Obama Responds To FISA Group On His Web Site
For the first time, Barack Obama has publicly addressed the group that was formed on his Web site to urge him to change his position on the FISA cave-in bill.
Obama responded with a long statement on his site. He continued to defend his support for the bill by saying it was better than a previous version.
But he gave kudos to his opponents for organizing against it, suggesting that the Obama campaign is hoping to offset the damage supporting the bill has caused by demonstrating a willingness to engage opponents, and by giving props to dissenters and to the idea of dissent -- even on his own site.
"Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere," Obama wrote. "For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions."
"Democracy cannot exist without strong differences," Obama also wrote. "And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have."
This won't do a great deal to make opponents of the bill happy. But it's a minor victory for those who built this group that Obama ultimately felt the need to respond to it. The rest of Obama's response here.
Comments (225)
Repeat after me:
"I will not respond to another Greg FISA-cave post."
July 3, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's pretty good, have to admit. but you have to admit that it's news that obama said something about it.
:)
July 3, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me what you think you have achieved with this nagging and this little "group" of yours. Obama has essentially said "you don't agree me with on FISA? Tough." He's not backing down and won't change so it seems like it's you who must make a choice.
July 3, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he won't support the constitution now, why in the hell should we work to swear him in in January?
This whole immunity thing stinks to high heaven.
Here's what they are doing, in case you haven't got it yet:
* The first ten amendments to the constitution say quite plainly that the government can't do certain things to the American people; they're called the bill of rights for that reason.
* So instead the government:
1) hires a corporation to do these things,
2) fails to prosecute them for doing the things,
3) gives them retroactive immunity to civil suits
Bang, bill of rights nullified.
If Obama can't see this or doesn't think it's worth stopping, he doesn't deserve to be president, no matter what color jersey he wears.
-- MarkusQ
July 3, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The crime was committed by the government. Civil Immunity is not Criminal Immunity.
Who do you plan to vote for then? Nader?
Where does your line in the purity sand get drawn?
Picture another scenario. Obama takes a counter flow stand, gets up there and filibusters for days. The bill gets passed. That certainly makes Obama look effective and influential, eh?
People dislike weakness or signs of weakness in leaders. Letting this little battle get played out as a weakness for Obama (weakness within his own party and weakness in terms of working with both sides of the aisle) will do nothing but damage him in the eyes of the classic "low information voter".
Now back to your gnashing and wailing.
July 3, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you think criminal charges will be brought against the government at a later date? Well, they won't be without evidence. The hope is that evidence would be revealed during discovery for the civil cases.
Or maybe you think no actions by Bush or the telecoms should be punished. You're certainly cynical enough.
July 4, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I am cynical enough to doubt that the evidence that will result in an actual conviction will actually be allowed into a civil court case.
National Security in a Time of War overrides so much it is ridiculous. There was an article in the paper about Japanese Americans who were exploring the location of their internment camp from when they were children.
I am not looking for clemency or pardoning the Bush crew. But I have low expectations that anything can be done due to the situation. We are really digging into the peripheral of our country's data harvesting program, and I would assume that program is black enough that it will not see the light of day. NSA and CIA contracts rarely get much traction or attention, so why would a civil court case (or hundreds of them) suddenly change that?
My cynicism comes into full play when the hard left wants to hang the main contender for the presidency over actions that have been happening for decades. You old school hard core political junkies sure hang a lot of hope on the judicial system bringing to light our dirty laundry in terms of spying. Seems a bit naive to me. And it would not surprise me if the Clinton Administration was doing the same thing. This technology has been used and developing since the military helped develop the internet.
July 4, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The crime was committed by the government. Civil Immunity is not Criminal Immunity.
Um, can you say "Pardon"?
Didn't think so.
Bush will pardon the telcos, to save his and Dick's ass. Game over.
I can't believe you're still rehashing that bogus argument.
As for the crime being committed "by the government" (and apparently, therefore, not by the telcos), you obviously have never considered the meaning of the term "accomplice".
But apparently you don't think any crime was committed by the telcos at all, since after all, "[t]he crime was committed by the government." If so, how exactly do you expect President Obama's DOJ to prosecute the telcos?
Didn't think that one through, did you?
Your position, unsurprisingly, is self-contradictory and absurd.
July 6, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would make him look principled, and I have never regarded standing up for principle as a sign of weakness. And I apparently am not alone: the chief criticism that the American public has had of Democrats is that they don't seem to have any principles. They'll take whatever position is expedient at the moment. I used to regard the criticism as unfair, but I'm beginning to see that the shoe does fit, unfortunately.
July 9, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should add that it is the abandonment of principle (didn't Obama once regard the whole FISA issue as representative of a core value?) that actually reveals weakness.
July 9, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then I guess you've made your choice. See ya!
July 4, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not backing down and won't change so it seems like it's you who must make a choice
He already backed down and changed when he flip-flopped away from his original stated position. He just backed down to conservatives and to the media - just like Democrats have been doing for the last 30 years or so.
How's that worked out for us so far?
July 4, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you should hang tight on this one, Greg. When Obama modifies his FISA position, you will be happy to know that you were one of the many voices who helped him see his way on this difficult issue.
July 4, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It'd be great if you keep this commitment.
July 3, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So that's your policy going forward, I guess. Seems you've just responded.
July 3, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess irony is beyond you, no?
July 3, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, irony. Here's a tip. It's ironic if you respond to a post by saying you will not respond; it's pathetic if you respond again & again & again to a post that you say you won't respond to. Five responses and counting. Shooting for double digits?
July 3, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Six!
July 3, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are oblivious to concern. Just look at the number of posts to the FISA stories compared to the number of posts to other stories.
You ignoring the importance of and interest in this issue is like me ignoring that you are an Obama sycophant and insufferable fucking idiot.
July 3, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ever look in a mirror sometime.
Presto!
You will see the self-righteous fucking idiot!
July 3, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I look in the mirror and see me, your mother and your wife ....
July 3, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see. The Barackistas will not be challenged--public promises and the 4th Amendment be damned.
July 3, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are going to lump all the supporters of Obama together - you could at least come up with a better name than that. I am still rather fond of Obamanaut
July 4, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark down this week. It is the time you will look back on when John McCain won the election.
The Axis Of Weasels: MSM, Pseudo Progressive Blog Sites, such as TPM, and the usual crowd of whining absolutest leftist losers, all linked up to take down Obama. It is over. McCain is home free. He should send thank you flowers to the Axis Of Weasels.
This is the week that they delivered the Presidency to McCain. He will not need any help from the Supreme court.
With friends like the Axis Of Weasels, Senator Obama did not need any enemies to defeat him.
Well he gave it his best, but the Axis Of Weasels gave him their worst, and destroyed his chances.
July 3, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ack, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.."
July 3, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the left is so important to his election, maybe he could try representing us. If not, why do you care?
July 3, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that he has responded to us. Just because he hasn't completely capitulated to us in my mind isn't reason to hold our breaths until we all turn blue.
July 3, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, you said representing. I read that as responding. My point still stands, but I understand the frustration with this issue.
I just keep in mind that regardless of Obama's current stand on this issue (which I feel is much more complicated than is being represented on the progressive blogispere, but I won't rehash that), Obama represents us 10,000 times better than McCain. In light of that, the choice is crystal clear.
July 3, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, he didn't "completely capitulate" to us. Instead, he completely capitulated to the right wing and to the MSM. That in and of itself is reason to be angry, since it was the left that got Obama the nomination in the first place.
But that's politics. I expected Obama to disappoint me from time to time (though not on something so important, I'll admit). However, I've noticed a disturbing trend over the last couple of weeks, and the FISA thing is a part of it. A while back, it looked like the Obama campaign had realized that it is in fact possible to talk to Americans like grownups about difficult issues like national security, etc., and in doing so win over actual voters. Now it looks like they've picked up the same old script - disavow the left, run to the center, do what Republicans do but not quite as vigorously. It looks like he's abandoned a "play to win" strategy in favor of a "play not to lose" strategy. And as every football fan knows, going into a "prevent" defense only prevents you from winning.
So if in fact Obama does blow it, don't blame the left. Blame him and his advisors for deciding to run yet another Republican Lite campaign.
(Disclaimer: I will never vote for John McCain under any circumstances.)
July 4, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spencer, extremely well put. Kudos. Should be required reading for all of those who claim that any misfortune that befalls Obama as a result of his political positions is the fault of ... those who take him to task for his political positions.
July 6, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Applause
July 9, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeebus liam, come in off the ledge.
If Obama's candidacy was such a hot-house flower that open debate within his base would wither it on the vine, then it never had a chance.
You also might want to take a cue from Obama:
Dissent != Losing the Election.
July 3, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Organizing, loyalty, standing up for the candidate, is winning the election.
July 4, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you're in the mood for the laudry list- please also add the fact that indifferent campaign strategy from the Obama camp in the month of June also is the reason for his defeat.
While blaming the left or progressive in bizzare- I agree with you (though far less vehemently)-McCain looks more likely to win this thing than Obama. Four months is a generation in presidential politics but right now, at least from what I see, Obama is on a slippery slope.
I see him loosing right now.
July 3, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
God your dumb. Obama writing a letter to people who disagreed with him about an esoteric civil liberties issue is not going to cost him the election no one supports retroactive immunity except telecom lobbyists, and they're not even going to vote on that issue.
Obama already voted against the protect America act extension. The republicans can hit him on that all day long as being "soft on terrorism", nothing he does now is going to change that.
July 3, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, what if this is the day he handed the nomination to Hillary? I'd back her now just to make sure he pays the price for his thinking he could get away with becoming a sellout when he owes his brief political career to Jeri Ryan's hot body.
July 3, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're funny.
July 3, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was dumb enough when you posted in the other thread. Yawn.
July 4, 2008 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this, liam. I is important that you rightly reflected the small but significant and odious role TPM continues to play in the Axis.
July 4, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well he gave it his best, but the Axis Of Weasels gave him their worst, and destroyed his chances.
It never will occur to you, will it, that (assuming your doomsday scenario comes to pass) that Obama destroyed his own chances.
This is the definition of a fascist sycophant. The Leader can do no wrong, and any harm that befalls him must ALWAYS be someone else's fault.
July 6, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
So he's still with the Republicans on the issue. Somebody had a thread on how darn empathetic the guy is.
Empathetic conservatism. What a change!
July 3, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This issue is becoming a palaver at this point.
July 3, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for expanding my vocabulary. I may have heard the word before, but likely dismissed it as "who knows what that means."
More to the point, you're right, it is nothing more than idle chatter.
July 3, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.
will begin to expire later this summer.
Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.
July 3, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of seeming even more dense than usual, I will nonetheless admit that I am rather lost as to what you are trying to say here, dear Indie Pro.
July 3, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought his words said it all.
This is his reasoning:
he's doing it for us. To keep us safe. He changed his mind on this one, because lines no longer need to drawn, nor the rule of law upheld because there are evil-doers out there, and we need to be kept safe.
Some tools will expire later this summer, and instead of extensions, or sending this bill through the normal process, in order to keep us safe, he changed his mind, because we are not safe otherwise.
July 3, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only none of that is actually true. FISA does not expire, ever. Glenn Greenwald over at Salon has done an excellent job explaining why Obama's stated position doesn't actually make much sense.
July 4, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this about FISA expiring or not sort of overlooks the fact that the administration did all of this spying without any FISA interaction. Their starting argument is that FISA never applied to what they were doing.
Sounds like a good way to go to me.
July 4, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do people even understand why they're mad about this?
I mean, I thought the idea was to hold Bush Administration Officials responsible for Warrantless Wiretapping. I thought the idea was to put their !#@$! in jail, not the Telecomms.
I thought the idea was that the Telecomms had the goods on the Bush Administration, and any leverage we could get to get 'em to talk was the idea. Holding a civil suit over their heads sounds like leverage to me.
Failing that, a criminal prosecution, something this legislation absolutely does not prevent also sounds like good leverage.
If anything this issue (squiggle) has been punted down the road, and some puritanical people on our side of the aisle has decided to let the perfect destroy the good. If anything people need to elect Barack Obama, and hold his feet to the fire to pursue this issue with his Attorney General.
July 3, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, thank you.
July 3, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Failing that, a criminal prosecution, something this legislation absolutely does not prevent also sounds like good leverage.
And if a criminal prosecution were something that Obama were giving us any reason whatsoever to believe is forthcoming-- rather than being just a fantasy that exists only within the mind of Keith Olbermann-- that would be an extremely convincing argument.
The criminal prosecution to which you refer does not exist. The telecom lawsuits do. The telecom lawsuits ultimately are important not because it's particularly important to target the telecoms themselves specifically, but because the telecom lawsuits are the path which is open to private citizens. This bill would close this path.
It may be it would be worthwhile to try to focus more attention on those lawsuits by private citizens that would potentially survive the FISA amnesty act-- for example, this lawsuit is as far as I know against the federal government rather than any telecom.
July 3, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Failing that, a criminal prosecution, something this legislation absolutely does not prevent also sounds like good leverage.
That's not true at all. Even John Dean says it's "not clear" that the law blocks criminal prosecution, and even if it didn't, bush could still pardon the people involved after the election, which he'll probably do anyway.
July 3, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Granting retroactive immunity from civil liability for the telecoms does not hold a civil suit over their heads; it removes the civil suits. I will still vote for Senator Obama, but today he merely repeated the same false choices he had offered as the basis for giving his qualified support for the pending FISA legislation.
July 3, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is OK with the bitching about FISA. Thank you, Barack Obama for understanding the value of open debate.
July 3, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam
just tell me one thing
did McCain call his wife a C%#T in public.
Women voters will love that.
July 3, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
no he didnt, just like he didnt make joke about beating his wife. oh wait...
July 3, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neil, Just tell me one thing; did the MSM report it widely, and did they make an issue of the McCains defaulting for four years on their property taxes, and on and on. I rest my case. The Axis Of Weasels are all about taking down Obama.
July 3, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to commend Obama for even responding, let alone as honestly as he did. Seriously, when was the last time anyone saw a candidate do that? Really?
"...when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue."
July 3, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. I give Obama mad props, finger snaps, and hand claps for addressing the issue!!!
July 3, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here as well, but since you took a bevy of cool things to give Obama, I will offer instead tap dancing, couscous and my continued, enthusiastic support.
July 3, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit I'm confused by Liam's response, but moving on, I'm happy to have my anger, frustration and disappointment on this issue, politely acknowledged and my concerns addressed in a substantive, constructive way without dismissing me, as so many here and elsewhere have, as the behavior of a traitorous, trollish PUMA asshole.
I'm pleased the Senator will have his AG look into this once he's elected, but again, that's not a foregone conclusion. I was always going to vote for him and never considered this a deal breaker, so it's refreshing be heard and appreciated for participating.
Disagreement =/= McCain supporter. Thanks, Senator.
July 3, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
he's always admired jerking left knees
July 3, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Refer to paragraph 6 and 8 of the hefe's statement.
July 3, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter how one slices it, Obama has sided against civil liberties and with big corporate interests on this issue. It portends poorly for a future Obama presidency. He differs in style from the present administration by inviting dissent on his web site. That's nice, but it's merely a more sophisticated way of co-opting dissent. Not at all good, no matter how one slices it.
July 3, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, just a different sort of "free speech zone".
July 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The statement is a good one. I like the fact that while he held firm on his position, he seems aware of the problems and he said he's willing to take his lumps. I respect that he is taking the consequences seriously. And I respect the fact that he took the time to talk/write to his supporters as friends and as intelligent adults, some of whom he happens to disagree with.
I'm voting for him.
July 3, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of wasting time with those Wendy Whiners, O should have noticed what McShame was doing in Mexico.
Praising NAFTA, slamming Obama...standing behind a podium bearing the Great Mexican Buzzard Seal...
NO AMERICAN FLAG LAPEL PIN
John McShame is no doubt afraid to wear Her especially down Mexico way as he betrays this country and her hard pressed working men and women
But we will not trade Her for some Mexican Buzzard THIS FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY!
Her Name is Old Glory
We love Her
Long may She wave
Land of Free
Home of Brave. Amen
July 3, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w135/grimreaper4u105/animated_flag.gif
July 3, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Statements like this are why I support the guy.
July 3, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
July 3, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer supporting the statements in the Bill of Rights and all that "inalienable rights" stuff. Time to put out the flag.
July 3, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Write-in Candidate: "The United States Constitution" -- go for it, buddy.
July 3, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that is a good statement. Here's the problem, he should also be saying that about public financing, gun control and now apparently Iraq.
The problem is that you might agree with his words but his actions increasingly do not match his words so I take that to be another politically expedient but disingenuous statement.
July 3, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, add NAFTA to the list.
I'm starting to lose track as the list seems to grow daily.
July 3, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is performing a sleight-of-hand by drawing attention to the number rather than the significance of the agreements between his supporters and him. He's already not going to end the Iraq War, what else is as important? It's not like he can singlehandedly fix the economy or oil prices, that's for sure.
If you prioritize a list of issues that Obama can make a stand on, where does FISA reform sit? For me, near the top, but for Obama it's just another one of many anyway. He's treating it like loosening the SEC reins on rutabaga futures: look at how many issues we agree on!
July 3, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least I'm glad he's in charge of his own house. Good, thoughtful and timely response.
July 3, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not on the far left but I oppose Obama's position on FISA. Let's not let the media typecast certain Obama supporters with such simplification.
July 3, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this is, is Obama's version of Hillary's refusal to admit she was wrong on Iraq. Same losing logic in both instances. He has responded more smoothly but that's all. He's got the nomination now, he doesn't need to listen to anyone outside the beltway.
July 3, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong!
but thanks for playing!
July 3, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep filling up that cup with the Kool Aid friend! You're gonna need it!
It strikes me that true believers such as yourself really are just the flip side of the Bush coin in that you only want to hear what you agree with and you try to shut down and turn off any opinions you disagree with. How sad that your mind is so limited.
July 3, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you realize this, but your not doing your candidate any good. Everyone here is probably going to vote for Obama, but calling everyone an idiot who doesn't toe the line even when Obama is wrong isn't going to help anyone but your own sense of smug self-satisfaction.
Honestly, anyone who can't brook even the slightest criticism of their hero is the real idiot. Thankfully Obama recognizes the importance of this issue to people, and the fact that political passion is a good thing, not something that should be suppressed.
July 3, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's image, Coulter's style, an unfortunate juxtaposition.
July 3, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My candidate?
OK, who's yours?
I didn't realize this was a "you pick 'em site."
I don't think Obama is "wrong" on FISA.
I resent your convenient stereotype for us *poor delusional ones* who agree with Obama on the FISA bill for any number of reasons, and don't believe it offends the US Constitution.
Where did I, or anyone else for that matter, who doesn't believe the FISA bill essentially urinates on the constitution, deserve the brickbats of the liberal netroots orthodoxy police for not criticizing Obama for a position we either agree with him or believe it's not what the Glen Greenwalds of the world are making it out to be.
This just in:
Obama's a human being who makes mistakes, who doesn't?
No one said "I favor suppression of FISA bill posts on TPM."
I did say, essentially, that it got tiresome to see the same post repeated daily here, seemingly to gratuitously inflame the masses and get a lot of people to post from all sides of the issue, when nothing really new had changed or transpired with the bill.
A "time-line" on Obama and FISA that was posted earlier today?
Please.
Is this a McSame site or a Hillaryis44 site, or one that favors Obama?
July 3, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I resent your convenient stereotype for us *poor delusional ones* who agree with Obama on the FISA bill for any number of reasons, and don't believe it offends the US Constitution.
Where did I, or anyone else for that matter, who doesn't believe the FISA bill essentially urinates on the constitution,
So... you just enjoy insulting people? Are you just a troll trying to make Obama look bad having his picture as your avatar while bashing people who actually give a damn? When was the last time Obama called people who disagreed with him idiots?
No, you're just an asshole, and assholes like you cost Obama a lot more then people who actually care about the Issues. Would Krugman have been so negative against Obama if he hadn't been hounded by people like you? Perhaps not, that seemed to be his biggest complaint.
Now, I'm not so thin skinned that I'd reverse my position because it's shared by a dick wad (i.e. You), but lots of people will. So unless you're actually opposed to Obama, I suggest shutting the fuck up.
July 3, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get over yourself for crissakes.
You don't know shit from Shinola.
Yeah right, those of us who defend Obama's position on FISA "don't give a damn."
This just in, I'm not Obama, but I won't idly sit back and let trolls like you, yeah you, denigrate his position, denigrate his motives, and denigrate the man, simply because it doesn't square with your self-righteous position.
You admire Paul Krugman?
Why am I not surprised.
July 3, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't think it at all similar. Hillary said that had she known what the administration was up to--namely an unprovoked war--she would not have voted as she did. That's reasonable. Obama is simply not willing to hold telecom companies accountable. The facts are not in dispute. He does not lack knowledge about what they did and why. So it is NOT AT ALL SIMILAR.
Hillary has been far more consistent and honest that Obama ever was and that's a fact.
July 3, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
i like the fact obama actually responded to people concerns most would just make a comment on tv... its nice to know a politician is listening ......
July 3, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think you've guys have misunderstood who barack obama is.
he is NOT a firebrand liberal lefty. he never has been.
yes, a lot of his base during the primary was, but that doesn't mean he was.
the one issue where he could go to the left of hillary clinton was the war. and even then, it seemed their only difference was that he was against it and she vote for it "with conviction".
other than that, she was far more liberal and "progressive" on most of the other issues than he was. (but i have to say, in my opinion his positions were better because they were actually more practical, if less "progressive" than hers.)
we didn't nominate a "kossac", you shouldn't be angry at him just because you're now realizing it.
also, on fisa, his hangup, (as i've said before but i think its important to show how his position has been misrepresented) was never the immunity. he was against it, and yes he said he would support a filibuster on any bill that contained immunity.
It's still quite possible that he would support a filibuster.
His main concern however, as a constitutional lawyer and professor, was about the oversight and protections this bill adds/restores (depending on your pov).
NOw, maybe he didn't emphasis this as much as he could have, but that's politics.
My point is, Obama has never been a "lefty liberal". He's not "moving to the center" or "making a hard right".
This is where he's been all along.
It just now seems his "base" is waking up to this fact.
July 3, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was thoughful of him to clarify this before we made the mistake of voting for him in the general election.
July 3, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So who exactly ARE you planning on voting for?
July 4, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, and his pragmatism in the face of partisanism is why I supported Obama. But he did say he was against a FISA compromise on many occassions. Hell, he even stated he would assist in the filibuster of such legislation. Now he gets on his knees and suckes in approval to this shit. An utter and complete abomination!
July 3, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"pragmatism"? Prostitution would be far more apropos.