Skip to main content

This is one heavyweight flame war going on between the two on the ‘Internets’.

I’m a big K. O. fan, but I think he’s got it wrong regarding Obama’s change on the FISA bill, and what seems to be a fixation on Keith's part that Obama must have some secret plan to prosecute the telecoms when he becomes president.  

I think Glenn has correctly defined the issues around Obama’s flip-flop, err change in position.  From his 6-21-08 essay:

The excuse that Obama's support for this bill is politically shrewd is -- even if accurate -- neither a defense of what he did nor a reason to refrain from loudly criticizing him for it. Actually, it's the opposite. It's precisely because Obama is calculating that he can -- without real consequence -- trample upon the political values of those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that it's necessary to do what one can to change that calculus. Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

More Glenn below:

Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion -- neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it -- and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. That's precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it's shifted to a new Leader.

What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it. What's more, as a Constitutional Law Professor, he knows full well what a radical perversion of our Constitution this bill is, and yet he's supporting it anyway. Anyone who sugarcoats or justifies that is doing a real disservice to their claimed political values and to the truth.

The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he's elected, it will transform into: "It's vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms," after which it will be: "It's vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012," at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies.

I don’t want to focus on the flame aspects of this debate.  K.O.’s going to be doing a 'Special Comment' on this Obama/FISA topic on Monday.   I hope that 'Special Comment' will make more sense to me than what he’s been saying up to this point.  

But as for now......On this issue, which progressive commentator do you most agree with?

Update 9:06 p.m.

Wow this is like election night 2000 - as far as close goes.  

Originally posted to deepsouthdoug on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:21 PM PDT.


On the Obama FISA switch I agree with position of:

40%259 votes
59%387 votes

| 646 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (25+ / 0-)

    Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything. Harry S. Truman

    by deepsouthdoug on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:22:07 PM PDT

  •  BOTH (6+ / 0-)

    I actually agree with both of them I love Keith and I am greatful to have his show on the air, however, after the angry tirades that he landed at Hillary Clinton, for less egregious issues, KO should have been more direct and honest and let the chips fall where they may. We are not going to "love" everything that Obama stands for. He's not out to please each of us individually...and rightly so. But he's the best candidate out there, and calling BO on what he does wrong is not a bad's just being honest!

  •  I (13+ / 0-)

    agree with Greenwald. But I still love Olbermann.

    McCain insisted [no union member] would [pick lettuce for $50/hour] for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."

    by grrr on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:26:54 PM PDT

  •  Keith is an awesome guy (15+ / 0-)

    I really think that the country would've sunk even further into an abyss had it not been for KO's courageous voice against the Bush admin over the past 5 years or so.

    In this case, given all the anti-Dem bias in the media, some pro-Obama bias once in a while is OK.

    But on substance in this particular matter, Glenn is right, by far.

    Please consider helping retire Gilda Reed(D-LA-01)'s campaign debt by contributing here. Thanks!

    by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:32:05 PM PDT

  •  Greenwald!!!!!!! (14+ / 0-)

    I enjoy Olbermann too, but he's not the new king of progressive thinking.  I thought Greenwald's piece was right on point.  I know this FISA opposition has put Obama lovers on the defensive, but the constitution, especially the 4th Amendment is so much more important that any one candidate.

    I'm also very disturbed by people who seem to think we're traitors to the movement if we criticize Obama for his position on FISA.

    Obama has not moved to the center on this issue. He has moved far right of center and I'm betting nearly every one defending him and his position have at one time or another commented against the FISA Bill.  

    It's time for people to live up to the talk and that includes our Democratic Candidate.

  •  Pointless and stupid diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    by GlowNZ on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:33:27 PM PDT

  •  Is this dairy just trying to stir a feud between (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicolemm, savvyspy, ChapiNation386

    Olbermann and Grreenwald supporters?

    by GlowNZ on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:35:01 PM PDT

  •  Keith is the best thing on TV right now (9+ / 0-)

    and I not about to do anything to undermine him.

    Bob Marley: Don't let them fool ya. Or even try to school ya...

    by JoanMar on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM PDT

  •  I voted for Keith (11+ / 0-)

    This diary is silly. The thing is not played out yet, we don't really know what Obama's thinking or what's going  on behind the scenes.

    I think KO is giving Obama some time and benefit of the doubt, not just blindly agreeing with what he appears to be doing.

    -7.75, -6.05 The point of the war in Iraq is that there IS a war in Iraq- Keith Olbermann

    by nicolemm on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:38:18 PM PDT

  •  read Doug's other polls on FISA (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deepsouthdoug, ilves, Mike in Denmark

    I just went back and read DSDoug's earlier polls on FISA and it seems a good number of Kossacks have changed their positions right about along with Obama.  Very funny stuff.  That's the sort of spine I've come to expect from my own party, but I expected more from the progressive wing.  

  •  Greenwald makes a reasonable argument (7+ / 0-)

    but I don't know what is up with Obama.  What he has said so far about FISA is so inexpicable that I feel like I need to wait to see what happens.  So, I guess I agree with Olbermann too.

    "We should be able to deliver hot bottled water to dehydrated babies." John McCain

    by llamaRCA on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:49:41 PM PDT

  •  Do I Give a Flying Fuck (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    savvyspy, Cleopatra


    Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

    by ChapiNation386 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:04:20 PM PDT

  •  A major civil case against AT&T would have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    watchman, dzog

    negative affects on people who did not have anything to do with warrentless wiretaps.  If AT&T gets slapped with a fine on par with their actions (as I understand them, to be fair I haven't seen every peice of evidence) it would very easily trigger layoffs.  I'm all for punishing the guilty.  But if push comes to shove with AT&T it's the poor call center saps that are going to get their jobs cut to pay massive fines, not upper management.

    Providing that John Dean's interpretation is correct, and the current FISA bill immunizes against civil suits while leaving criminal investigations open, I willing to accept that.  I'll take criminal prosecutions against upper management and BushCo over a class action lawsuit against AT&T every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

    •  The fines could be negotiated, I'm sure. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Remember, the point here is to get dirt on the Bush administration, and many of the lawyers involved (despite what the GOP wants you to think) are working pro bono or for nonprofits (primarily the ACLU and the EFF). So maximizing punitive damages isn't necessary. In fact, I can see a fairly easy settlement happening, in return for full cooperation. But that can only happen under the threat of big, nasty fines.

      Denny Crane: But if he supports a law, and then agrees to let it lapse ... then that would make him ...

      Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

      by Jyrinx on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:00:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not voting against KO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I admit that for the first time ever I may not agree with him. However, I'm not about to throw him under the bus based on one issue especially when he's never let me down before. Besides, are we going to call it a 'flame war' anytime two intelligent individuals try to have a serious debate? It's absurd.

    "We have been told that we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. It will only grow louder and more dissonant." Barack Obama 2.05.08

    by Cleopatra on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:48:34 PM PDT

    •  No-one's calling it a flame war. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tbetz, planetclaire4

      And FWIW, a number of KO fanboys seem to be taking Greenwald's side here (myself included), judging by the fact that it's DKos and the polling is even.

      Denny Crane: But if he supports a law, and then agrees to let it lapse ... then that would make him ...

      Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

      by Jyrinx on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:01:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correction: Diarist is calling it a flame war. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


        (He's dramatizing it a bit, methinks.)

        Denny Crane: But if he supports a law, and then agrees to let it lapse ... then that would make him ...

        Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

        by Jyrinx on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  KO-GG may not be a flame war, but FISA strategy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is - how hard to bash Obama on this issue - don't you think?

          •  Yes, though there's a real dilemma there. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            planetclaire4, Cleopatra

            Really, the present FISA situation is the sort of thing we absolutely should have heated arguments over. So long as we keep it (mostly) civil and don't forget who the real enemy is, we need to get every idea on the table right now.

            Denny Crane: But if he supports a law, and then agrees to let it lapse ... then that would make him ...

            Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

            by Jyrinx on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:49:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  What would be awesome: Greenwald on Countdown. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, tbetz, Perfektion

    Maybe alongside John Dean. Show those Crossfire fucks what a real debate looks like :-)

    Denny Crane: But if he supports a law, and then agrees to let it lapse ... then that would make him ...

    Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

    by Jyrinx on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM PDT

  •  Hmm ... (0+ / 0-)

    It's not nearly as easy as choosing between Obama and McCain, is it?

    "It does not require many words to speak the truth." -- Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)

    by highfive on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:08:01 PM PDT

  •  Olbermann (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, planetclaire4

    is reaching.  Obama voted in a way that many people didn't like.  It's not the end of the world, no need to make up excuses about super secret strategies.

  •  Uhm, flame wars generally (0+ / 0-)

    a bit more vituperative.

    Just sayin,...

  •  Good little diary. SB "whom" do you agree with (0+ / 0-)

    or, 'With whom do you agree?'.

  •  Pre net, when dems moved center the slamming (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    from the left wasn't nearly as hard. (For instance, Clinton on welfare.)  GG's right to call out OB. The netroots, to the extent that it represents the die-hards is right to cry fowl.

    Team Obama has to be reeling over the netroots' ferocity and volume. They were just doing what you're supposed to do as you move from the primary to the general.

    KO's has been trying to give Obama some space, especially given how he kindof shilled for him against HRC all primary season.  Kind of hard to turn on him right away, I'd think.  Now, Monday's special comment is coming.

    The big question for me though is what the thinking is in the Obama camp?  Is the FISA noise is loud for them as it is for us?  Are they saying they should hold firm?  Are they looking for a way to move back to being against FISA?  They aren't zealots. You want them thinking this through cooly and rationally.  What are they saying?

  •  Not sure you can say KO is right, his "position" (0+ / 0-)

    is pretty far out there.

    I think the voting indicates that half the Kossacks (at least those who voted tonight) don't want to be as hard on Obama as GG is.

    Or, something like that.

  •  Regardless of Who You Agree With, This is Good (0+ / 0-)

    for Obama and his chances at becoming president (bucking the left), which to me serves the greater good!

    "Let's Go Change the World!" ~ Barack Obama

    by Jdories on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:44:28 PM PDT

  •  Greenwald demonstrating Olbermann's inconsistency (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    on FISA was pretty effective, I thought. I can see how it would get Olbermann steamed. But the truth is inescapable: KO railed against the bill, and its excesses, and its blanket immunity, when it looked like it was only being promoted by Republicans. But now that Obama supports it, that means it's okay? I don't think so.

    Obama might be playing some sort of super-duper chess here, and I fervently hope that's true. But we've clung to these hopes before (think Fitz as superhero in the Valerie Plame thing) and events just sort of fizzle out in the mundane way they do.

    If Obama turns out to indeed have reversed his position on warrantless spying and telecom immunity to score political points by 'defying the left', all I will be able to see from now on is not the transcendent figure he wanted to be but a run-of-the-mill politician, constantly calculating, always weighing how much he can gain if he just abandons this one principle.

    •  Obama was never a zealot. His pitch (0+ / 0-)

      was "new politics". He's playing the FISA issue (so far - not given up yet) very conventionally by moving to the center for the general, post primary.

      On the biggest issue in the primary, Wright, he played that pretty well, I thought. Protecting Wright at risk to himself, until Wright's acting too nutty made it impossible (perhaps on purpose) for OB not to loose him.

      He (and we) went through a lot of bashing from the right over Wright - making me think he didn't have the right amount of fight - before delivering his excellent race speech and bringing most of us back.

      He's ticked off a lot of people with his FISA stand. The heat he's getting may get his strategy team to re-think their stance. This is a campaign decision - remember. It's not Obama deciding to play it the way he has. It's team Obama's inner circle deciding to play it this way.

      So, does he pull off another brilliant rescue, or does he hold firm, win some centrists in the fall and tick off the left, knowing it, but thinking it better strategy to get centrists and hope the left support holds?

      •  It's not team Obama's inner circle's principle (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that is being abandoned. It's Obama's.

        I don't know how you can speak with such assurance that it's not Obama who has decided to play it the way he has. Do you think it was a surprise to him? He didn't know that he had come out in favor of FISA until he began to read from the statement his team prepared for him?

        I do agree with you on one point: Obama is playing the FISA issue, very conventionally.

        I'm not sure what he otherwise meant by the concept of new politics. But playing old politics and calling it new will end up impressing no one.

        •  Team Obama - according to "inside" articles (0+ / 0-)

          likes dissent and a full discussion of issues and positions.

          Sure, it's Obama who made the decision. But, they aren't thinking of it as principled stand or not principled stand. They are campaigners discussing strategy.  

          I hope they see a way to change their strategy. I don't like it. I think there's a way to be strong on (so-called) "terror" and not support the bill.  They are playing it this way on terror in other non-FISA aspects of the issue. So, while I understand the necessity of moving to the center on some issues, I don't think this was one on which it needed to be done.

          But, Obama only polls behind McCain on one issue, terror. That's relevant.

          •  He need to get tough on the war on terror (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But the war on terror not happening in the FISA bill.  It's happening in Afganistan where our troops are taking the biggest hits of the year.  

            The Taliban is coming back strong, funding their war with poppies and are back strong and organized.  There's a ton of things we need to do to fight terror, including getting out of Iraq the right way (no helicopter off the Embassy), and by targeting the guys who are terrorists.  I'm all for catching Bin Ladin and Company and I'm all for doing whatever we have to to shut the Taliban down and crack down on terror cells all over the world.  

            We need to keep our country safe.  it's just that this mess in Iraq is not about terror.  It think we all know what the GWOT is about, so I won't even go there.  

            Obama needs to talk strong and be strong.  Everyone one is watching him and if he appears strong and confident and backs the talk up with support for our troops--I'm talking real support not some stupid ribbon.  Real support for troop will cost money.  This administration has run our Army out of gas and it won't be cheap to fix it.  But committment to the services and a strong committment to taking down the Taliban will show us a courage he won't show by voting yea on the FISA Bill.  

            •  Obama's doing that already, winning that issue (0+ / 0-)

              and handling Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan very nicely.

              Something's got him running the wrong way on FISA. Perhaps it's just to protect himself against attack ads.

              But, Obama has done such a nice job pointing out the fear card when it's played and turning that issue back on the repubs.  Can't figure why he won't do it on the FISA bill.

      •  If he think this is moving to the center.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...he's clearly mistaken. The FISA Bill is opposed by the majority of American citizens.  That puts anti-FISA people at the center.  The FISA, which is part of the Patriot Act, (correct me if I'm wrong on that) is a move to the right and not center-right, the real right.

        Republicans are very pleased with the fact they're getting more than they asked for in this bill.  Obama's dead wrong on this vote.

        That said, I have to wonder why he's making this vote.  He has said he will pursue Republican votes.  That's fine with me, but does that mean we'll see more "right wing bipartisan votes on issues we might understand better than the FISA Bill.  This FISA Bill is complicated and I'm betting most Kossack haven't read it.  We tend to get bored and sometimes would rather just have a flame war than actually read the hard stuff.  (I do the same sometimes).  We like to have passion and sitting around trying to figure out how holding the telecoms responsible for their part in this mess is not exactly like watching a good TV show.

        I do not believe for a minute this is part of a grand strategy or a secret plan.  I remember how Nixon's secret plan to end the war put my ass in the war, so I'm naturally suspicious of secret plans, chess games too complex for the average voter, 9/11 conspiracies, that include Israel, missles shot at the Penagon and frankly, I'm pretty sure it was that nut Oswald who killed Kennedy.  

        And we're not gonna find out the big deal from KO. I like the guy as much as most of us do, but he's a news man.  I don't know his credentials as to his time spent being a real journalist, but he's made his bones by some damn fine angry editorials against Bush.  When he's out there trying to explain away Obama's FISA vote, then I realize Keith's a bit out of his league and probably ought to stick with making fun of McCain and Bush.  I'm not interested in what a professional newsreader has to say in depth about policy, when he has no experience in policy-making.  He's there to do what he does, and the votes he's getting today are the only votes he'll ever get.  KO will never make a white house that I think of it, I wouldn't be surprised at anyone who might try to win that one.  Odder things have happened.

        I'm voting for Obama and I'm supporting him, but I'm gonna hold his feet to the fire on this FISA Bill and pray he says ouch.  And I'm not scared that criticizing this vote is gonna mess up his chances in the fall.  Not standing up for the Constitution could hurt him, but with the attention span of the average voter, I doubt it.  A good percentage of the people voting for W in his first win, thought they were voting for his Dad, so I gotta take all of this with a grain of salt.  I just hope Obama remembers what got him where he is, and that he don't have to chicken out or roll over and beg.  He has established himself as a man who is not afraid to buck the system for principle.  He will gain much by standing on principle and if he votes against the FISA Bill and says he changed his mind because he wanted to protect the Constitution, he'll be on safe ground.  Let them cry flip-flop.  He'll be nice a safe under the constitution he'll helped protect.  It's not too late and I, for one, hope he comes to his senses.

  •  Now if Greenwald can tell us how he would balance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David PA

    communication surveillance on terrorist / organized crime enterprises and privacy protection without it looking an awful lot like FISA I'd be impressed.
    This is not to suggest that the current edition of FISA is not without flaws but only to say that it's easy to criticize and call others out on their failings and quite another thing to put together a piece of legislation that deals with serious and complex issues and achieves some sort of  balance.
    And, of course,one that will pass through Congress.
    One of the major functions of law is to interpret, refine,and challenge itself. So it's not like FISA will be cast in stone, in fact it is sunsetted in 2012 (the last year of Obama's first term), so the debate will continue under an Obama administration.

    But first we need to elect him, Glenn.
    So why don't you have a little patience and, dare I say it, a little faith.

    Yeah I know you are sure that blindly trusting him is foolish yet you ask us to trust that you are right in telling us not to blindly trust him.
    So your message is: Trust me. not him.
    Or is it to trust no one ? Including you ?

    And you suggest that giving him any room to take what he and his, so far strategically brilliant, team deem necessary general election positions is only encouraging him to abandon every tough stand he has previously espoused and to use fear of impending crises to imitate the "warped authoritarian mindset" of the post 9-11 Bush Administration or to put in its place some equally "warped mindset" of his own invention?
    And once he starts there will be no stopping him, because once we allow him to do what he feels it takes to be elected we will never have the will to criticize him ever again.
    And I must assume you think that the things he will use this power for will be bad things, Glenn.
    I mean you're not suggesting that we want to rein him in from doing good things are you ?

    You seem to have a pretty low opinion of Mr. Obama.
    Thanks for sharing it.

    •  The only thing Greenwald is telling you is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to look at someone's actions in relation to their words. If the two don't match up, it would be wise to proceed cautiously before you place your total faith in that person. Greenwald is presenting an argument to you and bolstering it with observable facts, with reasoning that you can follow logically to his conclusion. He's not asking you to trust him.

      I wish Obama would do that, with his new stance on warrantless spying. I have some reason to trust him. But not so much to take him on faith.

      You are saying that it is all right that Obama has abandoned a principle he once held dear. He must do this, you say with great certainty, in order to get elected. I don't agree.

      I much preferred the Obama who believed in transparency, who touted a new way of doing things. I am seriously shaken by what he has seemed to do vis-a-vis FISA: abandon principle to gain political traction. It doesn't bode well.

      •  It doesn't bode well ? (0+ / 0-)

        That follows the same line that Greenwald does.
        That general election political strategy is not just that but is the beginning of a pattern of habitual willingness  to abandon  principles for political traction. In other words, choosing to wage that battle(FISA) on another day on better ground is wholesale abandonment of once dearly held principle and just the first in an inevitable series of betrayals.

             Hence my comment that Greenwald has a low opinion of Mr. Obama and it seems you do as well.

              Will we be including any sort of compromise in that definition of abandoning principles ? Or just certain hand-picked issues ? Because successful governance in multi-party, multi-ethnic, diverse climate and resource states is the art of compromise.
        And Obama has stated from the very beginning of the campaign that he wants to move beyond strict partisanship and the overwhelming majority of the American people agree with him.  

        Greenwald in the quotes in the diary above makes no mention of looking at the relation of someone's words to their actions. Reread it and see if perhaps you didn't misunderstand the thrust of his argument.
        I think you will find it is precisely as I portray it.

        And I look forward to the day that Greenwald or perhaps you will show us how one helps one's chances of winning a national election by taking the one issue your opponent is leading you in the polls on "dealing with terrorism"(McCain +19) and  dragging it front and center.  

        Obama and his campaign have obviously decided it's a bad strategy and not worth gambling over. I'm afraid I will have to accept their assessment over yours or
        Greenwald's - no offense- their track record is more impressive.

        •  If you look forward to that day..... (0+ / 0-)

          Read Greenwald's essay TODAY.

          Pay attention to this section:

          Republican Nancy Johnson of Connecticut was first elected to Congress in 1982, and proceeded to win re-election 11 consecutive times, often quite easily. In 2004, she defeated her Democratic challenger by 22 points. The district is historically Republican, and split its vote 49-49 for Bush and Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

          In 2006, Rep. Johnson was challenged by a 31-year-old Democrat, Chris Murphy, who ran on a platform of, among other things, ending the Iraq War, opposing Bush policies on eavesdropping and torture, and rejecting what he called the "false choice between war and civil liberties." Johnson outspent her Democratic challenger by a couple million dollars, and based her campaign on fear-mongering ads focusing on Murphy's opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, such as this one:

          The result? Johnson was crushed:

          Rep. Nancy Johnson, a 12-term Republican who ran a tough-on-terror campaign and touted her co-authorship of the Medicare prescription drug legislation, lost her re-election bid Tuesday to anti-war Democrat Chris Murphy.

          Murphy had 56 percent to Johnson's 44 percent with 12 percent of the precincts voting. Johnson was the longest serving representative in Congress in state history.

          Despite continuing to represent a tough, split district, Rep. Murphy -- as he runs for re-election for the first time -- recently voted against passage of the FISA/telecom amnesty bill, obviously unafraid that such Terrorism fear-mongering works any longer.

          I doubt if these kind of facts can bring your mind to a place that is a 'new day'.

          Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything. Harry S. Truman

          by deepsouthdoug on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:20:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you advocate Obama adopt a 1 state strategy ? (0+ / 0-)

            Or let's be fair he could probably run  successfully on that platform in
            New York, California, Massachusetts and .......possibly a handful of other states. Because in case you haven't noticed Obama is running against John McCain not Nancy Johnson and McCain is polling +19 on the specific issue of dealing with terrorism.
            He is also running now (2008) not in 2006.

            So let's once again take narrowcast evidence extrapolate it nationwide and declare that we are wiser than the Obama campaign's strategists.

            Is this kind of like fantasy baseball ?

            Glenn Greenwald is a gadfly, who if he ran for national office on his professed positions would soon be glad he kept his day job. That's not to suggest he shouldn't continue doing what he does so well, and as loudly and passionately as he chooses.
            He's just not my idea of a good source of general election strategy advice. I'll go with the guys who helped an African -American with the name Barack Hussein Obama defeat the Clinton machine.

            •  Not that I want to confuse you with the facts (0+ / 0-)



              Obama had this arguement won on the merits, then he caved.  



              Has that day arrived for you yet?

              Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything. Harry S. Truman

              by deepsouthdoug on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:38:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I believe you are the one confused (0+ / 0-)

                the FISA law doesn't allow anyone to wiretap anyone else without a warrant.
                It lengthens the period between initiating a wiretap believed to be time-critical and securing the warrant from 3 days (under the law since 1978) to 7 days.

                And it sets out provisions to continue certain wiretaps where the issuance or non-issuance of the warrant is under appeal during the term of the appeal.

                No, not a good thing. But not allowing wiretaps without warrant either. There are also  limitations in the law.
                One in particular may interest you :
                LIMITATIONS.—An acquisition authorized under
                subsection (a)—

                (5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent
                with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of
                the United States

                So any polls that simply ask if wiretaps without warrant should be allowed are not really getting an informed judgment on the actual FISA provisions nor do they address the effect a sound bite attack on the candidate trailing by 19 points on the "dealing with terrorism" issue would have especially if spiced up with an "October Surprise" type event.

                You should also note that the poll dates from Jan. 2006. This is June 2008.
                So are you suggesting that a simplistic Jan. 2006 poll question result is somehow really a June -Nov. 2008 general election fact ?

        •  Well, you see, here's the thing. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not trying to devise strategy, as if I'm sitting here in my living room playing fantasy baseball. I'm not giving you my assessment as a potential strategist. I'm giving you—and my candidate—my reaction as a voter. You know, one of those little game pieces on the board that the strategists like to play with.

  •  Upon reading the full Greenwald text (0+ / 0-)

    I'll add a few comments

    Greenwald equates moving to the center with GOP views

    What's most amazing about the unexamined premise that Democrats must "move to the Center" (i.e., adopt GOP views)

    So the Obama campaign, according to Greenwald, has not examined the premise that Obama should move to the center ascribing a cavalier attitude toward election strategy to them . And Greenwald also draws the line of Democratic Party membership and general election relevance somewhere left of center.

    OK. So Independents and moderate Republicans aren't neeeded, and Blue Dogs aren't Democrats.

    And Bill Clinton was elected without benefit of the center, twice.

    I recall Obama saying more than once and receiving approving reaction from large crowds for the remark:
    "It's not the Blue States or the Red States, it's the United States of America".

    And apparently Glenn hasn't noticed that Obama has from the very start of his campaign repeatedly delineated the separation of The War in Iraq from The Real War on Terror.
    And I do believe the 2006 mid-term gains for the Democrats were based on a vocal opposition to the War in Iraq as weakening the real war on terror, not on debating the need for a strong continuing war on terror. So getting into a nuanced and prolonged debate on exactly the right balance of fighting the war on terror and protecting the privacy of US citizens' international communications in the middle of a campaign ,where Obama's stand on the War, health care, economic redirection, and energy independence are opening a lead would be to most reasonable people a strategy to sidestep rather than drag to center-stage.

    Glenn should get out more and talk to a wider segment of the voting population. I think he's getting too used to preaching to the choir.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site