Skip to main content

Proving that you can both support a candidate and hold him or her accountable, a major effort by grassroots activists within the Obama campaign is asking for his support in opposing the bad FISA Amendments Act, and particularly, telco amnesty.

A grassroots group of activists has been organizing on MyBo, Obama's official social networking portal, to protest the Senator's recent decision to back controversial legislation granting the President more spying powers. The effort hit a big milestone on Tuesday afternoon: It is now the largest self-organized group on Obama's website, topping networks that were launched over a year ago. The spying protest, "Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right," launched last week. (See Obama Network Organizes and Revolts Over Spying, The Nation.)

Membership spiked to about 8,900 people on Tuesday, edging out a student group with roughly 8,600 members, and one organizer estimated that the growth rate reached a rapid four percent during the daytime. The group initially spread through the Obama network, since the site's platform instantly connects members through a dedicated email listserve. On Monday, for example, over 200 emails shot across the wire, reaching the roughly 2,300 members who opted to receive individual messages. The exchanges ranged from policy debates, like whether immunity was acceptable if the telephone companies acted in good faith, to organizing strategies, such as promoting the group on sharing sites like Digg. Then some activists open-sourced the project, creating a wiki-hub for additional actions -- from calling Obama's office to urging Keith Olbermann to promote the group -- and launched partner groups on other sites like Facebook.

The group's effort has also hit the NYT.

This effort shows two things: the always-expanding power of the Internet for organizing. We knew at the outset what a powerful tool the tubes were going to present, but the new iterations that people create on a daily basis is fantastic (and another reason for the Net Neutrality fight to be rejoined full force when we have our new president and Congress).

It also shows that you can fully support Barack Obama and still disagree with him on issues. That being a supporter, particularly a netroots supporter, doesn't mean setting aside your own beliefs and principles. We're not supposed to just shut up when we disagree--if we do, we're setting a very bad precedent for our role in a potential Obama presidency. I keep going back to the Louis Brandeis quote:

The most important political office is that of private citizen.
-Louis D. Brandeis

You can support a candidate and fulfill your political office of a private citizen at the same time. A huge number of Barack Obama's supporters on his site are doing just that.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:20 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  11,966 members of the group. (16+ / 0-)

    WOW.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    -Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:24:01 PM PDT

  •  I am also signed up (19+ / 0-)

    The group is very positive. Folks are trying to persuade him while also working hard for our nominee. I think joining these kinds of groups is very, very productive.

    The harshness that some people have been throwing around on Daily Kos...not quite as productive.

    Please help Michelle's cookies! Her lead is in danger! You can vote every day.

    by jenontheshore on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:25:41 PM PDT

  •  How else would he know aside from his own (9+ / 0-)

    instincts?  

    This is wonderful, and I sense some hope that maybe he can be convinced that this bill is not "the best we can come up with".


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM PDT

  •  thank you (13+ / 0-)

    For summarizing the situation, providing the links, and most of all, for reminding everybody that  thoughtless and unconditional support is no support at all.

    Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent. -- Eleanor Roosevelt

    by greenery on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:26:49 PM PDT

  •  I signed up on Monday (7+ / 0-)

    Long live the loyal opposition.

  •  Awesome! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vitarai, Cyber Kat, victoria2dc, TomP, beltane

    Letting Obama know our stand on important issues is, well, important. It's good that we are emphasizing the the demo in democracy.

    But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor. (1776)

    by banjolele on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:27:02 PM PDT

  •  I was very glad to read about this. (10+ / 0-)

    I am on my way to join up.

    STFU?  Never!

    "McCain married into a wonderful beer fortune" - Harold Ford

    by Presumptuous Insect on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:27:31 PM PDT

  •  It will be interesting to see what happens... (5+ / 0-)

    if this becomes a trend.  Will it be allowed or will the campaign find a way to short circuit the grassroots?

    •  They can try, citizen53, but as Mr. Universe says (7+ / 0-)

      in Serenity:

      "You can't stop the signal."

      "McCain married into a wonderful beer fortune" - Harold Ford

      by Presumptuous Insect on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If they short-circuit it, we'll just find another (4+ / 0-)

      way to do it.

      That's our job.

      Follow the money. It's getting away.

      by bablhous on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:40:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unlike the other side (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      victoria2dc, GrouchoKossak

      Obama has encouraged by word and deed dissention. Even if he doesn't respond the way we like. He appreciates reasoned discourse.

      In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

      by alkalinesky on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:40:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But when those who don't approve... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tmo, victoria2dc

        of it, and they start complaining, what will happen?  Wasn't there a diary or comments here about why it is wrong to do it at his site?

        And what if it becomes what the campaign deems disruptive?

        This first time it occurred virally, but one thing a campaign seeks above all else is control.

        •  I never claimed it was wrong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, Cyber Kat

          And I am a member of the group. It is important to keep in mind, however, that people need to be volunteering and signing people up to vote along with the bitching about a stance they don't like.

          What if's haven't happened yet, so I can't answer to them. I trust that Obama will stay true to his word, and will welcome discussion and dissention in the ranks. Doesn't mean he will kowtow to everything everyone wants.

          In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

          by alkalinesky on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:53:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I did not imply that you claimed anything... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tmo, victoria2dc, cloudwatcher

            but I can foresee that a campaign may come to see it as disruptive, especially if it does not change position in response and people continue to voice their dissent.

            Yesterday, someone here said the following:

            The myBO group to oppose FISA is the opposite of what myBO was intended to do -- to help local activists organize and engage in largely offline action.

            I wonder how many members of the myBO group will ever set foot outside of their homes to do something  in their community. My hopes are not high on that one.

            Accountability and fair criticism are great. It just makes me laugh and worry, simultaneously, when the blogosphere seems more better capable of organizing outrage than activism.

            That is illustrative of what I referred to.

            If this sentiment grows, can you see where it may go?  Some people do not want dissent under any circumstances.

            That was the crux of my original post.

        •  There were zillions of diaries and comments... (0+ / 0-)

          But when those who don't approve... of it, and they start complaining, what will happen?  Wasn't there a diary or comments here about why it is wrong to do it at his site?

          Nothing wrong... everything right!

    •  The social network is an attempt at it (0+ / 0-)

      to carve out a piece of netroots that is beholden to the campaign.

      It's innovative, a fusion of blog and MySpace, and likely to do well.

      What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

      by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:50:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder how much of the social networking... (0+ / 0-)

        is attributable to substance, and how much just to popularity.

        In this case, I think it is a good thing, and I hope Obama is listening.

        But when I see this from the NY Times piece, I wonder if it will matter or have any effect:

        Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.

        "This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip," Mr. Craig said. "Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire."

        •  Considering this Congress... (0+ / 0-)

          he's likely correct and I, for one, am glad he will go for the part that will get the court back in control of the whole process rather than pick nits over civil suits of TelCom companies.

          What's the desired end result here and how can we get the most out of a less than courageous congress?

    •  It has to be a trend... (0+ / 0-)

      because it's democracy!  If they don't listen to us then we'll unite and replace them with progressives who love the country, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!

      Thanks for this opportunity Barack!

  •  What a positive way to end the pissing contest! (11+ / 0-)

    This is a respectful way to disagree... I'm pleased that this is not being portrayed as insurrection or conflict, but rather responsible debate.

    Yea!

    Let's hope this is the first of many DIALOGS about important issues.

    Obama in 2008... because he doesn't suck.

  •  I'm looking for the best diaries (0+ / 0-)

    on Fisa from a purity perspective and a pragmatic one.  Any help would be appreciated.  

  •  Wait! Plainly that's impossible (10+ / 0-)

    According to several chicken littles here if people both support Obama and disagree with him by holding him accountable, then we hurt Obama, elect McCain president, and otherwise cause the sky to fall ending civilization as we know it. You mean that's not true?

  •  I'm torn on this. (10+ / 0-)

    On one hand I applaud the grassroots organizing to effect change.  I imagine Obama would too.

    On the other hand I think we have a crucial election ahead of us, and I dislike the idea of the Obama team having to be pulled off of their strategy to address the left - especially given all of the efforts the right is making to force him into the debate they want to have.

    Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

    by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:28:54 PM PDT

    •  The message is a work in progress (5+ / 0-)

      Good that we remember that, and that the CANDIDATE remembers that too.

      I'm tired of candidates who have their answers and are not open to new information.

      I WANT a president who is open to changing his mind when presented with new data.  Refreshing.

      •  Yes but... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, GN1927, Dragon5616

        Running a Presidential campaign requires message discipline.  The GOP will try to keep Obama on the defensive throughout this campaign.  We need him to deal with that effectively then parry them back into a defensive posture.

        This will be a LOT harder to achieve with friendly fire coming in at him.  

        Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

        by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:35:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Life is hard. So is politics. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cyber Kat

          He knew the job was hard before he took it.

          If he can't handle this, he can't handle the Presidency. You don't think the Republicans are going to let up and get all cozy with him after the election, do you?

          Follow the money. It's getting away.

          by bablhous on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:46:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Aw fucking hell (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yoshimi

            That's a big crock of shit.

            We have a choice here.  We can either help our condidte or hinder him.  The gainse we get from pressing these issues right now are miniscule compared to the losses we'll suffer if we end up being the straw that breaks his back.

            Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

            by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:00:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fuck that....He is not the candidate I gave my... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cloudwatcher

              money to anymore.  I am not a democrat (not a republican...a leftist who felt he could not call himself an American democrat but always has voted so), but I believed in Obama.  That is why I donated, that is why I spent my free time on getting his message out.  This may be very unpopular but unless I see a change I am done with him.  AIPAC speech....screwing Clark....This fucking faith based thing...banning Muslims from his apperances...I am fucking done.  I will go back to my fringe groups and believe in a "change" no more. Just to clarify,I am not an embittered Clinton supporter.  The very reason I became involved in Barrack's campaign was the "hope, change, hype" I bought into.  The more and more I see it looks like buisness as usual. Retreat from any progressive position as long as it is politicaly expedient. I will waste no more of my life and money working for someone who betrays the very reason I became active.  I don't care if he "needs to do this becasue of the Republican attack machine".  It is over.  After this fucking week, I am back to feeling hopless about this nation.  Sorry if this offends, it was not my intention, merely an expresssion of my deep dissapointment.  I thought you were different Barrack.

              As a nation of free men we shall live forever.. or die by suicide - Lincoln

              by KevinBarry16 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:07:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He's the same guy he always was. (5+ / 0-)

                The problem was your expectations.

                If you are fine with a McCain presidency, then by all means keep on keeping on.  Let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  That's your choice.

                But until they find a way to manufacture perfect politicians, Obama's still one of the best I've ever seen - so I'll keep pushing on.

                Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

                by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:11:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Recd for our shared overall beliefs...I just.... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snout, cloudwatcher

                  can't forgive such a retreat on our privacy.  That is everything to me.  Believe me I do not want a Republican president.  He (Barack) still has my vote..I just cannot support him finacially or with my time anymore.  The passion is way too far gone.

                  As a nation of free men we shall live forever.. or die by suicide - Lincoln

                  by KevinBarry16 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:21:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I understand (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Elise, KevinBarry16

                    And I'm not going to attack you for feeling the way you do.  But I do think some trust is in order.  At least in the short term.

                    What if your original instincts on the guy weren't wrong?  What if he really is something special?  Is it possible that his tactical retreat on FISA is not the "be all end all" on the subject, and that he plans other action on this front?

                    There's no way we'll ever find out if e don't support him.  Every politician will break your heart in one way or another.  FDR interred the Japanese.  JFK got us embroiled in Viet Nam.  Harry Truman dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki after he'd already proved our atomic capability in Hiroshima.  Even Russ Feingold voted for John Roberts.

                    But in the arc of history, these men mattered.  I submit to you tha this election matters.  Barack Obama matters.  He may well be a truly great man.  We know what John McCain will be.

                    Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

                    by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:35:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry if my above comment seems a rant..... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cloudwatcher

                but I am at a loss and severely depressed at Obamas actions in the past month or so.  I will still vote for him over Mccshame but as far as my efforts for the campaign go...its over.  Unless I see a huge change, I will no longer be an active part.  I applaud Kos for pulling his donation as I have done because this candidate, by his recent actions, has betrayed the very people who put him over the top for the nomination.  Sorry everyone sorry, I just can't bring myself to do it anymore.

                As a nation of free men we shall live forever.. or die by suicide - Lincoln

                by KevinBarry16 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:15:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You haven't been listening to Obama then... (0+ / 0-)

                Obama's whole message all along has been that he's running to change government from the top down to the bottom up.  He can't affect change but WE can.

                Go back and read every speech he's made and you'll see he has always talked about it being US that will drive the agenda but that there are 300 million of US and we are not going to ever get everything we want handed to us.

                I can't see how anyone with any sort of progressive leanings would balk at that.  It's a far sight better than any other politician in view at any level of government.

    •  I appreciate that you are torn. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, understandinglife, snout

      Thanks for your understanding.  I think it actually helps Obama, becuase people can vent and express themselves and still support him.

      I'm glad we are on the same team, snout.

      "There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08

      by TomP on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:32:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Venting's important (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        I think it's largely a good thing that our candidates are not allowed to remain insular.

        But as I said above, I also think message discipline is important.  I don't want to see us get into the habit of putting our candidate on the defensive.

        It's a balancing act.  I simply hope we stay mindful of that fact.

        As always...glad to be pulling the oars with you as well Tom.

        Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

        by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:38:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just what do you mean by "message discipline?" (0+ / 0-)

          The way it seems to me is that if Obama had stayed on his original message we would not even be having this painful current discussion. Those of us who are part of the Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right group are attempting to remind him to stay on message.

          All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.... Edmund Burke

          by cloudwatcher on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Once he's in the White House (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KevinBarry16

        he's our boss, not our damn Secretary Treasurer.

        He's running for boss of the American empire and national security state, and if we aren't willing to strike against him, occupy his factory, and shut the damn thing down we're going to get rolled.

        Sending requests without any intention of backing them up seems pretty silly to me.

        "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

        by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:56:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Depends what "backing up" means. (0+ / 0-)

          Striking without a real strategy does not achieve much.  McCain is worse.,

          "There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08

          by TomP on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:11:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, McCain is worse (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            My point is that it's not the President's job any more (if it ever was) to represent our interests.  The job has evolved in such a way that the 2 main responsibilities of the President are:

            1. Managing and strengthening the American empire;
            1. Running the national security state.

            Neither responsibility has anything to do with the interests of 99% of the people in this country.  But that's what the job is.

            We can't change the job by hiring someone else to fill the position.  We change the job by attacking the system as a whole.  FDR changed the job of President in order to forestall massive civil unrest, possible revolution, and political movements like Longism and EPIC that were even more hostile to the interests of Capital.

            I want Obama to win.  McCain is worse.  Neither of them will be on my side.  The only hypothetical way to move forward in 2009 and beyond is to make it clear that we will make the country ungovernable if those on the other side of the barricades -- including President Obama -- don't meet our demands.

            I don't think this FISA effort is harmful, just pointless.

            "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

            by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:20:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you really think (0+ / 0-)

              we have reached the "French Revolution" stage already? Bush has managed to screw things up pretty badly...but I think we have a couple more years before things deteriorate into armed revolution. Of course, I could be wrong. I'll sharpen my pitchfork just in case.

              All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.... Edmund Burke

              by cloudwatcher on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:59:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  You'll have no influence after the election (5+ / 0-)

      The argument against holding him to account on FISA is "pragmatism". "Get him elected first," people say. "It's just being pragmatic."

      Well, if we're going to be pragmatic, let's be so all the way around:

      We will have no greater influence than we do right now, before the election. Once any politician is elected, the dynamic completely changes. There is no guarantee that any politician will keep a promise to his/her constituency once they are elected.

      •  I disagree. (5+ / 0-)

        The primaries were the time for that.  This is not the moment to mold him.  This is the time to elect him.

        Influence is by nature, a matter of leverage.  The only leverage we have on Obama now is the threat that we might withhold support.  I think that's a very dangerous game right now.  

        Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

        by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:41:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm with you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yoshimi

          What's the endgame? Obama suddenly changes his position because the base got mad? Not going to happen. The McCain campaign and right-wing media will trumpet it from rooftop to rooftop — Obama is green, he lacks discipline, he's a flip-flopper, he lacks leadership, etc. I just don't see these protests changing his mind in any way. At best he'll take more care to demonstrate that we've been heard, and that we understand him more clearly. That's best case scenario.

          A few points (I have avoided responding to the brouhaha at all, till now):

          Politicians compromise. That's how they get anything done. They are negotiators more than leaders.

          Party bases, on the other hand, are unyielding. We're never going to love Obama as much as we did during the primaries. He is always going to be to the right of us on some issues.

          Anybody read Al Giordano's piece about this? Among many cogent points, the most interesting was that when liberals force Dem candidates to kowtow to them during general elections, they lose, but if they give them some slack, the returns can be worth it once the candidate is in office. I believe Obama is more one of us than one of them, and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

          I really don't want to pick any fights with kossacks, but let me say honestly that if you really feel you must assert control (as opposed to influence) over your candidate during a general election campaign, you'll never be happy with the Democratic party — but, hey, Ralph Nader is just down the hall, and I'm sure he could use the company.

          I don't really see how Obama's basic position on FISA has fundamentally changed. We may not like the nuance or the overall effect, and I can certainly concede that he underestimated the importance of this issue to the base in the way he presented his response to the "compromise," but I think the reaction from many of us is truly overblown — I sympathize, but I don't agree.

        •  And again, we'll have no leverage in December (0+ / 0-)

          You don't have to outright threaten to withhold support. It goes without saying, it's how the system is set up.

          You may consider it to be an inopportune time to exert pressure, but it's the only time it can be done. Sorry, but "perfecting" him after the election is a pipe dream.

      •  Be sure to support and elect GOOD Democrats (3+ / 0-)

        into Congress.

        They'll help hold his feet to the fire after the election.

        That's where my money's going - getting rid of the Bushdogs.

        Follow the money. It's getting away.

        by bablhous on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:49:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  you're not getting the message (0+ / 0-)

      the message is that this is our country. if anything this will pull them back on message.

      •  That's not the practical outcome of... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, icebergslim

        ...something like this.  By nature, a large group of one's base banding together to take issue with you is something that puts a candidate on the defensive.

        We need him on offense as much as possible.

        Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

        by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:43:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then dammit he needs to be on defense (3+ / 0-)

          We aren't the enemy, here! We are Democrats, and we are sending him information his campaign needs to have in order to win.

          We are being told through fellow bloggers to shut up and step back in line.

          That's not constructive engagement.

          What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

          by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:46:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some trust is in order (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yoshimi

            I think the Obama folks have shown that they know a thing or two about winning.  It's a dangerous thing for all of us to presume we know better than them what strategy they should be implementing.

            It isn't a matter of tellignm people to shut up.  It's a matter of making sure we are all working together.  

            We need to make sure our candidate stays on offense.  If you are defending, you are losing.  

            Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

            by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:57:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If he is defending (2+ / 0-)

              He needs to ask himself what he is defending, and if it is worth the trouble.

              Quite right. I am on offense on this.

              So are a whole lot of other people.

              And by your definition, we are winning.

              Not for our sakes. But for Obama's, and the sake of the country.

              We aren't doing this because we thought it'd be a hoot.

              This is serious stuff. We think it matters, and we think our message being heard and accepted will win this election.

              What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

              by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Winning what? At what cost? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, Yoshimi, Elise

                You think you'll like how the 4th amendment looks under a McCain administration?

                I think we run a very big risk of cutting off our own noses to spite our faces.

                Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

                by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Strong advocacy for the Constitution is pro Dem (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cyber Kat

                  not pro McCain.

                  Any candidate that rule of law and accountability under the law hurts is a candidate that needs to hurt.

                  What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                  by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:11:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And to hell with the consequences, eh? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    askew, Elise

                    I recall a lot of this ind of talk in 2000 with Naderites.  The difference between Gore and Bush didn't matter nearly as much as principle they kept telling me.

                    8 years later - I'd like to think we've all learned a thing or two.  Guess not.

                    Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

                    by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:14:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You have no idea how bad retro immunity will be (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Cyber Kat

                      It will herald a complete devolution of executive power away from the elected government, all of it, because only private agents acting under writ of immunity will have the power to do anything.

                      You have no idea. I have no idea. No one has any idea of how many ways that can and will go completly wrong.

                      No, wait. I actually do have an idea.

                      Here you go. FISA passes, as-is. A defense contractor has a national security mandate.

                      What does it do? It goes and starts assassinating politicians who oppose funding its mandate.

                      It then goes to the president and says, give us our GD retro immunity.

                      The president - but you just shot those people! That's a crime!

                      The sound of safeties being taken off fills the room.

                      Yeah, let me get a pen and piece of paper...

                      What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                      by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:18:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So if you stop the FISA bill at the cost of... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Yoshimi

                        ...this election.  Do you think we'll have better oversight going forward?  

                        I could debate you on the bill itself, but that's pointless.  Ultimately if you care about oversight AT ALL, you want to see the Dems take the White House.  Period.    

                        Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

                        by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Since I have said repeatedly (0+ / 0-)

                          getting Dems elected is my goal, it is pointless to object to my prose on that ground.

                          Go read my diary du jour.. ok just skim it.. then come back and dare tell me I am out to deep-six this election.

                          What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                          by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:44:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  appeal to practical consequences? (0+ / 0-)

                  You think you'll like how the 4th amendment looks under a McCain administration?

                  When I was a student we used to play a game that taught propaganda techniques. We learned to recognize their application in statements by politicians, in advertisements etc. In "appeal to practical consequences" there's a veiled threat, usually framed as "if you don't do x (or if you do x) , y scary bad thing will happen."

                  So if we speak up on FISA, McCain gets elected?

                  Not logical.

                  [Come to think of it, this would be a good late night NN activity...]

                  "Get informed, and let it change you."--wonderingmind42's chemistry professor

                  by DemocracyLover in NYC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:33:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No...I think I've expalined myself better than... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...that.

                    If we force Obama to defend from the left as well as from the right, he may not effectivey be able to go in offense.  We've essentially mad ehis job a lot harder.

                    We might still win, but we might not.  Is that a chance you are willing to take?

                    Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

                    by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:38:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well (0+ / 0-)

                      that pretty much restates my point. That's "appeal to practical consequences" in a nut shell. And if we lose and people say we lost because of FISA, that'll be "post hoc".

                      It's not left right, btw. And even if you look at it thatway left is the deep end of the pool (that is more Americans are on the left end of this issue).

                      Yes I am willing to take the chance of speaking up to the candidate and letting him know my views, and as far as I can see, so is Obama. He asks for our input and creates infrastructure that makes it possible.

                      "Get informed, and let it change you."--wonderingmind42's chemistry professor

                      by DemocracyLover in NYC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:13:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  If he cannot withstand some... (0+ / 0-)

                      (IMHO) deserved push-back on a issue of this import, then he's not that strong of candidate. He himself spoke of not allowing the right to use national security as cudgel. This would be a prime example of that.

                      Cheers,

        •  But not on the offensive against US (0+ / 0-)

          All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.... Edmund Burke

          by cloudwatcher on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:02:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Dear Thief, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cloudwatcher

        I have just returned to my house and found you ransacking it and packing up my belongings.  These things are mine.  I am writing you this letter to demand that you leave my things alone.

        Now, having officially voiced my objection to your thievery...can I help you carry that computer out to your getaway car?"

        "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

        by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:10:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Problem is, once he has all that power (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cyber Kat

      the value of selling how he will use it to the base diminishes greatly...as does the likelihood that he will bother.

      What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

      by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:45:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (0+ / 0-)

        I submit that we'll have even less influence on John McCain.

        At this point Barack Obama is the nominee.  He is a fully formed politician and not likely to change his basic values over the next few months - and any change he migh tgo through would likely be less than profound.  Mor elikely we'd force him to pay lip service to one or two things to get us off his back and allow him to take on McCain.

        I thnk we have to ask ourselves if the victory we are seeking is worth the possibility that we contribute to our candidate's defeat.

        Elect him first, perfect him later. The stakes are too high to fuck around my friends.

        by snout on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:06:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  John McCain is disliked (0+ / 0-)

          for being a third Bush term in the making.

          So, how is helping to advance the Bush agenda in any way good politics for Barack Obama?

          What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

          by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  He still will need our cash (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, mcfly, Casper46, Spathiphyllum, fezzik

    to compete like he needs to. Make our views known, but please don't jeopardize the end result. I get a little jumpy sometimes.......

  •  Support and criticism of a candidate are (12+ / 0-)

    not all or nothing propositions...unless you are a Republican.  I'm told Democrats can also walk and chew gum at the same time.  I know, it's like a... a... frakking miracle or something.

    News Pundits - The Dopplerless weathermen of our time. Jon Stewart

    by mentaldebris on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:29:38 PM PDT

  •  A big test for Obama (7+ / 0-)

    I am heartened to see this happening on his site and hope he embraces the effort as a core part of organizing, and that he seriously considers the effort  in deciding on how to vote, regardless of how he does end up voting.

    i think they're attacking me cause i'm awesome. how's that??

    by missreporter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:29:42 PM PDT

  •  As long as you're still registering new voters (16+ / 0-)

    and working hard to elect Obama, then I applaud you fighting FISA at the same time.  But don't do the latter without the former.

  •  Wondderul post, McJoan. (9+ / 0-)

    I agree wholeheartedly:

    It also shows that you can fully support Barack Obama and still disagree with him on issues. That being a supporter, particularly a netroots supporter, doesn't mean setting aside your own beliefs and principles. We're not supposed to just shut up when we disagree--if we do, we're setting a very bad precedent for our role in a potential Obama presidency.

    Citizens matter.

    "There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08

    by TomP on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:30:21 PM PDT

  •  Nearly the Biggest Now (7+ / 0-)

    Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right is now the biggest user-crated group, and second only to the admin-created "Action Wire" group:

    Members: 11498 Access: Public Created: Jun 25th, 2008

    This morning it was about 10,000 members, and so will shortly overtake even Action Wire's 13,420 members. Since the group totals take a couple-few hours to update, it might already be #1. And will grow from there, as the network effect accelerates.

    Meanwhile, the telcos that are bribing Democrats to vote for telco amnesty aren't getting any more numerous, and not that much richer.

    Soon enough, people like Obama spokesperson Bill Burton will have to respond with a lot better than the positively Bushian nonresponse "I love free speech":

    The fact that there is an open forum on BarackObama.com where supporters can say whether they agree or disagree speaks to a strength of our campaign

    And maybe if enough people pressure Obama and the Democratic Senate he influences as "Democratic Party Leader", the telcos won't be above the law. Nor will Obama be above the promises he made that most of us want him to keep.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM PDT

    •  Wow, just 15 minutes later (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, DocGonzo

      it's past 12,100.  

      I'm all for it - I keep hearing in the back of my mind, "You have the power..."

      •  Snowballing (0+ / 0-)

        I expect DKos frontpaging it while it's afternoon across the whole country has something to do with it. As does each earlier member telling their friends, who tell their friends...

        The network effect. One reason why FISA needs to be revised, but telcos that exploit the effect need to be accountable when they break the law.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:23:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Now the Biggest (0+ / 0-)

      Right now the group is 14,492 members, the biggest group on Obama's site. It's even bigger than the 13,473 people who the campaign assigned to the "Action Wire" group, which is not a user-created group. The 2nd largest user-created group, "Students for Barack Obama", is only 8702 people, created Feb 10, 2007 - almost 18 months ago, before the campaign even really started. This FISA group was started a week ago, is 67% bigger than that #2. The other most recently created groups, "Washington Action Team" and "Virginia Action Team" were started Jan 24, 2008, and each have only 3794 and 3249 members respectively.

      This FISA issue is unequivocally the most important issue to Obama's netroots communities.

      If he doesn't change back, it'll be clear that telco dollars speak louder than Obama voters.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:11:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Purity trolls every one of them! (4+ / 0-)

    Jeez, sometimes this site gives me a headache.  And yes, my subject line is snark.

    I joined the group two days ago.

    Plenty of Beltway institutions already existed for the purpose of cheering on any and all Democrats no matter what they do. -Glenn Greenwald

    by nightsweat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:31:17 PM PDT

  •  As a donor (12+ / 0-)

    campaign, I feel entitled to voice my opinion on any subject that concerns me. We all know that the big donors are quick to voice their displeasure, and I am not any less of a donor than they are.

    This is the beauty of Obama's movement. We have all been empowered to make our opinions heard.

    The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

    by beltane on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM PDT

    •  Well put. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alkalinesky

      Plenty of Beltway institutions already existed for the purpose of cheering on any and all Democrats no matter what they do. -Glenn Greenwald

      by nightsweat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry for typo n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alkalinesky

      The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

      by beltane on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You've always been able to talk (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dragon5616

      Millions of us marched to prevent and then stop the War (you're probably one of us!).  The Congress blew us off, and continues to blow us off.

      The trick isn't making our opinions heard, it's actually controlling the levers of government.  How does this group help accomplish that?

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:35:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the beauty of it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous

        No one can shut us up, not even Democrats.

        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

        by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:42:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Missing the point (0+ / 0-)

          They don't need to shut us up.  First, we're not threatening to do anything, other than talk.  So what if we don't shut up?  They'll let us talk, and we'll vote for them despite their opposition to basic constitutional rights.  We've been telling them not to go to war, and then to end the war, for years.  We've written and marched and yelled, and they keep ignoring us.  And evidently we're fine with being ignored, because we're not wiling to do any more than write and yell and vote for whatever they give us.

          Are we organizing tax resistance?  Are we organizing mass sit-ins and takeovers of government buildings?  Are we figuring out how to carry out the 21st-century equivalent of burning induction records?

          No?  Then they can safely ignore us.

          And, eventually, when a full-on police state has evolved, they'll shut us up.  But good.  Time, and our own refusal to threaten institutional power, are on their side.

          "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

          by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:48:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps you should check out some of my diaries.. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pesto, bablhous

            ...and comments.

            I deal with the prospect of a future civil war and more aggressive activism quite a bit.

            What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

            by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Looks like the diaries are dense (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cskendrick

              and substantive, and I may not have a chance to read up in the next week or so.  But I have hotlisted your most recent one, so I can return to it later.  Thanks for taking the time to develop the ideas at length and in detail.

              "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

              by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:03:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Other than blowing off steam (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, Sun dog, Dragon5616

    what does this group accomplish?  How does it get Obama to change his carefully-considered position on this issue?  Public embarrassment if he ignores the group?  Holding back money or votes or volunteer time?

    "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

    by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:32:57 PM PDT

    •  Because he can respond (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cyber Kat

      Wouldn't it have been nice if GWB heard the noise and reconsidered the Iraq invasion BEFORE it was too late?

      •  I think Obama has made his indifference... (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        raboof
        Hidden by:
        Sun dog

        ... to both the Constitution and the progressive base who helped him win the nomination extremely clear.

      •  "Thanks for your input, but as I said before (0+ / 0-)

        the new threats our country faces demand 21st-century intelligence tools, blah blah blah."

        Then what do you do?

        If you march on the boss with a set of demands, and he reads them and says, "No,"  and then you say, "Oh, uhh, okay, I guess we'll go back to work then" I don't really see that you've accomplished anything.  Except give your boss a funny story to tell his pals out on the golf course.

        "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

        by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:37:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Other than blowing off steam (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pesto, grrr, Dragon5616

      what does whining and kvetching on a internet site, threatening to withhold supposed money, volunteers or time accomplish?

      see what I did there? ;-)

      •  Absolutely agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alkalinesky, boomonkey

        I think the notion that dkos and the "netroots" are some kind of revolutionary force is, and always has been, silly.

        The biggest impact of the netroots has been to figure out a new way for candidates to fund campaigns, which has led to a new, openly leftist national politics...oh, wait, no, it hasn't.  It's just funded candidates differently.

        We all get to talk with each other.  That's good.  It's fun to write and read and rate comments.  Pootie pix are fun, too.

        But what we do here is not genuinely threatening to Institutional Power, which has pretty quickly figured out how to take us into account in a way that allows them to continue holding power, pretty much uninterrupted, while we continue, as well.  Our antithesis to their thesis has reached a synthesis, and it is what it is.

        If we want to move beyond the present synthesis, we need something new.  This is already part of the Establishment, not a threat to it.

        "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

        by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:42:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Now THIS is a proactive stance (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nightsweat, Cyber Kat

    me likey

  •  Excellent post. Thank you for FP'ing it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, cassidy3, boomonkey

    Peace,
    Bob

  •  This message is reminiscent of Al Giordano's awes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cassidy3, Cyber Kat

    awesome article at the field smart dissent.

    This is the power of Obama's campaign. Many of us, like me, now feel possessed to do something about this -- to not let him get away with pandering or folding.

    •  So if he panders and folds despite this effort (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sun dog

      what will you do?

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:50:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tilt at some other windmill (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pesto, GN1927

        But if he actually kills the bill or strips the immunity, they can strut around and claim to own him.  Which is why what they're doing actually makes it more difficult, politically, for him to do what the claim to want.

        Politics is about feeling good about ourselves apparently.

        Being angry that the captain isn't doing enough to stop the sharks is no good reason to harpoon the lifeboat.

        by Sun dog on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:55:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You've absolutely summed it up (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sun dog

          Absolutely nailed it.

          if he actually kills the bill or strips the immunity, they can strut around and claim to own him...Politics is about feeling good about ourselves apparently.

          Precisely.

  •  I'm telling you... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dragon5616

    He will disappoint you on this!!!

    He has to "move to the center"...whatever that means...and make it look like (1) he's a hawk on defense; and (2) he's NOT beholden to the netroot fringe...

    He does NOT want to be Max-Cleland-ized on this...

    But...you know where his heart REALLY is...and besides, what other CHOICE do we really have?

  •  The electorate wants LEADERSHIP, even if (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ksquire

    they disagree, they RESPECT those willing to take a stance....

    Obama should learn that lesson - it seems like he's on the slippery slope of trying to be everything to everybody.....

    Even the die-hard Republicans I know are contemptuous of someone like Hillary who only took a stance on poll results instead of taking a stance on what they believed in......

    When are the pols going to 'get' it?  

    People WANT leaders willing to say "THIS IS WRONG!!!" AND FIGHT THE FIGHT... Obama will get slimed no matter what - better to be slimed in DOING WHAT IS RIGHT

  •  I'm really loving the attention this is getting (0+ / 0-)

    here. It's great how we're fighting so many fights at once with the Obama campaign! Not just a national election, but a mini-referendum within the campaign on an issue of central importance to all Americans. I really hope Obama 2.0 can come back to the previous version, but it's been interesting....

  •  My $2,300 donation was to buy a LEADER, not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cyber Kat

    help elect a cowering centrist

    It was not all about pop culture. When Mr. Wenner asked how Mr. Obama might respond to harsh attacks from Republicans, suggesting that Democrats have "cowered" in the past, Mr. Obama replied, "Yeah, I don’t do cowering."

    Prove it, Please now Sir

    It is the province of knowledge to speak. And it is the privilege of wisdom to listen. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. US Jurist

    by Oliver W Holmes the 3rd on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:37:37 PM PDT

  •  From (0+ / 0-)

    NYT (James Risen) via Greenwald:

    Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.

    "This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip," Mr. Craig said. "Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire."

    Obama seems to think FISA is at risk of expiring, so whoopitydoo (*twirls index finger).

    •  AFAIK FISA is NOT expiring (0+ / 0-)

      They are just trying to "fix" it.  I don't know why, since the Bush administration is ignoring it anyway.  I don't know why they think a "fix" will suddenly bring this rogue administration into line.

      Just leave the damned thing alone until we can get some Dems with backbones and respect for the law of the land elected.

      (and if Obama "thinks" it's expiring, I'm not sure what to think about that!)

      OWW4O
      (Old White Woman 4 Obama)
      OWW40's Unite!

      by Cyber Kat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:51:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't figure out... (0+ / 0-)

    ....why you guys are so suprised by this?

    Obama defeated Hillary by mimicing all of her positions to the point of pretending he stood for all of the same things she did blurring the distinction between them, and making the primary turn on the personality of the candidate.

    Now he is trying to do the same thing with McCain and the Republicans.  It isn't such a great shock.

  •  I hope he listens. (9+ / 0-)

    I don't like his stand on FISA, as I have indicated, but again I am not a one issue candidate.  As the battle goes forward, no one should stop donating to his campaign, as he is not taking public financing and has to raise money for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  I hope many take that to mind, when the RNC unleash new ads this weekend against Obama in WI, MI, OH and PA.

    peace.

  •  What will this group DO (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, GN1927, Dragon5616

    Canvass, phone bank, register voters ?  What are these 12,000 people going to actually do to avoid another Republican in the White House, avoid another war, avoid a draft ?  That is the point of the organizing tool on the Obama website

    •  They're going to put pressure on our candidate... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frandor55, Cyber Kat

      To take a stand for the Constitution and our rights, inspire us, and drum up support for his election in the process.

      •  And if he still votes for FISA? n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pesto, GN1927

        "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." --Dwight Eisenhower

        by Dragon5616 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:44:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then perhaps he won't win (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cassidy3, plok

          And in November 2008, he will have to ask himself why.

          And will eventually get the answer he should have received in July 2008, when many of his supporters were shouting it at him.

          What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

          by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:58:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Great. President McCain. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, GN1927

            That'll teach him, by gosh.

            "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." --Dwight Eisenhower

            by Dragon5616 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:02:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry, but I'm going to email (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dragon5616

              Obama because, guess what? I donate to him too, and I'm going to ask him to set some limits regarding the use of his site.  I see no reason why those tools need host people who are actively compromising his campaign.  I can't believe it was so blatantly stated here.

              •  Such an action would reduce his chances (0+ / 0-)

                of winning far more than supporting the constitution by opposing retro immunity for telecoms would.

                Why is this particular hill so worth (metaphorically) killing other Democrats over?

                What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:23:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Um, cskendrick, I could ask you the same thing! (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Oh, it's just the Constitution (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Cyber Kat, mchestnutjr

                    no big deal, just a fetish thing, really.

                    (screech)

                    Because retro immunity is the one bridge too far in a long succession of bridges we should never have allowed our government to cross.

                    It's not just a get out of jail free card for telecoms. It is signing away the power to run this country to private corporations, who will then have the means to impose a feedback loop of gaining immunity to do and ever wider range of activities at taxpayer expense...or else.

                    There is no single worse thing we could do to the Republic than allow this language to pass.

                    And anyone who thinks the evidence required to gain a criminal conviction will be gained when a national security memo is set against it is lying to themselves and anyone who hears them.

                    What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                    by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Perhaps where we're not seeing eye to eye (0+ / 0-)

                      is that I do not see this as the Constitution's last stand.  I don't like the legislation, I particularly don't like the retroactive immunity, but I think the degradation of rights of the masses happened years and years ago.  And the Constitution has never been a foolproof protector for many in this country.  So where you see an urgency regarding FISA, I see a disappointing stance from Obama and several others, something I hope changes as I related to my Senators, but not the last battle to save the Constitution.

                      There was a diary about this a while ago.  I'll try to dig up a link.

                      •  It is so completely the end (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Cyber Kat

                        of everything you think you know and trust about your future, you will not believe how fast it falls apart.

                        I do not think we will have til November to change things if this bill passes.

                        It is that completely bad.

                        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                        by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So now I'm confused (0+ / 0-)

                          Even were Obama to vote in favor of a filibuster, isn't this legislation almost guaranteed to pass?  So why is there not an equivalent level of energy being generated to diversify this risk and target a multitude of senators?

                          Because the urgency of your words are not matched by a coherent strategy to defeat the legislation, not merely gain some sort of symbolic defeat over Obama.

                          •  Unobservant (0+ / 0-)

                            Do check the diversity of senators opposing FISA as written, starting with Senator Feingold.

                            What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                            by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:48:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, (0+ / 0-)

                            it is my understanding that the cloture votes are there, whether Obama filibusters or not.  So if this is about the legislation, and not merely Obama, what's the equivalent thousands-strong drive to lobby every senator?

                          •  There is of course one special quality (0+ / 0-)

                            to Obama: he is the one running for president.

                            His statements carry great weight.

                            Cards on the table? He can't back out, for the reasons given, But someone else could take one for the team, someone who is not running for re-election this year.

                            But here is not the appropriate venue to discuss ways to bail Barack Obama out.

                            What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                            by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:53:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How do you know that's not happening? (0+ / 0-)

                            What would make anyone think there is not already furious strategizing to that effect?

                          •  Uh.. I hope I did not give you reason to think (0+ / 0-)

                            that I thought I just had an original idea on this topic.

                            I am quite sure they are.

                            As they should be.

                            And when the bailout happens I will just smile and accept it quietly.

                            If it happens. :)

                            Hey I have to log for a while.

                            Hopefully we have no personal animus between us over this. I know this is a rather stressful topic for all participants.

                            What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                            by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:04:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course not! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cskendrick

                            You're a food bomber, I love you.  I just really don't like and even resent what you and others are doing here.  But you're in no way shape or form my enemy.  That's McCain and the GOP Crime Family. :-)

                          •  To my eyes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            GN1927

                            If the schism is so serious, the Obama camp needs to figure out a way to quiet things down in the ranks, stat.

                            But what has transpired to date is not working.

                            I look forward to that solution. I hope it's soon.

                            What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                            by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We can agree to disagree (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cskendrick

                            about tactics for restoring Constitutional protections.  Thank you for providing more insight into the motivations.

                          •  And my 2 NJ Senators (0+ / 0-)

                            Lautenberg and Menendez who are fairly middle of the road.  I was very pleasantly surprised to see them standing with Senator Feinberg.

                            OWW4O
                            (Old White Woman 4 Obama)
                            OWW40's Unite!

                            by Cyber Kat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  False logic - dissent = defeat (0+ / 0-)

              The Republicans work that tip, and they are losing.

              How is the Obama campaign helped by adopting such doctrine?

              What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

              by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:21:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  So you'd risk a McCain presidency?! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Dragon5616

            Was nothing learned from 2000?

            •  Doing the right thing by the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mchestnutjr

              IS doing the right thing by the Obama candidacy.

              Telecom immunity is bad politics.

              Supporting it is bad politics.

              We are a significant portion of the base, we want Obama to win, and we are compelled not my lack of commitment but by an abundance of it to speak out -

              Supporting retro immunity is bad for America, bad for Democrats and bad for the Obama campaign.

              You can accept our friendly critique, rendered in good faith, backed by strong warnings of how seriously we take this issue...

              ...or you can kiss the presidency good bye.

              It is not our fault. We see the error that brings about this downfall. And we are begging him not to go there.

              What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

              by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:05:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Risking a McCain presidency (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, Dragon5616

                is not in any way shape or form protective of the Constitutional rights most citizens are afforded, please be very aware of that.

                2000 redux.

                •  false causation - pro-Constitution hurts Obama (0+ / 0-)

                  vis a vis McCain.

                  In what universe does a person who reveres the Constitution prefer McCain over Obama?

                  Seriously, this is scarce better than just calling me a Republican.

                  Go on and do it if that is where you heart is going.

                  What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                  by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:14:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  By risking a McCain presidency (0+ / 0-)

                    you are in no way shape or form protecting my rights as such exist under the latest interpretation of the constitution.  I can't get much clearer.  If people want to romanticize this and declare otherwise, go right ahead.  But I'll call it like I see it.

                    •  False causation, yet again (0+ / 0-)

                      That pushing a broadly popular position - support for the Constitution - is bad for Democrats and good for Republicans.

                      In what world is pushing the Bush agenda forward going to help Obama win the presidency?

                      In waht world is advising Obama NOT to lift a finger to do so going to hurt him?

                      Have you not seen the polls? People do not LIKE advancing the Bush agenda. They do not LIKE continuing his policies. They do not LIKE McCain being a third Bush term.

                      Why would they like Obama more for helping Bush in the least way?

                      What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                      by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:47:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  But you just said (0+ / 0-)

                    Then perhaps he won't win and in November 2008, he will have to ask himself why.

                    "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." --Dwight Eisenhower

                    by Dragon5616 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:24:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I did say just that (0+ / 0-)

                      There is the misperception that point out the badness that is retro immunity support is holding the Obama candidacy hostage.

                      No.

                      We are trying to save his candidacy.

                      But..you know, he is a grown-up man, and a very smart one at that.

                      He can make his own decisions.

                      He wants this FISA bill to go through as-is so badly? He can have it.

                      And he can have what comes with it.

                      But I am just a blogger. I have no power to influence matters of state.

                      But I can raise the questions that the senator from Illinois needs to ask before he votes on that bill:

                      1. Why am I helping advance the Bush agenda?
                      1. How does this help America?
                      1. How does this help Democrats?
                      1. How does this help me win the Presidency?

                      Because I don't think he's thought it through for once.

                      What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                      by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:31:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I guess I have better insight into the logic (0+ / 0-)

                        You must admit this strategy risks being more distracting and fruitless than productive.  As others have stated, what happens if Obama's position is unchanged?  What happens to this energy?

                        •  He "wins" (0+ / 0-)

                          the netroots is "defeated".

                          The Greeks had a general, once.

                          A good one.

                          He won battles by the bushel.

                          But, oh how he won them.

                          Very costly in lives and materiel.

                          His name was Pyrrhus.

                          What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                          by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:37:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And that's what's alarming (0+ / 0-)

                            It is really really unclear to me why the netroots would posit that were Obama to not change his position (and I'm skeptical regarding whether this group has any effect either way; any plan to stop it was underway before if in fact there is such a plan), that the netroots has thus been "defeated."  This is really bad strategy.  A McCain defeat will be a win for everyone, and it will be a much better time to begin demanding reforms and changes.

                            You've put the cart before the horse.

                          •  Oh I in truth do not see the netroots dying (0+ / 0-)

                            it's international now.

                            No one will ever put the genie of netroots participation in the public discourse down.

                            We will be making life uncomfortable for those who hold power in the name of the people for a very long time to come, long after those who aspire to power now are writing their memoirs.

                            What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                            by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:43:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And at the same time, you are risking (0+ / 0-)

                            the lives and livelihoods of people who lack the money, time, and sophistication to blog all day but would most certainly take issue with a strategy which involves diverting resources from a Democratic presidential campaign.  This is IMO very uncool.

                          •  being for the Constitution is not classist (0+ / 0-)

                            And making the imputation that it is is laughable.

                            Also, if Obama sees the need to advance the Bush agenda in order to be electable, perhaps he has mispriced the costs and benefits of that decision and needs to reconsider.

                            I would ask your tired, poor, huddled and downtrodden masses of which you speak how they feel about doing any favor no matter how small for George W Bush.

                            I think they'd be going wtf.

                            What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                            by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:57:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  He can't stop this FISA bill anyway. (0+ / 0-)

                        But he CAN end domestic spying with a stroke of the executive pen if elected.

                        If he's not elected, expect it to get worse.

                        So all this is is a chance for you to be self-righteous. You're not going to "save the Constitution."

                        "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." --Dwight Eisenhower

                        by Dragon5616 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:36:36 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Again the false causation (0+ / 0-)

                          That raising support for a very popular position - the Constitution of the United States of America - hurts Obama but not McCain.

                          In what very strange universe is this issue a winner for Pubs and a loser for Dems?

                          The reality is McCain has telegraphed his desire to continue the highly undesirable trend of the BushCheney years.

                          Of course he is unacceptable as a selection.

                          But one of the reasons he is unacceptable and not in danger of winning is he is a continuation of the Bush agenda.

                          The American people overwhelmingly do not want this.

                          So, how is furthering the Bush agenda by granting retro immunity to telecoms bad politics for America, for Democrats, and for Obama?

                          Anyone?

                          Class?

                          Buehler?

                          What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                          by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It's the media narrative. (0+ / 0-)

                            Retroactive immunity for telecoms is not how this will be portrayed. It will be portrayed as weak on terrorism, a flip-flop, and a capitulation to the far left.

                            Like it or not (and I don't like any of it), that is how it would be portrayed.

                            "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." --Dwight Eisenhower

                            by Dragon5616 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:10:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then it's really out of all our hands (0+ / 0-)

                            and discussions of the fineries of constitutional law and due process are not obstructive...they are just plain obsolete.

                            What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                            by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No but they ARE (0+ / 0-)

                            subject to political reality.

                            You want to take huge steps to restore our Constitution?

                            Donate to Obama.

                            Volunteer for Obama.

                            Vote for Obama.

                            To me, that's the best approach at the moment.

                            "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." --Dwight Eisenhower

                            by Dragon5616 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:23:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since I have done all that already (0+ / 0-)

                            I find the excoriation I have received for daring to criticize the likely future president to be very offensive.

                            But I have taken it quietly so far.

                            What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                            by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:17:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No excoriation for criticism. (0+ / 0-)

                            I have only criticized people for withholding support.

                            Peace.

                            "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." --Dwight Eisenhower

                            by Dragon5616 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:39:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  I'm sure McCain is a constitutional scholar (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dragon5616

                So lets just do everything we can to see Obama defeated.

                Eyes on the Prize People

                by jstipich on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:12:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  False causation (0+ / 0-)

                  that a person who reveres the Constitution would prefer McCain over Obama.

                  This has the ring of a talking point.

                  A very poorly conceived one.

                  What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

                  by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:15:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  this is exactly the problem with the group (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              askew, GN1927, Dragon5616

              a lot of them are not real democrats or Obama supporters. I have a feeling that this may end up becoming another PUMA group if they end up being disappointed again by his vote.

              Another take is the fact that it is too late for him to change his mind now on this. If he does so, he risks a major flip-flop backlash. I don't understand how he is now expected to act on this. Somebody already diaried how he can't spedn his time filibustering the bill while McCain runs around the country. Why can't we elect him first with a majority democratic congress and then pressure him and thecongress to give us a new bill. That for me would be a smarter move. This one, not so much and there is a lot of risk involved as well with little to gain.

      •  I think we need to elect our candidate first (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, GN1927, fezzik, Sun dog, Dragon5616
        •  I think preserving his electability (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          frandor55

          by preserving his credibility as a defender of the interests of the people is what we need to do first.

          Opposing telecom immunity is great politics.

          Most Democrats do so, plenty of Independents do so, some Pubs do so.

          In three special elections, all three Dem candidates won on an anti-war, anti-amnesty program.

          In deep Red districts.

          Granted, two of the three flipped on the second FISA vote... not real happy about that... but it did not hurt them when running for office.

          Surely, the country at large is less conservative than Mississippi, Lousiana, and Dennis Hastert's former district.

          Surely, the country at large is less impressed with granting private companies the right to commit crimes and receive get out of jail free cards at the pleasure of the presidents than such conservative districts.

          And they weren't impressed with such a proposal at all.

          What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

          by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You got a lot of nerve, you know that? (0+ / 0-)

      I volunteer locally. And if the Obama website is only for certain types of supporters then you're way off track.

  •  I figured out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55

    that this will be the largest group on mybo in about two days!  probably less!  Yes!

    "What Romney is saying is that he loves America so much that America doesn't deserve a Romney presidency" Jon Stewart

    by DClark4129 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:42:04 PM PDT

  •  And what will happen... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pesto, GN1927, Sun dog, Dragon5616

    What will happen when Barack doesn't vote no? What's the opposition going to do then?  Not campaign for him, donate to him, vote for him?

    Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. ~Voltaire

    by Parisienne Dreams on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:42:59 PM PDT

    •  Those options are certainly on the table (0+ / 0-)

      and should be.

      But so long as Obama is incrementally superior to John McCain, one supposes he will continue to get money and votes.

      What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

      by cskendrick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There you go again, McJoan with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, frandor55

    that Brandeis comment.  Keep up the great work.

    Although I had given BO money, I had not joined any of the groups.  Have now!

  •  12,194 As Of 3:43 ET (0+ / 0-)

    ......update 12,198 as of 3:44 ET.........

    Well I've been from Tucson to Tucumcari... Tehachapi to Tonopah--Lowell George/Little Feat

    by frandor55 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:45:40 PM PDT

    •  How many are trolls? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, goObama, GN1927, Dragon5616

      Why not ask everyone who becomes a member of that group on MyBO to make a contribution to the Obama campaign to show that they are, indeed, supporters communicating their position and not operatives of "operation chaos." Anyone who won't contribute should be removed. If that were the case, I would even consider joining. Otherwise, I see it as damaging to the chances of our nominee and will not participate.

      "The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time." - Terry Tempest Williams

      by your neighbor on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i love watching the numbers go up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55

    it's almost as fun as the draft gore petition drive from last year.  that seems so long ago . . .

  •  Here's help for anyone wanting to do research. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jawboneblues

    I linked and, when possible, explained or quoted, the references to other laws.  I made it from page 64 to the end.  I you're trying to read the bill, you can use this as a companion to streamline your work.
    http://www.docudharma.com/...

    The constitutional crisis was over two years ago. It's been full-scale erosion since then.

    by geomoo on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:48:04 PM PDT

  •  OK, let's say (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Pesto, GN1927

    the group ends up 25,000 members or 50,000. Are these all active Obama supporters who will network for him, volunteer for him, GOTV for him, donate to him?

    Or is this just some progressive bloggers who find it easy to click a mouse button on a screen? Do you think the Obama campaign knows the difference?

    What happens to this group if Obama votes for the FISA bill anyway?

    "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." --Dwight Eisenhower

    by Dragon5616 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:50:16 PM PDT

  •  Explain (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, GN1927, Dragon5616

    Proving that you can both support a candidate and hold him or her accountable

    This proves something?  There is a real self-congratulatory tone about all of this that seems very telling.

    This suggests some things, I don't think anything has been proven.  

    It suggests that a lot of people are quite convinced that Obama is going to win or already has.  

    But if he makes an effort at stripping immunity, fails and votes 'yay' on the bill, what will have been proven?  Will he then be 'held accountable?'  How?  Will we make him win by less?  Will we make him lose?  

    If he does get rid of the immunity or manages to derail the bill, what is proven then?  That he wouldn't have done it without the influence of this group?  God knows you all will take credit for it.  Is that really a good thing during the election?  Doesn't that take a good thing that he's done and just make him look like you've got him by the hair?  That seems to be what a lot of people want to feel but that would make him look weak to the rest of the country before he's won the election.  But of course, he's going to win no matter what, apparently.  

    Those are some of the scenarios I see.  What is it that proponents of this action see happening?  How exactly has this proven anything?  

    Being angry that the captain isn't doing enough to stop the sharks is no good reason to harpoon the lifeboat.

    by Sun dog on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:50:27 PM PDT

  •  WSJ (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous

    Small article in the Wall Street Journal today too. On page A-4 of the print edition.

    WSJ, may be sub required.

    The unprecedented online network that has driven Barack Obama's fund-raising and organizing success may be a double-edged presence in the campaign, as his support for a domestic-spying bill has spawned a challenge from his Internet-savvy liberal base -- on his own campaign Web site.

    Sen. Obama's site allows supporters to rally online communities around their common geography, demographics and interests. Groups include "Barack the Youth Vote," "NC Barbershops for Change," and "Oakland A's Fans for Obama." But one suddenly popular group on the site is calling out the candidate for backing legislation that would let telecommunications companies shed the nearly 40 lawsuits they face after allegedly cooperating with the Bush administration's warrantless-surveillance program.

    ...

    Membership in the online group grew tenfold over the weekend and boasted more than 9,000 members by Tuesday.

  •  Self-indulgent (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, jg82567, Sun dog, Dragon5616

    I'm in the minority in that I see little to no value in commandeering the resources of a site which has one purpose: electing Obama for president.  

    So should everyone with a policy disagreement set up a boutique blog on Obama's site, go all over the internet asking people to join, and then use the "power" of the size of the group to demand specific policy positions?

    I guess we're not in election season.  We're in preening and posturing season.  Self-indulgence.

  •  There are sure a lot of people who really don't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur

    like the idea of this group.

    Why?

    If you're for Obama and his views, and think he won't do anything we'd like, what's your problem? So he ignores us and goes on his merry way.

    Or you're pissed at Obama and are convinced that it won't work? Fine. Come up with something better.

    My antenna are telling me that the biggest objectors are trying to discourage us by saying it won't work because they are actually afraid that it will.

    Follow the money. It's getting away.

    by bablhous on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM PDT

    •  No, I'm not afraid that it will. I'm not afraid (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927

      at all. I just feel sorry that you guys actually think that the number of people who are signing up are/were really Obama supporters. I'm beginning to think that you care more about your fifteen minutes of fame rather than anything else. Sad but true.

    •  Why ? Because we have work to do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, GN1927

      and this is getting in the way.  How much canvassing, voter registration, and phone calling have you done to avoid another 2000 or 2004 election ?

      Eyes on the Prize People

      by jstipich on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:16:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is our membership in a group getting in your (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybersaur

        way?

        This is illogical.

        I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I'm not a Republican.

        Follow the money. It's getting away.

        by bablhous on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:35:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is getting in the way because the media (0+ / 0-)

          focus is on this instead of Obama's policies. Its not illogical. Anything that doesn't promote Obama for President is counter-productive.  Its illogical to fight Obama when he is not even the President yet.  Every member of that group should be canvassing, phone banking, and registering voters for Obama. Hitting a button and joining a group is easy.

          Eyes on the Prize People

          by jstipich on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:56:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why do you assume that they are not doing just (0+ / 0-)

            as you require - canvassing, phone banking, registering?

            You have no data to support your assumption.

            Therefore, your argument is illogical and your assumption is unfounded.

            Follow the money. It's getting away.

            by bablhous on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  OK, let's take (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, krwlngwthyou

      your two propositions.

      One, what else can one do? I sent an email to the Obama campaign (as well as my Congress critters--and made phone calls) expressing my displeasure over his FISA position.

      Two, suppose he caves to this pressure. What is the headline in the MSM?  "Obama captive of the far left" "Obama flip-flops on FISA (nice alliteration, huh?)" "Obama opposes spying on terrorists"

      You're right. I am afraid of it succeeding even though I oppose FISA.

      "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." --Dwight Eisenhower

      by Dragon5616 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's my idea... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dragon5616

      from above:

      Why not ask everyone who becomes a member of that group on MyBO to make a contribution to the Obama campaign to show that they are, indeed, supporters communicating their position and not operatives of "operation chaos." Anyone who won't contribute should be removed. If that were the case, I would even consider joining. Otherwise, I see it as damaging to the chances of our nominee and will not participate.

      "The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time." - Terry Tempest Williams

      by your neighbor on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, I don't have to present my credentials to (0+ / 0-)

        anyone. I don't have to sign a loyalty oath or pay a tithe in order to participate in this democracy.

        Can you imagine the headlines in the NYT announcing that Obama requires membership fees from supporters to prove that they are worthy enough to to support him in the Democratic effort?

        Change we can believe in - 50 cents here, $1,50 there.

        The mind boggles.

        Follow the money. It's getting away.

        by bablhous on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:41:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because there's no focus (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Dragon5616

      And there seems to be no plan beyond "Obama, dance!"

      Does this group articulate HOW they think Obama joining a filibuster would defeat FISA if there are the votes for cloture?  Is that even on the radar?

      Or is it about calling up the NYT and feeding them the type of story they love: Dems too divided to get anything done; can't even host their presidential campaign website without a big internecine ruckus.

      Just, why?

      Any policy position changes or nonchanges would have happened with or without this group.

      •  Well, then we're just another ineffectual group (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927

        that will dissipate under our own self-important weight...

        or not.

        It doesn't work - you're prescient and wise and people will come from miles away to touch your shadow.

        It does work - and we prove again that we are still a functioning democracy - not quite a kingdom yet.

        Seems like a win-win to me.

        Follow the money. It's getting away.

        by bablhous on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How can you even measure what worked or not? (0+ / 0-)

          I see people who say they're focused on the legislation, yet is there a cloture vote count?  Is there an equivalent level of energy being directed at all 50 senators?

          I see little but, "do this to show us you'll listen."  What type of activism is that?  We'll find out what happens next week next week.  You won't be able to claim definitively that you had any effect at all.

          •  Precisely. Neither one of us can prove what did (0+ / 0-)

            or didn't work. What will or won't work.

            So we are left to do that which we, individually, think is best.

            I wish you peace but I will continue on my path.

            Good luck to you on yours.

            Follow the money. It's getting away.

            by bablhous on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:52:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Totally agree... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dragon5616

    Barack promised change, not stupidity. Barack is a brilliant person. He knows the constitution and he knows what he is doing. Barack hasn't made it this far in his life nor in politics by being a dumbass.

    Barack may be the Democratic nominee, but he is not running the show. He is still just a junior senator, who by himself, can't stop FISA. I think it's great that people want their voices to be heard and want to hold him 'accountable', but you also have to learn when to pick your battles.

    In movements there are setbacks and rewards. If you don't have what it takes to take the good with the bad then simply bow out now and don't bother supporting Barack. None of us will truly get what we want out of life, however, I know that my life would be better served by an Obama Presidency, than a McCain one. So, whatever Barack decides to do on FISA, I will support him 150%. My support for him has never wavered and it never will.

    So, for those who want their voices heard on this particular issue, I'm all for it, but what will be the next sweetheart deal that Barack 'breaks' that will put your support in doubt for him? Too many of these temper tantrums will hurt his chances come November.

    Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. ~Voltaire

    by Parisienne Dreams on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:11:31 PM PDT

  •  I dont think Obama should change his current FISA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jg82567, Dragon5616

    If he does , that will be seen as double flip-flop.

    Not that i agree with his current position since the FISA stuff is kind of blurry for me , but he will get murdered by the media if he flips again...It's best that he stays where he is.

    People who are upset about his current stance are more likely to be liberals..Voters who will most likely not vote for McCain....Obama current stance is to protect him from being called a dove.

    What he's doing is to take some attack ads off the table...Obama will lose vote based on patriotism and the muslim smears , so he's just dont want to lose any more vote.

    He knows that while it's not a given , the folks that are currently angry will most likely vote for him.....

    The only way he flips is if polls starts showing that the majority are against FISA...Right now , only the liberal blogosphere are angry about his current stance

  •  What does "fully support" mean? (5+ / 0-)

    "It also shows that you can fully support Barack Obama and still disagree with him on issues."

    Apparently, to those like Kos, "fully supporting Obama" means NOT fully supporting Obama, unless Obama agrees with Kos on all the issues. When that happens, Kos will "reward" Obama for his "good behavior."

    The fact is, the more public pressure is placed on Obama by a group such as yours, the harder it is for him to do whatever it is you want, because if he DOES what you want, he'll just look like he's caving in to left wingers. That's fine in January. Not so good during a campaign for someone you "fully support."

    I like you McJoan and I admire your sincerity, but you are misjudging your fellow travelers. Most of these FISA chest-thumpers are nihilists bent on bringing Obama down.

    Aside from that, the FISA bill is so trivial in the scheme of things. It's no higher than 6th or 8th on the list of Bush's assault on Americans' rights and values. It sunsets in 2012. It's just not a big enough deal to derail this campaign over.

  •  I joined the groupl,... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ravenwind

    ..delayed my planned Monday donation and told the campaign specifically why I did so, AND even changed my much beloved sig to another one of MLK's truths.

    "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight

    by bewert on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:17:43 PM PDT

  •  Walk and chew gum at the same time? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dragon5616

    Sure, but those two actions involve different parts of the body. Working for a nominee's election requires the same parts of our being as working to correct a past mistake or prevent an event from occuring. So we have to set priorities.

    We'd like our nominee to fight hard on every issue we're concerned with, especially when we've been betrayed so often in the past. But sometimes it's better to look forward, focusing one's energy on creating a better future, than on trying to correct the mistakes of the past... especially when we're trying to win a somewhat important election in November.

  •  No one yet answered what this group will DO (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, GN1927, Dragon5616, krwlngwthyou

    Will this group canvass, phone bank or register voters ?

    Eyes on the Prize People

    by jstipich on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM PDT

  •  Just Remember Sen Obama... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arcparser, ravenwind, cybersaur

    The original FISA program was put in place after the Church Commission investigations.

    Where they uncovered the illegal wiretapping by the FBI and CIA of American citizens... among them:

    Martin Luther King Jr.

    The congress was so appalled that they created the FISA program.

    Here you are, ready to legalize and codify those very same illegalities and violations of the constitution, under the very same lame ass excuse Nixon/Hoover/Bush Sr gave... it was for National Security.

    You stand ready to vote to affirm the actions of Tricky Dick and legalize the very offenses the American People found abhorant in 1976.

    HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

  •  Why does he keep doing these things (0+ / 0-)

    that piss of the left, his base, which helped to secure him the nomination?  

    Don't make me write in Kucinich!

    There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour. Fredrick Douglas

    by angry liberaltarian on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:42:55 PM PDT

  •  Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    szilard

    The amusing thing is that this is the REAL Obama. He has not really made a secret of his conservative Democratic leanings, nor has his legislative history told anything but the same story. Regardless of his speech in 02 he has voted to support the Iraq war on every dam vote he's participated in in the Senate. He's for the 2nd amendment as defined by the fascist court, he's for executing a child rapist and therefore by definition is for the death penalty, he's for unconstitutional spying on American citizens and believes that illegal acts by the telecoms is just fine and dandy, he's against real universal health care, he's for obliterating apparently even further than Bush the divide between church and state(regardless of any pronouncements that he respects such a separation, and if the media reports are to be given credence we can fully expect him to begin backing off withdrawal of troops from Iraq as the surge has been a success(of course the argument for troops remaining in Iraq are if there's too much violence and if there's little to no violence each is the reason to continue-CATCH 22).
    All you Obama cultists who thought he represented NEW POLITICS have been living in a fantasy world. He's just another opportunistic politician who's more interested in winning and getting power than any kind of principles. I wasn't for him originally, I wavered after Clinton withdrew but now I will refuse to vote for this "blue dog" Democrat whose campaign has managed to sully(along with all you blind supporters) as racist a number of really good people from Ferraro to the ex-President! And I would guess that this precipitous move to the right will encourage all those young voters who entered the political process with Obama stars in their eyes to flock to the polls in November-yeah and I got a bridge for sale.

    •  Conservative Democrat? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inkan1969

      I'm sure some are supporting this effort with great intentions, but what's actually happening is far from it. Like the poster above, some are just using this to refuse to vote Dem in November and the MSM, as pointed out several times is using it to frame a meme of weakening support in the Democratic party.

      Not healthy folks.

      If we lose in November folks, it won't be because McCain beat us, it'll be because we beat ourselves trying to be perfect.

      No one's pointing out that CRIMINAL PROSECUTION is still on the table with the current bill.

      •  Refusing to Vote (0+ / 0-)

        What I said schmuck is I won't vote for Obama! I will vote for Udall and other local Democrats. And if Obama loses then you can blame it on DLC triangulation strategies. But congress will be Democratic and they can stop anything they want, including right wing supreme court nominees. But they won't just like they didn't with Roberts or Alito. You can hand out the bullshit all you want, but the imperial we applies to all those that vote for evil even if it's the lesser and refuse to take up the nitty gritty task of changing the party to one that actually is "progressive". Which you obviously don't believe in. Either one has a real set of normative values or not. If ones "values" are infinitely mutable, in the name of supporting the "team" regardless of what the team represents, then you are no different than the super patriots who support America regardless of what criminal murdering acts it performs. Go read the dam FISA bill. They can only be prosecuted under a finding that in a million years won't occur. So basically you are a liar also, or just stupid.

  •  What difference does it make? (0+ / 0-)

    I just have no idea why people are complaining about Obama's position on FISA, when YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY. Your voices are powerless because you've put yourself in a situation where you have ZERO leverage. Your opinions are the ones he cares LEAST about.

  •  Obama and Democracy (0+ / 0-)

    As the interminable circus marches on towards its ultimate and merciful conclusion on November 4, 2008, pundits peer through their electronic microscopes seeking any activities that they can report as significant events in a miasma of irrelevant factoids masquerading as real issues.   The latest charade involves Obama’s lurch to the centre to dupe the moderate conservative voters into believing that he really wasn’t the liberal pansy who defeated Clinton for the nomination but a born-again McCain who can swing a club as well as the next caveman.  Part of that lurch is Obama’s change in position on FISA.  The implications in his new position are very serious in that he is now beginning to spit on the constitution to garner votes.

    All of this posturing is part of a larger game in which the two major candidates blather on about the message of the hour, day, or week depending on the political needs of a particular constituency.  The point is not whether they are contradicting themselves or changing opinions but the fact that the positions they take at any time during the campaign are entirely irrelevant. In fact, they only adopt positions that will maximize their vote-getting potential.
    http://www.stateofdarkness.com

  •  This is great news and insightful (0+ / 0-)

    Don't be a lemming.

  •  If you could get the evangelicals to.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...start a similar Obama group disagreeing with him as needed, then you might pull in their votes.

  •  If his judgement is so great, then why does (0+ / 0-)

    the grassroots have to organize to convince the former editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review to uphold the Constitution ..... Sorry folks, some candidate needs at least a trip to the eye doctor, to improve "the vision thing" .....

  •  The most important thing... (0+ / 0-)

    The most important thing you've overlooked Joan is that Obama himself has facilitated we of the grassroots to confront him when we disagree with him.

    That's been the basis of his candidacy all along and is most certainly a new kind of politic.

    What other candidate of either party would even think about doing things the way Obama has and why on earth would anyone in the grassroots NOT wholeheartedly welcome and support this new, if imperfect, politic?

  •  Criminal Prosecutions and FISA (0+ / 0-)

    The FISA Bill as written does not preclude criminal prosecutions of the guilty parties, only civil suits.  Please read up on this.  Obama may very well be using this as his ace card, criminal charges against all involved.

  •  280 more to become the LARGEST MyBO group! (0+ / 0-)

    It is now the largest self-organized group on Obama's website, topping networks that were launched over a year ago.

    Notice the qualifier:  "self-organized"

    Now instead of 8900, the member ship stands at 13,162.  This is only 280 away from the largets MyBO group, "ActionWire," period.  ActionWire was orgainzed by the Obama HQ to counter rumors and smears.  It has 13,442 members.

    "Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right" will be the largest group on MyBO within hours.

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -FDR

    by Jeff in CA on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:29:36 PM PDT

  •  Obama supporters... (0+ / 0-)

     It already looks as if Sen. Obama has indeed "caved"; but not to the netroots...
    What so many "supporters" of Sen. Obama fail to grasp is that any damage this brouhaha causes to his election chances can be laid at the feet of the Senator himself. No one forced him to promise in August 2007 that, if immunity remained in the FISA Bill, he would actively support a filibuster. But he did. And he, apparently, was quite happy to take the support people offered him for taking that stand. All we are trying to do is hold him to his word.
    Those of his supporters who try to justify such a reversal as "pragmatism" (after all, it's only his word and the Constitution we're talking about here), a "move to the center" (even when 65-70% of the public favor ommitting immunity?), or "the MSM will crucify him if he doesn't" (and how will the MSM describe his present stand on FISA? How about "using the nation's security to pander for votes"?), are just showing that they place the election of a man above the laws the of country - I thought that was what Republicans did.
    The vote hasn't been taken on FISA yet and I'm still hopeful that Sen. Obama will vote no; if he doesn't, I can't honestly say what I will do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site