This is sort of a response to this diary which, while making some good points, is in my opinion riddled with fallacies and is based neither on political reality or practical sense.
Before I begin, let it be clear that I refuse to discuss the FISA issue at all beyond referring to the opinions here on it (500+ diaries on it, take your pick, I already stated elsewhere that I refuse to discuss it any further as it has grown to the extent of being a virus here). This helps to give some space to those of us who feel that it has passed the point of diminishing returns, and to help make a more general case for my argument. That is to say, I intend my thesis to be applicable regardless of the office, candidate and the year.
Let me note that I am neither an apologist for Obama nor someone who is okay with giving telecoms immunity or the further degradation of our liberties (as if Bush didn't ruin them to the point where you can barely tell....), but I damn well am someone who is realistic and who honestly am very good at focusing more on the integral picture than the differential one.
One must first understand why we even have political parties before discussing anything regarding a political base for them. This is obviously a topic for political scientists and this diary will be much more informal. The main reason is that they create a unified caucus for the vast number of citizens here that share common political grounds in order to advance their causes. This is why liberals tend towards the current Democratic Party, conservatives towards the Republican party, and why many in the center and of minority opinions (e.g. "big L" Libertarians) identify primarily with neither though overwhelmingly . Obviously this isn't a perfect model (for example, the political parties together center themselves farther to the right than the rest of the country), but that's the general trend and it works for my purposes. Regardless of what you think of our particular Parties, or even of political parties in general, they tend to do their purpose fairly well most of the time. Actually, I'd say that the Republicans do a much better job of advancing their party's causes, probably because they have a much more homogeneous base (rich folks and very conservative Christians, admittedly a union that is very often at odds with each other yet somehow pull together, hence why I think they win lately). There are other theories ranging from "the Dems don't care about us" to the fact that on the political spectrum they are closer to the ideologies to more people but are less unified in their efforts and are thus disjointed to detriment, but that's not the issue I care to focus on.
What I am trying to focus on is that the purpose of the political parties are, in theory, to represent a particular political base and others who identify more with it than others. If that is the case--and while not perfect in practice the history supports it more often than not--then is not the voters, namely the "base", that are responsible for the elections? After all, not supporting our causes is a de facto implicit support for the other side; that would mean that a refusal to vote for Obama if he best represents your views (and I'd argue he at least shares 50% with us overall) is a tacit approval for McCain who represents almost 0% of our values. Yes one can argue that by not voting you technically reject the other candidates, but the closer a candidate is to you on the political spectrum the more significant your absence; McCain doesn't need liberals to win and except for dead-enders he won't get them, but Obama does. The argument also extends to those of down-ticket offices up for election with similar grounds.
The diary which was cited at the beginning made the argument that Obama is ultimately responsible for getting voters and winning the election. On a bare bones technicality the diarist is absolutely right. The candidate runs the campaign for his or herself, thus is most responsible for the win or loss. But tell me again why he should bother with us, if we have zero responsibility in getting him elected?
Before we go there, let's take a look at McCain. He doesn't need liberals to win the election (except for them to stay home), so of course he's not going to bother supporting any of our causes; he's going to be looking to his own base's issues, granted not doing a very good job of it but he's trying. He's trying because he needs them; the GOP is farther from the majority of Americans than the Dems are by a large margin and he needs EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM to vote for him. When you look at the numbers of those who self-ID as one of the political parties and those who are enthused about their choice and for voting for him, McCain is blown out of the water. And yet he can still win, because while his base may be disaffected with him--and I'm going to bet that as much as people here are starting to be dissatisfied with Obama, McCain's base is at least ten times more so with him--but they understand that if they don't vote for McCain, they de facto show their support for Obama by depriving the candidate closer to their values of much-needed votes (hence the Freeper's constant declarations of "holding their noses" for McCain as an anti-Obama vote). Now it's time to play devil's advocate: Would you make the argument that if those far-right loons don't want Obama to win that they still do not have a responsibility to support John McCain in some way? Said in another way with the same yes/no answer meaning the same thing, is it McCain's sole responsibility to ensure that his base acts in its own best interest for them to advance their causes as opposed to them doing what they can to ensure that the candidate they think is best for them wins (none of that cutesy "they're all the same" ultra-reductionist fallacious crap)?
If you answered "no", then tell me why this is not the case for Obama? One can argue that Obama's base is much larger and much more varied: he is the best candidate of the two VIABLE ONES for ALL of the left, the moderates, and those lean-conservatives that somehow lean to the left of Obama (according to polticalcompass.org, anyway). However, let me ask you two questions: 1) if it is not our responsibility in any way to elect those who best represent our views and values, then what exactly are we supposed to do in order to enact our desires? 2) If at any time a candidate feels that his base is not dependable in order to be elected to office, why should said candidate cater at all to said audience and why not even change the base altogether?
So yes Obama like any other candidate is responsible for getting him elected if HE wants to be President, but by token are we therefore not responsible--in a representative democracy--for taking any appropriate actions to ensure that we elect candidates that best represent us and not the minority views of, say, the GOP? If we are not responsible for consolidating ourselves and fighting in order to turn the country back in our direction, then please tell me why do we have the rights to organize and even vote? Why do we even exercise our rights to participate in the political process if we don't even bother working for our interests?
Does one not clearly see the inherent contradictions in asserting that in a democratically-based political system the only ones responsible are the candidates and not the people who have been given the rights to assembly, vote, and free speech? Or, if that's too abstract for you, how about the inherent contradictions that it would pose on the whole purpose of the netroots as I see it: if it's not our responsibility to put in office people who best represent us and work to put in people within that pool who better do so, then why the hell do we come to the Daily Kos and other like-minded sites, or act outside of them but in the same spirit?
Seems like the mantra being spouted here is that the candidate has to work for us in order to win, but seems to me that Obama still has his job as Senator even if he loses in November. He still can live comfortably from his salary from that and his book sales. How about you and your family and friends? How many of you are living quite comfortably now, unaffected by the stagflation at hand, with no risk of losing your job nor a reduction of real wages? How many of you are quite okay with the present policies of the Republicans that you don't mind keeping them up for another 10 years (I know the next presidential election is in 4, but I estimate that we need at least 4-8 more in order to really get ourselves where we want) with continued wars in Iraq, the same criminal corporate schemes such as privatizing everything and letting global warming go un-deterred, and the further decay of our civil liberties from privacy to the rights to choice in all sexual matters and even the right to marry? Tell me, are you sincerely okay with that, even if it may be far from your preference?
If so, then I agree you shouldn't bother doing another thing to support a candidate whom you may have a few disagreements with, some maybe even severe (of course we know we still have a chance to persuade Obama to not voting on FISA, good luck telling McCain not to vote for it). After all, you obviously see nothing at stake in this election to where instead of seeing the bigger picture you narrowly focus yourself on a single issue. Yes I said it, you people who basically went from full support to giving up based on FISA or another single issue alone are single-issue voters. Congrats, you're the equivalent of the right's extreme pro-lifers who refuse to vote for anyone who is even remotely pro-choice even if EVERY OTHER of their interests are totally met by them (by the way, they believe that a small clump of cells have the constitutional right to life regardless of any and all circumstances to the extent that you cannot even prevent gametes from meeting together in the first place... an extreme position but they do think that way). Now the comparison is somewhat unfair: the former is focused on a true constitutional issue, the latter just a projection of extreme religious views. However, if one issue makes you incapable of voting for someone, you're functionally no different in practice.
On the other hand, the rest of you are like me and are currently disappointed with Obama's changed stance on FISA (anything else so far has been consistent with his beliefs, contrary to what some think so I won't focus there much), but are realistic enough to know that a) this isn't the end of civil liberties (I can argue that the PATRIOT Act already finished that one for us to the extent that FISA is insignificant in everything except telecom immunity), b) perhaps with a non-Republican in charge we can actually repeal these things, which seems to be supported by enough people where Obama's view is irrelevant, c) there are FAR too many issues that we have at stake such that FISA is only one of literally hundreds, most of which are even more important at the fundamental level. If so, then you realize that while it is our right and responsibility to show our lack of support when a candidate holds a stance we and the majority of Unitedstatesmen disagree with, it is also up to us to elect the person that best represents us. Some of you may not want to lift a finger to help Obama anymore, some may not even vote for him. Fine, no one can force you to do a damn thing. But please answer this one question: if McCain wins, in no small part due to a minority but not significant abandonment of Obama's base either on FISA, another issue/disagreement or inability to reconcile the primaries, would you be okay with that?
Let me tell you something before you think I'm "in the tank" for Obama. He wasn't my first, nor second, nor third choice even, for the Democratic Presidential nominee. Never has been, and compared to our personal pool of possible candidates may never will be unless he wins in 2008 and does well enough as President. Back in February I really considered not even bothering to register to vote (this is my first Presidential election where I could vote) let alone support anyone, as I like many others felt disaffected by our Democratic Congress basically caving into Bush's every desire and whim with only marginally more resistance. But in April, you know what I did? I registered to vote and at the end of the month gave Obama my first (and so far only, what can I say college sucks the money out of the wallet) donation. You want to know why? Because as much as I have my differences with Obama--some minor, some severe enough to be very dissatisfied--there really is no contest between him and John McCain. Because I spent my whole adolescent and young-adult life with a George W. Bush presidency and see how he basically turned this country and some of the world into shit, and I cannot see an extension of his policies by a GOP led-Congress under a GOP-led Presidency doing anything except turn the shit from solid to liquid and spread it even further. Because honestly, I care about myself and my country; I care about our world, its citizens and our ability to live healthily in it; I care about the issues that make me a bona fide Liberal. If I didn't give a single damn about any of that as a whole, I'd have stuck with my initial decision to stay home come November and just sit out the whole political season.
If this diary sounds like a lecture, well I'm not denying it. I'll even propose that I'm handling the issue more maturely than most of you here altogether by neither jumping off the ship nor saying we cannot criticize Obama. Actually I'm very disappointed with him as of late, but I found that it was best that I kept most of it to myself and not let my (hopefully temporary) disappointment ruin the causes this site represent. But if you think I'm doing this "lecture" so needlessly, then answer the questions I posed throughout, honestly and thoroughly. Regardless, now you understand why the majority of us here feel the way we do about this concern-turned-purity thing here and why the VAST majority of us are unhappy with the FISA issue as well as other issues, yet we still decide it's in our best interests to actually do something for the candidates instead of sitting on our asses bitching "they're all the same, I hope he wins but I'm not going to do anything about it, that'll show them". Because honestly, you're right! Dropping all support for when they disagree with you without supporting them for when they do agree just shows... that you're no longer their base. They're a political party that in the end collectively acts in their own self-preservation and they'll find a way to win without you eventually. Hell, if they wanted they can become even more conservative and go after the GOP's base and win and do so consistently.
So tell me what makes more sense to push our agenda, abandoning the party altogether at the risk that it'll push further to the right, or supporting them in a manner such that they know they have to start coming our way? How about when you add the reality that only by being the dominant party can the Democrats realistically push left (the GOP didn't get where they are today by Bush II alone, it was 40 years of dominance my friends, that moved the party AND the population there)? The pendulum IS swinging left, everyone, but it's a fragile trajectory that can stop if we let it do so. Me thinks we may have a lot to be disappointed in Obama, but unless we make ourselves the Democratic base again and work to change the party from within in a pro-active manner (e.g. showing that WE are the ones who make up the base and should stay that way) we're just going to be marginalized again and again. Not to mention we'll be referring to Sen. McCain as Pres. McCain.
But that's okay, right? Because if McCain wins then it is totally Obama's fault that he lost because we didn't do anything to ensure that the better candidate won. The will of the people spoke, and they said "forget Obama, we want 4 more years of Bush!" Ironically, the ones saying that would be us; the people who didn't bother doing anything to get away from Bush III. As you all think, if you didn't come across productively against something then you must be for it. I guess that means you're for McCain then, if you're not going to be productively for Obama. So yes, be vocal about Obama's more recent stances and be unhappy with them. Be sure to let him know that we expect him to actually turn this country around if he were to win, and that the party leaders better start realizing our desires unless they want to be replaced by those who will in future primaries. But be realistic, and start seeing the big picture. That's what got me involved, and that's what disappoints me with the prevalent attitude here, that we have officially changed sides. Trust me, I ensure you that Obama will do us more good than McSame, even if he's FAR from perfect, but Rome wasn't built in a day and honestly it's going to take a good while to restore our civil liberties and to set up our causes such as socialized medicine. But the moment you abandon your building efforts, they become ruins, only the ruins will be the progressive cause and not an ancient city.