Billy,

Would you be so kind as to flesh out this claim of yours:

"And now we find that Obama has changed his position on telecom immunity and the need for a new FISA, because he has learned something he didn't know when he started running for President."

How has he "changed his position on telecom immunity"? Was he against retroactive immunity before, and is for granting it now?. Please provide any evidence that you have to support that claim. Thanks.

Gratuitous Obama bashing.

Now you are bashing Obama for HYPOTHETICAL flipflops!

Now I remember hearing the idea kicked around that the reason Obama got to the right position on the AUMF and the invasion of Iraq was that he didn't have the "benefit" of those intelligence briefings and reports the Bush administration used to pull the wool over the eyes of the Congress.

ka-CHING! I took a trip for a week to see my family and I get back and find out the Obama supporters lost their virginity in that time. It was bound to happen sometime.

I am no Obama basher. I'm committed to seeing him elected.

But those of us who support him need not and should not kiss his ass. Its fair to ask what he has seen and heard that convinces him that the Constitution should be ignored.

How does that list differ from what GWB or McCain are "teaching"? Are we now pretending that things are just all hunky dory in GOPland?

it's rather predictable to expect a presidential nominee from either party to run toward the center in preparation for the GE.

but someone please tell sen. obama that running over the 4th Amendment or other sacred civil liberties on the way to the center is simply unacceptable.

Billy - Glad to see you (pun unintentional) as your alter egos - readytoblow and the-ever-changing-desi seem to lack your piercing brutality.

I have a number of thoughts for you and I they do not end up too jumbled.

First: for all your claimed savvy, can you tell me with a straight face that you thought the telecoms would every burn for what was done during a time of war on the behalf of a war president who knew no bounds?

Second: Do you truly think these activities were taking place anyway? This is the era of high-tech. Brought to you by military spending. On a previous thread I was asked if by posing this argument I was claiming the military industry (thereby the spy industry) was untouchable. And if we do not draw a land in the sand now, we never will. Rage angainst the machinge said it better:

If we don't take action nowWe settle for nothing laterWe'll settle for nothing nowAnd we'll settle for nothing later

I would argue that the time for taking action has long passed. We pay for the industry that is supported by things such as FISA - bought and paid for, and there is no taking it back. When it comes to the media and all forms of communication the military and police has primacy. We might give lip service to the idea of reducing it, but that will never happen. Can we reign it in? Probably not in a meaningful way - the resource wars started (under the current geo-political organization) back in WW2 and will not be going away anytime soon.

As for our political freedoms (at least our perception of said freedoms) can we reign in the control creep? Perhaps. Has anyone read the legislation that we are all up in arms about? I admit, I only have had time to skim but what I found seemed somewhat straight forward.

(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and `(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

On to your insinuation: The Learning of Barack Obama

Only the perfectionists and the simple minded (and the hard left) thought that Barack was anything but pragmatic. People like people who do what is needed to get shit done. They do not like to be lied to when they are in the fox hole taking fire, but they understand and appreciate the pragmatic.

This FISA thing is what we (as a country) have bought into - hook line and sinker. We own it and the majority of voters will not take meaningful action to change it. Why? because at the end of the day - most people would rather see a dead man at the end of their driveway than worry about the telecoms handing over data they already collect and analyze to the government. Had you some hot political trials to bring to light what might go askew... that would change things. Til then, FISA Ho! And all your little patriot acts too. I wander...

Meanwhile, the hard-left foams (at times the hard-left seems populated by the hard-right under cover) and the Hillary Hold Outs laugh like every Obamatron got took. (See previous comment) The Obamatron is a construct created under the jurisprudence of the Clinton and Limbaugh/GOP media machines and will serve well in the upcoming GE. Its kin are Elitist and Unpatriotic. Have fun with all that.

Your list of concerns is Hillaryous. If Obama does not take input as he goes on each of those topics (see below) - I will be one independent who feels like his vote was a bet on smoke and mirrors. I want to vote for that man because he can clearly think and can take multiple points of view to create a more sound answer. The hard-left and hard-right keep trying to act like they have the answers - but I find the answer is usually in the middle.

A big fight over (foregone conclusion) retroactive immunity that Barack is a part of personally (which seems to be the big demand) is a waste and a distraction. Immunity was part of the deal to begin with (ie national security contracts). The only criminals we should be hunting is the current administration. We can only hope that happens. It will not happen through civil court and hopefully with immunity in had the telecoms will hand over details as to what they did. It is only with that evidence we can begin to take action. McClellan hopefully can tie it all together (Now talk about Hope)

Now let me here the chorus talking about the coercive powers of the court in obtaining the aforementioned data... did I mention the military industrial complex? Last example of successful litigation against them?

Let me enter my finale with a point by point:

****Progress on the ground in Iraq.
Any thoughts on what he meant by being as careful getting out as we were careless getting in mean?
The catastophic consequences of ending the occupation.

****The real role of Iran in Iraq and in the Middle East.
That little ole taste of reality - a bit of an eye opener for real conservatives as of late - that is what will make it a land slide come November - Obama style.

****Israeli intentions toward Iran.
And?

****The date we will all realize the petroleum is gone.
Non Sequitur

****The way the economy really works.
That is all you got for being insulting? Or do you think all democrats are ignorant?

****The information we obtained through torture and how valuable it was in preventing terrorist attacks.
Weak addition on your part

****The reason excess profits are good.
Weak.

****The reasons universal health insurance just won't work.
Now that is a whole nother story... which might cut too close to home for some you HRC supporters... but assuming that your snark was sincere - why do you think his proposal was a tad to the center to begin with?

Did I meander too much?

Oops. I missed one:

****The catastophic consequences of ending the occupation.
No wonder I overlooked this point. It is redundant. We like oil, any questions?

This whole pander about leaving Iraq is just that, pander. McCain has been the most honest, but for all the wrong reasons. Obama implies it, but sells us the hope that reason will play more of a role than implied by MkKain and Krew.

I'm constantly astonished by what cynical bastards the Hope-and-Change Club are.

BillyG, corrupted by the apple of knowledge? No.

People have gotten so tangled up on the immunity issue that they have forgotten that it's the mindset that's the problem. And Obama said he'd work on the mindset, to change it, once he becomes president. In the mean time people are flurrying to and fro about how we should feel betrayed.

Really bothers me that as soon as the primaries end, the circular firing squad of the Left emerges and gets down to business.

I don't feel betrayed. I've known that he's a pragmatic. When it's all said and done, he is his mother's son. We need a pragmatic in office now. Especially now when we have two wars and our economy is tanking and every sanctum of our government has been invaded by Rethug insiderism. I trust Obama when he says that he will govern from within the Constitution.

Reading all this, there is a level of gaming/hypocrisy going on that I find a tad irritating. (And yeah, I'm an irritable bastard with bad blood sugar. Bear with me. It's like late night radio. Some Baptist preacher dude ranting. Or not - cursor's to yer right.)

1st. Billy's been a smart bugger here & set up a no win game. It's officially about information/dumbness/learning, but it's actually questioning O's motivations. Which is fine. I DO question them. Like any of his supporters with a clue. But... I can also recognize a "no win" game - and this one is.

- If Obama stuck to a "principled" anti-FISA stand, Billy (saying what many others won't), would say he was "naive," a "grandstanding idealist," who wasn't 1/2 as savvy as HRC, because O didn't recognize the importance of winning. In short, he'd be fucked over because his promises of hope = dumb.

- But if he says "yes" to FISA, well... he's shifty, Fast Eddie, selling out to the powerful.

- If he changes course now, he did it because he was pressured.

- If he speaks the hard truth - that "Senior Democrats are complicit" and that "The fucking Republicans would actually do murderous shit to get back in" - he'd be straight-jacketed by the media.

I tried to think out paths through on this for hours, and be damned if I could find one. Go on, you all may have better eyes than I. But most of all, I don't see one single path where you couldn't smack his MOTIVES, Billy. Am I Correct? They're worth exploring, yes - but there's no conclusion I can see. Can you?

2nd. Some of us aren't "Obamabots," and HAVE actually been around. I've been in this "game" since '83, in 3 countries. Which meant I had enough memory cells still working to laugh when I heard Obama called "Obambi." 'Cos Tony Blair got stung with "Bambi." They tried to stick him with the same terms, trying to chase down his motivations: He was naive... A charmer & great speaker... Slippery... Christian... Kissed up to the big boys....

And yeah, all we're gonna remember is, Blair agreed to go into Iraq. But you know what? He also broke Thatcherism's back, after 17 years of it. An example worth studying in today's situation, no? People will say he left the rich, rich - and maybe. But: He also gave power and peace to the N. Ireland, Scotland, Wales. Brought in the FIRST minimum wage in Britain. His massive New Deal - funded by excess profits from the privatized utilities - successfully employed 00's of thousands of the inner city poor. The largest expansions of expenditure on health & education in British history. He moved the UK to lead the world on Kyoto. And he restored city government to Britain's big cities, which Thatcher had completely abolished.

If an Obama did that, or Hillary or Bill, it'd be considered a success. Why is this relevant? Because not once, throughout 3 terms in office, did ANYONE nail Blair's motives. As bloody mysterious at the end as on the first day. In sum, motivations are often - in the case of big league politicians - not bloody clear. Which means it's REALLY hard to make your determinations based on that. So to what END is this debate?

3rd. Billy, you've voiced what a number of HRC supporters think. Fair enough. And there was enough asinine "Get Over It" talk these past few days from some of O's supporters to twist my shorts in half. I find that very phrase & attitude detestable. And I tore a nice person a new asshole over it earlier, which I shouldn't have. But lemme also now be crass/cross the other way.

Hillary's campaign was run by Mark Penn. Of Burson-Marsteller. Which covers up more blood on the hands on more monsters than any PR firm I know - Bhopal. Argentinian Death Squads. Blackwater. And Penn's the GODDAMN FUCKING CEO. So tell me, smart & savvy HRC fans, do YOU think HC and Penn ever swapped stories? I mean, did they ever talk about anything happening inside? i.e. What do you think SHE knows, already? Plus from those 8 years with Bill - don't think they didn't talk?

My punchline? How much of that fucking inside information did she use to help "progressives" and to "restore the Constitution?" Lemme know how much she's been out here daily, helping y'all out. Swapping notes. Knocking back a few drinks, providing the inside dope. Come ON folks, this isn't about Obama and a few votes, this is about the Constitution, right? higher than any politician. And don't give me that "Obama's the one that put himself on a high horse" bullshit either, because sure as shit you at least expected Hillary to respect the CONSTITUTION, right?

There's been some high fucking horses all round these parts lately, and personally, I think it's a goddamn waste of talent.

Yours. And mine.

Why not figure a better way through, be smarter than you've ever been, but above all, RAISE YOUR GODDAMN GAME. Yeah, pressure Obama like crazy (any Obama backer who says not to is a Bot, I agree); don't let that fucker McCain in (i.e. vote Dem); but can we all agree to lay off the Moronic "Get Over It" & "He's Not So Pretty Now" shit? The rest of the world thinks Americans are all self-centered, pampered shits who can't seem to turn off the bombs and the bullshit as it is. And Christ on the Cross, the kinda stuff over recent days does nothing to disprove it. I live my own pampered goddamn life, and hurl my own useless insults daily, but if we don't raise our game HERE, in this smart lil neck of the woods, then who will? (And don't go all fake "we're so unimportant" on me. Bullshit. Don't bother.)

One last thing. Are y'all real keen on hanging this "purist" thing people wanna spin all over Obama? Billy, the motivation critique/attack is playing off that riff, but is it really important to everyone to use it as a club on each other in here? People wanna talk politics and principle, and bash each other.... and hallelujah their teams... but you all DO know that Axelrod worked for and LIKED Hillary. And Mark Penn? Well, the much-detested in some corners (such as mine own) Mr Penn ran Tony Blair's 3rd election victory. The one that came AFTER Iraq.

Which means... if we all know this... and throw mud anyway.... well... smells like Team Hypocrisy to me? So let's all just grab our mirrors before we trot some of this shit out, eh? It's an ugly job (in my case) but someone's..... End late night rantio.

Perv ;-0

So, Billy, where's Hillary on FISA? You were supporting her so vehemently, surely she should be better than Obama? Is she gonna filibuster and save the day?

Or are you the same hypocrite you've always been...

Generals who insist on fighting the last war seldom earn much respect. This is especially true if the last war was lost.

Didja ever wake up, and realize - horror mounting - that you'd just put your friends through a 28 minute drum solo? (And not a good one.) Worse, that you'd clambered up on-stage to deliver it? And that the concert was jazz? And you forgot your pants? And worst, you'd been entirely sober? (Which I was.)

Damnation. Look, I won't apologize for the things I said. Motives are multiple, life complex & I really do think we have to raise our game. I said 'em, because I meant 'em.

But the long drum solo, it's almost entirely wit-free nature, the way it grinds the discussion to a halt - shit. That's offensive. for that. I really do apologize.

Billy, yer piece made me think, so thanks for that. To you others, who read it, I apologize for its painfully leaden weight. I can riff, and I can do the set-piece artillery, long and boring assault. No mid range though. I'll do better. You know... raise my game.

Ack & Ark. Mars attacks.

We have a problem in that the Democrats are scared shitless of a October Surprise of a terrorist incident, brought on by either the Bush administration's active/inactive, accidental/deliberate, lazy/stupidity/complacency/inefficiency in allowing such a thing to happen and blame it on the Democrats for not pursuing the "War on Terra", a la 24.

They are trying to tip-toe themselves out of the deep water that is rising while wearing the cement shoes that is the Bush administration.

It isn't admirable, or maybe even necessary, but if you were them, how stupid would something have to be, before Bush and cronies wouldn't do it? Ask yourselves that and figure out how long the list is for you. I can't think of anything.

Billy Glad = Bitter Hillary Troll

Why bother reading your drivel? I didn't.

Billy Glad - "One That Got Away" on the main Cafe Page. Congrats, well deserved but probably repulsive to you.