« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Happy Now?
Let the games begin. Huffington Post isn't exactly the corporate media, but it is the jumping off point for on-line quirks to go mainstream. All you pissy progressives who would rather bite off your nose to spite your face, you can consider this a "victory" for your empty-headed cause and its Circular Firing Squad.
Now the Obama campaign has to spend time and resources explaining their reasoning on a complex bill with tons of moving parts in the middle of a fucking dog fight with the neocon cabal that took this country over 40 years ago because the "netroots" got their panties in a bunch over a non-issue. We also need to counter a whole new round of disinformation and propaganda across the media over a made-up dispute by misinformed citizens with a very narrow view of reality. All of this over a non-issue for most Americans.
Brilliant tactics.
Before you start flaming, FISA at this moment in time is a non-issue. It is a fucking side-bar at best to the war and economy and poverty and genocide and an imploding environment. To do nothing or to have the original FISA go back into action wasn't a viable solution. Using "tricks" to keep the legislation in committee would back-fire as well. What part of General Election don't you understand? What part of Every one's President don't you understand?
For every pissed off netroots weenie, Barack most likely impressed a dozen moderate republicans and independents who believe he just might be the guy to guide us through this transition. Also, God forbid, if a terrorist event might happen between now and the election, standing in the way of tools that could have prevented it would look pretty naive now wouldn't it?
A majority of Americans agree that we should use whatever means necessary to protect ourselves, even if it means snatching a couple of unrelated emails or phone calls. The numbers don't lie. Sixty percent of republicans, forty percent of democrats and half the independents things we need FISA legislation to keep us safe. They don't care about protecting companies from civil lawsuits if the executives themselves can be held accountable for criminal activity once proven in a court.
We are in a transition year. To gain a governing majority means we may have to compromise on things that make our assholes pucker. It's not pretty, it's politics. Once we take over, then we can begin to bring the center back to the left. But, and this is important kids so pay attention, we haven't won the election yet. We have no power to move the country to the left. You keep acting like spoiled children every time Barack does something tactical and strategic for the long-term health of our very important national project and he will never get a chance to disappoint you later.
What is so hard to understand about all this? Are we speaking a different language? Do you live in the same country I do? Do you have the same sorts of relatives I do? Do you live in fantasy world where all the "principled progressive s" play patty-cake and agree on every point? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by pissing off sixty percent of the republican party and half the independents in a year when we are trying to win a governing majority? Do you not understand that a most Americans don't agree with you? What is your major malfunction, Private Pile? Are we reaching?
I don't think I am the only one who wants to know the answer to those questions judging by the discourse around here over the last few days.
Comments (172)
Amen. I feel your anger, and echo it.
In an ideal world, would I love to see Obama oppose FISA? Sure. Are there other things I disagree with him about? Sure.
But I know Obama's not my personal public servant, and frankly, people need to be a little less self-centered and think about the bigger picture. No candidate is ever going to satisfy every want and need of his or her supporters. I think it's about time we all came to terms with that.
June 25, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Scientific. You're a voice of reason as usual and not just because you agree with me on this one.
If anyone bothered to read my blogs before calling me an appeaser or a stealth republican, they would see that I am to the left of Dennis Kucinich in how I would solve our problems. Make me king for a day and the progressive left would die of orgasm.
I'm not king, though, and Obama isn't the "anointed one" as so many would like to believe. He is a pragmatic and intelligent legislator who thinks we can do better by charting our course a little more wisely.
June 25, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I begin again by saying Obama has my vote.
As a Chicagoan I was an early adaptor to the Obama presidential campaign and I cannot think of a nationally known politician who I would rather seeas the next president. Still, I am not the first to note that Obama’s promise of Change and Hope for a more perfect Union has been largely generic.
His two major decisions last week left me disappointed. The “cave” on telecom immunity is the more serious of the two but his apparent reversal on his promise to use public financing for his campaign is also problematical.
There are sound arguments for the abandonment of public campaign financing but Obama has not made them clearly enough. He has allowed the Repuli-pundits to paint him as an opportunistic and shady politician, and in the absence of candor and clarity those of us who support him can only mumble our compromised acceptance. “Well, nobody’s perfect. Politics ain’t cornhole.”*
Some argue that it is critical that the Democrats win and that need justifies whatever maneuvers the campaign employs. Push comes to shove, I agree. But I also believe, perhaps naively, that [we] were and are winning. I believe (sports metaphor. sorry) Obama will win by throwing hard and fast right down the middle. Barack’s strength is in playing it straight and he’s going to get into trouble with curveballs and knucklers.
The telecom immunity clause in the FISA bill is far more troubling. The issue here transcends electoral politics and goes to the heart of the Constitution’s providence for sovereign individuality. I have been baffled all week as to why, as the tide of hope and change is rising, Obama decided to ignore one of the core components of the protection of rights in a free democracy and give de facto permission to conduct illegal spying.
Dems Who Flipped On FISA Immunity See More Telecom Cash
By Chris Frates
Jun 24, 2008
(The Politico) House Democrats who flipped their votes to support retroactive immunity for telecom companies in last week’s FISA bill took thousands of dollars more from phone companies than Democrats who consistently voted against legislation with an immunity provision, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4206495.shtml
The scales fall from my Obamacized eyes. It’s the money, stupid.
The core of Obama’s campaign, the real fuel, the reason he will win is his uncanny gift to move people to believe that there is good among us and change is possible. He has asked us to become the change that we wish to see.
Barack, back at ya. CHANGE.
We need to provide the campaign with the actual forms of change that we want to see. The campaign seems content to float an amorphous, warm ball of hope out above the crowd without distributing a single brass tack with which we might build the better America we want.
I have argued in these pages that Obama can already start leading, must start, and in doing that his election is assured. This is going to be a 60-40 election with a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate. Campaign politics as usual are unnecessary and in fact destructive of the movement. I think it was one Barack Obama who referred to the candidacy as a movement.
So here’s a start. Corporations cannot buy legislation. Check how your representative votes on FISA and if he or she is among the 94 Democrats who received money from the telecoms and then reversed their position on immunity, get busy in your district and throw their asses out. Throw them out along with the Republicans they are sleeping with. That would be CHANGE
*Here in Illinois it has long been said, “Politics ain’t beanbag”. A variation of “beanbag” has now become very popular in these parts at picnics and parties. The game consists of tossing beanbags into a small round hole cut into a plywood rectangle. This variation is called “Cornhole”. The etymology of the name is rarely discussed.
June 26, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prepare to be flamed, dude.
(Not by me, though).
I agree with you. I just saw the Post headline, and thought, great. Next we'll have the whispers in the MSM about how Obama seems to be losing his touch, etc, etc, etc.
Over what? A bill that is going to be passed, period. It's an unnecessary bill, and the Democrats were wusses for allowing this to get this far, but Obama isn't going to be able to stop it singlehandedly.
He'd just incur political wounds, and this would be hung around his neck like a noose.
He's not my saviour, and I don't think there's any one single issue that is a deal breaker for me. Bundles of issues, yes. One? No. The alternative we have, McCAin, is just an abomination.
June 25, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too true and I expect flames. Hell, I invite them. Let's see if we can figure out a way to get our more revolutionary minded to cool their jets until January 20, 2009. At that point, I'll be right there with them demanding change we can believe in. Right now, I want a victory I can believe in.
June 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm cynical enough at this point to just want a victory. "Believing" isn't necessary for me.
June 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of me is there, too. I'll revel in symbolism, hope, et. al. after Obama wins.
June 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha - I love it. Awesome response. Lord.
June 25, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flaming? Sounds like Jason who's doing the flaming.
June 25, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds good. You're obviously smart enough to ignore those stupid progressives who don't understand we're in a WAR! Against terrorists! Anything goes baby! We'll deal with all this meaningless constitutional crap when the "war on terror" is over, which will be very soon! Just get Obama in there! Then we can worry about the midterms. Then its onto 2012! Keep rocking!
June 25, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that the best you can do? Conflate my argument with anything goes?
I am advocating an understanding that it took us 230 years to get this fucked up. It is unreasonable to think one man can fix that in two terms as a popular president let alone as a junior senator from Illinois.
Further, whether you agree or not, a pretty sizable chunk of your fellow Americans disagree with you. They are scared by terrorists. Why wouldn't they be given the last 40 years? Shit, they started creating terrorists before the Soviet Union fell. The neocons knew they needed a new Enemy.
We need to keep our eye on the bigger picture. First we must elect Barack president and then we can provide him the pulpit and the public support to get some of this shit changed. Then it is reasonable to expect him to begin delivering on his campaign promises. Not before.
But at no time is it reasonable to pillory republicans or independents or 40 percent of democrats for having the shit scared out of them. With all their economic security gone, most Americans are happy with a couple meals a day, a roof over their head and cable television. They don't have Internet. They don't care what you think because they don't know what you know.
They only know what the tube tells them.
It's been that way for thirty years at least with regards to our education system being wrecked and the media being turned into a propaganda tool. Do you honestly think the system that we have allowed to be developed will be dismantled by a couple of bloggers in the netroots who can't recognize common sense when they see it?
I trust Barack has a plan to get us the progressive changes we need and convince moderate republicans and right-leaning independents that it was their own idea.
June 25, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my question is, why do you trust Obama? If he's all in favor of letting bygones be bygones with the telecoms, if he's talking about appeasing the Iraqi Government, if he's supporting the DINO Georgia candidate over the liberal one, if he opts out of public financing after agreeing to it earlier in his campaign, if he prevents people who appear Muslim from standing behind him at campaign events, then what is there left to trust? It's clear that the only reason you can trust him, after all of this, is that you perceive him to be acting expediently in order to gain an election advantage, but that you believe him to not "really" hold these positions if he is elected previously. The only problem is, it could also easily be the case that his hollow promises were the ones he made to liberals during the primaries.
I think you are probably right - the "conservative" stances that he is taking right now are calculated to increase his appeal to middle-of -the-road voters. In the end, this is what I find so disappointing. Either it's a sell-out of his integrity, or he's not the progressive I hoped he was. Either way, I'm not happy.
June 25, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called winning the election. Save your indignation for after he gets elected.
June 25, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a baby, he expresses his feelings openly.
Maybe you can teach him to be a grownup and keep your Democratic yearnings to yourself. As they said in Princess Bride, "Get used to disappointment". A valuable thing to teach an infant early.
June 26, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've gone completely overboard in your defense of Obama on this issue.
Your argument is, basically, "it's OK to support further evisceration of the 4th Amendment, because Obama will be a better president than McCain."
There are two flaws in your argument: one, was this capitulation absolutely politically necessary? I just don't see him losing the election over voting against this bill. On the other hand, he stands to lose a significant amount of enthusiasm and grassroots support by voting in favor.
Furthermore, the more often he breaks his promises to his erstwhile supporters, the more susceptible he is a charges of being a "flipflopper" and of having no core principles, which spells media doom for any Democrat. If he's merely playing politics with his vote, he has played this issue badly, IMO.
The second is more substantive. You seem to be arguing that further erosion of our civil liberties is inevitable, because a majority of Americans are OK with it. That, my friend, is the way to fascism.
Obama had a once in a generation opportunity to push back against the argument that we must give up our freedom to the goverment in order to enable it to keep us safe. He has failed, miserably.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that a McCain administration hamstrung by strong Democratic majorities will be approximately the same as an increasingly rightward-leaning Obama administration.
Barack Obama no longer has my support. He is not the candidate he claimed to be even two or three months ago ("Filibuster telecom immunity? Did I really say that?"). I will not reward his betrayal with my vote.
June 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your inability to see reason paints you as a neocon troll or a fool. Which is it?
June 26, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck off, asshole. Point out how I've misrepresented your position.
You're the fucking brownshirt all in favor of giving up your civil liberties in favor of electing someone you "trust" to be a better candidate than his opponent.
You've got nothing but this "trust" and your smearing of all of Obama's critics as "pissy" and "empty-headed" to support your constant bloviating on this issue, so don't lecture me on "reason."
You wouldn't know reason if it bit you in the ass.
June 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just critics like yourself who substitute bluster for rational thought.
June 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The non snark answer to your inaccurate portrayal of my points is this.
My argument isn't that is okay to eviscerate the 4th amendment, which this bill doesn't do despite your hysterical claims to the contrary. in fact, it doesn't do anything the 4th amendment that wasn't already done over and over since the damn thing was written.
There is at least one serious flaw in your argument, though I can probably find more: The netroots do not represent the majority of thought in this country. Period. There is no arguing that fact. The polls are very clear that at least half the country is in favor of limited 4th amendment violations to gather intelligence on possible terrorist activity.
Barack could most certainly lose if he comes down on the wrong side of this issue.
He has not broken any promises to me. I am a grown-up. I understand nuance. I understand political realities. I understand the general election campaign Barack must run to win in November. Forgive me for saying so, but there is nothing in your little tirade that makes me think you understand even the basic realities of Washington DC and the American people.
We are already a fascist nation. That ship sailed about 40 years ago. We are trying to take this country back, not keep it from sliding away. You don't smash fellow citizens in the face with their shame in oder to score points when the stakes are this high.
He is still in the process of fulfilling his chance to make a difference. What is so fucking hard to see about that? Are you so blinded by ideological lust that you can't see that this country has been through a seriously abusive relationship? That our fellow citizens that might need a little bit different of an approach than, "You kicked our ass for 40 years, you better get ready for as ass kicking like there's no tomorrow!"
I suspect you know all this and your all so righteous indignation is really a game you play for whatever reason.
June 26, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being as aware of the "political realities" as the next guy, I just don't see enough of a political downside to a "Nay" vote on the bill to warrant Obama's complicity in further erosion of our 4th Amendment rights. I wouldn't even necessarily hold him to his filibuster pledge. A simple no vote indicating that the bill did not have his support would have been sufficient.
The right is going to demagogue any position he takes on any issue, and Obama is the one saying he "doesn't do cower." Would you at least agree that this has "cower" written all over it?
June 27, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I wouldn't agree.
Barack has explained, more than once, that based on his classified briefings on national security, the amended FISA bill is a compromise he thinks is necessary. He believes that it provides the tools needed to keep America relatively safe.
Until he is in office and able to change the tone and posture of America in the world, there are some fairly well-financed and nasty motherfuckers who are trying to kill us. Presidential politics doesn't change that.
That is principled stance has political dividends in his race for the presidency is just a bonus as far as I am concerned. If we should suffer another attack, not beyond the realms of possibility given the neocon's penchant for fear, this one vote wins the election for him.
It shows a pragmatic understanding of the danger we face as we negotiate our way out of 40 years of horrible foreign policy. It shows exactly the type of judgment and complex thought that I want in a president. I can guarantee it shows the same thing for every republican or independent still on the fence and leaning our way.
I don't have to agree with every single decision Barack makes as either a candidate or a president, but I have to at least make an effort to understand those choices in order to be an "informed" voter and add substance to the debate.
June 27, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me ask you something: you ever dated anyone? Ever met your date's parents? Ever modified your behavior when you were in their presence? How about at work? Ever held back on saying something you really wanted to say because you wanted to keep your job?
June 26, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is an excelent analogy.
June 26, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I'm gonna try it sometime. Although this "being a complete asshole" thing is still workin' for me. (Always open to suggestions on refining it.) Still. You shoulda seen the look on her Dad's face! Priceless.
June 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
A non-snark reply to your question is that I trust Obama because of all I have come to learn about the guy.
I trust him based on what I know of his past judgment.
I trust him based on Audacity of Hope and his More Perfect Nation speech.
I trust him based on the wife and daughters he has allowed us to meet. "You know that's not my thing, daddy."
I trust him based on his aggressively progressive legislative priorities and campaign platform, despite his compromising on this particular issue.
I trust that he understands how best to win the general election and that moving more to the center than he already was in order to win is hardly a surprise.
I trust that at the end of the day, President Obama will do everything he can to turn a governing majority in a drastic leftward shift to our politics over the course of his first term.
I trust or else why support any politician? It is only in the betrayal of trust that we should be moved to protest and fight and demand better of elected officials.
If every policy or priority disagreement is equal to a betrayal of trust then we will never get anything done in this country and we might as well thrown in the towel right now.
Given the gravity of our situation, the netroots left is not big enough or powerful enough to change this country alone.
June 26, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also trust Obama. But I'm wary of the electoral system ans its cpapcity to swallow him up. Del7's point is well taken - what keeps Obama from spending all of his time compromising toward the nest election?
I agree that Obama and his campaign should do what it takes to win. I am not a bleeding heart purist. I am confident that [we] win by not compromising.
I am proud to be an idealist and the ideal I hold up to you is the one where the self-serving, xenophobic Republican Party is stomped into the ground and shrunk down to size (you know, so it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
If I'm in error it is due to over-confidence not from too many verses of Kumbiyah.
June 26, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
More typos there than I can correct. apologies
June 26, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that we are not neocons. We are progressives and don't shrink anything down until it can be drowned in a bathtub as our normal way of doing business.
The republican party has a long and noble history of standing up for progressive changes in this country. That legacy starts with Thomas Jefferson and is unbroken until Nixon, and even he signed the Clean Air Act and created the EPA. The GOP didn't start with Reagan and end with Baby Bush.
We need a more holistic view of things this year if progressives want to win. We need to re-brand the democratic party as being Pragmatic Progressives rather than Limousine Liberals or Republican Lite. We must understand that everything that has occurred for most of our history as a nation has been ugly and brutal and bloody, but we can evolve by being empathetic to conservative points of view due to a more complete understanding of the republican party, yet uncompromising in moving everyone toward a more progressive America.
That shit sells itself.
I suggest that rather than crush the republicans, we isolate the neocons and help the rest of the GOP recover from their 40 year nightmare. How about we don't blame the victim for being victimized? It's like kicking a homeless person's ass when they show up to the shelter. Think they'll stick around for dinner? We can great them with a smile and a sandwich instead. That's what I believe.
Don't confuse my patience to get through the election with impotence as a constituent of President Obama. Come January 20, 2009, the clock is ticking. Barack has four years to make significant progress on his promises or I am back to looking for the next step in the change we need.
Does that help clarify my position?
June 26, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he's all in favor of letting bygones be bygones with the telecoms, if he's talking about appeasing the Iraqi Government, if he's supporting the DINO Georgia candidate over the liberal one, if he opts out of public financing after agreeing to it earlier in his campaign, if he prevents people who appear Muslim from standing behind him at campaign events, then what is there left to trust?
Those are BS points and you know it.
June 26, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're not BS points - they are pissing me off.
June 26, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason:
This is a website where 99.24376 percent of us will vote for Senator Obama in November without question. But I don't understand why you consider this something that is not worthy of discussion. Let's be clear: Senator Obama is breaking a promise that he would oppose telecom immunity:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php
Now, I'm a realist, and I reiterate what I have previously written, and that is that I understand why Senator Obama changed his position on telecom immunity, and I don't blame him as a matter of politics. I also agree with you that complaints from folks on the left are, at most, a was in terms of how Obama will be better positioned to attract swing voters.
But it's worthy of discussion Jason because, from where I stand, I saw a campaign based on a promise of being new and different, and as a corollary to that message of hope I saw a demonization of an entire wing of the progressive coalition based on alleged support by that wing of the dirty politics of old. Well, Senator Obama won less than a month ago and, with his change of position on immunity, he has demonstrated a willingness to play the politics of old as well as any politician. And that is a point that is worthy of being made, and making that point does not impact on my intention to vote for Senator Obama in any way whatsoever.
June 25, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last sentence of the second paragraph should read:
I also agree with you that complaints from folks on the left are, at most, a wash when measured against the better position that Senator Obama will now be in to attract swing voters.
June 25, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really have to work on improving this bad habit of making sloppy, imprecise points, Bruce.
Tsk,tsk.
June 25, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, dude - don't be so frickin' vague. Sheesh.
June 25, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you misunderstand my point. I love discussion. Let's discuss the hell out of this thing. Let's pick it apart and put it on a bun for lunch.
But to demonize Barack every time he does something the netroots doesn't fully support is self-defeating. It is also self-defeating to question his honesty and integrity over a single vote because he didn't vote the way a super-duper progressive would like him to.
That was really my main point. Thanks for being calm and rational when asking that questions though. It amazes me what passes for "honest" inquiry around here sometimes.
June 26, 2008 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It is also self-defeating to question his honesty and integrity over a single vote because he didn't vote the way a super-duper progressive would like him to."
Well, I'd have to say that folks aren't questioning his honesty and integrity because he didn't vote the way us crazy liberals want him too. They're doing so because he isn't voting the way HE said he would.
But I see what you're saying too. Personally, I'm mostly with you, there's just a teeny little bit a me that worries.
June 26, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
They seem to doing it because he changed his mind on an important issue with lots of facets. He changed his mind because he now needs to show he can govern for everyone as much as possible in order to win the general. Which means he needs to listen to more than liberals on this thing.
I also think it is more than a few neocon in disguise throwing up Concern Troll posts as supposed Obama supporters. They are always the craziest "liberals" around here and I consider them fair game for what rhetorical arrow I care to unleash.
I understand the hurt feelings or any inkling of doubt that may be creeping in as he ever-so-slightly leans more to the center than he already was, but I also try to remember that this is the game as it now exists. Wishing it were different doesn't make it so. Burning down the village to save it means all you have is a burnt village.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, though.
June 26, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not planning to demonize him because he goes against the "netroots." I don't give a damn about the netroots. I am going to call him out, and complain loudly if need be, when he takes a position that _I_ disagree with. And I feel like you and Scientific, and some others, think that it's bad of me to do so. It's not bad. It's representative democracy in action.
June 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I think you misunderstand who it is I am talking to.
"See, there you go, he's just like every other politician. I'll vote for the guy, but he broke my heart and betrayed me and everything I hold dear."
That is who I am speaking of. I am a super-duper progressive when it comes to policy but I am pragmatic enough politically to know that this was a no-win situation in a transitional year. I am also pragmatic enough to see how brilliantly Barack is negotiating the general election in an effort to bring a governing majority together on January 20, 2009. Win the general election and then change the narrative. That is the order of this thing, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
Win first. That is more important than anything our broken system does with its dying gasps for air.
June 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remain skeptical as to the need to take this position in order to win. I think reining in the excesses of the Republican administration is what the majority of voters want. I fear it is another example of a democrat wrongly feeling like he has to move to the right in order to appease public opinion. And I worry that if this is the case, Obama will continue to do so, both up to and after his election.
June 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I have more faith in my decision and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Hopefully, one of us will have a chance to be proved right.
June 26, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is, the actual outcome of the event will not prove either of our theories. If he wins after caving on FISA, the question becomes even more pressing: could he have won without the cave?
June 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he wins, with or without caving, and then proceeds to deliver on his very progressive campaign platform, the point becomes moot. Hypotheticals make my ass itch.
June 26, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy tells his buddy he's got a terrible pain in his butt. The buddy tells him that his problem is probably hemorrhoids. He should drink three cups of tea every day, then stuff the tea leaves where the pain is.
A week later, his friend's cure has helped a little, but not enough. The guy goes to the doctor. The doctor takes a look and says, "I see you have piles. I also see you going on a long journey."
Nothing political here, just a joke I just read in Elmore Leonard's latest book.
June 26, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But to demonize Barack every time he does something the netroots doesn't fully support is self-defeating. It is also self-defeating to question his honesty and integrity over a single vote because he didn't vote the way a super-duper progressive would like him to."
Wow...now that is revealing. Is this his AUMF? Hard decisions have to be made. I wonder if he would have changed his mind on AUMF had he been unfortunate enough to actually have to cast a vote on it.
June 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you guys keep talking about the past? I don't think FISA and the Iraq vote are even in the same league of discussion.
June 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We talk about the past because retroactive immunity is about the past.
June 26, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does retroactive immunity have to do with comparing the Iraq vote to FISA?
June 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Had Hillary Clinton been the nominee, her Iraq vote would have been one of many compromises progressives such as my self and the current crop of critics need to swallow.
You outline your vision for the country in the primary and then demonstrate how that might be accomplished in the general. Seems like Barack is doing a great job of both.
Conservatives aren't stupid. They know Barack is a liberal. They voted for him in the primary. Barack hasn't changed one bit. FISA is exactly the type of stance he has taken all along as a Senator. Pragmatic and focused on the bigger picture - a governing majority.
Do you guys understand that 50%+1 means nothing changes and we are done as a country? Razor thing victories is what you get when you refuse to compromise in a plural society.
June 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, swallowed that pitch in 2000 - we can only win if we run a center-right campaign and emphasize it with Lieberman. In 2004, I called, I door knocked, I took the day to GOTV on election day all for a guy who again sold out the left side, put dissenters in pens just like the Republicans, and ran a center-right campaign.
They lost. The country lost.
You trust Obama. Isn't that sweet. I don't trust you. You're marketing the same old center right blue dog cocktail. We only win if we can convince Republicans we are Republicans because only Republican ideas are worth selling...... blah blah ..
June 25, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not marketing anything of the sort, but you prove my point quite well. I am "marketing" the idea that perhaps Barack might know a little bit more about how to win an election than you or I.
I am also arguing that this isn't 2004 or 2004. in 2008, Barack is a candidate that can do what neither Gore nor Kerry could accomplish and that is build a governing majority by bringing together democrats, republicans and independents.
Our problems are too fucking big to burn down the village in an effort to save it. We must first recruit as many able-bodied people as we can to our cause, elect Barack and then move the center back to the left. It's been there before.
But first, you need let your obviously gaping wounds heal long enough to a more long-term view on how to fix our nation.
One more thing. Before you call me a blue dog, perhaps you could look at a few of my blogs. I am to the left of Dennis Kucinich on every single issue. There isn't a single thing about how we do business that I wouldn't change, so it is obvious you know nothing about me. Your characterization of me only makes you look more uninformed and silly, not some angry revolutionary.
Based on Barack's book, he is as well. Theoretically. But he is smart enough and pragmatic enough to know that we need every citizen to get there, not just the progressive left.
June 25, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama wins it will because it's a throw the bums out year and it surely won't be because he threw the 4th amendment under the bus.
Darn, and I could have voted for this guy on super Tuesday. Shame on me:
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4476
June 25, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our problems are too fucking big to burn down the village in an effort to save it.
We think the same thing, but your "village" is the Democratic Party; ours is the USA.
June 26, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have that exactly backward. If you had the entire country's interests at heart, you would take both the conservative view and the liberal view to find strategies to move forward together for long term success.
You seem to be advocating no ends justify "terrible means" as defined by the liberal left, in this case that FISA is all bad and supporting it is a betrayal of his oath of office. That is the same mentality that brought us the General Betrayus ad and wondered why even moderate conservatives and independents went ballistic over it.
If I misunderstood your argument, please provide the clarification or context that I am missing.
June 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 2000, it was a referendum on the Clinton years...And Al Gore came across as the stiff and supercilious liberal in comparison to the good-ol boy Bush. And still, he actually did "win," or came as close as you can while still losing.
Obama has enough "negatives" like being...oh, black, young, "ultraliberal" without adding "naive" and "unwilling to do what it takes to defend our children," to the list.
To see how anything can be twisted to fit the prevailing frames that have been studiously nurtured by the Right for the last 40 yrs, consider John Kerry. Decorated combat vet who volunteered for a combat assignment, and actually shot people, somehow being painted as a phony opportunist when running against a coked-up dilettante who went AWOL from the National Guard posting his family influence got him to escape the war.
June 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman was not right of center in 2000.
June 26, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't changed my support for Obama, but I just don't agree with your attitude here.
"A majority of Americans agree that we should use whatever means necessary to protect ourselves, even if it means snatching a couple of unrelated emails or phone calls."
It's been said before but it's worth repeating: A majority (or something close) of Americans also voted Bush in for a second term. So clearly many Americans have no clue about what is in their best interest. One obvious answer to that sad reality is for leaders to CHANGE their approach and better inform the voters in a timely manner.
"The numbers don't lie. Sixty percent of republicans, forty percent of democrats and half the independents things we need FISA legislation to keep us safe. They don't care about protecting companies from civil lawsuits if the executives themselves can be held accountable for criminal activity once proven in a court."
So what. Americans used to think the war in Iraq was a good idea, too. If that many people are willing to risk our Democracy for this big "war on terror" that's going on (as our borders remain wide open), it means the leadership--including Obama--have for some reason not thought it too important to educate the voters.
If leaders in the national spotlight took the trouble to ensure Americans understood the implications of the FISA, or did something about the corporate media that does little but distract and mislead, those numbers could change before it is too late.
I'm not ready to give up on Obama, but I'm not buying any argument that encourages people to continue with blind trust and low expectations.
June 25, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not asking anyone to lower their exportations of President Obama. I am saying that we can only expect so much from Senator Obama and that it is unreasonable to expect him to deliver things he can't deliver in that role.
Thanks for being calm and rational when disagreeing with me, though. That is always a great first step!
June 26, 2008 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lower their expectations either.
June 26, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this post. The last time I was in Zermatt I walked through a little cemetery there where every single person who was buried there had died descending the Matterhorn - just goes to show you it's not he climb up that gets you but the climb down...
June 25, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know whether to frown or chuckle over this comment. :O)
June 26, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post - thank you.
What worries me most about this apparent netroots antagonism is a comment I heard from Yglesias the other day to the effect that they'll still vote for Obama but they won't donate and they won't work to get out the vote.
Which has me wondering if there's any truth to speculation I've heard that much of Obama's incredible small donor fundraising has been from moveon.org members. Perhaps we're now going to find out how much basis there was to that speculation.
June 25, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind words, Fran.
I don't know that he will have all the much problem raising money. There are a lot of republicans and independents and smart dems to donate when the netroots throws a hissy fit.
Perhaps because it is summer or something?
June 26, 2008 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, Jason. I, too, would prefer it if the Democrats (and Obama) could fight for the perfect FISA bill - one that completely protects our rights, negates the Nuremberg defense, and does what it has to do to help protect us. But I couldn't agree more that Obama needs to get elected. And, further, he's probably smarter than me, and certainly better informed, and he's proved himself a consummate politician who CAN win, so he has my full support.
If he does only half of what he promises, he's rocked the casbah, so I say Go Obama.
June 25, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree. We should also be prepared for the possibility that he may only be able to deliver on half his platform that first term. He is going to face a ton of resistance to these changes.
As always, it depends on what we do once November has come and gone. I am hopeful that this year we won't go back to sleep and leave our newly-elected president on his own.
June 26, 2008 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is wrong with disagreeing with Obama? Can you tell me why I shouldn't say what I think if it is different than what my candidate thinks?
It seems that you are advocating a rather republican "group think" mentality. I will vote for Obama, and with unbridled joy and enthusiasm; I like everything about him better than ANY other candidate in my lifetime.
But if I can't disagree with him when I disagree with him, what is the effing point?
June 25, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about disagreement. It is about demonizing people who disagree. It is about calling Obama a traitor for taking this stance on FISA. That is dialog that isn't helpful to the goal of seeing Barack elected president. Disagreement and debate is healthy. Ranting and raving and giving the neocons ammunition to use in the general election against us is stupid.
June 25, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Jason... this isn't BarackObama2008.com, this si TPMCafe. Is the goal here to get Barack Obama elected president? Or is the goal here to express ourselves and to debate politics in whatever manner we see fit?
June 25, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, cmon destor, admit it, I could swear that for a couple months there, there really was a sign up that said BarackObamaCafe 24/7. Some relative newbies are still laboring under the impression that this is what it the site is. After all, that's what it looked like for a while, didn't it? :-)
I noticed member Don Keytried to explain it all in a nice set of comments here that the Obama borg that took over this website was not reality-based as to the intent of the website, but I see evidence it hasn't really sunk in yet. There is, for example, this interesting use of we in Jason's post:
I hope that we doesn't refer to me, because I'm sorry, if it does, it's a big mistake. I've never been an employee of Obama's campaign nor an employee of the Democratic Party. I don't have to do any of that! All I have to do is obey the website rules in the link conveniently located above every comment box. Interestingly, the first point at the link says:
June 26, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
We, his supporters, are part of his campaign and are included in this effort. It is part of what I am going here sparing with you. It is what causes people to donate, or phone bank, or come on-line and counter disinformation.
You really don't want to take a single point in the spirit it was offered do you? You are one of the "Fuck you, the sky is pink!" crowd aren't you?
Thanks for ably demonstrating the truth of my blog in a way that no words of mine ever could.
PS: Having read my own post, of course, I knew one of you clowns would snatch that little bit of chum out of the water and fling it around like a bloody, rhetorical prize. Great job! Thanks for not disappointing me. You would think I threw little traps in here to see which trolls would bite. Nah, I am clearly not that smart.
June 26, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
What in the heck to do you mean by this:
With your paranoid vitriole you are losing some major credibility here. Realize that people are writing in what they think. Don't take it so personally that you have to turn it around and make your responses insulting and personal.
June 26, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"artappraiser" is hardly a neutral observer and snatching that one little thing as some sort of reason to discount my entire argument is part and parcel of a long running strategy of reductio ad absurdum. Not sure what else you were getting at with this comment.
June 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about adjusting your rhetoric so that it doesn't sound like you own the site, maybe then you won't get so many responses of that type. Many interesting posters left here precisely because of such rhetoric, and the related gang culture which was well described by those comments by Don Key, which you helped promote at one time.
Also consider that making a choir and then preaching to it isn't going to do you a damn bit of real world good. It's not the "we" you're referring to that isn't going to vote for him. And nobody who's wavering is going to stay long on a site with a bunch of echo chamber agitprop.
June 26, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's all you see at this site then nothing anyone can say will help you kill those obvious demons.
June 26, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor you are free to debate politics in whatever way you see fit, as I am free to call you guys a bunch of childish douche-bags if it pollutes the debate to the point that it hurts our nominee.
Don't misunderstand my points please.
I am not advocating blind acceptance or adherence to every decision the guy makes. I am advocating a new tone when voicing your displeasure with Obama, though, in the interests of the general election campaign we are currently in. You don't trust him or believe him or whatever. That's perfectly fine. Totally your right as an American and a voter, but can you at least pretend to trust the guy until after the election?
The neocons pretend they like their guy all the time to win. Can we let Barack win, just this once, and then freak out when he goes back on everything he stood for, so you folks can be right.
Until that day, I am saying that isn't it just possible that the dude has a bigger plan that involves gently leading the country down a new road? It is also impossible for him to win a general election and satisfy the progressive netroots every whim at the same time.
Think of it this way. If someone stumbles off a mangled plane after having survived a 30,000 foot plummet to Earth, the last thing you need is a Green Peace member at the crash site telling him that jet fuel kills birds.
Can we please be patient with our equally shell-shocked nation and understand that just maybe they take change in smaller chunks than we do and that doesn't make them evil. It just makes them human.
June 26, 2008 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink