Skip to main content

We have exited the honeymoon, even before any actual coitus has taken place. Well, other than that sneaking adventure into our rectum the Congress offered us yesterday — which, I guess, wasn't actually that sneaky, preceded by any number of obvious signals by hamfisted, Hoyer-regimented collaborationist jagoffs in recent months of their intentions to punch a whole in the Constitution and pump us right through it like randy Hasidim. Okay, look, fuck the analogies, the Senate in approving the FISA "compromise" ushered us into a realm of non-law yesterday, creating a selective bubble where the Constitution of the United States does not apply.

Normal people, of course, workaday citizens, you and I, cannot enter therein; nope, it is a velvet roped club, reserved for wealthy criminals, who have bought their way out of criminality.  And those vested with looking out for the rest of us are working the fucking door, including our ostensible last best candidate for the presidency.  

This obviously has and will be weighed more thoughtfully and exhaustively elsewhere, but, that said, there is not enough outrage to be expressed, not with every foul, razor-sharp, laser-focused string of words I might direct at the co-opted heaps of inveigling, besuited bloatum who acceded to the bill, not with flaming bags of shit or Molotov cocktails left at their campaign offices. What these people have done, with all their fancy titles and badges and pledges under their belts to preserve, defend and protect that constitution, has been to, in fact, subvert the latter, to render it inert. Long the loneliest voice in defense of The Rest of Us and rule of law that makes us Us, Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold, the man who goddamn well should be The Candidate right now, minced no words about it. "This is a terrible piece of legislation," he said. "It’s one of the greatest assaults on the Constitution I think in the history of our country. We are going to have to fix it, but it is a dark hour for the Constitution."

The bill not only provides super-citizen status to giant corporations who wittingly broke the law on orders from a criminal administration to spy on U.S. citizens. It effectively, in a stroke, ends lawsuits against them, assuring there will be no reckoning nor even means to legally scrutinize their actions. It goes further to give the Imperial Presidency, whomever occupies that single seat, sweeping powers to wiretap citizens without the court-issued warrant that, in a civil society, might assure there are grounds to supersede Fourth Amendment protections, without which, the Fourth Amendment ceases to be applicable.

Senator Obama — whom I have supported since John Edwards bowed out, who explicitly vowed to support a filibuster of any bill that included telecom immunity and who, too obviously now, fucking lied — qualified this as "compromise," speaking for the phalanx of triangulating right-wing enablers in his party. It has yet to be explained to me to any measure of logic how any reasonable trade-off is involved in giving someone proven wrong countless times everything they want to continue doing wrong things. Maybe I missed that rhetoric class. Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald has eviscerated these defenseless defenses with persistent and meticulous precision over at Salon, and I encourage you to devour as much of it as you can in a sitting. If you prefer a more digestible audio format, Greenwald effectively dismembered a former Clinton administration flunkie and current collaboration apologist on WNYC here.

Greenwald and others have ravaged the inevitable Vichy Dem rationalization that, with Obama all-too-conspicuously taking the same position as McCain, this "compromise" takes "national security" zealotry off the table in the coming election. To sum up as pithily as possible: most American citizens don't agree with them, as salient polling has long shown. Whatever tactical calculation was involved in Obama's decision — and not only that but his abject lack of principled leadership on this issue — it seems either rooted in a profound misreading of the principles of the American people and their ongoing leftward shift, not to mention of the proper functioning of American jurisprudence, or it represents a complete disavowal of the notion of equal protection under the law. There is no "art of the possible" here, just artless, ball-less concession to the Gonzalesque notion of the social compact as a "quaint" anachronism to be sneered at by men of great power.    

Greenwald cut to the quick in his July 3 column: "A typical line in Barack Obama's stump speech throughout the primary season was that 'the era of Scooter Libby justice . . . will finally be over.' But this new FISA bill — and the immunity it bequeaths — is the very essence of 'Lewis Libby justice': ensuring that our highest political officials and other well-connected elites can break our laws with total impunity."

This is not, as Obama has stated, simply a matter of where a radical left faction, myself and much of the netroots who got him to this point, might have a reasonable difference opinion on a single issue. It has to do with whether this nation or any other can long endure by denuding the core laws that make it a nation. This is not a quibble on church crackhead recovery programs, this is where you draw a fucking line in the sand, and you stand, ready to throw if it comes to it. That's what some of us do anyways. The ACLU will challenge the new law in the courts. You can lend your name to its opening salvo, a print campaign calling out the collaborators, by signing on over at FireDogLake.

Originally posted to redsmear1 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM 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

  •  I have had it up to here (17+ / 0-)

    with these sort of diaries.  How the fuck could Obama filibuster it when he had ZERO support from any other dems?

    http://politicz.wordpress.com/

    by GlowNZ on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:38:20 AM PDT

    •  He could vote against cloture (8+ / 0-)

      Oh, wait, he did.

      It's a people-powered movement of individuals. So just say it yourself and stop calling on Obama to be your puppet.

      by Inland on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:39:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  try again (5+ / 0-)

        votes for cloture: 72 ayes - Alexander, Allard, Baucus, Bayh, Barasso, Bennett, Biden, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burr, Carper, Casey, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Conrad, Corker, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, Domenici, Dole, Dorgan, Ensign, Enzi, Feinstein, Graham, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchinson, Inhofe, Innouye, Isakson, Johnson, Kohl, Kyl, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Lugar, Martinez, McCaskill, McConnell, Mikulski, Murkowski, Nelsen (NB), Nelson (FL), Obama, Pryor, Roberts, Rockefeller, Salazar, Sessions, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Sununu, Thune, Vitter, Voinavich, Warner, Webb, Whitehouse, Wicker

        he also voted to pass

        y'all are entitled to your opinion on the matter, but not your facts.

        •  Ah, okay. (0+ / 0-)

          I guess that's another failure of purity.  Pile them up one on top of another and you still have nothing.

          It's a people-powered movement of individuals. So just say it yourself and stop calling on Obama to be your puppet.

          by Inland on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:13:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  purity? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            limpidglass

            this is an interesting talking point.  just because federally elected republicans have abandoned the consitution doesn't make defending it an ideological issue.  most people I talk to (including the conservatives, half of which won't let me call them republicans anymore) are as up in arms about this as I am.

            my point is that saying he voted for cloture is misinformed at best and intentionally deceptive at worst, because that statement implies stronger Obama opposition to the FISA bill than what Obama has shown. I have no problem with people debating the importance of this as an issue, as much as it's disappointing, but there's no reason to misrepresent the actual facts of the vote - or to try and make them about "purity."

      •  and voted against immunity, like he said he would (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inland, limpidglass, soms

        ..oh yeah, he did that too.

        Why the hell didn't he storm the Senate floor with a sword in hand and start swinging?  That's what I want to know.  He should have thrown himself on it (Obama and no army) and made us all happy.

      •  There you go (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        limpidglass

        Making shit up again.

        He voted to strip immunity (failed) but he did vote for cloture... which prevented a filibuster.

        "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly"

        by Niniane on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:14:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  HRC supporters become the biggest purity trolls. (0+ / 0-)

          Except Obama's vote didn't prevent a filibuster.  

          Isn't it funny how HRC supporters now have suddenly become such obnoxious, intolerant advocates for purity?  

          It was just a few weeks ago that HRC was joining McCain in a gas tax holiday and conceding that he had the minimums for commander in chief and insisting that she take money from all lobbyists that would give her some and voting for the IWR without reading the intel.   Ah, good times.

          It's a people-powered movement of individuals. So just say it yourself and stop calling on Obama to be your puppet.

          by Inland on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A vote for cloture (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            redsmear1

            is a vote to end debate.

            I finally understand why you seem so obtuse... you really just don't understand this whole process, do you?

            It must be frustrating to be so in the dark... now I know why you are so bitter.
            Tragic... another life wasted by ignorance.

            Everytime you bring up HRC  the rest of us realize just how warped and bitter you are, even now.

            HRC isn't in the race any more... Obama has to stand on his own, not just as a counterpoint to her.
            He seems to be doing ok, maybe you should try to follow his example.

            Your tired "HRC supporters this" and HRC supporters that" is no longer cute, no longer funny, and no longer acceptable. Your overused, under thought cliche rhetoric just shows how little you have to offer to the cause.

            Get with the program, ot get the hell out of our way. We have a President to elect and a country to save.
            The bitterness of the last few months is not conducive to that process. Move the fuck on.

            "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly"

            by Niniane on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:22:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It didn't end the debate. (0+ / 0-)

              It was a single vote.  It wasn't close.

              But he didn't make the move that, although doing nothing, would signal PURITY.

              Funny how the HRC supporters turned into the biggest purity trolls.  That's your idea of "moving on".  You've simply rid yourself of any need to defend HRC while you attack Obama.  So don't lecture me on how best to support Obama, not while you denigrate his character and stir shit.  

              It's a people-powered movement of individuals. So just say it yourself and stop calling on Obama to be your puppet.

              by Inland on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:26:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not attacking Obama at all (0+ / 0-)

                Just some of his supposed supporters(?) that are detrimental to his campaign, and to the Progressive brand.

                I'm cool with Obama, it's just the more heinous  of his minions that are the problem.

                "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly"

                by Niniane on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 06:27:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Well weeks before the vote (6+ / 0-)

      he could've--wait, what's that word, again.....................led

      •  yes and so could have the rest of the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueyedace2, david mizner, soms

        democrats.... you can single obama out.  I am blaming the whole pack of them.

        http://politicz.wordpress.com/

        by GlowNZ on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:45:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, Instead of Campaign (7+ / 0-)

        Because, you know, this one fight which he would have lost anyway is more important than the entire presidency.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:49:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  a poor excuse to abandon principle (4+ / 0-)

          honesttly, I suppose the most damaging aspect (as keeps being mentioned and with which I tend to agree), is that this makes Obama seem like less of a reformer and more like any other politician.

          which he was all along, of course, but it's the perception here that matters.

          how do we know, in fact, that Obama had nothing to do with the bill coming up in the house?  this is a problem I have had difficulty reconciling, and perhaps you or someone else could help me (sincerely).  who, exactly, was driving the bus and who was being drug along underneath it?  did the house leadership bend to Obama's desire to remove FISA as a campaign issue, or did Obama tack to the center to protect house dems who saw little hope (although they seemed to be doing fine to me, what do I really know?) of stopping the discharge position?

          •  Who Needs Priorities (4+ / 0-)

            Controlling the entire executive branch and replacing members of the Supreme court, that should be abandoned because of one bill.  

            Principle is incompatible, you must believe, with priorities, and there's no hierarchy of needs, goals or principles.  

            And you know, it's more important to fight a losing battle than be in a position to nominate replacements for Justices Stevens or Ginzburg.  Because what might they or their replacements have to do with the constitution.

            Everything is easy, and everything is black and white.  Thanks for reminding me.

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:06:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't disagree with anything you said - (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joe shikspack, nokkonwud, carllaw

              merely the premise that we need abandon pressuring or criticizing our nominated candidate on some vague notion that it might endanger his chances of winning.

              moreover, you offer a false choice:

              it's more important to fight a losing battle than be in a position to nominate replacements for Justices Stevens or Ginzburg.

              nothing at all indicates that he could not have fought this "losing battle" (and maybe won it; who knows since no one tried) and still win the presidency to nominate replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens.

          •  Actually, it's a perfect excuse (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All

            What's the point of having 49 other Democratic Senators if they can't walk and chew gum without Obama showing them how?

            They have a job to do and Obama has a job to do. His job is campaigning, which involves basically ignoring Senatorial duties. There is a reason why people running for office miss so many votes. They have a bigger job to do. As for the people actually in Congress, not running for President? Their job is to mind the store while the candidate is away.

            So who screwed this up again? Obama should have stopped campaigning so he could go hold the hands of people who collectively have hundreds more years of Congressional experience?

        •  DHinMI (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Karma for All

          Do you think my response to all such diaries is good??
          I posted it late last night and serves as a response to every such diary.

          Why we keep on keepin' on

        •  Keeping your word is worth a day off the trail (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Night Owl, joe shikspack, carllaw

          and it's clearly something Obama didn't do here.  When he obtained Dodd's endorsement 4 mos ago, Obama said:

          We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.  

          The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law.    

          When crunch time came this week, Obama didn't "stand w/ Dodd."  He essentially ran from Dodd, Feingold, and Leahy, 3 of the best the Dems have to offer in the Senate.  While it's not a dealbreaker for any of us here, it makes us revisit a lot of the assumptions we had about the candidate and his candidacy.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Obama: "I'm putting my campaign on hold" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DHinMI, Karma for All, TheMagicJew, soms

        So I can lead the FISA fight and ride this Titanic to the bottom.

        What is the point of winning the White House if the Constitution is destroyed when I get there? So as of today I will be visiting the swing states most affected by unwarranted wire tapping. I will also visit districts with vulnerable Democrats and undermine them by playing up their opposition to telecom immunity, which I've always said is my number one priority. Together, we will lose this fight, but all the resources I blow fighting it will convince the American people I share their priorities."

        Or not.

        I take a different view. The job of the nominee is to run for President and campaign. The job of the rest of the Party is to help him or her win. Congress can find its own leaders. We have 49 other Senators who are not running for President, and they can take the time to work on legislation. Somehow the awesome firepower of Clinton, Schumer, Dodd, Feingold, Boxer, et al. wasn't enough to sway the rest of the Dems. But if Big Daddy Obama weighed in, it would be a different story? I seriously doubt it. And bitching at Obama for 'doing nothing' suggests you and many others believe otherwise. I think the stark reality of the votes is being missed here. They weren't there, and weren't going to be changed.

        But if this was the definitive battle of our time, then simply trying and failing wouldn't be good enough, right? Obama couldn't voice an opposition and then simply vote with the losing side. That's symbolic crap. The Constitution is in tatters. IT MUST NOT PASS.

        Somehow, though, now that it did, it's apparently OK that other people tried and failed to keep it from happening. Feingold? Dodd? They're still cool. But Obama? He alone needed to act differently.

        I call bull. Let's stop with the magical realism.

        •  The definitive battle for my time= getting out of (0+ / 0-)

          Iraq and undoing Bush's insane foreign policy.  I've had to be really, really patient about it, too.  But it's in sight now.  I'm sorry that others see FISA as the deal-breaker, I know what that feels like.  I had to swallow the Iraq war vote to support Kerry after Dean lost, and that wasn't easy.  But it's time to move past this now.  

    •  Dodd and Feingold (4+ / 0-)

      also had "zero support from other Dems" and they filibustered it.

      And they don't have a huge group of voters behind them. You know, the supposedly passionate, supposedly gigantic popular movement that was supposedly fed up with the way business is done in this country, that won Obama the nomination.

      Leaders do the hard thing when the chips are down. They are willing to risk much for the sake of their principles. Leaders lead.

      Why the fuck else would you bother to elect them then?

  •  Godwin's law? (11+ / 0-)

    Do vichy references apply?

    LOOK IT! I WROTE A COMMENT ON BIG ORANGE SEXY TIME!!!!

    by Mark Warner is God on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:38:43 AM PDT

  •  You're mixing your metaphors. (9+ / 0-)

    And that's about the only sense I made out of your diary.

    It's a people-powered movement of individuals. So just say it yourself and stop calling on Obama to be your puppet.

    by Inland on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:38:45 AM PDT

  •  It seems to have cost (5+ / 0-)

    him:

    .� Not surprising is the drop in intense positives among liberals, liberal Democrats and white young voters, as we can see in the graph below.� More worrisome is the broader drop in intense responses on key attributes –“on your side” (describes “very well” dropped from 27 to 21 percent), “strong leader” (dropped from 31 to 26 percent), and “will bring the right kind of change” (dropped from 28 to 24 percent).� Overall, only 51 percent say Obama is “on your side” (down 4 points) and only 52 percent say he will “will bring the right kind of change” (unchanged).� Obama seems to have lost some definition in this transition, and he has only just begun to articulate the change in ways that engage voters.

    But maybe the upside outweighs the down. I doubt it, though.

  •  All I have to say is this (8+ / 0-)

    Cookie Monster FAIL!

    "Polls are like crack, political activists know they're bad for them but they read them anyways."-Unknown

    by skywaker9 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM PDT

  •  If you've never had it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zenbowl, soms

    VICHYsoisse is delicious.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM PDT

  •  My response to you here. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zenbowl, foonk, Karma for All

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    By the way...Is there a template for these diaries??

    Reference to some obscure hyperbole. Check(vichy democrats here)
    Reference to excerpts of a known Obama critic who criticizes Obama all the time and not the other dems. Check.
    General disillusionment metaphors. Check.

    Still crying over spilt milk. Check.

    Anyway vent all you want. But also read my diary for a long justified response to your missive.

  •  Nice Rant. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    redsmear1

    I don't agree with all of it... but it was quite passionate.

    While I think Obama could have/ should have done more regarding the immunity provision, he did the politically expeditious thing and voted the security side of an issue that was destined to pass anyway. He could have voted no, but at the risk of appearing weak on security... and he could have led the charge, twisting arms and filibustering... but that would just have made him look inneffectual when the resistance  eventually failed.

    No, he did the politically astute thing here, probably had his position and Sen. Clinton's been reversed, their votes would have been as well.

    I get it. I understand completely.
    And I am still disappointed as hell.

    The ACLU is shooting blanks on this, you are wasting your time. As long as BushCo is in the WH, nothing will happen on this.

    Remember, the Supremes dance to his tune too.

    "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly"

    by Niniane on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:50:42 AM PDT

  •  My response (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bawbie, anotherCt Dem, soms

    Read Gail Collins's column today in the NYT, which explains the essence of the Obama candidacy.

    •  Collins thinks that his NAFTA flip-flop was great (0+ / 0-)

      in today's column

      Dumb-avoidance would include his opposing the gas-tax holiday, <bold>backtracking on the anti-Nafta pandering he did during the primary</bold> and acknowledging that if one is planning to go all the way to Iraq to talk to the generals, one should actually pay attention to what the generals say.

      Given how most of us feel about NAFTA here, I wouldn't rely to heavily upon her as an authority.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:17:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh boy, another Godwin diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zenbowl, Karma for All, soms

    informing us of the existence of Glenn Greenwald.

    Well gee whiz, thanks for the tip!

    Have you ever voted for a Democratic nominee? Yes? Then you've voted for one more conservative than Obama.

    by Stroszek on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:52:00 AM PDT

  •  Man, that Obama, he's all up in his Vichy self (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stroszek, soms

    doing the Roman thing at that nightclub.  Wait a minute, WTF does any of this mean?  Oh yeah, Obama sucks again.  Wouldn't it be sucky to have a sucky guy like Obama in the WH?  How can we possibly support such a crap candidate.

    Was it good for you?

  •  the 1st paragraph (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All, Demi Moaned, soms

    sounded like you got off while writing this shit. We know we know we have heard it a trillion times.Now clean yourself up go smoke a cigarette

  •  Corruption not 'moving to the center" (3+ / 0-)

    I can't say I love all your rhetorical flourishes-- to me they trivialize rather than deepen the expressions of distaste. That said, I share your outrage.

    One point of message discipline that I'd suggest is that we refuse to accept the frame 'moving to the center' for this action. The polling is clear, an overwhelming majority of the electorate opposes this measure.

    Some in Congress no doubt supported this out of conviction, but it seems to me that the balance of support (especially from the Democratic Leadership) was corrupt-- i.e., either an exchange for favors received or an attempt to prevent exposure.

    The support of the Leadership seems to have been decisive in putting an end to the nomination contest. And perhaps Obama has calculated that in return he needs to stand with the Leadership on this. I think it weakens his position terribly both for the election and for governance, and most importantly, is a waste of what is otherwise a golden opportunity for a progressive shift in public policy debate.

  •  they aren't running for president (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All, remingtonsteele, soms

    Leaders do the hard thing when the chips are down. They are willing to risk much for the sake of their principles. Leaders lead.

    GMAFB Those who stood on their principles LOST!
    You can't lead until you become the leader!

    •  Considering the hysteria of the past 3 weeks (0+ / 0-)

      in regard to Obama's stance on FISA, it seems he is rather a courageous leader in that he didn't buckle to this.  From what I've heard, there certainly wasn't tens of thousands of people out there begging him to vote for the bill.  I disagree with his choice, but I don't think it makes him look weak.  I also suspect, if he ever had an inkling of changing his mind, the hysteria surrounding this would have prevented him from doing so as he would have looked like he was caving to the "left" (if that's what most of these people are, though I have difficulty believing that).  The government has found ways of spying on its people whenever they've wanted to do so and they will continue to do so whether or not this FISA bill had passed.  If we don't want the government to spy on us we must elect leaders with enough integrity not to do so.  However, think of it this way.  If the government plans to monitor all of our emails, mail, and telephone calls overseas, as many here seem to think, they will soon have to shut down due to the tyranny of numbers, and we can have something entirely new.

  •  Is looking foolish your goal? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All, soms

    Baby, you are THERE. This has been done to death. And your attempts at uber-cool, sardonic writing is BOR-ING.

  •  Rec'd. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    redsmear1


    More importantly, understood.

    Oh, and very well said.

    p.s.

    No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.


    The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

    by two roads on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:04:37 PM PDT

    •  Pigs are fine animals, intelligent and clean, (0+ / 0-)

      and the way they are treated in this country and in popular metaphors is a disgrace.

      •  Tell it to Orwell... (0+ / 0-)


        ...who meant nothing less than his words be treated as metaphors.

        And the disgrace lies not in the use of the metaphor, but in those whose actions they describe.

        The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

        by two roads on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:46:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This may have won him a few votes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soms, redsmear1

    from the undecideds and the disenchanteds.
    It will cost him no votes from the faithful.
    We will all still pull the lever for Sen. Obama, holding our noses if necessary.

    But we will all still vote for him. Period.

    (Statistically speaking, of course. There are always the few way out on the fringe who won't just because of this... but then again, they wouldn't have made it to the polls anyway unless they wrapped tinfoil around their heads before leaving the house.)

    But there has been a cost.

    Passion.

    The cost of this shrewdly calculated political tactic is passion. The passion of even the most ardent of Obama's supporters is just a little bit less than it was a few days ago.

    Sure, they are still making up excuses, or trying to blame it on someone else, but the passion isn't quite what it once was.

    It's a shame too. The recent fall off in donations is due to exactly that lack of passion... not to any machinations of the Clinton camp, as some would desperately have you believe.

    The passion is gone... replaced in many with a sense of ownership, or investiture, or simply stubbornness that won't fade until after the election... but it will never be the same.

    About damn time too.

    Now that we can put the childish, wide-eyed, innocence behind us, maybe we can win the White House back.

    No delusions, no illusions... see things as they are, and maybe, just maybe... we can win against all the nastiness that the Rethugs will throw our way.
    Because it's coming folks... and now that we are all grown ups again, maybe we will be ready for it.

    "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly"

    by Niniane on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:06:42 PM PDT

  •  The netroots (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All

    ''got him to this point''?

    You love yourself a great deal.
    Iowa was what got Obama out of blocks with the momentum and lead.
    Some 200k voters in Iowa...how many netrooters were in that group...maybe 10% tops. he won over Edwards by at least 50k.

    Despite your inflated sense of your own greatness, the vast majority of voters for Obama are not spending hours on blogs talking about how important they are.

    •  yes, in fact. "the netroots" didn't support Obama (0+ / 0-)

      until he started winning. The rank and file were mostly Edwards supporters, like me, and the "name" bloggers weren't endorsing anybody, as IMO, they were resigned to a Clinton win and didn't want to back another loser.

  •  Lost me (0+ / 0-)

    You lost me by putting "rectum", "hamfisted" and "randy Hasidim" in the same sentence. Sorry. Maybe the rest of it is Pulitzer-worthy, but I have my doubts.

    The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

    by Korkenzieher on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:45:09 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site