Obama did what our nominee had to do and Clinton voted her conscience

[ruggerson]

Obama wants to win this election and, with this vote, he just removed one more quiver from the GOP arsenal of attacks.

Had he voted no, he would have left himself open to the usual "soft on terror" slime, and the Republicans would have a far more successful time portraying him as a dangerous and risky choice.

This election, like most presidential cycles, hinges on the support of those people who are NOT firmly attached to one party or the other. They also don't pay as much attention as do the far right and far left. These people are swayed, unfortunately, by JUST the kind of attack politics the GOP employs to demonize our candidates.

Obama made the right political choice. Would you have rather had him vote against this one bill (which would have passed anyway) and handed McCain the Presidency?

Conversely, Clinton was mostly freed from political constraints on this vote. She does not have to win a national election. Yes, she has to heed her constituency in New York, but she has hewed a relatively centrist path on national security issues, so no one would have been shocked had she voted for this bill. The fact that she voted against it demonstrates something very simple: she had constitutional concerns about its content.

Both Obama and Clinton acted admirably in doing their respective jobs.

Obama is not just a Senator anymore, and he acted as he believes the nominee of the Democratic party should act.

We won't get to set the rules unless we put Obama in the White House.

[TheDonkey]

1. not so sure. Clinton did what was best for HER as well imo

now she can say "I told you so" and perhaps get some more change in her purse by listening to liberal activists.

[ruggerson]

7. That's only plausible if you believe

in the very worst possible motives for everything the woman does, which is largely an irrational position to take.

New Yorkers as a group don't care more about telecom immunity than others do. She could easily have voted for this, as it is consistent with her votes in her first term and she won re election in a landslide.

[aquart]

27. Oh, look. A gratuitous Clinton insult.

Based on your deep insight into her mind.

He did. She didn't. Live with it. I have to.

[emilyg]

31. I'm very proud of her.

[democrattotheend]

2. Well said

And I agree with most of your points. Thank you for a balanced perspective.

[Political Heretic]

3. If their roles were reversed their votes would be reversed.

It's just the way its gotta be.

[saracat]

4. That is a crock. Our nominee is campigning for a job whose oath is to "protect abd defend the

Constitution" so he votes against preserving it? I expect better and I can in no way see how this kind of vote helps him win. The type of voters who would support this wouldn't vote for him anyway.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. because Mccain was hoping like hell he'd have this to use

against Obama's "security" credentials- And his Mc-media would have run it non-stop for the people who only digest 'sound-bites'.

I'd like to believe people put much more thought and investigating into their opinions about a candidate, but I'm learning that far too many rely on the m/s/m's 'spin-cycles' to sway their thinking- sometimes even unconsciously.

peace~

[leftynyc]

63. And Senator Obama has the extra added

bonus for actually showing up to vote which mccain can't be bothered to do. His missing so many votes must become an issue.

[27inCali]

47. Its a myopic view

the hyperbole against FISA is overblown. It's a bad bill, it's not destroying our country, most of those battles are already over.

he did what he had to. you do want you want, but the myopic Obama attacks going on here just stink of narcissism.

[LibraLiz1973]

70. Arguing that the damage is already done & that most of those battles are over

is pathetic and totally lame.

Either you CARE about AMERICA, AMERICANS, and OUR RIGHTS or you DO NOT.
No middle road.

ANYTHING that continues this destructive path is, IN FACT, helping to destroy our country.

You go ahead and use your big words trying to put her down- it's hilarious.
You have NO FACTS to go on so you resorted to being a word nerd.
Too bad you weren't able to make a cohesive argument.
I found what you said to be shallow and pedantic.

[Alexander]

54. Spoken like a true PUMAbot.

What, you think we're suddenly going to forget your constant attacking of Obama?

[saracat]

59. Is your opinion supposed to matter to me?

[JoFerret]

65. A bumbot?

what is a bumbot?

[dionysus]

68. i know, it as if we never read the last 6 months worth of baseless bashing...

:rofl:

[TexasObserver]

5. I agree that each made the smart move for each of their interests.

[Danger Mouse]

6. wow. this is an excellent OP. i think you've nailed it.

i would add that i AM disappointed in Obama, but i understand why he felt he needed to do it.

[Barack_America]

8. And had the tables been reversed, she would have voted for it and he against.

I still fail to understand why so many so-called "political junkies" can't recognize this for what it is, a basic political maneuver.

[Bake]

88. And yet you bashed her for her IWR vote, and praised Obama's opposition

to it when he WASN'T in the Senate, and DIDN'T HAVE to vote on it.

How convenient.

Bake

[writes3000]

9. Thank you, ruggerson, for speaking the plain truth. And I'll take it one further:

As Hillary and Barack ride in that plane to their fundraiser together, I bet they both agree that they would have each voted the other way if Hillary was the nominee.

Smart post and spot-on.

[DevonRex]

10. Yep. It's really very simple. nt

[WillParkinson]

11. So selling out is what he had to do?

Yep. Morals and standards there.

To say that the GOP would have issued him as being soft on terror is to say that he had nothing else to stand on. No "I voted no because I believe in the safety of Americans, but I believe it can be accomplished without taking away their rights and freedoms."

Yeah, that would be tough.

[writes3000]

12. GOP Ad: "Barack Obama Doesn't Believe We Should Do Everything We Can To Stop Terrorists."

"Barack Obama voted AGAINST a resolution that allows authorities to stop terrorists before they act out their next attack.

John McCain believes we must keep this country safe at all costs

Don't you?"

Sure Obama can explain the nuance of his position. But he would be on defense for the next four months over that one vote.

[WillParkinson]

13. Then he should have had a plan

Instead of just following like a sheep (which so many others did as well).

I'm proud to say that Mr. Feingold is from Wisconsin and stood firm in his convictions. I'm saddened by the fact that so many others (and, no, I am not referring to only Mr. Obama) could do the same.

[Bluerthanblue]

16. and sadly, people - too many people would be influenced by

it-

You pegged the spin very well. I'm glad they've gone wanting on this one.


peace~

[leftynyc]

64. That would be a tough ad to fight against

had mccain actually showed up to vote. I understand why Sen Obama voted the way he did and just hope he'll fix this when he's in the white house.

[rg302200]

42. All it takes is one vote for the GOP

to label him and no matter how much talking he would do he would not have been able to shake it!

[JoFerret]

69. He has not sold out

he was always there - talking about across the aisle and no blue/ red states and etc. It's just that (some) people did not pay attention to that oft repeated mantra and believed what they wanted to belief. they had a different kind of change in mind is all.

(We will survive this. I can even believe it could be a good thing to go dead centrist. It all depends on the next time around - but of course - the pendulum tends to swing back not further out. And THAT is the problem - with the metaphor at least.)

[Joe Fields]

15. HORSESHIT!!!

[ruggerson]

17. Pithy and quite well thought out

n/t

[Joe Fields]

21. Aren't you the least bit dizzy from all this spinning?

A mockery is being made out of a once proud ?Democratic Party that ACTUALLY stood for something. And here you and several other "democrats" are spinning yourselves into the ground trying to defend the indefensible.

[ruggerson]

22. I think accepting reality

is hardly "spinning."

The fact is that the majority of the American voting public is not where you or I may happen to be on this issue.

I remember a poll on this a while back and something like 60%+ of the respondents were in favor of the government spying on its citizens in the name of national security.

Your response will be that we needn't cater to idiocy and that a leader should lead, and I agree to a large extent.

But with Obama as Prez and the Democrats in charge of Congress, they will actually be able to pass and sign legislation into law that ameliorates a lot of the concerns that you and I might have.

[grantcart]

23. a mockery is being made out of a once proud Democratic Party

Right


Never has so many self appointed party critics elevated a compromise bill unto the heights of overblown constitutional rhetoric.


How does this legislation, which in fact increases Congressional oversight and 4th ammendment protection compare to the actions of


the once proud Democratic Party that marched tens of thousands of Japanese Americans into concentration camps in a real assault


on the constitution?


If only the party of the past had 1/10th of the vigor that we have today the constitution would be in much greater shape.


But continue to split hairs and use eschatological imagery for the end of times and the complete destruction of the constitution.


What a load of shit.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

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

[onenote]

51. beat me to it

I love the references to a Democratic party that exists only in the fevered imaginations of those who don't know history.

[LibraLiz1973]

71. It is sad, is it not?

[aquart]

28. Plentiful helpings of pasture pastry.

They never thought they would be the ones to dine on barnyard buns.

[JoFerret]

39. You have reacted

But now...the reasoning please.

[slipslidingaway]

18. If their jobs were to immunize the Bush administration, and any

Democrats who went along, then you could say they did their jobs admirably.

:(

They could have turned this on the Republicans, spying on Americans, get out of jail cards for corporations, violating the Fourth Amendment!

Instead we get excuses that we need to play defense so we will not look weak???

[LibraLiz1973]

72. Exactly. I'll say again- people who bought the "Change we can believe in"

slogan were easily influenced.

[slipslidingaway]

78. Time will definitely tell, there was no reason to hand Bush

everything he wanted :(

[Bluerthanblue]

19. great post. K&R

:hi:

peace~

[davidpdx]

20. I agree

Kick and recommended

[grantcart]

24. I strongly object to the fact that my name isn't on this OP

Every point is on point and focused on the essential matters at hand.

[highplainsdem]

25. Yeah, right. The GOP will NEVER accuse of Obama of being "soft on terror" now.

This was the magic vote, the one he had to cast to immunize himself forever. He HAD to do this. The American people would never have understood his voting AGAINST the bill, even with so many other senators voting against it.

:sarcasm:

[LibraLiz1973]

74. Yep. THIS vote did it!! Why, I bet even Republicans will vote for him now.

:sarcasm:
:banghead:

[rndmprsn]

29. nice...K&R

[mentalsolstice]

30. HRC has gone back to being purely a senator & voting as her constiuancy would want. nt

[Marie26]

32. Is this really a successful attack, though?

Who honestly cares about FISA beyond the political junkies? Most Americans don't know, & of those that do know about this bill, it seems like the majority dislike it. C-Span was FLOODED with calls from Dems, Inds, Republicans - all against this bill. Just like the Senators were flooded w/calls. The average American doesn't care about protecting telcoms & they don't like fat cats getting special breaks. Who really wanted this bill besides the telcom lobbyists? So I really don't see this as an issue Reps. could use to smear Obama. No one would buy it beyond the deluded 23% who are voting for McCain anyway.

[NattPang]

34. You'd be surprised as to what media PR can do

with just one vote.

[Marie26]

35. I guess so

But it's still hard to visualize the attack ad - the issue is too complex, too technical & too connected to Bush's illegal wiretaps. Not something McCain would want to bring up. In fact, the Republicans & MSM have been eerily quite about this bill, like they're hoping no one will notice.

[NattPang]

40. The attack ad would not be complex.

It would show a Blast,
and state that Obama
is the candidate of
Hamas, Iran and he
doesn't want to know
when they are planning
to attack us.

Very easy.

Remember that according to
the GOP, Obama is a Muslim.

The Cable News would then
play it over and over again
for free.

[Marie26]

86. See your point,

but I still disagree. :) IMO something like that might've worked in 2004, but the American people are well & truly sick of the Bush Administration right now. An over-the-top ad like that would probably inspire more eye-rolls than anything else - expect among the hard-core right that supports McCain anyway. People liked Obama because he DIDN'T pander (like on the gas tax) but spoke to Americans like adults. By seeming to pander & triangulate on this issue, it removes one of Obama's main assets. Setting aside the moral implications, it doesn't even seem smart from a political point of view.

[polmaven]

73. I think that is part of the problem.

You ask "Who honestly cares about FISA beyond the political junkies?"

Many Americans will believe anything the campaign ads tell them. They DON'T really know that the FISA bill is not as vital for our "protection" as the GOP will portray it, nor as sinister as it is being portrayed here.

Vital for our protection side will win the PR wars, however, because people also believe that the bin Laden types are stupid enough to be discussing their plans on the telephone with you and me.

Senator Obama did what he felt was in the best interests of the country, as did Senator Clinton. The cynicism here is sometimes overwhelming.

I fully believe and trust that President Obama will pretty much scrap the program...if not officially, then at least in principal by ordering it not be used on everyday citizens. He is not a man who takes the Constitution lightly.

It will, as of 1/20/09, be his prerogative to stop using it in an unconstitutional manner.

[BlueStater]

33. I have yet to see any good defense for Obama's vote

Is the fact that he chose what he thinks helps him politically over the Bill of Rights supposed to endear him towards me?

[barack the house]

36. Exactly until 09 we are powerless. Without that power America will never be fixed so we must work...

hard.

[DarienComp]

37. K&R.

This, I think, is a very reasonable take on the situation.

[JoFerret]

38. A good post. An interesting post

Thanks

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

41. Great post, thx!

[rg302200]

43. K&R

n/t

[Straight Shooter]

44. And once he's elected, how many capitulations to remove quivers from the GOP arsenal?

I just don't understand this. How many times have we heard that he's a "brilliant Constitutional lawyer"? He can make a great speech about race but yet he can't summon the words about the importance, the necessity, to defend and preserve the Constitution?

What strange times we live in, that the GOP is still orchestrating the moves of even the most powerful of our Democrats. No doubt about it, Obama has power. This could have been his moment to shine, to hold the Constitution up for all the world to see and explain that those words matter. Instead, we're all reduced to "hoping" that once he's president, he'll make it right.

[NashVegas]

45. The GOP Is Going to Attack Him No Matter What He Does

Kerry figured that out all too late in 2004.

[AZBlue]

52. Sure, they're going to try - but he's not giving them the ammunition so it will fail.

Unfortunately Kerry gave them ammo in '04.

[NashVegas]

80. GOP MAKES UP Their Own Ammo No Matter What

Hello? Swift boat vets, anyone?

[Pale Blue Dot]

46. Wrong. It was a very POOR political decision.

Voters are looking for a fighter. By giving in to this, Obama is looking less like a fighter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6478259

[Better Believe It]

48. Are You Suggesting That Obama Has No Conscience?

If he does, where did it go?

Perhaps he lost it.

Maybe someone stole it.

Let's help him find it!

[ruggerson]

49. No I'm suggesting he's a political realist

"politics is the art of the possible."

[liberacci]

50. Agree. The Center is vital

Clinton won by moving towards the center. I think that's a valid strategy right now.

[NanceGreggs]

53. Well said!!!

:kick: and REC'D!!!

[depakid]

55. "removed one more quiver from the GOP arsenal of attacks." ???

Not only did he fail to stand up for basic constitutional principles- but he just handed the Republicans the flip flopper issue on a silver platter!

If anyone can recall a less advantageous lose/lose proposition- that associates a politician with an unpopular law and and even more unpopular set of people (single digit public approval ratings) then I'd like to hear it.

[ruggerson]

61. Can you cite some verifiable statistics

to show that this is an "unpopular" law?

I believe it's an unpopular law with the Democratic left. From the polls I've seen, it's pretty darn popular, unfortunately, with everyone else.

[depakid]

85. Here ya go

Majorities of voters on both sides of the political spectrum oppose key provisions in President Bush's proposal to modify foreign surveillance laws that could ensnare Americans, according to a poll released Tuesday.

The survey shows nearly two-thirds of poll respondents say the government should be required to get an individual warrant before listening in on conversations between US citizens and people abroad. Close to six in 10 people oppose an administration proposal to allow intelligence agencies to seek "blanket warrants" that would let them eavesdrop of foreigners for up to a year no additional judicial oversight required if the foreign suspect spoke to an American. And a majority are against a plan to give legal immunity to telecommunications companies that facilitated the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping.

"Across the board, we find opposition to the administration's FISA agenda," pollster Mark Mellman said Tuesday.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/23/123823/555

[Celeborn Skywalker]

56. True.

I just wish our system didn't require triangulation.

[oasis]

57. No biggie, Obama still has the "inspiration" thing going for him.

:woohoo:

[grillo7]

58. He made the right choice, considering...

If Obama had voted no on FISA, McCain and Co. would have dragged it out for months as one more piece of evidence that Obama is soft on terror and national security. This is the argument Republicans have succesfully used in the past, and that McCain has already been making. If Bush goes into Iran prior to November, as some signs seem to indicate, this will be an even bigger issue. Some have claimed that the GOP will brand him a flip-flopper for the yes vote, but McCain won't make an issue of it because he didn't even show up! The conservative strategy has been and will be to make Obama look like a dangerous outsider, an un-familiar and un-American candidate who will make us weak. Voting yes on FISA deprived them of more fuel for what has been their most effective strategy. Moreover, a no vote wouldn't have stopped the bill, and--if we stick together and work hard to make Obama the next President--we can count on more progress on this issue, a chance we won't have if McCain wins.

[WinkyDink]

60. HRC's IWR vote = "political". Obama's STATEMENTS against it = "conscience".

Who here gave Hillary the same understanding, that her vote was to forestall claims of "weak on terror"? (BTW, I don't.)
And who here now believes that, were he asked to VOTE then, Obama would have voted his "conscience"?

We Democrats can be disappointed and still never be for McCain, so don't even go there.

[bunnies]

62. Will Fisa kill millions of people too?

Apples and Oranges.

[dionysus]

66. spot on post!

[LibraLiz1973]

67. He did the wrong thing. Change we can believe in was a lie.

It was ALWAYS a lie, and those of us who saw it before are sadly shaking our heads thinking "Told ya so".
There are almost no pure Politicians left. It takes a certain kind of personality to run- and they are almost
ALL bought and paid for.

In all likelihood, this vote just cost Obama the election.
I'm sure people are pooh-poohing that, and I DO hope I am wrong.
But he just pissed A LOT of people off. People who no longer see the
importance of voting for someone who would continue to lead this country
further and further away from it's inhabitants having any rights.

I am still voting for him. But I've never been enthusiastic about it.
And with things like this, I never will be. He isn't an agent of change.
Obama has done NOTHING to make me think he is an honorable politician who will
change our country.

The Right has taken over. Even the Democrats in power are cow-towing to them.
This FISA vote is going to cost Obama dearly.

[paulk]

75. I don't agree

Obama may have taken one arrow from the Repug quiver, but he has added another - Obama ran as an agent of change. a different kind of politician - yet here we see the same old, same old. By taking the politically expedient route and going back on his previous statements, Obama has stepped right into the "just another politician" jacket the Republican's are weaving for him...

Do people vote on issues or their perceptions of a candidate's character? If it's the latter, Obama may have hurt himself here.

[NorthCarolina]

76. So now McCain can attack him on the FISA "flip-flop" instead

Seems to me the more correct thing to do AND easiest vote to defend to the voting public would have been to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law by voting No.

[CrispyQ]

77. It's time the dems took the "soft on terror" meme & ram it down the repubs throats.

On who's watch did 9/11 happen? Bush.

Are we any safer now than we were then? No.

Have our actions fueled terrorism around the globe? Yes.

Why the fuck are the dems so frightened to address this issue? We don't need to capture the White House to change the rules, we can change them now if we stand for our convictions. First rule: AMERICA IS NOT SAFER WHEN WE COMPROMISE OUR CONSTITUTION.

If Obama can't vote his conscience now, why should we believe he will act with conscience later? His vote was wrong & cowardly. I feel like I've been Pelosied, again.

And no, I'm not going to vote for McCain. But I am sick of our dem politicians counting on us to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of them taking a stand for the right thing. Tia Carrera was right: Most people only do the right thing when it's the easy thing to do.

[BREMPRO]

79. this is a familiar pattern with dems lately...

voting for political expediency over principle, fear over courage. My view is he should have voted against it and EXPLAIN CLEARLY WHY. People will respect someone more if they stand on principle rather than changing their position to appeal to the ignorant. I liked Obama because he seemed to stand on principle and have the skills to argue his point. This is a cop-out imho.

[question everything]

81. Excellent analysis. Obama is doing now what he can to win the elections

We will have to judge him once he is in office and once he has to work with Congress - of whatever make it will be.

This has been the problem with other complaints about Congress. Not having the majority to overrule a veto there is not much it can do.

[iconicgnom]

82. A Dem nominee has to act unconscionably and vote Republican?

Since when?
Esp. when the claim is the bill "would have passed anyway" - so the unconscionable vote was apparently just for effect.

WTF kind of thinking is that??
WTF kind of minderbinder would *count on* a belief that Obama is "just" playing some duplicitous game in the GE campaign, with these kinds of sops to the right-wing extremists of the Bush administration, and *count on* Obama turning around and being some kind of liberal or progressive president after he wins? That is purest insanity - to imagine that someone is playing such a double-talking double-dealing game, and to put one's trust in that person for precisely that reason.

No reasonable argument goes that way!

Rather, Obama's votes show what he actually stands for when the chips are down. And if those votes counter strongly held beliefs about what is right, then they counter hope that might be put on that candidate's shoulders, because there is no hope without belief.

And no, my saying this this does *not* imply that my hope and belief somehow shifts to McCain, or Barr, or Nader, or the high koot hoomi. If it implies anything, it's that - to my mind - the grassroots, the netroots, the advocates for human rights and political freedoms, and others who care, have their work cut out for them, even under an Obama administration and a Dem congress and senate.

[MadHound]

83. Since when did a candidate have to demonstrate their willingness to shred the Constitution?

After all, as a Senator he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, an oath which he violated.

And please don't tell me that this is some sort of political move that he had to take in order to win this fall. Most people in this country don't like the idea of FISA, and most people are no longer being buffaloed by the hyper fear being dealt out by the Bush administration. Obama could have voted no on this bill, defended the Constitution, and suffered very little backlash on this one. Instead, he chose to shred the Constitution, all in a vain search for RW votes.

A shameful and stupid move on his part.

[BeyondGeography]

84. Both made a calculation

[Gman]

87. Never, EVER fall in love with a politican

he/she will only break your heart at some point.

I've posted this countless times here. People fall head over heels over a candidate then don't understand why their heart is broken: BECAUSE YOU FELL IN LOVE WITH A POLITICAN!

Love is so blind but it doesn't have to be.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

89. Rephrase it as "what he THOUGHT he had to do" and I'd agree

Doing what it takes to win is certainly permissible. It does not follow, however, that anything done with the motive of winning is actually beneficial to the goal. People make mistakes sometimes.

The chief problem with the vote is, IMO, that it was an unforced political error.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6482490

[jmondine]

90. One question...

Does anyone have any polling info on how popular this bill was with the American people? If the citizenry opposes the bill, it means they're not buying the "soft on terror" arguments anymore. If, however, a significant chunk of potential voters support it, as sad as that is, it makes some political sense.