Dave, it may be worse than that. Obama may actually think he need pay no attention at all to us. Believe that he can coast to victory on charisma, youth, and freshness alone.
I won't be voting for McCain either over this. But Obama needs more than us not voting for McCain: he also needs us to show up at the polls to vote for Obama.
Dashing all the hopes and dreams for change that we've invested in him during the primaries though drastically weakens our enthusiasm to show up at the polls when the time comes. Thus, McCain could win by default.
And I believe Obama is taking too much for granted to assume that McCain will be who he faces, anyway. There's a slew of things which could cause the GOP to abruptly replace McCain late in the game, from health issues to old scandals coming back to haunt McCain. Obama is dramatically weakening his base of support with things like FISA; something I don't think he can afford to do in light of possibilities like this.
But if you're too full of yourself (like Obama seems to be at the moment), you tend to think you're the only one that matters.
I'm about as progressive as they get; but Obama seems to be doing all he can to alienate me, since he clinched the nomination. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Below is my own reaction to what I see as the FISA betrayal on Obama's part.
I can't help but wonder: If Clinton had been the nominee, would she have voted in favor of FISA and Obama had voted against?
Just goes to show that Obama is another typical politician and Flip Flopper. He also does not want to "erode the power of the presidency", but in doing so he's eroding the rights of millions of Americans. Its sad no matter how you look at it.
This isn't the first important vote that Obama has gone the other way on. There have been several votes since the primary season started that he decided to sit out, instead of taking a principled stand.
We'll see more of the same from Obama, thats how it goes.
dave
· 1 year ago
Pretty sure you're right about that. And if we had been smarter we would have realized no matter what we were getting Clinton as the nominee even if her name is Obama. :-(
Phong
· 1 year ago
If you compare Clinton's policy proposals with Obama policy proposals on healthcare, immigration, trade, etc, Clinton is actually to the left of Obama. I was as baffled as Paul Krugman as to why so many self-described liberals support Obama over Clinton. I guess the message of change had such a powerful effect that it blinded a lot of people to the reality of politics.
If you had supported Obama so much and hated Clinton with such passion during the primary fight, you owe it to yourself now to at least compare their policy proposals. It's the intellectually honest thing to do. That way, in 2012, you will make the important decision of electing a president by basing your choice on the policies and not slogans.
DaveD
· 1 year ago
This wasn't the right thing for him to o, but it might have been a good thing for him to do.
(1) The bill passed 69-28-2. One vote was not going to matter.
(2) While Obama changes his vote, he did vote for an amendment (that didn't pass) that would have stripped the immunity provisions in the bill.
Look, I want change too. But a good leader needs to be effective. Knows when to pick their fights - and also knows when to, well, play politics. Let's get the guy in office and see what changes he can enact. I'll guarantee one thing - Obama (nor any other human being capable of getting elected President in the near future) can enact change *alone*.
If the Democrats gain enough Senate seats - and it's actually beginning to look realistically possible - to mute any GOP filibusters this November, then a President Obama can sign a bill that will totally negate FISA.
Take your pick of cliches... know when to pick your fight... live to fight another day... hold your friends close and your enemies closer... politics is about building consensus... change doesn't happen overnight....
Again, it might not have the "right" thing for Obama to do, but it could be a "good" thing.
dave
· 1 year ago
If had said any or all of that, well it would have made a difference.
Joshua_Whalen
· 1 year ago
Do you think it would have passed at all if the Democratic Nominee had quietly let it be known in the Senate that he would remember who voted for and who voted against, and think rather badly of those who voted for? I don't. That's how politics works (this doesn't mean I like it): favors, rewards, and punishments.
I frequently post some rather harsh and nasty comments, especially lately. It's not because I'm particularly a nasty person (I'm really not, quite the opposite), it's rather because I've been involved with politics, up close and dirty, all my life. I know how it really works. We can take the high road all we want, our representatives never do so without an agenda. They may take the high road because it will humiliate a rival, or because it will distract attention from some other not-so-high road activity.
Very few politicians have any ethics or scruples at all. They are a very low and cynical lot. If you treat them as high-minded people, you will be eaten alive at the worst, disappointed at best.
Among the few I assign a full range of humanity to is Howard Dean, and look what was done to him. That's what gets done to anyone who tries to play the high road in this game. It's the "Hey! Quit being so good, you're making the rest of us look bad" routine. If you show that it doesn't have to be this way, you get clobbered.
Anyway, the "Well, it passed anyway" argument doesn't cut it. It didn't have to pass, it passed because our candidate wimped out, or perhaps showed his true face. Either way, he certainly didn't act like the candidate I voted for in NY's primary. I wonder what they offered him for that.
Kyle Ingrelli
· 1 year ago
I don't believe in playing fast and loose on constitutional issues. The Constitution says what it says, and should be upheld at all costs. If something remotely challenges principals laid out in the Constitution, it should be challenged at all costs.
Issues of constitutionality should not be politicized, ever. For any reason. It seems like many people are making excuses for Obama's vote, saying that he needs to run to the middle to win the general election. This is nonsense. If Obama does indeed intend to overturn this bill when he takes office, then he needs to come out and say so.
We need more people in government who are not afraid to take a stand, and who are going to actually do what they say they will.
Joshua_Whalen
· 1 year ago
Well, I mostly said everything I have to say on this a few days ago, but I didn't get my best shot in until the thread had already begun to die out. You can find it here, since I can't figure out how to point to just my comment.
I think the way to respond to this is the way we're responding: bad-mouth him loudly, and don't send any money until he does something as irrevocable as the FISA vote that proves he heard us. Then we sweet mouth him and send lots of money. If he strays again, we bad-mouth him again. and so on.
I'm coming at this from a pain-compliance, pavlov's dog kind of angle. Every time he strays it costs him, and he loses cash, points, and has to give us something that costs him more than he gained from the sell-out thing (like the FISA vote), for example, you want us to forgive FISA? Cool. Repeal the DMCA. Ouch. DMCA might not be the best example, but something along those lines. Basically reminding him who he works for and who pays him. US.
I think the netroots are being taken for granted, and it's time to make the politicians we finance realize that taking our money means staying bought, or our money goes elsewhere. You work for us, or you don't work. Period.
Finally, this is the moment when we can do this. Once the fall campaign season arrives, we don't want to beat up the Democrat, 'cause it will be close. no matter what we do. This early in the game, there's plenty of time for him to recover. Now is the time to train the puppy. By fall, we want him housebroken.
BTW, when it come to politicians shooting themselves in the foot, I liked the Dean Scream better. The scream, at least, was sincere.
Will Cate
· 1 year ago
"If he strays again... train the puppy... we want him housebroken... he works for us..."
Joshua, this is absurd. Do you want a president, or a house-boy?
Obama is an ambitious young politician, emphasis on politician, who will do or say anything for the sake of political expediency. Get used to it my friend, 'cause there's a lot more where that came from.
Joshua_Whalen
· 1 year ago
Poor choice of words perhaps, but not of sentiment. Look, if you're hiring someone to run your company, and you tell them "here, this item, this is very important. Our company's relationship with it's customers, our channel partners, and a lot of our investors consider this a really make-or-break item, don't mess with it." and on day one he kills the product, fore the engineers, and erases the source code, would you keep him in his job? Would you keep letting him run your company?
For almost a year now, FISA has been THE blogger issue. More talk on this than anything. Voting the way Obama did on this, after promising to join a filibuster against it the whole time he campaigned, i more than a lap in the face. It's spit in the face. It' almost as if he were saying "I don't have to listen to you; I don't have to listen to anyone, I'm the next president."
So before he gets to smug and comfy with this new attitude, I want to wipe the smirk off his face. I want to remind him we put him where he is, we can send him back to where he was if he really wants to do nothing but betray us. I don't think that's immature, or inappropriate. I think it's common sense.
georgegirton
· 1 year ago
The Obama FISA debacle has had an immediate effect: formation of an instant group. One of the interesting aspects that has come out of -- and I'll just put the link in here -- http://twitter.com/GetFISARight is that there hasn't been much discussion of the details of FISA and its undesirability beyond the amnesty for the telecoms. My main point, tho, is to slap in the link to the organization, which used social software intensively and quickly to give an organized voice to FISA opposition. Someone will make a very good, thorough, and educational study of this phenom., and I wanted to point your (collective) attention to the opportunity.
lemon obrien
· 1 year ago
totally agree with you; i told you, i think i'm voting mccain. me and my bidness partner talked about this; i can't stand a man without principles; who just can't stand up to what is right. or sa spike lee says,m "doos da right phing."
catch my drift.
steveballmer
· 1 year ago
Well I did it! I ZunePhoned Barrak Obama and told him that I would be willing to run with him as his Vice-President! Our conversation went like this:
BARAK: "You are indeed a great American Mr Ballmer, but I didn't know you were a democrat." BALLMER: "I'm not! But you will be pleased to know that I'm not a Republican either." BARAK: "Then just what are you Mr. Ballmer?" BALLMER: "I knew you would ask that, I thought about it for quite a while, I am a proud Vistacrat!" BARAK: "Ugh, I've never heard of that, just what is that you Vistacrats believe? BALLMER: "A Vistacrat is a populist! A modernist! A person who believes in the right to choose to buy Vista, whether it be Ultimate, premium, business or home! Vistacrats believe that the majority is always right, how could 90% of this great land's people be wrong? A Vistacrat never goes ..." Obama interrupted me: BARAK: "But what about politics, what about taxes?" BALLMER: "Thanks for asking, Vistacrats believe that all corporations with over 80% market share should be tax-exempt and able to bring in talent from anywhere in the world that they wish, visa-free!" BARAK: "I disagree with everything you have said, your entire philosophy is tunnel-visioned, paranoid and narcissistic! But why should I have you on my ticket sir?" BALLMER: "I'M NOT HELLARY!"
There was silence on the line for about thirty seconds .....
BARAK: "Let me get back to you Mr. Ballmer, I will need to consult with some of my advisers! ... and thank you, God bless you, thank you sir, I'll call you back! Thank you sir! Thank you!"
heavyboots
· 1 year ago
Dave, have you read Corey Doctorow's book "Little Brother"? If not, it's worth a read, even though it is aimed at a young adult audience. He's basically written a "how-to" book for preserving freedom and privacy in America when the government attempts to use fear-mongering to usurp basic rights. I hope like hell it never comes down to the kind of scenario he's talking about, but FISA 2 worries me.
At any rate, I highly recommend you check it out--it's a short book and a fast read and well worth the time. For that matter, Corey has published it under CCC license on his website so you can download a PDF right now and see if it interests you: http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/
kevinmil
· 1 year ago
Note -- I posted a comment here that Dave felt was condescending. Such was not my intent, and I'm removing it.
Ted Dziuba
· 1 year ago
If the ACLU ever decides to read 2A correctly, I might actually join.
alfonso_el_sabio
· 1 year ago
Sigh ... "Same as it ever was, same as it ever was. Same. As it. Ever. Was."
Will Cate, you nailed it when you said Obama was a politician ... that pretty much covers it.
tuckerjoseph
· 1 year ago
I liken a vote by the American people for Obama as to a puppy in an animal shelter who has not found a home being took to it's distruction wagging it's tail and happy all the way to it's end.Sometimes what we want can destroy us. We will someday destroy ourselves in the name of doing good.
Michael David Craford
· 1 year ago
When I heard that Obama planned to vote for FISA, I swore to vote for Ralph Nader if he did. Now that Obama HAS voted for FISA, I'm definitely voting Nader, and not just that, but I'll be collecting signatures on his petition to get on the ballot in California.
I do not think that immunity is the answer. I am glad that there is now one and only one way for the executive to order wiretaps. I still think the actions of the executive against Qwest should be investigated. There are lots of laws that have been broken. I'd like to see justice. As much as I hate telecoms, I'd like to see the accountability rise closer to PA Ave.
I do not think that immunity is the answer. I am glad that there is now one and only one way for the executive to order wiretaps. I still think the actions of the executive against Qwest should be investigated. There are lots of laws that have been broken. I'd like to see justice. As much as I hate telecoms, I'd like to see the accountability rise closer to PA Ave.
Nzone
· 1 year ago
I'm still fighting for Hillary. She is our only chance to win against McCain.
cfabrewicz
· 1 year ago
I agree. No surprise to me on FISA mess. Not that I was impressed that much to begin with. I had hoped his campaign was going to be different. The only different thing so far has been a money-raising campaign over the internet, which Howard Dean did last election. It's not like his voting record in the Senate has been stellar or that he introduced impeachment poproceedings against Bush & Co, which the whole Congress should have done.....or that he introduced anything else really revolutionary. I have been writing Obama since last year suggesting he offer to give the millions he raised back to donors unless it's OK with them to give all the campaign money after paying debts to all Food Banks in America. Then I wrote suggesting he and campaign helpers suspend the campaign, with endless repeating of endless slogans and speeches, and go to Iowa that propelled him to the nomination to help with clean up the mud and donate money for relief. Never have gotten an answer on any of those suggestions. Now, I think the Obama campaign should just nominate Clinton for VP---can you tell Coke from Pepsi--and hire the Coca-Cola Company and Pepsi Company to do all the campaign work.
Rebekah Chauhan
· 1 year ago
If we don't vote for McCain, Obama will win the election. How are we better off with Obama in office? McCain is 72, do you think he will actually run for a 2nd term? We should focus on DNC reform to represent not just the liberals, but what about the blue collar workers, rural voters & women who supported Hillary Cinton. The election was rigged from the start because the liberals wanted Obama in office. Once he did not need them he threw them under the bus. Obama is going to pander to moderate Democrats, he doesn't need the liberals anymore. They served their purpose.
dean
· 1 year ago
If his presidential ambition led to poor judgment on the FISA vote, I think that had he been in the Senate (and harboring presidential aspirations ) at the time of the Iraq War resolution and he would have voted to invade Iraq. Think about it, very few Senators voted against invasion -- that was a "harder" vote, with all the additional media coverage leading up to the war. The FISA vote was opposed by a lot more Senators (including Sen Clinton) and was an "easier" vote to get right. It was easy for him to oppose the Iraq war back then, his vote on FISA shows he is no different from the Senators who voted for the Iraq war resolution.
misa
· 1 year ago
Obama is a disgrace to vote for that FISA bill! What a sellout! No, he will NOT get my vote.
All Comments
I won't be voting for McCain either over this. But Obama needs more than us not voting for McCain: he also needs us to show up at the polls to vote for Obama.
Dashing all the hopes and dreams for change that we've invested in him during the primaries though drastically weakens our enthusiasm to show up at the polls when the time comes. Thus, McCain could win by default.
And I believe Obama is taking too much for granted to assume that McCain will be who he faces, anyway. There's a slew of things which could cause the GOP to abruptly replace McCain late in the game, from health issues to old scandals coming back to haunt McCain. Obama is dramatically weakening his base of support with things like FISA; something I don't think he can afford to do in light of possibilities like this.
But if you're too full of yourself (like Obama seems to be at the moment), you tend to think you're the only one that matters.
I'm about as progressive as they get; but Obama seems to be doing all he can to alienate me, since he clinched the nomination. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Below is my own reaction to what I see as the FISA betrayal on Obama's part.
http://www.jmooneyham.com/what-an-ass-obamas-au...
Just goes to show that Obama is another typical politician and Flip Flopper. He also does not want to "erode the power of the presidency", but in doing so he's eroding the rights of millions of Americans. Its sad no matter how you look at it.
This isn't the first important vote that Obama has gone the other way on. There have been several votes since the primary season started that he decided to sit out, instead of taking a principled stand.
We'll see more of the same from Obama, thats how it goes.
If you had supported Obama so much and hated Clinton with such passion during the primary fight, you owe it to yourself now to at least compare their policy proposals. It's the intellectually honest thing to do. That way, in 2012, you will make the important decision of electing a president by basing your choice on the policies and not slogans.
(1) The bill passed 69-28-2. One vote was not going to matter.
(2) While Obama changes his vote, he did vote for an amendment (that didn't pass) that would have stripped the immunity provisions in the bill.
Look, I want change too. But a good leader needs to be effective. Knows when to pick their fights - and also knows when to, well, play politics. Let's get the guy in office and see what changes he can enact. I'll guarantee one thing - Obama (nor any other human being capable of getting elected President in the near future) can enact change *alone*.
If the Democrats gain enough Senate seats - and it's actually beginning to look realistically possible - to mute any GOP filibusters this November, then a President Obama can sign a bill that will totally negate FISA.
Take your pick of cliches... know when to pick your fight... live to fight another day... hold your friends close and your enemies closer... politics is about building consensus... change doesn't happen overnight....
Again, it might not have the "right" thing for Obama to do, but it could be a "good" thing.
I frequently post some rather harsh and nasty comments, especially lately. It's not because I'm particularly a nasty person (I'm really not, quite the opposite), it's rather because I've been involved with politics, up close and dirty, all my life. I know how it really works. We can take the high road all we want, our representatives never do so without an agenda. They may take the high road because it will humiliate a rival, or because it will distract attention from some other not-so-high road activity.
Very few politicians have any ethics or scruples at all. They are a very low and cynical lot. If you treat them as high-minded people, you will be eaten alive at the worst, disappointed at best.
Among the few I assign a full range of humanity to is Howard Dean, and look what was done to him. That's what gets done to anyone who tries to play the high road in this game. It's the "Hey! Quit being so good, you're making the rest of us look bad" routine. If you show that it doesn't have to be this way, you get clobbered.
Anyway, the "Well, it passed anyway" argument doesn't cut it. It didn't have to pass, it passed because our candidate wimped out, or perhaps showed his true face. Either way, he certainly didn't act like the candidate I voted for in NY's primary. I wonder what they offered him for that.
Issues of constitutionality should not be politicized, ever. For any reason. It seems like many people are making excuses for Obama's vote, saying that he needs to run to the middle to win the general election. This is nonsense. If Obama does indeed intend to overturn this bill when he takes office, then he needs to come out and say so.
We need more people in government who are not afraid to take a stand, and who are going to actually do what they say they will.
I think the way to respond to this is the way we're responding: bad-mouth him loudly, and don't send any money until he does something as irrevocable as the FISA vote that proves he heard us. Then we sweet mouth him and send lots of money. If he strays again, we bad-mouth him again. and so on.
I'm coming at this from a pain-compliance, pavlov's dog kind of angle. Every time he strays it costs him, and he loses cash, points, and has to give us something that costs him more than he gained from the sell-out thing (like the FISA vote), for example, you want us to forgive FISA? Cool. Repeal the DMCA. Ouch. DMCA might not be the best example, but something along those lines. Basically reminding him who he works for and who pays him. US.
I think the netroots are being taken for granted, and it's time to make the politicians we finance realize that taking our money means staying bought, or our money goes elsewhere. You work for us, or you don't work. Period.
Finally, this is the moment when we can do this. Once the fall campaign season arrives, we don't want to beat up the Democrat, 'cause it will be close. no matter what we do. This early in the game, there's plenty of time for him to recover. Now is the time to train the puppy. By fall, we want him housebroken.
BTW, when it come to politicians shooting themselves in the foot, I liked the Dean Scream better. The scream, at least, was sincere.
Joshua, this is absurd. Do you want a president, or a house-boy?
Obama is an ambitious young politician, emphasis on politician, who will do or say anything for the sake of political expediency. Get used to it my friend, 'cause there's a lot more where that came from.
For almost a year now, FISA has been THE blogger issue. More talk on this than anything.
Voting the way Obama did on this, after promising to join a filibuster against it the whole time he campaigned, i more than a lap in the face. It's spit in the face. It' almost as if he were saying "I don't have to listen to you; I don't have to listen to anyone, I'm the next president."
So before he gets to smug and comfy with this new attitude, I want to wipe the smirk off his face. I want to remind him we put him where he is, we can send him back to where he was if he really wants to do nothing but betray us. I don't think that's immature, or inappropriate. I think it's common sense.
catch my drift.
Our conversation went like this:
BARAK: "You are indeed a great American Mr Ballmer, but I didn't know you were a democrat."
BALLMER: "I'm not! But you will be pleased to know that I'm not a Republican either."
BARAK: "Then just what are you Mr. Ballmer?"
BALLMER: "I knew you would ask that, I thought about it for quite a while, I am a proud Vistacrat!"
BARAK: "Ugh, I've never heard of that, just what is that you Vistacrats believe?
BALLMER: "A Vistacrat is a populist! A modernist! A person who believes in the right to choose to buy Vista, whether it be Ultimate, premium, business or home! Vistacrats believe that the majority is always right, how could 90% of this great land's people be wrong? A Vistacrat never goes ..."
Obama interrupted me:
BARAK: "But what about politics, what about taxes?"
BALLMER: "Thanks for asking, Vistacrats believe that all corporations with over 80% market share should be tax-exempt and able to bring in talent from anywhere in the world that they wish, visa-free!"
BARAK: "I disagree with everything you have said, your entire philosophy is tunnel-visioned, paranoid and narcissistic! But why should I have you on my ticket sir?"
BALLMER: "I'M NOT HELLARY!"
There was silence on the line for about thirty seconds .....
BARAK: "Let me get back to you Mr. Ballmer, I will need to consult with some of my advisers! ... and thank you, God bless you, thank you sir, I'll call you back! Thank you sir! Thank you!"
At any rate, I highly recommend you check it out--it's a short book and a fast read and well worth the time. For that matter, Corey has published it under CCC license on his website so you can download a PDF right now and see if it interests you:
http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/
"Same as it ever was, same as it ever was. Same. As it. Ever. Was."
Will Cate, you nailed it when you said Obama was a politician ... that pretty much covers it.
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/07/the_immunity_hys...
I do not think that immunity is the answer. I am glad that there is now one and only one way for the executive to order wiretaps. I still think the actions of the executive against Qwest should be investigated. There are lots of laws that have been broken. I'd like to see justice. As much as I hate telecoms, I'd like to see the accountability rise closer to PA Ave.
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/07/the_immunity_hys...
I do not think that immunity is the answer. I am glad that there is now one and only one way for the executive to order wiretaps. I still think the actions of the executive against Qwest should be investigated. There are lots of laws that have been broken. I'd like to see justice. As much as I hate telecoms, I'd like to see the accountability rise closer to PA Ave.
I have been writing Obama since last year suggesting he offer to give the millions he raised back to donors unless it's OK with them to give all the campaign money after paying debts to all Food Banks in America. Then I wrote suggesting he and campaign helpers suspend the campaign, with endless repeating of endless slogans and speeches, and go to Iowa that propelled him to the nomination to help with clean up the mud and donate money for relief. Never have gotten an answer on any of those suggestions.
Now, I think the Obama campaign should just nominate Clinton for VP---can you tell Coke from Pepsi--and hire the Coca-Cola Company and Pepsi Company to do all the campaign work.