Tips for painful self-honesty?

I am not a fan of Obama.

But he has to do what wins.

Him seeing that and acting on it is a positive sign for his political instincts.

OK thats my Obama compliment for the month....

Now when he gonna announce his VP......

we are his left flank

Yep. And frankly some of our Progressive blogs are on Feingold's left flank.

As a note of hope, he IS the 10th most liberal Senator. I think we can rely on his overall strategy to lean significantly left of center.

Battles will be lost though.

Look, I don't expect a candidate to support everything I believe in, and this won't make me stop working to get the guy elected, but this bill is terrible and really indefensible.  And at the end of the day, we want to win so we can...you know...actually produce better policy.  

Also, as a political matter I would note that it's possible to win a debate about this if you frame it correctly.  Especially if you have gads more money than your opponent.  

Which some what agrees with yours.

Obama has said he disagrees with the immunity provision and will work to have it removed. As a candidate trying to appeal to the greatest cross section of voters possible I think this is a good calculated stance. He knows he's got other Senators who are going to stand up and push back and fight this battle.

Sometimes a good general has to let his soldiers do the fighting so he doesn't get wounded. And we all know, had Obama come out with a loud and clear stance being against the bill that's all the press on the right and the right wing wing-nuts would have talked about for days. The whole weak on National Security meme.

I agree with you Reaper.  He needs to make a shift to the middle, in order to win over some moderate Repubs and Indys.  Whatever he needs to do to get in the WH, if not we are left with two senators instead of a POTUS....Must get the WH!

Personally, I think if you want to get angry, direct it at Reid, Pelosi, Rockefeller.

Look to the top tier in positions of power Democrats at the time right post 9/11....

They were ALL briefed on the "dark side" agenda of Dick Cheney, rendition, torture, warrantless wire-taps...

And, they ALL want the bodies buried as deep as possible.

So, Obama has a devils choice: throw them ALL under the bus, or, let them live in their past deeds, and get elected, and start cleaning house?

Right now, he has ENOUGH to try to flush out as many Republics as possible, and maybe some blue dog DINOS?

Besides, IF he can get bigger majorities, we can nuetralize some of the blue-dog votes?

Politics is shades of grey, sometimes you make a pragmatic piece of shit compromise like this FISA bill, and play for another day?

Kos and the purity folks may want to throw Obama under the bus for not going "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" and taking to the senate floor with the copy of the consitition in hand and fillibustering for 3 days....

I will put a chit in my memory, and think, he owes us one?

Besides, for all the strum und drung, anyone realy doubt Senator Clinton would have done the same vote? Whom ever out candidate would have been, would have done the same thing: He has to protect his team. Blame Ried, Hoyer, Pelosi, cause they capitulated to Cheney when the times were dark....

It sucks, but sometimes you play to the whimpy middle if you want to get elected....

It kind of pains me to read this diary.  I mean, if months away from the election you're already going through this sort of agonizing process to rationalize your candidate selling you out, I hate to think where it's going from here.

Thing is, I understand why I can't always have my way on the big issues, but not so much on the small ones.  Maybe the netroots represent the left 10% of the electorate, but it's not like the other 90% is passionately behind telecom immunity.  Very few people even care.  In terms of whether the GOP will get to paint Democrats as soft on terror over this issue, it pales in comparison to warrantless wiretapping, a dog that completely failed to bark for them in 2006.  So there's really very little political downside from going with Dodd and Feingold on this.

I firmly believe that this is about telecom money as much as anything.  That's not to say that the Democrats are taking bribes, but simply that you have a large number of influential lobbyists pushing very hard for this legislation, and you have very little pushback in the other direction.  It's basically just you, me, and Jane Hamsher.  So it's just kind of the sucky nature of the political process that gets us in the end, not any kind of fear over how the GOP will exploit the issue.

The only place where Democrats score points by blowing off the leftward flank of the party is in the Beltway media.  There are no swing voters out there who will say "I was afraid Obama was some left-wing radical, but then I saw how he disagreed with the netroots over telecom immunity and I felt much better about him!"  It's just not that kind of issue.

I remember when this issue came up during the primary and Dodd started vowing a filibuster as though it were the biggest outrage of all time, and all the candidates started jumping to our tune.  "Enjoy it while you can," were my thoughts back then.

dude FISA is shit.

I cant say that Im angry at Obama, just cause its not his fault that going against it is politically toxic for him; the middle is what wins- lets face it.

no wonder the Republicans continue to beat us.

Even with a stronger congress, you're considering these losses.

Wait until the big issues come up and he may fold - SS, War in Iraq, healthcare.

Yeah healthcare - that will be quite thorny.

and yet - and yet - isn't this what the Obama bloggers were dissing Bill and Hillary for -

If after the presidency of bush, we can't expect better - what the heck is the use of the Party?  So we can have the crumbs left?
     

Can someone give me a quick synopsis (or point me to a diary or website) about the Immunity part?  I know what the Telecoms did, but I don't understand the illegal part.  I thought that the Telecoms just basically believed Bush when he said giving up info on their customers was legal.  That's stupid, and Bush was wrong.  But if that's all the Telecoms did, I don't understand the outrage here.  But I think I must not have the whole picture because a lot of progressives are furious about the immunity aspect.  Someone fill me in!

Well, cloture was just passed, 80-15.  We were nowhere near filibuster strength, as it turns out.  Therefore, I can't say that I disapprove.  There was no shot at victory today.

What does it say about his national security ideas? It's pretty disturbing.

Look, his people have had all the answers so far so I guess we just have to keep going, but I'll pine for Howard Dean for the rest of my life.

We should have been taking action on FISA before it hit the house and before the majority of DEMS voted for it.

Too little, too late now.

This is a great diary.  I agree that while I have issues with Obama's position, I think that it is one taken out of political necessity.  The last thing he needs is something like this for McCain to beat over his head under the guise of "national security."

I have to agree, losing this fight 65-35 or 64-36 is just not that big a difference, this fight was lost when it passed 2-1 in the house, now, regardless of how you slice it, if he protests too much it becomes him being out of touch even with the centrists in his party, which he can't be and win unfortunately. And remember, this is about 5-6 months, and then the immunity can be cut out in a new bill when we run the joint, bush dogs be damned!!!

Yep I think we are all Sistah Souljahs now...

Obama's position on this issue.

I ask myself, what does he know that we don't know.

He is definitely talking TOUGH. And standing up to the hard left.

The biggest problem is that he has been saying one thing and doing another.  That gives a lot of people cause for concern.  He won the primary based on his meme that he is a stand up guy, something different, change you can believe in.  

But I don't want McCain to win. I have always been more from the realist camp rather than the purist camp.  That being said- would it REALLY be that unwise for him to go against this bill?  I just don't see the general public as caring about it (other than us activists).  I think he could take a position against it and be unharmed.

He tells you things in January that make you support him.

He tells other people things now that make them support him.

You're sure that what he said in January is what he really things.

They're sure that what they're hearing now is what he really thinks.

What makes you so sure that you're right?

I can understand being upset about the FISA compromise. I'm upset about it myself. What I don't understand is the attitude, "Oh, my god, he sold us out on this issue. I'm going to have to rethink whether I'll vote for him" Do you think McCain would be closer to your side on this issue? Or any issue, for that matter?

Like with many other anti-Obama screeds, this one is all over the place. Obama supporters are supposedly up in arms because they've been sold out, while at the same time, they are blindly following him. His followers are supposed to worship him blindly and yet they are going to turn against him en masse, because of some stance he has taken.

These claims are about as silly as the "He's a muslim/atheist/bad christian" arguments. I've seen all three points argued in the same diary. Then there's the "angry black radical/elitist/country club type". That last one was a Rovism. I wish Obama's opponents would stay on message. I don't really mean that. Being off message is why nothing seems to stick for long.

When people hear someone saying he is a secret Muslim then hear someone else say he's a bad Christian and someone else say he's an atheist none of the charges stick.

Then  people hear this from the right wing, "Obama was sworn in on the Koran." After hearing that they tune in to talk radio and listen to Rush ranting about how Obama sat in a pew at his church for 20 years. I hope they keep up the good work.

some reason to freak out.

There isn't a Senator in that chamber other than Bernie Sanders who satisfies every liberal blog litmus test.

Quite honestly, this FISA stuff is overblown.

I we have to lose a battle to win the War, so be it.

He is who he said he is. I heard him say, loud and clear:

I will work with the other guys.
I will reach across the aisle.
I will work across party lines.
We are the United States of America.

He IS who he said he is. This is what he said he'd do.

I have been aware for years that I am just hanging on to the left edge by my toenails. I'm used to not getting everything on my political grocery list, and I've learned that's probably not a bad thing. I'm an extremist. I know that in its own way, my whole agenda is as dangerous for our country as is the whole agenda of the extremist wing of the Republican party. (My best friend says I'd give people the shirt off my back, and the Republicans try to make sure that I don't give them my pants, too.) I think that if everybody's a little pissed off, things are probably about where they should be.

This is going to happen again. I think that as President, Senator Obama is going to piss us off sometimes. He's gonna reach across party lines and make compromises...and I'm gonna yell at the television and wonder what the fuck he's thinking and where are his principles.

But I believe he will get things done and that will be a very welcome change, and he did promise us change. He didn't promise not to piss us off.

A sad LOL.   FISA is #1.  I think I'll keep a list until it hits #43.   And then see how many of Obama's supporters still believe in "transformation" and the "New Politics."  L-O-fucking-L.

I've merely been beaten.   Many Obama supporters have been swindled.  I can't wait until those who called Hillary "Republican lite" wind up figuring out that they bought an inconsistent ineffective pig in a poke.

Personally, I think he thinks he has to, or he's picking his battles with one eye on McCain and the other on the Broders.
Whatever the rationale, I think he's wrong. I think he could and should make the case and take the lead in stripping immunity now. He's blowing an opportunity here, IMHO.

And his language is a huge disappointment. There's nothing in the non-immunity FISA bill that threatens "national security".

Well, at some point you have to do like e.e. cummings's Olaf and decide that there is sh-t you will not eat.

You're also allowing yourself to run centrist, i.e. become persuaded that the way to judge things is to ask what the short term practical and pragmatic thing to do is.  That's the seduction of Obamaism- to pretend that the convenient thing to do is also the Democratic thing to do.

Opposition to telecom immunity is really not a "leftist" position. We're not talking about abortion, or school vouchers, or trade agreements, or gun control, or any of the many, many issues where there are arguments to be made on both sides. This is a simple question of government accountability versus totalitarian power. Truth versus lies. The reason "leftists" get so pissed over this issue, as Markos pointed out a few days ago, is that this one issue is SO FREAKIN' OBVIOUS. War funding, tax changes, sure, it makes sense for Democrats to negotiate on those. But all they had to do to prevent telecom corporations from getting away with felonies was sit on their asses... and they failed at that.

I agree that there is political calculation at the heart of Obama's position here, but it's not a matter of positioning himself as a "centrist." It's a matter of being a "good team player" and keeping quiet about his own party's cave to corporate interests.

The fault for this lies with the Democratic Congressional leadership.  Even though a majority of Democrats may be against this bill, the skids were greased to allow it to come up for a vote.

If it had not come up for a vote, Obama would not have to choose sides, and Congressional Democrats in close races would not have to decide which side would make them look weaker.

So then, why DID it come up for a vote?  Because key Democrats WANTED IT so badly that it was worth the RISK to bring it up.

I don't know if Glenn Greenwald is right when he suggests they are doing it as CYA to protect themselves, to give THEMSELVES immunity.  That seems too cynical.  But Congressional Dems are clearly trying to appease somebody.  Maybe they made a promise they have to keep, or maybe there are some unrelated bodies that might be dug up if the FISA thing ever hits the courts.  I don't know.  But the whole thing smells of corruption and a betrayal.

So, Obama is still my candidate, and I can forgive his need to vote for this for tactical reasons, but I DO NOT FORGIVE the members of the Democratic Caucus who were in a position to stop this from happening.

It was oh so clever, wasn't it?  They waited us out, waited until we were too tired, too distracted, too confused from everything, including the campaign wars, that we wouldn't notice when they brought it up for a vote again.  Several times, now, they tried to slip it through rather quietly, and each time it generated so much heat they just stepped back into the shadows to wait for a better time.  It worked.  

Hoyer, Reid, Pelosi, all of them should be looking for new jobs.  

I have seen a lot of posts made to this kind of sentiment lately, generally being that we should not criticize our Democratic officials because they know what's best.  Whether in regards to Sens. Dodd and Conrad's mortgage bargains or Barack Obama's position on the FISA bill, the thinking goes that there are larger forces at work here which we ought to be considerate of.  (This isn't even terribly accurate in regards to your post, Reaper, I'm mostly talking about some other things I've seen lately.)

Honestly, I do think there are times when these kinds of actions are appropriate and called for.  It's not that I think this line of thought is illegitimate.  However, I believe in taking all of our public officials to task over issues is critical to democracy, whether or not they happen to be a member of your party.  No matter who you are or how unique your own interests might be, if you are not willing to stand up for them, who can you count on to do it for you?  If we hold some of our elected officials to certain standards and others to different ones, don't we lose some of our authority when we seek justice against those on the other side of the aisle?

We owe it to ourselves as American citizens and as carriers of the tradition of democracy to hold our representatives accountable and to make sure that our interests are represented, politically advantageous or not.

I think Barack Obama needs to get a little bitter medicine for his decision on this issue.  I mean, there's really not much to be done other than to make a little noise and voice a little displeasure.  Even if he has to screw over the public to win their votes, which he may have to do, if we don't hold his feet to the fire for it, we're not doing our part.

I give you credit for being able to write a diary about your conflicting views in reference to the candidate you support.

I have no problem with Obama moving toward the center.  However, I find it strange that many of the same people (not necessarily including the diarist) who have vilified the Clintons for moderating their positions on some on issues to, among other reasons, increase their electability, are now praising Obama for doing the same thing.

It's not that he has to screw you. It's that he needs to win. The New Politics thing was an old politic way to win over the young. But politics are politics and thank God, as far as I'm concerned that Obama's not going to play the game like loser Democrats often do. Go Obama!

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say on this matter.

Reading your diary reminded me very much of all the Internet Security debates I have been involved with since the early nineties.  I invented one of the early firewalls (BorderWare), and since that time it has been my mixed pleasure and angst to engage in heated debates that are very very similar to this one.

What I want to see is that the issues of this country, and of this world, improve over time.  The details of how to do all of that I am happy to ponder and discuss, but not at the expense of moving that ball down the field one play at a time and winning the game in the end.

-chris

PS - my comments get long-winded at the best of times, but this one went on at such length that I'm going to turn into a diary linking back to this diary in the next few minutes.  Come to that one to see the whole thing intact.

True, the "progressive blogosphere" is not the center. And the center is where presidential poltics is played during a general election campaign.

Given some of his openly liberal rhetoric and policy proposals, Obama appears to understand that the country's true center lies well to the left of where the republicans and the media have convinced the public to perceive it. But he's not going to move far enough left to entirely please the progressives who populate the blogs and make up part of the activist base.

You're absolutely right. At this point in the campaign, Obama is staking out positions that will broaden his appeal and limit his vulnerability to attack from the right. It's obvious that he's going to be getting it from both sides; the wise tactical decision is to keep his right flank covered, and trust that those on the left will keep the big picture in mind.

Excellent diary Reaper0bot0. I havent taken a look at the discussion yet. Tomorrow, as it is late now. I do not know if the FISA battle is one of the ones we need to choose, but this is a real tough one to lose. The fact is that you nailed it, we are the left flank, and we won't always like what he has to do. However, Obama seems as close to a choice I actually like, as I have ever seen, or ever may see in our lifetimes, so I do want Obama to be elected. However we must still keep pushing him with all of our might from his left flank. Thank you for the diary.

Rememer when this is how Obama condemned Hillary Clinton?

HELLO?

There'll come a time for taking risks and making stands. There'll be issues to fight to the death for. That time is not now, those issues are not FISA. I disagree with the notion of there being broad support for stripping immunity. In the narrow confines of the political blogosphere, maybe. But most Americans get their news from the MSM, and it's an even bet they've never even heard of FISA. And with those that have, it isn't a priority over the economy, the war, healthcare, gas prices.

Where people are under-informed, the GOP happily fills in the blanks with slogans, smears, distortions, and outright lies - their hallmark, no surprise there. A continuing FISA foodfight had an infinite capacity to be spun at will - national security, tort reform. Obama is merely the presumptive nominee at this point: to expect him to elevate esoteric battles into campaign issues that would almost certainly be used to batter him with.. is breathtakingly naive.

The FISA cave-in stinks, but that's what you get with our utterly abysmal leadership in congress. To the extent that our presumptive nominee is a senator, he shares some of the blame - but if anything,  that blame is somewhat ameliorated precisely because he is running for president. Bill didn't make Gays in the Military a defining issue of his '92 campaign with good reason, although it certainly was one of the first issues he addressed as president.

Let the campaign run its course, for heavens sake.

You really believe that Obama needs to throw everyone "under the bus" in order to become President?  Including his own supporters?

This was supposed to be the time such turmoil for the Republicans that they were nearly certain to lose the White House.  Our party went off on a limb and decided--albeit very narrowly--the supposed change candidate:  Barack Obama, the 'progressive reformer' who stood on principle, and would absolutely deliver the Democrat agenda.  For me, at least, his current FISA stance--as well as his opposition to the Supreme Court's new ruling against expanding the death penalty to child rape cases--does not deliver.

But there are those who suddenly argue that Obama never fashioned himself to be a progressive.  He campaigned as a centrist all along now.  Riiight...that explains why it was Obama who spoke out against Clintonian "triangulation" during one of the debates.  That explains everything.

Didn't Obama say he would do everything within his power to get the immunity out of the bill?

What's wrong with that?  Why are we acting like he said he is in favor of immunity?