We know that Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006. Why is Captain Change still empowering stealth Republicans?

http://tinyurl.com/3zjwv5

"Making matters much worse here, Obama -- who has removed himself almost completely from the pending eavesdropping and telecom amnesty debate -- recorded this ad for Barrow on the eve of that bill's passage, all in order to keep in power a key Democratic supporter of this FISA/amnesty bill. Yet telecom amnesty is not merely a side issue but is one of the purest expressions of what Obama claims so vigorously to oppose in Washington . . . .

This is everything Obama claims so vehemently to oppose, claims he wants to end. And yet the Congress under the control of his party is about to enact a radical bill to legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunize telecoms who broke our country's laws for years. And not only is Obama doing nothing about any of that, but far more, he's actively intervening in a Democratic primary to help one of the worst enablers of all of this stay in power, while helping to defeat an insurgent, community-based challenger.

None of that is enjoyable to write or accept, but those are just facts. There is a disturbing tendency on all sides to view Obama through a reductive Manichean lens -- either he's the embodiment of pure transformative Good who is going magically to cleanse our polity the minute he takes office, or he's nothing other than a mindless, passive tool of the establishment whose pretty rhetoric masks a barren ambition for power and who is no better than McCain. Neither of those caricatures is remotely accurate, and a John McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level.

But it's critical to keep in mind that Obama is a politician and, like all people, is plagued by significant imperfections. He has largely entrenched himself in, and is dependent upon, the power structure he says he wants to undermine. Uncritical devotion to political leaders, including him, is destructive. Obama needs pressure, criticism, checks, and real scrutiny just like anyone else in power in order to keep him accountable, responsive, and faithful to the principles he claims are the ones driving him.

Pressure of that sort should include demanding that he take meaningful action against this Draconian and lawlessness-enabling bill. This is, after all, a bill which his own party is seeking to pass and justifying their behavior, in part, by claiming that they're doing it to protect Obama politically from being attacked as Weak on Terrorism. If this bill passes and Obama does nothing to stop it, he'll bear significant responsibility for its enactment. Here's his campaign's phone number: (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu]."

Obama needs pressure, criticism, checks, and real scrutiny

Yeah, but if we tell them that "Corporatism You Can Believe In" told us to call, they probably ignore our concerns.

How about you lose the insulting Moniker and we move forward in a more positive manner?

Corporatism You Can Believe In:

Very very valid point here.

Was virgin mobile involved in the wiretapping? Is it possible to have a cell phone without giving money to these criminals?

My wife still has a Verizon phone; I'm hoping this will be the straw that finally convinces her to change carrier.

AT&T is just as bad, which is why I don't have an iPhone, and probably never will.

Please help me vote with my wallet- please name a cellular carrier that refused this illegal order.

I'd also like to chime-in that this is a HUGE mistake as far as Obama is concerned. The people who claim he is "weak on terror" are the same who claim he "went to a radical madrasah" and "is a Muslim" and "hates white people". Stop pandering to the assholes Obama- it is a lost cause.

On the other hand, the Independents, ex-Republicans and wacko fringe dwellers such as myself are hanging on my a thread. After the recent DNC-wide rejection of PAC money I took a solid step forward towards the DNC.

After this, I have taken THREE steps back.

Is Obama still a superior candidate to McCain? yes. But bullshit like this makes it IMPOSSIBLE- yes, impossible- for me to bring others to the party. When they look at me and say "two sides of the same coin", I don't believe myself when I disagree with them.

If this is how Obama wants to play things, I'm afraid JoAnn is right- and McCain is going to win.

I absolutely agree with CYCBI - I have not been alive for a politician that hasn't needed to be held accountable. I liked Clinton but there were a lot of problems when he was in office. Oh, for those good old days. Oh, for those problems.

Two sides of the same coin - I call talking point bullsh@t. That's what they said in 2000. "Oh - there's no real difference between the parties except Bush is going to lower your taxes." How can you lose with that kind of rhetoric? But, anyone who still don't know the difference between the neocon-ruled Republican party (which McCain has signed onto with eager Presidential-reaching clawed hands) and Democrats might want to talk to the Republicans who complain they don't even know their own party any more.

Don't like something Obama does - fine. But - don't say they are two sides of the same coin. There is no coin like the administration we have in now...executive power hungry, pre-emptive war hawks, Gilded Age class system, working the religious with the "noble lie" to keep their people stupid so they don't revolt or commit crimes --- remember - only white collar workers are allowed criminal acts 'cause those aren't really bad...COME ON....

And, yes, if the American public believes the Rovian marketing and PR machine, of course we're going to have McCain in. This is a test to see how gullible the American public is - will they believe their own eyes and ears as to what is happening or will they ignore that and believe what they are told. We'll see. I don't know if Einstein really said this but: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Not an encouraging thought but...we'll see.

Jillbryant2003:

The unconstitutional powers granted to this administration will be inherited by the next- be it McCain, Obama or whoever comes next.

Are there critical difference between the various political parties? Yes. Do I agree that Obama is a superior candidate to McCain? Yes again.

However, when BOTH sides of the aisle allow criminal behavior such as this to continue, this compliance DWARFS the other differences in the eyes of most disenfranchised voters. Unless the disenfranchised (the largest potential voting block in America) are inspired to come out and vote, McCain will be our next President.

Is it a talking point? Sure. But it has spread like wildfire because it speaks truth to the disenfranchised.

Obama: I'm begging you- give me something to work with here. If you can convince your party to reject PAC money, you can convince them to reject this.

The Constitution gets a bi-partisan burial:

http://tinyurl.com/3ebppu

In a sane world, you'd have to photoshop something like this. Reminds me of the shunting scene from Brian Yuzna's movie "Society."

Ok, I change my mind.

Cowardice and stupidity rule the day.

Obama's statement is a sad excuse for a stance.

I hope its just pandering. and pressure from Senate leadership.

Giving into the completely emasculated Bush for fear or the republican smear machine is by far the wimpiest thing Dems have done since the authorization vote.

Link to off Color joke, click at your own risk. http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=5152485&colorNo=0&pr=F

RedSeven:

Great shirt, and apt. The reason this "the dems are wimps" meme has spread so far is because...the dems have been wimps since 2000.

I'm even willing to go so far as to forget that I voted dem in '06 having been promised they would end the war. For want of better options, I've let it go.

But RETROactive anything is just criminal. This BS stinks as bad as the Habeus Corpus issue IMO.

These are not petty political differences folks, these are cornerstones of all western law.

It is hard to make this point without coming off as a hack, but before attacking Obama, I think it's important to remember that (1.) the Senate has not yet voted (and it will next week, and (2.) to listen to what he himself has to say about the bill.

Before quoting, let me just say out the outset, renewing FISA but with retroactive immunity is simply not negotiable; it is intolerable. That is my own view.

Anyway, here is what Obama says :

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.

[This is bullshit. Even after the bill expired, the same legal means and resources were available as before; that is why Demos were so nonchalant about letting it expire to begin with, and why Bush was simply lying when he claimed they were putting American lives in danger by not renewing it post haste--AG].

So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

The bill is a half measure, and a bad half measure. We shall see if Obama has any guts when this gets to the Senate.

The unconstitutional powers granted to this administration will be inherited by the next- be it McCain, Obama or whoever comes next.

I don't know. I think that could depend on the next judge put into the Supreme Court. We saw what happened with habeas corpus but --- on a 5-4 vote (the Republican appointee judges bloc vote actually was shocking to me - I expected better of at least Roberts.). I think there will be some other tests and rolling back if Democrats put in an ethical judge. I so dread to think what will happen if McCain is in and gets in another partisan hack.

However, when BOTH sides of the aisle allow criminal behavior such as this to continue, this compliance DWARFS the other differences in the eyes of most disenfranchised voters.

I hate to be cynical here but do you think this is what the disenfranchised voter is going to respond to? I think you are giving them more credit than they deserve. I think they might respond to something like gas prices - things that touch them directly and immediately...

jillbryant:

Speaking personally, two things that I responded to were Obama and Paul- two politicians speaking truth among a crowd of spin doctors.

When I forwarded the "Obama rejects PACs" story last week, I got quite a few responses from self-described anarchists and libertarians. Most of them said something along the lines of: "wow. maybe this guy [Obama] is worth supporting after all...".

The above Obama speech (quoted by Adam) was forwarded to me by several of these same folks, who now said: "nevermind".

In terms of pure numbers, the "don't bother to vote" crowd outnumbers the elderly, registered Republicans and registered Democrats. It is an awesome force, waiting for a leader gutsy enough to engage it.

I hate to be cynical here but do you think this is what the disenfranchised voter is going to respond to? I think you are giving them more credit than they deserve. I think they might respond to something like gas prices - things that touch them directly and immediately...

Not cynical at all. Them's the facts.

Adam said:

It is hard to make this point without coming off as a hack, but before attacking Obama, I think it's important to remember that (1.) the Senate has not yet voted (and it will next week, and (2.) to listen to what he himself has to say about the bill.

And Hillary Clinton in 2002 had her justifications for voting for th Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution.

I didn't buy this with Hillary Clinton and I don't buy it with Barack Obama. (And yes, I know you don't buy it either)

The bill is a half measure, and a bad half measure. We shall see if Obama has any guts when this gets to the Senate.

I agree.

However, Obama has to play the game and weigh out the difference between being ideologically pure and kissing the ass of "Reagan Democrats", aka "Blue dog" white hard-working white Democrats. That is Obama's weak point and he has to win over the Hillary Democrats (that is, the more conservative Democrats) in order to win the nomination. All of the ideological purity in the world does not secure the nomination.

Obama has to deal with the following Democrats who are pro immunity.

Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Thomas Carper, Bob Casey, Kent Conrad, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Claire McCaskill, Barbara Mikulski, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth Salazar, Jim Webb, Sheldon Whitehouse

To win over the support of Democrats, you have to work with not only the liberal Democrats, but also the conservative Democrats.

There's this notion that the Democrats are a small majority of the Congress now so that should make all the difference.

But wake up. Many of the the Blue-Dog Democrats are not all that different from the Republicans.

During the primaries, there was a war vis-à-vis Liberals/Progressives (or whatever the hell the label is these days)between more liberal/progessive Democrats and more conservative/right-wing Democrats.

Now we have a war between The Republican and The Democrat.

No right-winger Republican will ever be able to elect a true ideological right winger. No left-winger Democrat will ever be able to elect a true ideological left winger.

So you look at the candidates and decide which one best suits your own views.

For two elections, the American public didn't see much of a difference between Kerry and GWB, or between Gore and GWB.

We are now at the moment in history where it seems that the Americans don't see that much of a difference between Obama and McCain...

Joann, I think you're reasoning is cogent--the so-called Reagan "Democrats" do need to be won over. The same argument has occurred to me as well, but ultimately, I don't agree with your otherwise elegant analysis.

For two elections, the American public didn't see much of a difference between Kerry and GWB, or between Gore and GWB.

That is exactly it: And so what good can come from the Democratic candidate becoming a carbon copy of a Republican? I believe if Barack makes clear the differences--as surely, he has the ability to do--showing persuasively that this is not an argument about national security but about whether the president is subject to oversight and ultimately to the rule of law, I think he stands an even chance of changing the terms of the debate.

The best argument I can give about this is to quote Barack himself:

"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

[That's goddamn right and it's about f&*#ing time someone (other than Joe Biden) finally said it loud and clear-A]

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice."

They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism," - Barack Obama, yesterday.

Kerry was weak because he was specifically advised not to draw the differences with Bush on Iraq too sharply--he'd criticize Bush but when push came to shove, and he was asked what'd he'd do about the situation as it now stands, his position was deliberate vague.

Democrats will not be able to achieve our most basic political goals unless (1.) we show that we ultimately stand for something, and don't waver and backtrack when push comes to shove, and (2.) we get rid of the erroneous idea that in order to beat a Republican, you need to run like a Republican--with fear-mongering, sabler rattling, smear adds from 527s.

Obama has gotten the PACs and lobbyists out of the DNC. He ran -- for the most part--an honorable campaign against his fellow democrats. He's as cunning and politic as any other politician, but that doesn't mean he needs to play by their rules.

Zaphod -

When I forwarded the "Obama rejects PACs" story last week, I got quite a few responses from self-described anarchists and libertarians.

If that is how they describe themselves, they do not want to vote Democratic and will do everything to find reasons not to. But, I don't believe that truly has to do with issues. I think if they were paying attention to issues, the balance is so weighted against getting another Republican in, they would be like you. I think they are still subject to the marketing that has been going on from the Republicans - and I think the "anarchist" and "libertarian" labels are usually (not always, but usually) offshoots of that. Even my friend's grandmother who is an O'Reilly listener recently said she was an anarchist because she was so mad at the Bush administration but didn't like those liberals....

And, the Republican machine has worked hard to position Democrats/liberals as the most negative stereotype they could - poor (because they don't work), hippies, wanting a free ride, not masculine, whiny, immoral, etc. But, if you work hard under the Republican system, you will have a lot of money (or, you're at least on the team of those with the money and you can cheer for them.) Since they try to make it seem like Democrats don't want people to have money and that's why they are out to tax those rich people, I always find it amusing how they then blast wealthy Democrats as greedy hypocrites. And, there's a strong message to the heartland, that higher education is somewhat effeminate and "elite" - not hard working, brush clearers, etc. (counting on everyone to ignore the mistake of the Ivy League schools that, of course, they've all been given access to.)

With the disenchantment of Bush (and, if the war had truly ended when he claimed victory, we would be so tightly under the stranglehold of the Republican real man myth that even a struggling economy wouldn't have set us free - that would've just been blamed on those wimpy Democrats), these guys don't want to vote Republican but...I know they aren't ready to join the side of the wimps. I think they are already so Democratic disinclined, they will be looking for reasons NOT to vote Democratic.

What I'm trying to say (and probably not doing a good job of it) is that I don't think this is truly about issues.

And the whole libertarian thing - I'm sorry - I think that's just Republican lite - but, remember - not your grandfather's Republican party - it's the hip, maverick, money, success, masculine party.

This is the messaging that they have been working so hard on and that you have to counteract to get that "disenfranchised" voter out. Not the issues.

Again, since I'm a marketer, maybe I'm too cynical about all of this. Or, maybe it's because I can't understand any analysis of the political situation that doesn't say get these guys OUT - now!

If I'm over the top here, sorry - we've been having a heat wave and I'm feeling a little fried.