and churn out a new thought?

[Jakes Progress]

132. I'm glad you like reading my posts.

If you don't like hearing the same arguments, then try to say something new. Just saying "Gotta Win No Matter What" over and over and over is not very original (nor very moral). You have stated the same premise over and over. Why should I have to come up with a new argument each time you say that Obama would be stupid to do the right thing. You say you believe in him, but say he would be stupid to try to lead because he can't do it. So I give the same response to your same statement.

As I stated. We have different beliefs. Now that you can no longer defend your point of view without looking craven, you have taken to pouring over my posts to see if you can complain about my writing. Go ahead; pick nits. Knock your socks off. Avoid the truth when it is painful.

The point is I believe in doing the right thing. You believe in doing the expedient thing. It's a personality difference. One is not necessarily better than the other. You go with pragmatic politics. I'll stick with purposeful ideals. I can't make you a believer. You can't make me a conniver.

[gcomeau]

135. Learning exercise...

I've used the we have to win no matter what premise "over and over" have I? Do me a favor. Count the number of times, anywhere in this thread, where I've made the argument that we have to win "no matter what"

If you go above zero, you're hallucinating. See a doctor.

Now either seriously read the OP and respond to what it actually says instead of shit you just decide to assign to it and then argue with, or stop wasting my time.

[Jakes Progress]

136. Come on.

That is the whole premise of your post.

Do I have this wrong? Obama can't lead the Democrats to do the right thing about FISA. But that is no big deal. We have to win, so if he votes to gut the forth amendment, that is a good thing, because he would be stupid to try to do the right thing if it meant he might not win. We have to ignore it when our candidate does bad things because it might keep us from winning.

Okay, Okay. You never said the words "win no matter what". But I do think I have summarized you fairly well. Besides killing baby ducks with a shovel, what things do you foresee that he might do that you would find worthy of criticism? Unlike you, I do read what I respond to. I read the post. You said we need to all get behind Obama and stop complaining about him doing a deal on FISA because it was not a big deal and we need Obama to win.

I have agreed with you that we need Obama to win. We disagree on a couple of matters. You feel that he had no chance to get the bill stopped. I feel he could have. You think that trading FISA for winning is okay, even laudatory. I agree with the constitutional scholars who say that the FISA bill is very far from trivial, that it is a matter of national concern beyond the scope of petty deal making. You feel that being more republican lite is the way to get more votes for Democrats. I feel that the best way to win is to be an alternative to republican thinking (especially when they have such low approval numbers) rather than a less odious version of the same thing. What areas here do I have wrong that I can find in your OP?

So we disagree. That doesn't mean I don't understand you. I just disagree with you. That democracy thing you know.

[gcomeau]

137. No...

...that is the whole premise of the dialog you have running in your head, which you have decided to assign to me.

Do I have this wrong? Obama can't lead the Democrats to do the right thing about FISA. But that is no big deal. We have to win, so if he votes to gut the forth amendment, that is a good thing, because he would be stupid to try to do the right thing if it meant he might not win. We have to ignore it when our candidate does bad things because it might keep us from winning.

To answer your "Do I have this wrong" query I present to you... my post. Since just asking you to read it doesn't seem to be working.

"Now to close this off, just to be clear, I'm not talking to people who casually express simple disappointment that Obama didn't or couldn't take a position they wish he could or would have taken and then move the hell on with focusing all of your energy getting that same guy who DOES take 95% of the positions you DO want him taking elected because that is what we are all supposed to be doing here right now. Oh no. That's fine. That's understandable. Hell, that's commendable."

Get it? If the guy on one side of the election is IN YOUR CAMP on the majority of the issues then yes, you can still disagree with him on the minority he isn't. Yes, you can criticize him for it. But when you cross the line into taking steps to actively and rabidly tear him down over the minority points of disagreement and parrot attack lines being used by the guy running against him who agrees with you on about 2% of the issues... giving that guy a boost to their likelyhood of winning the election so you can just be completely fucked for the next four years on EVERYTHING you care about in the election... THAT IS IDIOTIC.

Get it?

No, we don't have to "win no matter what". If Obama wasn't the better candidate for our interests it would not be at all important if he won or not. If he took an entire range of policy positions in the pursuit of winning that ended up making him no better than McCain on the issues then writing him off would be entirely justified. It's not about victory for the sake of victory. It's about getting the guy who IS going to do us the most good, by orders of magnitude, into office over the guy who is going to just kill us on issue after issue. Offer criticism? Go ahead. Actively attack him in ways that undercut his strength among the voters when you KNOW that him losing the election will be a disaster for ALL the issues we want advanced here? That's for MORONS or GOP plants.

[Jakes Progress]

138. Getting to the name calling, are we?

You keep saying "Get it?" when you still don't get the point of my criticism. I want him to change his mind. I don't want him to take the moronic advice of quivering cynics who believe that we should be more like the republicans. You think that will help him win. I think that will help him lose.

Again, you say this is a minor issue. I find his stances on the Death Penalty and on Handguns repugnant. But those I will let go. i think he is wrong, and I think he fails to represent those who put him where he is by favoring those. But I will let those go.

But the fourth amendment, the Bill or Rights, that is not minor. That is sacrosanct. He is wrong and he needs to change his direction. What part of losing the legal right to privacy do you not comprehend? This isn't about some phrases and posturing; this is about what America is. If anyone in the country, any political figure from the last 100 years were to try to bargain away the Bill of Rights, I dare say that DU would be up in arms. But the cult of the personality rules too many here. He was selected to protect us, not be just another political hack.

I could give you hypotheticals all day, but you would ignore them to return to you idea that by standing up for the Constitution, Obama risks losing the election. You have little regard for his ability. You have little regard for the wisdom of the people of this country. You make a checklist and count off 95% as if a bill for a water project in Des Moines is of equal value to a bill letting george bush get away with breaking the law and gutting one of our founding principles.

Then you post again, ignoring that magic 95% of what I say, and try to make it about how weak and fragile Obama's leaderhip is.

You still didn't answer my question about whether the summary you quoted is a good representation of your position. I read the snippet from your OP that you gave. I read it several times, parsed it, fixed the syntax for clarity, and it still doesn't address my question. I am beginning to think that you and I may not just disagree about political strategy. You delight in obliquely calling me an idiot and a moron, but you fail to consider the alternative.

[Jakes Progress]

46. Try reading depakid's post carefully.

What many of us are saying is that the path you are suggesting is exactly the path we have taken before and lost. Obama was supposed to do this another way. He swore, he orated, he demanded that we could do the right thing and win.

Now here are all of the people who have complained that we never learn and that we always lose, telling us that what we should do is exactly what we've been doing. Which sounds stupider to you?

Those of us exhorting Obama to get right on this bill believe that the Bill of Rights isn't one of those things you should play politics with. Once it's gone, its gone. But besides that, we think he is blowing (or has blown) his best chance to really lock up the election. Imagine Barack striding to the well of the Senate to declare war on this kind of bill, this bill which is the perfect example of Washington insider back dealing. He has the oratory gift to tell people how they are being screwed, to tell them how this bill will not add one tenth of a second more to the response time for defending the country. He could explain the twisted dealings that have led us here. He could offer solutions.

Why would this work? Because he is the Democratic nominee. He would have a hundred cameras recording the speech. He could follow up on every Faux and MSM show that tried to spin it saying that this was what he warned would happen, that he was going to stand his ground in defense of our country and our Constitution.

The country would go wild. Obama's polls would soar. What good is all that god-given oratory skill if all you're going to do with that voice is croak out that you agree with Orin Hatch and dick cheney and george bush.

This path isn't how he can win an election; it is how he can begin to lose.

[gcomeau]

47. I know perfectly well what he was saying.

Obama stood up and said what he didn't like about the bill and that he wasn't really happy with it. And at this time, in this situation, that is enough. The country would not "go wild" if he did any more than this while the Bill just soared right through the Senate despite anything he was doing, they would just notice that he was powerless to accomplish what he set out to do. Which is not the image you want to stick in people's heads of the guy who wants to lead the nation. The netroots would go wild, but they wouldn't have a very good reason for it, and they wouldn't add anything to Obama's chances of victory... he already HAS their vote by agreeing with them on practically every other damn issue under the clear blue sky. Requiring he rack up a 100% record with them is petty and short sighted.

Going further than that FOR NO GAIN on a bill he cannot prevent from passing, while handing the republicans propaganda fodder to use against him on the national security debate which is one of the few areas he is potentially vulnerable on in national opinion polls, is pointless and stupid. If he had a decent chance to actually stop it then sure, by all means, he should be out there making it happen... but he DOES NOT. Not with the vote margins this thing is racking up right now. Don't be naive, this bill is passing, and Obama blowing through political capital on a hopeless mission to prevent the inevitable in the middle of a general election campaign would be a blunder.

And anyone reacting to his refusal to commit that blunder by throwing a tantrum and echoing GOP talking points that help the guy who is going to screw them over on ALL the issues they care about is even more stupid.

[Jakes Progress]

51. Maybe you had another take

on the speeches that Obama gave. Maybe you felt all along that he was just pandering and that he didn't mean any of that. I'm and old cynic and didn't trust him at first. Then he won, and I let myself fall for the rhetoric again. My fault for thinking all those passionate posts about him being the different candidate, about how he was going to bring change, and how we were entering a new world were made by people who actually believed what they were saying. But you explanation is that you knew all along that he was just saying pretty words, that the words had no depth and the candidate lacked conviction. But he was a rock star and that was all that mattered.

You don't believe that he can make a difference. You don't think he can lead his party, only follow it. You don't believe that he can lead the people of this country. Yes, We Can is just a slogan, because you are saying No, We Can't. Sure, we can win. But only by being false and lying and playing games with people's lives. And of course winning is everything. So when everyone complained that Hillary would do anything to win, they really meant it as a compliment.

If you don't stand for someting, you will stand for anything. The complaining about Obama's sell out is depressing so many of you. But many of us are depressed that you don't believe in the candidate you support. I seem to have more faith in him and his abilities than you do.

[gcomeau]

52. No... I didn't have another take.

I thought he meant all of it, and I STILL think he meant all of it. I just don't think meaning it requires he has to be stupid about it and apparently some people do.

I absolutely do believe he can make a difference. I just don't think he's going to make a difference by being stupid.

I absolutely believe he can lead the party and the country. I just don't think he can most effectively lead either one until he gets elected TO a leadership position. Which won't happen if he's... you got it... stupid.

And give me a break with the over the top "if he doesn't stand for something" bullshit. Oh my good god... you don't like how he handled ONE ISSUE and the entire policy spectrum on which he is running not to mention his entire personal history suddenly vanishes from your mind and the guy stands for nothing. Get a grip on yourself.

[Cronopio]

73. So, just to be straight on what you really mean about "being stupid".

1. "Being stupid" is failing to compromise your own past statements when you believe it is politically necessary?

2. Not "being stupid" is being the "candidate of change" for the people who want change, and holding the course for those who benefit from the status quo? And then changing course again once you've gotten into the Oval Office?

If so, it sounds like George W. is a pretty smart guy in your book, as these two statements *exactly* describe his successful 2000 presidential campaign.

"I absolutely do believe he can make a difference."

What's different about the above tactics? Answer: not one damn thing. It's been politics as usual ... forever.

"... you don't like how he handled ONE ISSUE ..."

This isn't just "one issue". If passed, it will be a legal standard that says that *any* corporation or individual that complies with a lying administration *should* and *will* be beyond the law. That makes the law nothing more than a commodity to be bartered for an political advantage. It is a LEGAL and MORAL PRECEDENT, which makes it a BIG FUCKING DEAL, not just "one issue".

[Jakes Progress]

75. You gotta give up on this guy.

No center. I thought we would have a discussion, but you can't discuss an issue with someone who talks in circles like "he is different" but he has to act the same. Then there was "he is stupid" if he does what he says he will. The kicker, the statement that proves there's no "there" there, is that he thinks the concept of standing for something is silly and absurd.

So he's not going to understand what the fourth amendment is or how it has protected him and should be there to protect his children and grandchildren. Poof, it's gone, and he dismisses it with a sneer at those silly people with values and principles. He zeros in on the idea of being upset with one issue (as if gutting the Bill of Rights isn't important enough to be upset about) when that is the topic of the thread. He didn't ask what other things there might be. He doesn't seem to know that the only things our candidate has "done" rather than said and promised were acquiesce on FISA and the Death Penalty, and has started fudging on Iraq and siding with the right on every issue that has come up. This doesn't bother the poster. It must be a poor life not believing in anything.

I can still vote for Obama. I just wish that he had shown his true nature back during the primary. We could have other choices had we not bought the shiny picture. He's a politician. I've voted for opportunistic, ambitious politicians before. I just wish he hadn't gotten my hopes up that there was someone who could do the right thing and still win. Hope becomes capitulation. Believe becomes connive. And Yes We Can becomes Yes we can be just like the other side.

[Cronopio]

142. No center indeed.

I think there's a phase when you really are convinced that the perfect tactic is the only thing that matters. The problem with his argument is that Bob Shrum and the DLC have been repeating this tactic for literally *decades*, and only won one presidential election with it - 1992.

And that was *only* because of the spoiler Perot. If not for him, the entire 90s would have been a Bush decade.

If the tactic worked, I would support it, but I've been around the block enough times to know that it reliably *does not* work - for Republicans or Democrats.

Caving on FISA is not a "centrist" move, it is a corporatist move. The true political center in this country is the platform Kucinich ran on - the one that polls showed that most people agreed with, even though they got hung up over Dennis' looks and their media-fueled delusion that everyone else in America would reject a true populist stance at the polls.

*That's* stupid - faux corporatist "populism" is what got Reagan in the Oval Office. Every conservative thinks of themselves as a populist. Corporation's marketing campaigns are based on a populist pretense. Populism is the *only* thing that has ever worked in politics - not some meaningless and co-opted concept of "centrism".

[Jakes Progress]

145. Ah. At last.

Someone who knows and understands history. Thank you for proving that some here are not solely informed by the Washington Pundit Elite. We trash them here, but most still espouse the "wisdom" that they pass down. Run as A Centrist is surely one of the dumber examples of the common wisdom from the annals of punditry. But here, they eat it up.

[formercia]

89. Naderite mentality

That's being stupid.

"I'm going to vote my conscience, even if we lose."

Yeah, right. Look where that got us.

The Morans of the Left.

[Cronopio]

141. "I'm going to vote my conscience, even if we lose."

Let's look at the four options you've proposed in that statement:

1. You vote your conscience and you win. I don't expect you would have a problem with that.
2. You vote against your conscience and you win. Do you ever trust your conscience again? If you believe that all of the votes were counted, you now know that your conscience is outnumbered by the ignorant and corrupt. You have to make a decision - do you buck the majority and pay the cost, or just avoid all of the painful moral questions and join the dark side to get along? Not a comfortable position to be in when you have to either kill your conscience or second-guess your win.
3. You vote against your conscience and you lose. Double whammy, but it might make you re-evaluate your conscience, so there's a possible silver lining in that scenario.
4. You vote your conscience and you lose. You obviously think this is a loser scenario, but many people (myself included) were in that situation in 2000 and 2004. The payoff here is that I didn't betray my principles or my conscience, and in 2008 I've earned the bragging rights to say that the majority sold themselves down the river in putting G.W. Bush in the Oval Office. *I* didn't sell *anyone* down the river precisely because my moral code isn't reduced to a numbers game or a political-tactic-of-the-month. It makes for a lot of very restful nights.

Maybe that doesn't mean that much to you, but when you're outnumbered by the ignorant and corrupt in this country, and politics is getting more corrupt and fascist because of it, that satisfaction is the only sure thing in the long run. Obviously how Election 2008 turns out is important, but not as important as that satisfaction.

[Jakes Progress]

146. Principles. Principles. We don't need no stinkin' principles.

We've got an election to win.

[dana_b]

121. bravo!

I for one am sick of people calling us "stupid" and using "GOP talking points". WTF? We want our candidate to stand up for what he has said from the beginning! He said that he wouldn't go along with it (FISA) and now he is. We don't need GOP talking points when people here start acting like the GOP.

[Cronopio]

143. If anyone gave the GOP a talking point, it was Obama in his FISA capitulation. Not us.

The most effective thing the GOP had to run on in 2004 was Kerry's flip-flops, because Kerry *did* flip flop - several times. The GOP has so little to go on in this election - why spot them anything? It's Obama's job to make the GOP's job more difficult, and he didn't do that this week.

Thank you for the kudos.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

80. Well said

I'm new here and have been doing a lot of reading, trying to get a feel of the place and the people before diving in, but perhaps its time to test the waters.

While I can sympathize with much of what was said in the OP and understand the logic used to get there, I strongly disagree that politics as usual will help Obama win this election. And no matter how you slice it, saying one thing to get the nomination ... then turning around and doing the opposite thing to play it safe to win the GE IS politics as usual, whatever your party affiliation is.

The reason Barack Obama has drawn respect he has from independents like myself is precisely his message of change, and his offer of hope of a new kind of politics, that we could do the right thing and win. He got my attention by giving great "speech", but it remains to be seen if he can walk his talk.

It was his conduct during the primaries that gave me hope that this was a man that just might have integrity, even if he was a politician. He did what he said he believed was right, even though it wasn't necessarily politically expedient. THAT is what impressed me and why I am so disappointed in him over the FEMA vote.

It's not "moving to the center" that will win him this election. It is if those of us that vote for candidates rather than parties, and those who haven't participated in the process before because "they're all crooks and liars anyway" feel we can believe he is who he says he is, that there really is hope for change. I want to believe in him, but can't if he says one thing then does another.

I'd vote for a trained monkey before I'd vote for a McSame continuation of the madman in the White House's policies but I don't believe Obama can get past the idiots that put him there if he doesn't hold to a higher standard than those that have gone before him. That's why this issue is so important.

Okay, I'll shut up now :hide:

[dana_b]

122. well said yourself!

don't "shut up". and welcome!

[mikehiggins]

88. tough for the GOP to criticise Obama?

Only if you think they have a habit of telling the truth.

Kerry was two kinds of war hero. He did his duty in the field and then he put his honor on the line by trying to stop it at home. The GOP painted him as a coward and liar and a whole LOT of people listened.

People who think the GOPukes will stop at anything to defeat OUR candidate are terminally naive. The very survival of the GOP is on the line here and they know it even if we "don't". The first eight years of Obama's Presidency could well be marked, historically, by one continuous train of indictments and trials of the crooks and war-criminals now in office. THEY know that, even if we don't.

Let Obama run his campaign the way he thinks best. Even if he is a liar and a political whore he still is not John McCain.

And no, I don't think Obama is the ANti-CHrist. I think he is our best shot at putting an end of the last eight years of madness, and THAT is good enough for me.

[Seabiscuit]

111. This OP is another STUPID attempt to justify cowardice by arguing triangulation.

And indeed, that has been the reason this party, led by triangulating losers like Pelosi, Hoyer and Reid, keeps losing elections - because they're so afraid of what Hannity or Limpballs might say about them that they sell the Constitution down the river at every opportunity. I don't just call it "stupid". I call it treasonous.

[SidneyCarton]

17. Hope you're wearing asbestos underpants...

Because I made a post similar to this one a few days ago and people came out of the woodwork with flamethrowers.

k&r

[Blue_Roses]

20. thank-you for the voice of reason...

:applause:

Awesome post! Glad you are here:hi:

[butterfly77]

22. That's right...

K&R...

[blondeatlast]

26. Tunnel vision vs. wedge issues; this time, the wedge issues are coming from the Left.

And the RNC knows damn well that the base will suck it up and vote for McCain in Novemebr even if they hate him.

In the end, the Republicans have one wedge issue: the outright fear and hatred their disinformed base has against Democrats/liberals. We have--well, how many weeks until November?

If we don't work this out--President McCain.

[SidneyCarton]

29. I think that's the best summation of the current situation I've heard yet.

[blondeatlast]

31. Here it is in expanded form if you've got a moment.

It's a bit angry, I wrote it before I saw this piece which would have calmed me down!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6413977

[Barack_America]

27. This was spectacular.

I loved (and agreed with) every single word.

:thumbsup:


This is one thing I have always respected about the right, they know when to STFU and get to work. And they were enormously successful until the necrotic core of their movement was exposed. I guess that's what too much "STFU" will do.

Here's praying that the Democratic party will someday strike the right balance.





(but I'm not holding my breath)

[Juche]

28. Tell it to the democrats in October 2002

They were being fed this same line. 'You have to look and sound tough when election time comes up, so just go ahead and vote for the Iraq war'. That turned out really well.

Secondly, As far as winning the general, a poll funded by the ACLU found 57% of the public oppose telecom immunity while only 1/3 of the public support it.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/strong-majority-voters-oppose-telecom-immunity

Do you honestly think that independents are going to vote McCain because Obama might refuse to grant immunity to multi billion dollar corporations that broke the law and violated the constitution?


Thirdly, part of Obama's voters are libertarian republicans who are disgusted by the authoritarianism of the GOP. By voting for this Obama is likely to alienate them as well. They were/are supposed to play a decent role in swing states and western states like Nevada or Arizona.

Fourth, Obama is alienating his activist base by doing this. Who do you think is donating the $25-50 a month to keep his campaign going and registering millions of voters? Hint, its not low information voters who aren't paying attention who may be swayed positively by today's vote. It is the netroots.


"If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist" - Ed Koch

I agree with Obama on 80% of the issues, but realistically this was an incredibly stupid move on his part. How are we ever going to find out how much behavior the telecom companies were involved in if we can't take these issues to court? now the spying will be buried.

By doing this Obama may have alienated his base (who give him alot of his money and volunteer hours) and the crossover republicans who disagree with the authoritarianism of the current GOP and are willing to vote for a democrat constitutional professor.


What risk would he have faced by voting against it? The GOP, who has been caught lying so many times int he last 8 years that nobody expects them to be honest don't like him? Fox News doesn't like him? Who cares. Do you honestly think the same people who say Obama is an Al Qaeda double agent who attended a madrassa are going to care about Obama's national security credentials when they send out mass emails? They will paint him as someone who wants to raise taxes ont he middle class and leave the US defenseless no matter what Obama does. So he might as well do the right thing anyway.

Furthermore, the 9/11 fever is mostly broken. People aren't nearly as afraid as they were in 2004.

[EFerrari]

30. "pointless ideological bickering" -- Yep, sometimes the Stupid is surprising.

[gcomeau]

61. To be clear...

...since I've been weighing whether or not to conclude that that statement was meant as sarcasm and have decided I just can't tell: I am not saying ideological debates are by nature pointless. I am saying that when they are conducted in the manner and under the conditions specified in the above post the only outcome they have is to obstruct the advancement of the very principles those engaged in the argument are so damn concerned with seeing progressed. THAT is pointless, to say the least.

[annabanana]

34. ... and SOMETIMES the "stupid" isn't here

to help us win. .

[gcomeau]

37. There's no real point addressing that group though. -nt

[blondeatlast]

38. It's a hard pill to swallow, but you are correct. If we don't engage them

they'll end up just talking to each other and that would get really boring, really fast, I think.

[crankychatter]

39. While ignoring ALL THE SCREECHING OBAMA BASHERS

I've given YOU, a recommendtion

I'm really DONE reading their shit

[K Gardner]

41. Bingo. I wish I could recommend this 100 times over. Thank you.

[bunkerbuster1]

42. Mostly with you here, but...

Yeah, of course, the over-reaction from some in the net roots is a little silly. With you there.

That said, I disagree with the premise that voting against FISA would've provided the GOPee with a club to hit him with. I don't think the average voter really gives a good crap one way or another on this vote; that's what's frustrating to me, actually.

But you won't hear me going omigodomigomigod heez a traitor! -- long story short, our candidate's got tremendous political instincts and I think they'll serve him well when the road ahead gets bumpy.

[thoughtcrime1984]

48. Huge KnR! Back our candidate, your other choice is McCain. None of us will find the "perfect"

candidate for POTUS, but for our best interests, Barack Obama must be the next President. The next few months are all about getting him to that end. We'll find out how he does as President starting in January, and we can be more strident about pushing him to the left then. Let's just win this MFing election first, and trust that Obama and company know what they're doing to get there.

[Undercurrent]

49. Excellent post, gcomeau! I agree.

It's appalling to me to see Democrats attacking our own nominee. Especially on a Democratic forum.

The primary is NOT the general election. The primary speaks to ones own party, and the general must speak to ALL Americans. To ignore that is folly, and is the reason Democrats have historically lost many a presidential election.

[cottonseed]

53. First post worth reading in a few days. Thanks.

It's tough out here right now. A lot of I told you so's"mixed with a bit of justified anger, mixed with a bit of constructive criticism. Yet all in all it comes out to a hell of a lot of negativity. Thanks for the breather.

[redqueen]

54. Hah! Brilliant.

:thumbsup:

[rucky]

55. That needed to be said.

and I'm glad someone else said it.

[Triana]

56. Love your rant - right on da haid. I'm not disappointed in him...

...and some folks will remember he SAID he would disappoint us sometimes. He'll make a gaffe or try to unify with Repubs on some issues and take some stands and have opinions we don't agree with - THAT IS THE PLATFORM HE IS RUNNING ON - HELLO.

Oh sure, we want him to CHANGE how things are done in Washington - as long as he keeps doing it the SAME way. :wtf:

And YES he HAS to maintain his appeal to as many voters as possible - Repubs who support him, and independents - he won't get elected if he doesn't!

100% in agreement with the OP.

[lynettebro440]

57. Agree

The man knows how to play the game. He didn't get this far being an idiot. I like the way he's playing this. Calm down people, the man won't disappointment us. And he's sure the hell better then McSame.

[fascisthunter]

58. Actually Not Learning from the Past and Compromising on Basic Rights Is STUPID

Spare me the lecture on what stupid is, because you have it ass back wards. The same shit will keep this election extremely close, why?

1. he flip-flopped already

2. independents already see this

Playing to voters is for suckers and people HATE WHEN POLITICIANS treat them like suckers. SO now Obama suckers his base and now he's trying to sucker the independents into believing he now stands for their issues rather than how he stood for those issues with his base. Do you really think people buy this shit?

This is why the Dems lose... they never hold true to their principles and when the moment of truth comes they fold out of political expediency. Obama made a HUGE mistake by doing just that.... (it's why the other side accuses us of being wimps, push-overs) now his base has less trust in him and those he thinks he will sway are now suspicious too... great!

And when he doesn't do so well, I'm sure many idiots in our own Party will have a convenient patsy to blame. Nader worked so well, we didn't do a damn thing about election reform. Blame blame blame... but never deal with the real issues honestly... no wonder this country is shit right now.

[1Hippiechick]

102. What is the purpose of your rant? Do you support Obama or not?

[sellitman]

59. I can imagine Will Pitt writing this OP

Its that good.

[dmr]

60. Every now and then, here in DU, someone writes a post rich in wisdom.

This is one of them. Sometimes people are so passionate they forget the course of trying to be elected president is a risky and difficult and dirty chess game. With all we have been through since Coup 2000, along with the well founded worry about the future, it's hard to keep this process in perspective.

I'm angry and upset over FISA, but arrived at similar conclusions as you. I believe Senator Obama needs the room to evolve in this complex arena. I am willing to trust that he will right the wrongs inflicted once in office.

My primary anger and focus is at the balance of the Congress for allowing Bush's* bill to proceed.

Your post is rich in wisdom and ought to be reposted periodically through the general election cycle.

Thank you.

:)

[Willo]

62. Well said gcomeau, I think this is one example

of the difficulties Obama will face during his years in office. Criticisms and expectations far above and beyond those of any other.

Maybe now is the time for people to get a realistic vision of the outcome of his first week, month and year in office. There will be more mess in that office then even he could have imagined. We will be privy to more of the problems even if that only means 10% more information. We will not feel the effects of many of his efforts until the second term and we will also realize the effects of some his efforts within the first two years.

We will have more access and the media will have more access. We are unaccustomed to this and will probably abuse the freedom.

[Gman]

64. Can you imagine the mushroom cloud here if Hillary was the nominee?

LOL!

[bluerum]

65. Nice post. But a finger in the dike. The stupid has not yet begun to, uh,,, errr. Mmmmm.

[marias23]

66. I feel the same way., but...

...we have no choice. Sickening fact: Whether any candidate lives up their promises is always up to them. Sorry. We have no choice but to get Obama elected. Once he is elected, perhaps we actually will have the progressive candidate we crave.

[TBF]

67. I've gone back and forth on this issue.

I know Obama needs to pick his battles to get elected, yet I was swayed also by the posts of those who feel this is one of the battles he should stand firm on. Thank you for this very well written, clarifying post. We need to get over ourselves and get this man elected. John McCain sure as hell isn't going to help us. We've got to keep the faith that Obama will.

[elocs]

68. Hallelujah and Amen! Happy to give you a Rec.

I've been trying to say the same thing in small bites, but I've gotten my ass singed by the holier than thou crowd who self righteously believe that they have a monopoly on principles and Obama's had better be the way theirs are and with their definition because god knows they are the only ones who have principles. Then let McCain get elected and watch them cry and bitch for 4 years how he is destroying the Constitution in the midst of WWIII. No, the important thing is how Obama votes on the FISA bill, or about public financing, or his stance on the death penalty. That trumps all else, including winning the election. That's stupid, but then they are the only ones who know what is right and they are more than willing to lecture the rest of us about we must hate the Constitution while they are its noble and fearless defenders.

[bertman]

69. Yep, you're right. The stupid did just jump up and smack the shit out of Obama's

bid for the Presidency.


What is it now-----19% of Americans think the country is going in the right direction?

Congress has an approval rating of what? Around 13%, last I heard.


And our brilliant candidate goes right along with Mr. 19% and his horde of 13%'ers.

That oughta grab the disgruntled voters. Doncha think?


Wow, he must be some kind of a maverick!!

[The Doctor.]

70. I'm a little shocked at the stupid as well.

Long time DUers who should know this stuff by now are all in a "He just another corporate stooge! We're DOOMED!!!!" panic attack.

People, chill out.

[Imalittleteapot]

71. Please let this post stay on the front page.

We all need to be reminded now and then that this is a GE and you gotta do what you gotta do. It's called politics. Thanks for the invigorating and enlightening post.

[phrigndumass]

72. Adding my kick and rec for a terrific post!

Let Obama win!

[Adelante]

74. I love you, I love you nt

[TexasObserver]

76. Every four years, the Kamikaze wing of the party wants to make its Banzai charge.

They always want us to go out in a blaze of glory, like Butch and Sundance did.

I agree with your post. The goal here is to win the election, not give all Democratic party activists a Happy Ending.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Blue State Bandit]

79. DAMMMN!!! No you didn't!!! (snark)

I'm right there with you cuz.

As they say, repubs fall in line, and dems fall in love. I hear a lot of scorned lovers howling about a little spat; over something broken that they both know can be fixed later. But there they go, sabotaging their relationship with a good partner all the while forgetting what the volatile scene could due to the two kids looking on from the kitchen.

It's time that we co-opt the one republican trait that we know is their only true strength. Protect the candidate by falling in line, at least till after November.



POUND THAT S#!T OUT, AND LOCK IT DOWN!

And in lies the eccence of what "the pound" or "fist bumping" is about.

[Seldona]

82. So you support unlimited immunity for telcoms, Bushies, etc?

I could be wrong on this, but isn't that illegal???

[gcomeau]

86. So you think it's a good idea to respond to posts without reading them?

I can only assume this is so, since I never said one damn word about supporting anything you mentioned in my post.

[JDPriestly]

83. Are you excusing Obama for compromising his way to the White House.

Frankly, I've seen enough of that.

We need a leader. If Obama were a leader, he would stand more strongly for the things he believes in.

I backed John Edwards. I still have my Edwards sticker on my car. Edwards stands up for what he believes. He has real integrity. Obama has yet to prove himself. Sorry, but that is a fact.


obama's failure to stand up for the Constitution (and clear language in legislation) with regard to the FISA bill is a very serious mistake. No one is perfect. I can forgive an occasional mistake, but I will be watching Obama very carefully after this. To say the least, I am extremely disappointed, extremely disappointed.

Here in and near my neighborhood, criminals were arrested under gang laws in recent days. On the one hand, I am happy to see them off the streets. On the other hand, they were arrested under laws that that permit arresting people based on with whom they associate. I question whether those laws are truly consonant with the Constitution since among those arrested may be innocent people.

Obama is saying he supports the FISA bill to permit tracking people who use electronic media to commit terror acts, and he is willing to let criminals go free in order to serve that higher purpose. He is willing to forget about violations of the Constitution to pursue what he considers a higher purpose. I think he is being opportunistic, but then it is opportunistic of me to want gang members off the streets in the area of town in which I live.

Which ideals you compromise in life shows who you are. I think we could have gotten, maybe still can get, a FISA bill that allows for legitimate eavesdropping to prevent terrorist acts but protects the rest of us. I think a FISA bill could be written that would provide for disclosure regarding what has happened so far. I would have been happy had the Congress set up a bipartisan commission that included on one side a couple of ACLU activists and on the other people chosen by the administration to review all the facts concerning the violations of FISA, their effect on specific individuals and then publish a report that did not endanger national security. Having a Bush appointee, the inspector general, do the review is unacceptable. National security could be protected without such an obvious cover-up of the facts.

There is still time for Obama to suggest a better compromise that gets the facts American want to know about the violations out in the open without letting terrorists know exactly what our eavesdropping methods are. It's a matter of solving this problem in a way that protects both national security and the Constitution. That can be done. Immunity is out of the question. A fair settlement that does not destroy the telecom companies is not.

Obama can still prove that he is a leader on this issue.

[NCDem60]

93. At the risk of being stereotyped as a southern

redneck the answer is(of course) found in a country song.

"You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run."


Screw that up and you lose, whether it's poker or politics.

[1Hippiechick]

103. Hey, NCDem 60, welcome to DU...and where are you? I'm in Chapel Hill...

[NCDem60]

127. Archale,,,,Just south of High Point.

[1Hippiechick]

131. Well all right, Neighbor! A big DU welcome to you!

[JDPriestly]

116. You can fold on a lot of issues, but not on fundamental constitutional rights.

Obama should know that. Apparently he does not.

[NCDem60]

128. He knows it. He also knows

in order to stop our slide into the abyss he has to get elected.

[LowerManhattanite]

84. Shocked at the stupid...

...but unsurprised by the spite...from the usual suspects, alas....

[and-justice-for-all]

87. I am willing to met Obama half way...

I never expect him to make entirely liberal decisions, I at least want him to met us half way; at the very minimum. No one can please everybody and should not try to do so nor should they pander to one side or the other, because we are all rowing in the same boat.

[kentuck]

91. The bases are loaded....and gcomeau up at bat...

And its a grand slam home run !

K & R :-)

[erpowers]

When Will People Stop Making Excuses for Obama

What I am wondering is when will some of Obama's supporters stop making excuses for him. You claim the Democratic Party base supported Obama because they thought he was the candidate with the best chance to win. I think you are wrong on that point and that is why the reaction of people here has shocked you. It was actually Clinton's campaign that was making the argument that she was the most electable candidate. Obama's campaign ran on the slogan of change. I think a number of people believed that change meant leaving the go along to get along politics behind. I think that is what really doomed Clinton's campaign. Her and her husband were seen, by people on this website, as being from the old form of do whatever it takes to get elected and stay in that position. For people on this website, who supported Obama, he was seen as a diversion from that path. Many people here saw him as a person willing to stand up for his ideas and stand against the Republicans. I contend many people are shocked that Obama now seems to be doing the opposite of what they thought he would do. I contend many of the people who supported Obama in the primary because they thought he was different from Clinton are now feeling that Obama is in fact no different from Clinton.

If some in the Obama camp (suppoters) would be honest they would have to say that if any other person did the things Obama did they would be calling for the person to be kicked out of the Democratic Party, or at least calling the person a DINO. Lets just compare Obama and Hillary Clinton. If Clinton had done this the Obama supporters would be up in arms streaming about how Hillary was an agent of President Bush. However, Obama does it and he is just doing the right things to get elected. Throughout the primary election Clinton supporters complained that Obama could take the same position as Clinton on an issue and Obama supporters would make excuses as to why Obama's stance was somehow different than Clinton's. In addition, each time Obama has changed his stance on an issue (campaign finance) or voted for an issue Democrats are supposed to be opposed to (Fisa) his supporters have been there to make excuses for him. What will it take to make this stop? What will he have to do to have those supporters to finally say Obama is no different than other politicans that have been seen in the past; they say what is needed to get the position than do the exact opposite.

Finally, I contend a number of people are upset because they thought that for the first time in a number of years the Democratic Party had gotten a candidate that would stand on principle and have ideas. As mentioned earlier it seems a number of Democrats voted for Obama because they thought they were getting a guy who would not say what he needed to get elected, but what needed to be said and what he actually believed. In addition, it seems some Democrats thought Obama supported the same ideas they did. I guess they may be finding out that thought was not completely accurate.

[NCDem60]

94. We are electing a

president, not a savior. The only way to have someone in the White House that reflects your position 100% of the time is to find a way to get yourself elected.

[1Hippiechick]

104. "Lets just compare Obama and Hillary Clinton." At this point and on this post, why? n/t

[erpowers]

92. When Will People Stop Making Excuses for Obama

[kentuck]

95. I think some folks expected him to run the general the same way as the primary?

Also, I think that is a little naive. However, I agree with you that this is not the time to legislate to the middle. When you compromise with evil, you still end up with evil. We do not need "bi-partisanship" with this present bunch of neo-cons and fascists that have gotten us into this mess. We need to defeat them.

However, to defeat them, you have to win the most votes. That is the reality. We are hoping that Obama will not be the President that he is now running as, but the President he ran as in the primary. But, there is some faith involved in voting in this way. How do we know he will not be another Bush or McCain clone? Because we have to make a choice and we want to be part of the direction that Obama takes. If we desert him, we will have no voice in the direction he goes once he is the President.

We liberals like to wear our heart on our sleeves. We say what we believe and we believe what we say. However, politics is inclusive of all the voters in the nation. Sometimes the picture is not pretty. But the first goal is to win. Then, we go to the second step...

[ekwhite]

96. Anyone expecting Obama to be the second coming of Eugene Debs

hasn't been paying attention. For the record, I oppose the death penalty and agree with Russ Feingold on the FISA bill. Unfortunately, Russ Feingold IS NOT running for President.

Despite his less than progressive stands on some issues, Obama is our best chance to start swinging the pendulum back to the left. If he can win, and if he has coat-tails, we stand the chance to make historic gains in 2008. Let's not screw this one up, people.

[erpowers]

98. Having Principles Does not Make One Stupid or an Idiot

I am mainly opposed to calling people stupid or idiots in my posts. Since I have been at DU I have used the phrase stupid to refer to people only on limited occasions. In those cases people said things that were just completely off base. In dealing with your post you call people idiots and stupid on a number of occasions. I contend you were wrong to do so. People are not stupid or idiots just because they decide they want to stand on principle and/or want others to stand on principle. The people who are angry at Obama for his vote are not stupid and/or idiots. People have a right to support or oppose an idea and be upset when some has an opposite view.

In terms of you going after the people who say Obama is just another politican I would like you to give me your definition of a politican. There are many people who when they use the term politican they are talking about a person running for office or holding office who does not stand on principle, but votes in whatever way is best for that person's chances of advancing. That is mainly the definition that I hold for politican. I also see the word politican in its dictionary form; as a person who hold elected office as their job. However, I do see Obama has the first definition of politican that I gave. I do not get as upset as some because I saw Obama in those terms for months so now when he changes his position to best advance himself it does not surprise me. I think there some others here on this site who are shocked and heartbroken by what Obama is doing. You can call me stupid or say that I am an idiot, but I am neither stupid or an idiot. I am one of those people looking to support candidates who stand on principle instead of just voting for what will get them elected. I will vote for Obama in the end, but I will not be surprised if he breaks even more hearts once he is elected, if he is elected.

[dana_b]

125. well said!

from one of the "stupid" ones.

[HughMoran]

99. I wish I could recommend this post 100 times!

Stop making sense, you'll upset the purity test ideologues who can't function unless all the worlds ills are addressed during the election process (as if saying what they want to hear will suddenly fix everything.)

[Buzz Clik]

100. Thank you! It's encouraging that so many agree with you.

I, too, have found the stupidity around some issues to be mind numbing.

[1Hippiechick]

101. We need a smilie that represents a standing ovation! OMG, what a post!

I am actually crying because you have CAPTURED my thoughts exactly! Why not edit and send to every newspaper--hell, MSM-- in the country?
:applause:


:woohoo:

:yourock:

[Cathryn]

105. Very easy to understand if you're informed!!

I have to admit that when I first heard of his voting for the FISA bill I was surprised. But once I thought it through I understand what Obama was doing. Everything you said was spot on.

Obama is NOT a stupid man. It's just been so long since we've seen one in the White House that we can't recognize it anymore!
Come January we just may have a REAL President of the United States if people take the time to understand and appreciate what we have
in our Democratic Nominee, Barack Obama! He will never be perfect. He's a politician. But I truly believe he has the interests of the American people
at the root of everything he does.

[PATRICK]

106. Where we are

at this point is in the process of a hard fought sweeping Democratic party victory. The party will be more reformed and progressively aligned thanks in large part to Dean's 50 state strategy and Obama's campaign choices. From this point we have to lobby and think hard both how to increase this victory(while supporting critiques and challenges against retrograde Dems and DINO's who will wallow in any victory like a personal affirmation of Third Way divine right coronation.

Then the next step is getting behind key agenda points for the future before the present(Iraq, Bush disasters) bogs down Foggy Bottom. The single best result that made for the best progress is opening up the voting system to the people by campaign finance reform, election reform and media fairness rules to put wheels on the car. During that time there also has to be a definition of "bi-partisanship". The GOP is firmly entrenched in the utility of such a concept as "bi-partisanship" is for suckers, fully revealed when in power and somewhat hidden by career fear in a wilted minority. For comfortable Dems "bi-partisanship is for cover" could be their motto. Putting that fabled coalition of DINOs and RINOs as a power broker is now reduced to a sick joke. It will be more than enough for the presidency to deal legally and in proper Constitutional fashion with Congress. Jockeying for power in this restored process will be a battle which can probably run through a simple computer model for the two or three ways it can turn out. Obama is likely signaling which way that will most likely be.

Now I have read arendt's impassioned post about "Clinton II", which is a rant about these things from an "I told you so" sort of perspective. It is an idea and a feeling about where we are as much as the above post. You have to stop and argue about the road map somewhat, but sometime you just have to get going, watch for course corrections, suffer bickering and mistakes and wonder why you should elatedly act smart if you actually get there.

Keeping this as a step program to install(re-install?) populist, progressive, lawful and democratic civil society(before enjoying the CAPABILITY of dealing with horrendous crises and problems in the best manner) might keep us all supporting one another and off the bottle. And our elected Dems off the bottle too, though one can only hope the relative behavior of leaders vis a vis the people improves drastically. Some of us elated about particular candidates were elated about process and saw the feet of clay and the predictable shortcomings, even of the 2006 Congress.

The Internet is a mind with feelings as long as it is free and vibrant. It is also a tool and as a tool to help the survival of the whole let's for the moment focus on the task at hand, do the task, demand the favors from those benefiting as is the political way and remove the influence of the most inappropriate competitor(corporate money) which has made process a war for democracy's own survival.

We have made things clear about FISA and any less a response would have been a sign of stupidity or loss of heart and a blind retreat to the Clintonian past(where progress toward light on several fronts finally began to be made). Yet as far as moving forward there is much that must be achieved and much more that is worthwhile achieving by not walking away from or reducing the mandate of the Democratic Party- and like Al Baradei, in disgust leaving all power in the hands of those most responsible for the FISA bills. Running primary candidate challenges, getting vocal etc. should always be a part of getting more active. Bees don't buzz angrily and fly away. They sting. Our sting is in delivering people influence toward electing better representatives while setting the price as simple, popular reforms to gain MORE of a beach head for better government and on and on.

I will not so much be interested how popular or pure Obama will be as president as how much progress is actually made to making the current situation better- until multi-millionaires virtually disappear from office and transparency and accountability purify both elections and representation. Then all the armchair idealists will have to put up because for sure the other side will not stop trying to get their way and get us back to the losing ways of suckers, who come in many varieties and IQ's from Nader to the activist sitting on their hands while projected deaths from our failures mounts like a revolving credit bill.

Emotionally, those who need to swell satisfaction with Obama have a strong, justified political point just as critics who see the greater picture beyond persons tear their hair out. As part of mandate, elections and legislative momentum we need the honest emotion and for the right direction we need the angry criticism. We also need to step back from this and get our ACT together and simply speaking that means activism directed toward focused ends.

We are VERY well off, often by a very narrow chance, compared to where we could be. The hardcore of rotten public leadership and general (self)deception still marches on and is more likely to die hard and dwindle than achieve any emotionally satisfying quick revolution even if it appears that way to the premature elation of all. FDR would not be good enough of a copy for our times. No one can. What we have is new, potentially surprising and very good. The people lunge en masse behind this. Egos like Nader snipe at an invincible wave. The institutions which the party is NOT fighting in direct fashion as to change the inherent dangers are losing a lot even as they irritatingly survive.

We need to get the party behind the reforms to get the process away from following the corporate leader. That first step is not going to stop for quite some time. Maybe we won't even know the turning point as we steam on past it trying to deal with crises along the way. Stopping, dying, is the only way we the people can satisfy the RW lust for power now and they would be glad to help us do either.

Still ugly, still in trouble, but on the mend with a strict regime of diet from personalized divisions,
exercise in democratic action and get lots of sunshine and rest.

[wowimthere]

107. K&R Very well stated. I wish more people could see this post

[info being]

108. Calm down. It is still our right to be pissed.

And his right to do whatever he wants. Why are we supposed to censor what we say or change what we believe just because Obama is running a General Election campaign.

There isn't a problem here. We can bitch all we want and he'll do just fine. In a Democracy, citizens are required to make demands. That's how its supposed to work. Let the politicians be political, we can just bitch.

[Demi_Babe]

109. EXCELLENT post and I concur

[mdmc]

110. Thats why Ralph Nader's running is a good thing

The undecided voters see Obama as an inexperienced black man. Too far to the left, too radical. But charismatic.

Ralph Nader is a leftist, a radical. There is a clear definition between the leftist radical Ralph Nader (and Cynthia McKinney) AND Barack Obama.

Nader / McKinney makes Obama look moderate and mainstream. Every vote that Nader / McKinney get will equal 5 undecided votes that decided that Obama is not a black leftist radical.

[GTurck]

113. Obama is a boxer...

dodging and dancing on limber toes who won't take a hit without jabbing back.
When he talks conservative I think he means to keep everyone not knowing whether he is going to right jab or a left upper-cut. And thankfully that is the limit of my knowledge of boxing or the metaphor therein.
We need a president who cannot be simply categorized and labeled. That has been one of the things wrong for the past 20 years. We have had 3 1/2 presidents with a one-sided agenda and that agenda was not aimed at the vast majority of Americans. And really isn't there some 'conservatism' in all of us liberals just as we would hope there is some liberalism in conservatives. It has never been either/or but all of us in the same pot together.

[old mark]

114. The main thing is to win

the general elsction, period. Get the fucking republicans out as much as possible, go on from there.
If we lose again, all this talk and posturing is just idle bullshit.

mark

[psychmommy]

117. thank you voice of sanity.

i think we have other party operatives that are stirring the pot here. they have their own agenda. people need to watch for their buzz words. not quite the same as freepers but darn close. i ma standing with the presumptive nominee and no freeper or freeper-lite will deter me.

[On the Road]

118. Only Time to Going to Tell...

because it looks like Obama's triangulation is going to get him elected. He's been very smart, has given little ground for right-wing attacks, and has dealt effectively with the attacks that have been made. He's a much more appealing candidate, and it looks like a scandal or a swiftboating are the only things that will take him down.

Now, we will see what happens come January. If Obama bases his presidency on his earlier rhetoric and his progressive impluses, all will be forgiven and these tactics will have proved their worth.

If he maintains the intrusive powers of the current adminstration, all the skepticism and outrage now will turn out to have been justified.

It will probably be some combination of the two.

[iquiring mind]

119. Politics as usual

Voting for a bill you don't like because you're concerned about your electability is not "Change". It's politics as usual.
Because the bill was going to pass anyway is no excuse!
Taking a particular stance (contrary to your personal view) on an issue just to appeal to voters is not "Change"! It's politics as usual.

"The end justifies the means"? What does this say about his character ?!?!

[hisownpetard]

120. Wow. Having been away and computer-less for 8 days, I was surprised & dismayed to learn of Obama's

support for the FISA bill, including the provision for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.
I immediately posted an OP asking if anyone could tell me the reasoning behind Obama's decision.

Luckily for me, babylonsister responded by giving me the link to this thread.
Thank you (both) so much for this well-reasoned and informative post! It was
exactly what I needed to help me understand the realities of the situation.

A very hearty K&R.

[Jakes Progress]

147. Glad your puter is up an running.

What is given in the OP not the realities of the situation. It reflects the realities of perception. It is important that we elect a Democrat. It is also important that progressives try to keep that Democrat from being a copy of the spineless Democrats that we gave the congressional majority to in 2006.

What many of us believe is that it is not stupid for him to oppose the new FISA bill. Playing republican lite has cost us almost all national elections and dozens of state elections for the last 30 years. The Democrats who do well do not pretend they are almost as good as republicans by mimicking their positions, but rather offer stark contrast to them. So we believe that our responsibility is to keep the Democratic party one of progressivism, because that is the only way we will win. There is no historical evidence from the last half century to support the primary as radical, general election as centrist theory. Every winning president ran as a stark contrast to the incumbent. republicans cleaned up by running as just the opposite of the Democrats. Democrats lose consistently when they run as the opposite of Democrats.

All the hand wringing and sobbing about how we are acting like republicans by attacking poor, beset upon Barack, is crap. Our candidate is the one acting like a republican and showing a lack of leadership. It will cause him to lose, not because we try to tell him about it, but because if we don't play to our strengths, our weaknesses are expanded.

[azmouse]

123. Great post.

:patriot:

[Faux pas]

124. !!!!!!!!

:kick:

[noiretextatique]

126. in all seriousness: piss off

because our entire political class is (mostly) comprised of mealy-mouthed, lily-livered sycophants doesn't mean we have to like it. i'll vote for obama, but i know exactly what i am voting for...and against.

[Guaranteed]

130. +1 Rec. And I haven't read such an outstanding rant in quite awhile. nt

[OwnedByFerrets]

134. Look folks, we only have two choices in the

GE, Barack Obama and Sen McSame. Which means we only have ONE choice. PERIOD. Get a fucking grip.

[mrbluto]

139. Obama smart like Pelosi or Reid?

Obama does the correct thing... the smart thing...

Just trying to figure out what sort of smart you're talking.

If we're lucky he'll never be smart in the way Lieberman is.

[LiberalLovinLug]

140. kick