We have enough heroes.

There’s a little bit of difference between talking tough to AIPAC or Cuban exiles and passing a law allowing illegal spying and immunizing not just the telecom cos. but the whole admin from their crimes. I’m only glad it wasn’t a torture bill that was up as the candidates would probably be calling for even more cruel torture techniques. The main reason to elect a Democrat is to stop this abuse of power. But this is more of an indication of how Obama will "lead" than any speech he could make.

Except for the implication that Senator Obama was lying to AIPAC with Mr. Rosenberg's encouragement, which duplicity I don't think occurred and fervently hope didn't, on this particular post I actually think Mr. Rosenberg makes sense. Most voters do not give a damn that terrorists--as they see them-- are spied on without a warrant, and that companies which did what the President of the Uniited States asked them to do are not forced to pay multi-million dollar damages for doiing just that.

You people who think otherwise are just fucking dumb.

I warned that the Obamamaniacs would be unhappy when they found out that he was an actual politician, but I've changed my mind about how to address this.

There is a time and place for idealism, even unrealistic idealism, and this is the time. Those who are hoping for real change don't just have to settle for the best of the worst, they can pressure the candidates and incumbents into adopting more progressive stances. This can be any combination of blogging, monetary support, lobbying officeholders and punditry.

Pols respond to pressure, especially from an activist electorate. Try it you might like the results.

Obama winning is not a slam dunk and while there is little chance of real supporters going for McCain there is a chance that a lack of contributions could affect the outcome. Even a short term dip in contributions could make him rethink his positions on issues.

And, unlike the elections, you can "vote" multiple times as long as your total contributions are within the statutory limits.

I'm still not got at this 30 pieces of silver stuff. If the Constitution is a dime, what's a quarter?

MJ I am disappointed in you.

You ought to be more honest about this FISA issue and Obama. Your analogy with McGovern and "purity" is just dead wrong and you know it (and if you don't know it you should). That isn't what is at stake here. The choice isn't between being pure and winning. It is between undermining the Constitution or defending it. Every member of Congress supporting this FISA bill is violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution including and perhaps especially Senator Obama.

The reason, MJ, that this election is so important you may recall is because we have had a criminal tyrant ruling the nation since 2001 and a lilly-livered Congress that has enabled his misrule throughout regardless of which party is in control. The FISA law is illegal and unconstitutional. It is in no way a "compromise". It is a plain and disgraceful capitulation by the Democrats just as we have seen them capitulate on every important issue regarding civil liberty, torture, the war, funding the war, and so on.

Obama was made the nominee in large part because he promised voters he was different and he would work hard to change Washington. This surrender without even fighting on FISA is the worst kind of Washington bullshit and Obama has not only gone along, but he has shamefacedly bent over, grabbed his ankles and smiled while taking it and is telling us all that it's okay, it feels better than it would have otherwise because we call it a compromise instead of a gang bang. It is sickening and it won't do one iota of good toward electing him in November: quite the contrary.

This law that Obama is asking us to believe is a compromise undermines and circumvents the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It isn't just another compromise along the way it is an attack on the Constitution itself. This law, if finallly enacted will allow serious crimes to go unpunished, it will serve as an encouragement to unethical future Presidents and corporate execs to violate the law of the land and disregard the Consitution and it will permit the government to spy illegally on American citizens with impunity.

So clearly, in no way is your analogy with McGovern at all apt MJ. This isn't a question of purity at all. This is a question of patriotism and whether or not we have a nominee for President who has the courage of his convictions. If he follows through on this capitulation, it demonstrates quite clearly that Obama is nothing more than another office seeker willling to do or say anything he thinks will advance his electoral chances, but completley unwilling to defend any principle or position that might mean the mean old right wingers could criticize him. So why be a Democrat at all if that's going to be the approach? He could avoid lots of the bullshit coming his way this fall had he simply run as a Republican! Then at least he wouldn't have to lie to the public in an attempt to convince them that an complete and utter defeat for the Constitution and the position he has previously held on the issue is the best deal we cold get and that we have won greater protections in the future. Nobody who is at all informed believes nonsense like that.

During the past seven years our nation has been pushed, cajoled, frightened and coerced closer and closer to a police state by a would be fascist in the White House and this FISA bill is a large step in the wrong direction, another seriously damaging law that undermines our republic. This is serious business--not just politics. The man who is now the leader of our party is giving his approval to this trampling of the Constitution and the enabling of executive crimes--high crimes. And he is doing this for the worst, most craven political reasons because ostensibly this cave-in will prevent him from being criticized from the right on terrorism, etc... Bah! What a load of doubletalking bullshit that is!

This is precisely the same idiotic logic that led to the war in Iraq MJ. To a tee! It's the logic that Hillary and John Kerry and many other Democrats who knew better thought was the smart strategy to prevent Republican attacks on them back in 2002. Even though some like Hillary will not publicly admit it, they regret that stupid move. They will regret this one too if they commit the same error once again for all the same bad reasons. That is the logic that most likely cost Hillary the nomination and propelled Obama to the top of the heat. It did so because Obama said he wouldnt fall for that crap then and he wouldn't in the future, but we can see that is utterly false now.

You know how foolish a strategy this is, but now it's okay cause Obama's your guy and you'll make any excuse no matter how bad his decision or position? I honestly didn't think you were willing to provide cover for him no matter what but you have obviousy proven me wrong. You are no different on this than Mr. Hundt who would devise excuses for Obama no matter how absurd or ridiculous or indefensible his position might be on any matter. On this issue you, like Hundt, are being a shameless and unprincipled apologist for wrongdoing and the enabling of wrongdoing. You need to rethink this.

Far from protecting himself, Obama's cooperation with evil on the FISA bill weakens him as a candidate in November because it clearly shows him to be a coward and someone just like the rest of the fraidy cat Democrats of Washington: he doesn't have the courage of what he claims are his convictions. It is because of this that the Republicans are filled with glee you now. They understand that every time the pussy Democrats fold it breathes new life into their electoal prospects. When the going gets tough... Obama folds just as fast a the chief Senate chicken Harry Reid and Nancy "the Appeaser" of the House Pelosi.

Obama's actions on the FISA bill are not shrewd political manuevering or practical or street smart, and they most certainly are not politically necessary: they are cowardly capitulation and the actions of an old fashioned yellow belly. You nor anyone else as smart as you are, should try and excuse this indefensible betrayal of the Constitution and the people who put their faith in Obama. If he maintains his cowardly position on FISA it will put the lie to all his rhetoric about "change you can believe in." It only adds insult to injury to see someone like you defend this lame, weak, disgraceful dodging of responsibility.

If Obama is unwilling to stand up and defend the Constitution on this issue MJ, is there anything he will defend? How can someone with so little conviction end the war in Iraq? How can someone so willing to fold before even one shot has been fired have the balls and fortitude to get anything done on global warming or healthcare? And if you think there is any issue Obama would find worthy enough for him to actually stick by and defend, what would that issue be MJ? I'm all ears.

McGovern never had a chance in 72 and we all knew it from day one. McGovern didn't ever lead in any polls in 72 vs Nixon as Obama routinely does today against McCain who is an old man, a known hypocrite and flip-flopper. McGovern's loss had little to do with his positions on anything because the entire Democratic Party was tarred and feathered in advance by the Republicn dirty tricks operation and Nison was at the height of his popularity.

Today Obama runs not against a popular incumbent, but against a weak nominee when the Republican Party is almost universally despised by the elecorate and Bush is the most unpopular President in history! How in any way cold Obama's capitulation be anything like McGovern in 1972? The very notion is absurd MJ. You should be ashamed for even offering that thin veil of an excuse. I'm deeply disapponted in your decision to defend the indefensible.

The only President I've voted for who showed any admirable character in office and out was Jimmy Carter. As my sister-in-law just commented to me tonight, "He was the real deal."

I personally don't believe that Obama will be anything but "not terrible." He won't rescue us in the way that we so desperately need. He doesn't have what it takes.

But his election is important because by being "not terrible" he gives us enough of a chance to find the collective 'nads to elect a real leader in 8 years.

Hey, it could happen.

Thanks.

mp

Is it just me, or is "Lamont Williams" only another name for "kozmik" ?? And doesn't the most famous reference for name Lamont Williams, which IIRC goes to the 30's radio play _The Shadow_, give it away?

That's a side issue. To the main fight, I will concede to kozmik that there is support in our corrupt Congress for a worse bill. However, my emotions and study of history support Destor in wishing that, yes, the people will rise up and NOISILY SUPPORT an Obama-Dodd-Biden filibuster (not clear to me that Clinton would join) even if it did get crushed 65-32, allowing the Hoyer-Rockefeller bill with its very limited gains (does it really at least say that FISA warrants are the ONLY AVENUE for any further surveillance nonsense??)

Even if it did get crushed, it would focus attention on those 18 D. senators who voted against it, and we'd know who to take on in future primaries. And the message of the resistance is that NO, things are not set in stone, the Blue Dogs are not so clear in their treason that they would "revolt" against a succussful filibuster -- if the filibuster WERE TO BE SUCCESSFUL, THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE GOTTEN INVOLVED in pressuring those sell-out D. senators like Inouye of HI into changing their votes from supporting telecom immunity to supporting the filibuster against it.

Reality is malleable, reality is plastic. The fight belongs to the brave. That's why it is so disappointing to see Obama backing off, and our usually reliable MJ endorsing the cynical "say whatever it takes to win, baby." Obama is the only one who really can "damage his brand."

There's a difference between believing and having to believe. Believing is the way of the average person. You fool yourself into thinking that you can assess a situation accurately and in its entirety, and that your assessment is wholly (or mostly) valid. Then you react to the world around you according to what you believe is your part in it. It's a complete fantasy, but you've fooled yourself into thinking that you're being completely rational in choosing your actions. Having to believe is the warrior's way. A warrior doesn't really believe in anything, because s/he knows that nothing can really be known. Given that reality, a warrior carefully assesses the situation, considers all the known facts and possible outcomes, and then acts according to his or her innermost predilection. The important point is that a warrior acts as if he or she believes passionately, all the while knowing that what he or she believes was a choice, and not a reality.

Kozmik, Lamont Williams, and libgirl are perfect examples of the weak, defeatist Democrats who have led the party into obscurity over the past few decades. Afraid to lead, unable to articulate strong, principled positions in a compelling way, shaking in fear of FOX news and Rush Limbaugh, they accept the proposition that Republican postions are inevitably the popular positions and that the American people cannot be convinced otherwise. Because of this, they are quick to give up the fight and instead adopt a cowardly, spineless approach of capitulation, shrieking "me too" to everything the Republicans propose. By doing this they advance the Republicans' cause, make the Republicans look strong, help convince the American people that the Republicans must be right, and make the Democrats look weak, irrelevant, and confused.

Obama looked like he might be a different kind of Democrat and people flocked to him. Now, I'm afraid he's starting to adopt the usual Democratic approach which compromises all principles in a desperate attempt to be liked. But that approach never works, because people see right through it, and no one likes a spineless coward groveling for affection.

Here's the truth: most Americans have no idea what FISA is or what this bill is about. Most have tuned President Bush out a long time ago, so whatever he says has little weight. McCain isn't paid much more attention. The telecomm companies aren't particularly popular. No one likes the idea of the government snooping on their phone calls. And terrorism just isn't the top-of-mind issue it was a few years ago. So there's plenty of opportunity to reposition this bill in the minds of Americans as an unnecessary expansion of government power and a sell-out to big corporations that may have committed crimes. If the Democrats had some backbone and some pluck, that's exactly what they would be doing. Leading public opinion rather than trying desperately to follow it after the Republicans lead it. But apparently a lot of Democratic voters are as weak as their leaders and would prefer to be safe and irrelevant than take a risk and maybe change history. If the Democrats are that spineless, who needs them? May as well vote McCain. It won't make much difference either way, because everyone seems to agree that the Republicans are what America wants--and no Democrat has the balls to try to offer a real alternative.

"He should say Whatever it takes."

This is exactly the problem with shallow liberalism. It has little interest in presenting its views to the American people.

1) There is nothing that Obama seems to gain from supporting this destruction of the constitution. The American public is not particularly fond of the bush administration nor are they fond of big businesses these days.

Nothing says he gains from supporting this--at least not among the average voter(who likely knows nothing of this).

2)Your tacit endorsement--which suggest you may not understand the basic issues of the I/P conflict--o his statement of an undivided Jerusalem is pathetic. It seems your years working for jewish organizations has rendered you unable to understand that Obama's statement was outrageous. No palestinian endorses Obama's statement. None. The word "undivided Jerusalem" was not an empty talking point. It was a powerful dog whistle to Israel, endorsing the annexation of Jerusalem for an undivided Israel.

This is precisely among the biggest issues for Palestinians. Israel cannot annex east Jerusalem and it is to remain the capital of the future Palestinian state.

I implore you to find Palestinians that support "an undivided Jersualem." Until then, never again say that such statements are not a big deal. If words are not a big deal, then I support Palestine annexing Tel Aviv. Just as long as we can say whatever we want.

I will vote for Obama and keep my fingers crossed. He may be the lesser of two evils but that's better than getting the worser of two evils.

I don't like Obama's position on the FISA thing and it makes you wonder what is going on.

I am actually for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. It's the other parts of the bill that are bad. What would you do if the government came to you after the 9/11 attack and asked you to help them catch the terrorists? Get real. Sure it was a scam, but they didn't know that then. Yes, I know they are the dirty-dog fascist corporations, but in this specific instance, I think the only thing they can be accused of is trusting, blind patriotism.

Carter was a decent man who was the victim of a back-lash Republican rage against Democrats for outing one of their own, "Tricky Dick" Nixon. Carter must be a great man if the Zionists hate him.

Guys, I have followed this FISA debate as a shadow warrior for a while and still don't understand why people are so intent on tearing down the democratic nominee. Just doesn't make any sense unless some people on these threads are just here to sow seeds of confusion.

The FISA legislation does concern all of us, no-one on these threads (I don't think) wants a unilateral disarmament of the 4th amendment. The point though is that we have to pick our battles. For goodness sakes, we have a war in Iraq, an economy weighed down with debt, crappy healthcare, a major dustup brewing with Iran... one could go on ad infinitum.

What we need is to get the Republicans out of office in the loudest possible way. Hopefully, if it's a landslide we can get them to re-examine their policies and begin to correct the most egregious of the Dubya policies. There is no reason to believe Obama will not, at the least, go in the same directions as the Clintons (Worst case) hopefully without some of the notable scandals.

People, can we democrats unite?? The bickering can wait till after Obama becomes Prez.

Sorry Crin,

I didn't have your post in mind at all when I wrote the above. Rather, it was the entire thread that provided the motivation.

K

There is never going to be any serious pressure on Obama from the left, and Obama knows it.

Not only will he say and do whatever he thinks is necessary to get elected, he'll continue tacking to the right once in office. Quickly enacting some crappy "bipartisan" legislation is the best way for him to keep getting the favorable media coverage a guy with his wafer-thin resume needs.

He can't afford to pick any fights, and he won't.

You know what I think? I think all these little gremlins running around screaming about FISA have no real clue what it's about - they just were looking for something to complain about with regard to Obama. Half of them were Clinton trolls.

And now they get to claim they are "real liberals" and no one else is and it's very annoying.

And very stupid.

Hillary NEVER pretended to be something she is not. Obama has done it all along. So you are totally wrong about Hillary. Now all of a sudden the scales are falling from your eyes about Obama. Well too late blueball. That's the only choice you have. Hillary is an honest person and does not pretend to be the "savior". So please don't ever equate Hillary with Obama.

Madison believed that we should have separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and local. There was a fascinating moment during the congressional debate over what became the First Amendment. How could the beloved First Amendment be harmful to religion? Huntington feared that it would overturn or interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have state-supported religion.
Chat | Chat

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v manager, iscsi target freenas