Stop Nickel and Diming Obama: He Should say Whatever It Takes
I am so not upset by Obama's endorsement of the FISA "compromise." Nor was I upset by what he said to AIPAC, to Miami Cubans or whatever.
I want him to win not to go down in a blaze of glory like my all-time favorite Democratic nominee, George McGovern.
Back then I needed my nominee to be simon-pure and McGovern was. He also won 17 electoral votes.
In the years since, I have supported every Democratic party Presidential nominee and I have not regretted any statements any might have made that won them votes, only the ones that cost them votes. There have been three Democratic nominees in my time who said things that caused me to wince and think "sellout." They were Carter, Clinton, and Gore -- the same three who went on to win the election.
On Election Day, I was glad each had done what he had to do. (In the case of Gore, I wish he had done a little more).
No election in my time has been as remotely significant as this. I don't have to explain why to any liberal or progressive except to say that Obama's election is, literally, a matter of life and death for many Americans, not to mention God knows how many people worldwide.
Accordingly, it is silly to get bent out of shape when he says something he may or may not believe in order to win, or not yo be successfully swift-boated or race-baited. That is precisely what I want him to do, just as I wanted him to opt out of public financing.
I'm not saying we can't criticize. But we need to maintain perspective.
That means always remembering who and what the alternative to Obama is (this would have applied to a Democratic ticket led by any of our primary season candidates). Let Obama say what he wants to right through the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. I assume he has his fingers crossed behind his back anyway. You know, just like FDR when he promised to balance the budget or Lincoln when he said that he did not oppose slavery itself, just its extension.
In 2008, Vince Lombardi's mantra is more apt than ever. "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." That and getting America off its suicidal course.
Hey, I'm with you... nobody should threaten not to vote for Obama over the FISA fiasco. But, nobody should let him off the hook either. As you say, this election is a matter of life and death. It's also a matter of restoring the rights that we've lost to the Bush Administration. Obama has blundered badly and he needs to be made aware of it.
Obama should have been a hero on FISA. At the very worst I thought he'd either quietly vote against the bill or miss the vote. But to actually vote for it? That's lame, MJ. Really lame.
June 21, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, when did Obama start voting in the House of Representatives?
Destor-
You should suggest what scenario you would prefer. I'd like to hear that.
You've already suggested you'd like Pelosi to block this, against bipartisan support, till August when it sunsets, and then to next year. That's not at all realistic. The House would revolt and the fallout would be tremendous for Dems in November.
So really, what *viable* scenario would you suggest?
I don't think you have one.
I think you just like playing at being outraged and provoking people to knee jerk reactions rather than intelligent action.
June 21, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi everyone, please meet my troll Kozmik. It asks me to provide information which I've already provided and he disagrees just, I guess, to be disagreeable.
Be nice to him, please. It's a cute troll.
June 21, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Where have you provided it?
Again, feel free to post a third option other than these below. It should be easy for you, Destor, to post the solution, right here.
Some commonly agreed facts:
Bush has a veto, Bludogs and Republicans support this bill or something worse, and the status quo is worse than the present FISA bill.
Our choices are:
1) Maintain the status quo which is unfettered surveillance, while delaying or otherwise waiting for Republicans and Bluedogs to pass this bill or something worse. Perhaps with Pelosi blocking it for a short term, thereby handing Republicans a political majority and victory in a public battle. There is no way she could block this all the way till Jan 2009, and the longer she blocked it the more Bluedogs would be angered and likly pass something even worse.
2) Take the best compromise and improvement we can get can get now, and then amend it later with a larger majority, after November, with Obama in the WH and with a larger and more progressive majority in Congress.
There's no 3rd option where bellyaching and tantrums makes everything good, changes the power differential, removes Bush's veto, or makes the Bluedogs vanish. The options are take this now, or take something worse very soon.
June 21, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
that is completely FALSE.
the status quo is reverting to the ORIGINAL FISA bill before all the 'protect america act' monkeying.
you have no idea what you are talking about.
June 22, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
:rolleyes: Try and keep up. That's already covered under option #1.
Because: That's not till August. When the filibuster failed, which would be soon, we'd get an even worse bill.
June 23, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure defending the Fourth Amendment is all that unpopular. The problem with Democrats is they now live in terror of the talking heads on FOX news. But the country is moving in a different direction and all of a sudden Keith Olbermann is more popular than Bill O'Reilly. Maybe it's time for the Democrats to stop shaking in their boots and stand up for something. The people are ready to hear a new tune...and personally, I think defending the Fourth Amendment will sound oh so sweet to the vast majority of Americans.
Only people who hate America want to destroy our Bill of Rights. Hannity and Limbaugh and Bush hate America. Let's hope Obama and Pelosi don't hate it too.
June 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. We want to elect Obama in order to bring change but we should also take advantage of the changes that are happening around us.
The FISA compromise is simply the politics of old where we disenfranchise individuals to serve the interests of the elites in government. Yes, if this were 2004 or even 2006, it'd be necessary but the national mood has changed, attitudes have changed and our options have changed.
Obama's reaction to the FISA compromise represents, to use another old term, "a failure of imagination."
June 21, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
More slogans and rhetoric, but still waiting on that scenario for a viable solution, Destor claims to have.
Come on Destor. Where is it?
Since you claim to have one, it seems you could settle this quickly by posting it.
June 21, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put aside slogans and rhetoric.
What solution would you suggest? Do you have a viable scenario that produces a better result?
If so, I'd sincerely like to hear it. As as a general matter, I think people complaining about the present compromise should suggest a better scenario.
But so far, I don't see anyone suggesting one that isn't just wishful thinking.
June 21, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
please explain how doing NOTHING isn't a viable option.
June 22, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Extend the current bill until next year. If Bush vetoes it, point out that this proves that his issue is really protecting the telecom companies, not the American people.
BTW, the present bill is not a "compromise". Republicans are already bragging that it gives them more than they hoped to get.
June 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear purple state! Well put!
June 21, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I don't agree with you that most Americans want Obama to stand up for the Fourth Amendment. I know that we do, right here in our little echo chamber. But I have the unfortunate pleasure of coming into contact with many people who believe you only need the Fourth Amendment if you're guilty of something, and just don't care because they don't foresee a scenario where they will need its protection. Granted, these people are ignorant fools, but they also vote and have, over the last 8 years, become complacent. They also continue to live in varying degrees of fear about terrorism. Obama talks about change from the bottom up, but I believe we need change from the top down. Will Obama transform this country single-handedly? Probably not. But NOTHING will change if he isn't elected. If he isn't elected, we will have no hope. None. There is more at stake here than sinister immunity for Telecoms. That is one thing I am willing (gulp!) to live with if that's what it takes to get him elected. And here is where I agree with MJ: He does need to support this to get elected. Voting no will be his kiss of death. I believe that wholeheartedly. We all know the terror moms decided the election of 2004,and that they picked George Bush. They are still out there, dumb as ever, and we need their votes. End of story.
June 21, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the political benefit? He’s already voted no on basically the same bill. If McCain is going to hit him with this as a security issue (which would probably come back to hurt McCain), he’ll hit him for flip-flopping in a matter of months. Obama has hurt his campaign more with changing positions (NAFTA, campaign finance, etc.) than with some vague tough on terror bs that scares no one anymore.
June 21, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you may be missing the point. Obama has not "blundered". He did this on purpose, and he's probably not terribly concerned that you don't like what he said. He said precisely what he needed to say in order to win the election. And he's betting that you're savvy enough to understand that what he's doing is called politics, and that you'll cut him some slack until after the election. Perhaps he's wrong about you. So be it. I want him to win this election, so I'm supporting whatever he says whether I agree with it or not.
As M.J. accurately pointed out, politicians who stick to principled positions during an election season may appear heroic, but they do NOT win elections. I'm sure M.J. remembers the Carter campaign. When Jimmy Carter said that he would invite George Wallace to speak at the statehouse, I about lost it. How could he do that? Well, after he won the election, I understood how he could do that. It's about winning the election. And yes, it's about winning by any means necessary. Get used to being disappointed. But don't get so worked up about it, or by November you're going to be a complete mess.
June 22, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need more blogs of your own, bunnycat. You say important shit in new and interesting ways. :O)
June 22, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He said precisely what he needed to say in order to win the election."
not buying it.
i just don't see obama losing the election by saying: "NO SWEETHEART DEALS for telecomm giants. congress should not interfere with the judiciary doing the job they OUGHT to do. i will not vote for any bill that quashes LEGITIMATE lawsuits brought by citizens concerned about their constitutional rights."
June 22, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you may be missing the point. Obama has not "blundered". He did this on purpose
Nobody blunders on purpose you silly bunny. The fact that what he did he did on purpose and what he did on purpose is a blunder, does NOT imply that he blundered on purpose. That's logic for you Obama Bunny.
The one enduring quality of the obamanoids is their total lack of a common grasp of logic.
Now I will vote for Obama. I do think he has blundered (once again), but no I’m not an Obamanoid. An Obamanoid has absolutely no sense of objectivity about Obama. Like Rosenberg. If Rosenberg finds any fault with Obama he has not mentioned it to my knowledge. What happened to objectivity? We don’t need to shill each other at the café. We are mature enough to tell it like we see it. We are—thankfully—not running a campaign here but discussing issues as objectively as we can.
June 22, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are simply blowing hot air out your ass. You don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. It's nice to think you're smart as you obviously do. It is better to actually know something.
June 23, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
TalkLeft on this post by Rosenberg - Hypocrite
Click Here
June 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have enough heroes.
June 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a world where my telecom company can break privacy laws that are decades old in the service of a government violating the 4th Amendment and they both get away with it without penalty and with the support of my party's leader, we absolutely do not have enough heroes.
June 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but we also don't have any good alternative but to trust in the judgment of our nominee. I, for one, trust that he didn't take this step lightly, and has good reason for making the decision he did. This decision did nothing to change my view of Obama as the only hope for this nations survival as we know it.
June 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't accept reasoning that I haven't been made privy to. I can't just assume that he knows what he's doing. If he has a plan, he needs to reveal it. It's hard to take him at his words and come to a pleasant conclusion.
June 21, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
You should suggest what scenario you would prefer. I'd like to hear that.
You've already suggested you'd like Pelosi to block this, against bipartisan support, till August when it sunsets, and then to next year. That's not at all realistic. The House would revolt and the fallout would be tremendous for Dems in November.
So really, what *viable* scenario would you suggest?
I don't think you have one.
I think you just like playing at being outraged and provoking people to knee jerk reactions rather than intelligent action.
June 21, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey everyone...
Kozmic is just my personal troll.
Given that I've already had a post on the most recommended list that said what I wanted to see happen (and I wrote it and posted it before Obama made his decision) there's no reason for anyone to think that I haven't answered this.
Given that the Kazmonaut is just my troll, I won't feed him anymore by responding directly to his requests for information which I've already given.
In the future I'll either reply to Kozmic's posts that he is simply my troll or will ignore them.
June 21, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Where is this solution you claim to have? Funny how you claim to have one, and yet you don't repost it or link to it.
Has anyone looked at it or endorsed it? could we get anyone at TPMC to do so? Perhaps Josh, one of the other bloggers, maybe Holt, to endorse your solution? Someone other than your pals?
Afterall, if it's as great as you claim, it seems that should be easy, and progressive bloggers should be cross posting it everywhere. "Destor has the solution!!" they'd say.
Sure.
June 21, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, because anonymous poster Destor23 has said he/she won't accept Barack's tactics unless he/she is fully apprised of the plan ahead of time or at the the moment of execution of said plan, Barack needs to fully reveal all of his secret strategies on his way to the White House?
That is the solution to you? Making public all of Barack's strategies and plans to win the White House from an evil coup that has basically been operating unimpeded for the last 40 years or so because a couple of bloggers can't see the forest for the trees?
Forgive me if I join Koz and LibGirl and MJ and hrebendorf and all the rest in the reality-based, pragmatic America.
As soon as we elect Obama, then we're going to go all Progressive Warrior on Barack. Until that happy day arrives, he can tell me he prefer to kill kittens as a way to ease the national debt and I would have to accept it with a cringe.
See how hyperbole and being unreasnable doesn't really do all that much to extend the debate.
June 22, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have the feeling we won't need to. He's still the same guy. Like M.J. said, he's got his fingers crossed behind his back.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879613-1,00.html
History is an excellent teacher:
June 22, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor's argument seems to be against this sort of blind acceptance of anything and everything obama does:
"we (also) don't have any good alternative but to trust in the judgment of our nominee."
we might have to live with his judgment, doesn't mean we have to trust it.
but more than that we still need to separate his political judgment from his POLICY judgment.
June 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, have you ever played chess? Football? You always reveal your strategy to your opponents, right? Yeah. Riiiggght...
June 22, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bunnycat. Your faith is admirable. Trouble is, what happens after Obama?
I have to think about my kid. {sigh}
BTW, one of my cats, (that would normally be ROTFL) just had 4 kittens yesterday, (I have her spaying in 10 weeks prepaid--believe me. My kid brought her home pregnant and I kept 2 of her last litter. Oil caught me off guard this winter. I tried to keep her in, but my 16-year old pegged her perfectly when she changed her name from Jasmine to Jezabel )
:(
Poor dear little cat. She's hurting. Hardly wants me out of her sight. Go figure.
Want a cute grey/white kitty? There's one tortoise shell colored one, too. Looking for good homes. I think you have one.
June 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Trust me" is a terrible basis upon which to govern, particularly when we know how bad the results of believing in that kind of thing are.
June 21, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's a perfectly valid premise on which to campaign. You're mixed up. Obama is not president yet. And if he doesn't campaign well he never will be.
June 22, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done.
June 22, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink