Yes, this is another post about Obama's stance on telecom immunity.  No, I am not encouraging anyone, including myself,  to vote for Mcain instead. 
But Obama's response to the anti-immunity group on his blog is transparently misleading and underestimates the intelligence of many of his supporters.  (Many of us against telecom immunity are not as far left as the media would lead you to believe.  I'm center-left. ) 
Here is Glenn Greenwald's assessment:  http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html
And for those of you that say, "hey, at least he took the time to address those who oppose his view".  Has communicating with the electorate become so rare that it is now considered an indulgence for a politician to go out of his way to talk to voters?  
That's ridiculous.  
The more Obama, or any other politician, is asked to explain his or her positions, to justify his or her points of view, the more transparent that justification becomes.  
Thus, a position either holds up under scrutiny and is reinforced with logic, reason and fact, or  a position doesn't.  
Obama's response to his supporters is coherent and presents some good points, but  in some ways, his response is transparently misleading.  And that is what outrages me the most.  
Too many politicians are only one talking point deep. When they try to explain themselves, they can't.
I don't believe Obama strengthens his chances of winning this election by weakening his positions.   
The democrats are already perceived as spineless.  








 

Has anyone noticed this?

This administration is shoving through everything they can before they leave office.  In 2008 alone:

Close to 500 billion budget for Department of Defense. Quiet agreement for permanent bases in IraqNo-bid contracts in Iraq for the big oil companies.
200 billion to mortgage bank speculatorsSupreme court decision that opens Pandora's box on guns.
Retro-active Immunity for telecoms.Retro-active immunity for government illegal wire tapping.
Covert military operation in Iran.
Immense backlogging of cases against negligent Iraq contractors.
They're trying to push through a bill now that will allow them to drill in ANWR and off-shore.
Anyone have anything to add to this list?

It seems to me that Karl has a crush on Barack Obama.  Lately, Barack is all he talks about.  In fact, Rove's WSJ article today features, you guessed it, Barack.  In his recent appearances on Fox, he brings up Barack every time. Granted, it's in a negative context.  But I think he has a love hate relationship going on here.  One in which it is only socially acceptable for him to express his discontent with Barack, but underneath all that, I wouldn't be surprised if Rove dreams of a bizarro world where he's advising the presumptive democratic nominee--where he's riding the crest of another emerging majority.  There's a certain power in that which trumps party loyalty.  Besides, the Republicans have abandoned their loyalty to their own traditional identity in many ways, most notably, as fiscal conservatives.  And evangelicals are moving toward Obama, as their own agenda now includes the environment.  
And Republicans up for re-election are now featuring Obama in their ads, touting their ability to work across party lines. 
If Karl could switch sides, he would. 

Name


Phone


FAX
Bayh
(202) 224-5623
(202) 228-1377
Carper
(202) 224-2441
(202) 228-2190
Obama
(202) 224-2854
(202) 228-4260
Inouye
(202) 224-3934
(202) 224-6747
Johnson
(202) 224-5842
(202) 228 5765
Landrieu
(202)224-5824
(202) 224-9735
McCaskill
(202) 224-6154
(202) 228-6326
Mikulski
(202) 224-4654
(202) 224-8858
Nelson (FL)
(202) 224-5274
(202) 228-2183
Clinton
(202) 224-4451
(202) 228-0282
Nelson (NE)
(202) 224-6551
(202) 228-0012
Pryor
(202) 224-2353
(202) 228-0908
Salazar
(202) 224-5852
(202) 228-5036
Specter
(202) 224-4254
(202) 228-1229
Feinstein
(202) 224-3841
(202) 228-3954
Webb
(202) 224-4024
(202) 228-6363
Warner
(202) 224-2023
(202) 224-6295
Snowe
(202) 224-5344
(202) 224-1946
Collins
(202) 224-2523
(202) 224-2693
Sununu
(202) 224-2841
(202) 228-4131
Stevens
(202) 224-3004
(202) 224-2354
Byrd
(202) 224-3954
(202) 228-0002
Lincoln
(202)224-4843
(202)228-1371
Reid
(202) 224-3542
(202) 224-7327
Coleman
(202) 224-5641
(202) 224-1152
Durbin
(202) 224-2152
(202) 228-0400
Smith
(202) 224-3753
(202) 228-3997
Stabenow
(202) 224-4822
(202) 228-0325
Kohl
(202) 224-5653
(202) 224-9787
Leahy
(202) 224-4242
(202) 224-3479
Schumer
(202) 224-6542
(202) 228-3027

And, for extra bonus points, here is contact information for the Democratic presidential candidate:

Sen. Barack Obama:

Phone: 312-819-2008 Toll Free: (866) 675-2008 FAX: 312-819-2088

Democrats agreed to "compromise" on the FISA bill?  They folded like lawn chairs.  Same with the recent Iraq war funding, and no-bid oil contracts for Western oil giants in Iraq.
WTF

I'm not sure the list is very long right now.  I've included names like Richardson and Klobuchar because they came out early for Obama.  Also, Kucinich, while inconsequential, had the balls to repeatedly call for impeachment.  
I don't want to include anyone who's a follower, or will only do what's popular.  

Feingold, Webb, Obama, Wexler, Kennedy, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Leahy, Conyers, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Dean 
(any other names?)

I was in Boston recently and I was surprised to hear how uninformed many jewish people are when it comes to Obama's position on Israel.  
They just "think" he's anti-Israel but they have no info to back it up.  
I'm looking for a streamlined, point by point summary of Obama's history regarding his support for Israel.
Can anyone help?

Obama 17, 425,810Clinton 17, 428, 541

There's an AP article in which Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice says there's no point in talking to Iran unless they give up their suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.  Can you spot the ridiculousness of this phrase?  
There has never been any confirmed proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon.  And there's no proof that they even have a nuclear weapons program.  In the NIE released last summer, it alleges that Iran once had a nuclear weapons program, but that it was abandoned in 2002.  
Since then, Iran has cooperated with IAEA inspectors over the last year and guess what--they haven't found a damn thing.   But usually right before a  UN meeting is scheduled to discuss sanctions, the US presents some last-minute, highly questionable "evidence"--this year, it was a copy of alleged military weapon schematics they "found" on a laptop somewhere.  Nothing about these schematics even hinted that they came from Iran, and they weren't even proven to have anything to do with a nuclear weapon.  So there's always an issue left for Iran to address and it gives the US a reason to say Iran is not cooperating.  What Iran does have is a civil nuclear energy program, and like any other country that has one, the fuel cycle requires that they enrich uranium.  This hardly qualifies as weapons-grade enriched uranium. (You can learn more about this peaceful nuclear energy program here.)
But the US is demanding that they stop this activity, even though they have a right to have a civil nuclear energy facility.  Most people don't even realize that in the 70s, the US helped supply Iran with the materials they needed to build this kind of program.  
The US has changed its policy a little on this--they'll allow Iran to import the kind of enriched uranium used for civil nuclear energy, perhaps from Russia, but they won't allow Iran to enrich it themselves.   
From a country that has an arsenal of 10,000 ready to go nuclear warheads, it's a little hypocritical to make such demands.  

And there has been a good amount of parsing recently regarding those demands. 
When you hear the phrase "we can't allow Iran to have the knowledge that could lead to building a nuclear weapon, keep in mind, we were the ones that gave them the knowledge to enrich uranium (for civil purposes) in the first place. 

It's hard to take away knowledge you've had for forty years.  
But Sec. Rice has taken that a step further:  It's no longer the knowledge that could lead to building a nuclear weapon.  
Iran isn't allowed to have suspected ambitions.
Let me make a few disclaimers.  I understand that Iran poses a serious threat to Israel.  I don't underestimate how dangerous they are.  
Also, while this goes without saying, I'm not a nuclear weapons expert and I have no access to classified info about Iran's alleged nuclear activity.  
You can go visit the IAEA website and look through the reports yourself.  
I just have a concern, as do millions of Americans, about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran based on false evidence.  

Sen. Clinton has promised to support the democratic nominee know matter who it is.  She's promised to campaign her heart out for the nominee.  
She, and her campaign surrogates are pushing the "Hillary is the strongest candidate" so hard, it's hard to imagine how they could change their rhetoric without seeming disingenuous.  Governor Ed Rendell, just yesterday, said we'll probably select the weakest candidate as our nominee.
Anyone have any thoughts on how they'll manage to do this?  
My only expectation from Sen. Clinton, or prerequisite I should say is that once Obama wins the nomination, she announce that he won it fair and square.  

This is what Harold Ickes said this morning on Meet the Press.  He also, once again, repeated the false claim that Hillary won the popular vote--Russert said that's only if you include Michigan's unsanctioned primary, where no one else was on the ballot,  and exclude caucuses in four states--With some hesitation, Ickes said, according to the AP, Hillary won the most popular votes.  
So now the AP is the one who decides the outcome of our elections? 

All the cable news networks will be there, for sure.  I'd be interested in knowing how many Clinton supporters will show up.  
Also, who's presenting the Clinton sales pitch?

We can all talk about how ridiculous this popular vote nonsense is, and yes,  it really is nonsense.  

But the Clintons have been marketing false perception for quite some time.   

And that perception, regardless of reality, is undercutting the legitimacy of Obama's inevitable nomination.  (as others here have pointed out.)

You can't argue with the delegate math but you can weaken the perception of its value.  

Thousands of their most loyal supporters are buying it too.  

The Clintons are in a state of denial and that state has a trickle down effect. 

This has been going on since February/March 2008, when the Clintons did the math themselves and realized Sen. Clinton lost the legitimate path to the nomination.   

Actually, their denial goes back to early 2007 when Barack Obama entered the presidential race.  In a Washington Post article that ran in February 2007, David Axelrod laid out the path Obama was going to take to win the nomination:

Obama advisers said their campaign for the nomination may be more unconventional than Sen. Clinton's. "I think that the path to get there has to do with our ability to inspire a lot of people to get involved in this process who have not been involved, or who may have been involved once but lost heart," said David Axelrod, the campaign's chief strategist. "We have to give people a real sense of investment so that the electorate will maybe look a little different."

They've been underestimating Obama for over a year.  It's an arrogance that just won't quit.  

He won Iowa.  They said caucuses don't matter.  He won ten states in a row.  They said he only wins small states.  He can't win big states.  

I think it was a few weeks before the Pennsylvania primary when I first heard this Clinton campaign line:  The road to Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania.  

I've heard them use that same line, just switching the state to the one they happened to be campaigning in at the time.  The road to Pennsylvania Avenue goes through (your state here).

That's one really long circuitous road they're traveling on.  And as it turns out, it doesn't lead to Pennsylvania Avenue after all.

But don't tell them that.  

Now they're promoting their "every vote counts" tour.  It's getting a lot of press coverage and despite the fact that it is a fallacy, it has created a wave of support which has only intensified the division among democrats.  Last I heard, tens of thousands of Hillary fans will descend upon the highly promoted May 31st MI and FL showdown.  

Hundreds of thousand of Hillary supporters really believe that   Obama is trying to suppress the votes in FL and MI.  

Ridiculous, I know.  So do the superdelegates.  

But just because it's not  true doesn't mean people won't buy into it.  

To the people who do, June 3rd is meaningless.  It's not the end of the primary.  

But it is the end of the primary.  Barack Obama will have likely secured enough delegates to win the nomination.  

Reality doesn't just sink in on its own.  

Someone needs to start promoting it.    

 I'm an Obama supporter.  I'm offering some constructive criticism.  

Here's the problem:

At any given moment during the day, I know exactly where the Clinton campaign stands on an issue.  I know their every response to the ongoing MI and FL issue.  As it evolves. Howard Wolfson, Terry McAuliffe and surrogates like Lanny and Ed Rendell blitz the media with what's going on from there point of view.  

But the Obama campaign is often nowhere to be found.  

Sure, you can go to his website and find out his generic stands on issues, or updates as to where he's campaigning, but it's only a one way street.  

But there's no real-time question/answer mechanism.  Or timely guidance as to how he'd like to guide his supporters online.  

There's an immense amount of support for Obama on the blogs but he doesn't personally address us as a community. It drove me crazy back when the Rev. Wright stuff was going on and Obama was nowhere to be found. He eventually handled the situation well, but why doesn't he communicate with us?

I'm part of mybarackobama. com, and all I get are generic emails many asking for money but only one ever asked for feedback.   

I've been following this race as closely as any other, yet if someone were to ask me where Obama really stands on the MI and FL issue, I'd have to say I don't know. I honestly don't know if Obama holds a principled stand on this. It's hard for me to make the argument that the DNC should uphold its rules when the candidate I support is waiting it out, hoping for some sort of compromise. No one from their campaign has stood firm and said this is a load of crap.

None of us should have to wonder what the Obama campaign would want us to do as a community.  I think it was only today when we heard indirectly about not protesting Saturday's meeting.  

He needs to communicate more effectively with his millions of supporters online.

That is, if he really means that this campaign isn't about him, it's about us.

Now I know he's run a brilliant campaign and he's got a million things to do to reach out to voters in every state.  

But he needs to personally reach out to the online community, and not just for money.