MyDD :: FISA

by alyssa chaos on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:00:21 PM EST

you mean the same Hatch here on mydd's rec list?

by rf7777 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:03:24 PM EST

OK. I am now officially apologizing to all Clinton supporters.

You were right.

I was wrong.

I was duped. I was taken in my his slick "leadership" (ha!) skills and smooth talk.

If I could take my vote back I would. I AM ANGRY.

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah, you're right, because she wouldn't have voted with 68% of the senate, and instead spent the next 4 months being painted as out of the mainstream and against protecting Americans...I see that now based on your objections...Do i wish he voted different, yes, do i understand he probably couldn't, yes, is it a game changer, NO!!!!

Re: FISA (1.00 / 0)

I love how all the deadenders are suddenly leaders in the FISA fight.

I'll bet more than half had never heard of such a bill until Obama said he'd oppose it.

The comments over at NoKKKwarter are hilarious.

by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

Well, similarly, I love how there's now a big constituency in the netroots for giving in to the Republicans on this issue, when back before the current campaign folks on the blogs were virtually unanimous in urging Democrats to fight on telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping.

The vast majority of the people who are upset over this are the same people who were upset over it all along. I won't defend Larry Johnson or his three-ring circus, but I'm a little tired of the troll patrol.

by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by christinep on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you rf7777. It is the acknowledgement that Hillary is a decent human and Democrat that is important to a number of us. You know, idolization of any candidate can cause all kinds of twists and turns to justify ourselves and the one-time favorite candidate.

You forget, he's not the official nominee - write (none / 0)

to SDs and ask for a floor roll call on the floor! Why do you think Obama is trying so hard to stop it - he knows there's an iota of a chance that delegates might change their minds...

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is the real story as to why he opposed the (2.00 / 2)

war:

There has been quite an uproar in the press that Sen. Obama has flip flopped on Iraq. I think there is deep rooted misunderstanding of Sen. Obama's position on the Iraq war. There is a false presumption on the part of the public and the media regarding the speech Sen. Obama made on Chicago lake front.

Let us go to the facts: Sen. Obama delivered his now famous "Iraq war speech" on October 2nd 2002. The Iraq war resolution was passed by the House of Representatives on October 10th and passed by the senate on October 11th. By October 2002 Obama had already made up his mind to run for the US Senate. He was well aware that the majority of the Illinois Democratic delegation was going to vote against the war resolution. In fact it is public record that 9 out of 12 Democrats in the Illinois delegation voted against the resolution. Here is the list:

Sen Dick Durbin- Rep Jerry Costello- Rep Danny Davis- Rep Lane Evans- Rep Luis Gutierrez Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr- Rep Bill Lipinski- Sen Bobby Rush- Rep Jan Schakowsky

Sen. Obama's run for the senate required the support of the congressional Democrats and it would have been unwise for him not to speak against the Iraq war. It was not necessarily his convictions that made him speak up against the war it was in fact a political necessity. So I can see why he might now want to "refine" his position.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalle adership/a/IraqNayVote_3.htm

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST

He's a coward passing himself as a man of (none / 0)

convictions and principles - how do you like his principles and convictions now? Does he still represent yours?

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:27:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

Have people forgotten that the GOP tried to make the whole 2006 election about Democrats being soft on terrorism for opposing warrantless wiretapping? Have they forgotten the coast-to-coast fearmongering ads the Republicans ran using that theme?

Have they forgotten how that election turned out, how the Republicans failed to defeat a single Democratic incumbent?

Someone wants a free pass for voting for the Patriot Act a couple weeks after 9/11, fine, you can have your free pass. But I really don't see what Democrats have to fear from this vote. We have all the empirical evidence we could ever want in the form of the 2006 election results.

And this is exactly the type of politics Obama was supposed to move us beyond. No more cowering to the Republicans, no more ceding the battlefield to them every time they wave the bloody flag of national security. Instead, we're right back in the 2002 mindset.

One of the main reasons Lyndon Johnson escalated our involvement in Vietnam is that the Republicans were agitating for it and, given the ambitious domestic program he wanted to pass, he didn't want to give them an excuse to paint him as soft on Communism. Well, that sure worked out great.

by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:05:47 PM EST

I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?

Besides the telecom immunity what exactly is your problem with FISA?

by hootie4170 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:16:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

I am not sure why you want to threadjack this. I will incorporate Glenn Greenwald's objections to the bill by reference.

by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Way. No How. No McCain.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This whole idea that Obama would lose the election if had voted no is just ridiculous. What short memories we seem to have. Or perhaps selective memories is more accurate.

by Denny Crane on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:45:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question (2.00 / 1)

I'm confused on one topic - did Clinton vote for or against cloture on the final bill?

by NewOaklandDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:07:23 PM EST

Against (none / 0)

by JJE on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pick Your Battles (none / 0)

I agree that I probably expressed my opinion quite poorly. I absolutely do not believe that Democrats should, as a rule, roll over for the GOP on national security issues.

But my overall point stands. In this particular instance I don't think that the risk he would have faced by opposing the bill would have outweighed the consequences of the vote. If he'd done the same thing on a vote to authorize force in Iran, it would obviously be a different situation. We're talking about telecom immunity, not a declaration of war.

by Hatch on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:09:27 PM EST

The only reason he opposed the war (2.00 / 1)

was for political reasons. Nine out of 12 in Illinois Democratic delegation voted agains the war.

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only reason he opposed the war (none / 0)

yepo, that's it, and Hillary only voted the way she did today because she knew there are no consequences but possibly upsetting the apple cart. See, I can make up silly assertions too, est part is, they do nothing about anything.

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe that she voted the way she did because (none / 0)

of insider's information that Bill had and also because of Tony Blair who was a good friend to them. Let's face it I blame Blair as the person most responsible for the war - every time the country was wavering Bush had him come over and convince us - how many trips did he come over and made the eloquent case for the war while Bush stood silently next to him? I can think of 4. I believe Hillary believed him more than Bush and took his word for the presence of wmd!

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:32:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pick Your Battles (none / 0)

Don't worry, just a perfect reason to blame Obama for everything from the blame Obama first crowd. It's quite amusing if it wasn't so sad. he's pretty much the damned if you do, damned if you don't candidate at this point.

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why did he call Hillary "Bush lite" ?? (none / 0)

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just To Clarify (none / 0)

Josh Orton is not "the blame Obama first" crowd by any stretch of the imagination. I hope that's not what you're implying.

by Hatch on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just To Clarify (none / 0)

No, just people like Indy Dem and the like. And these people are falling for it...Anyone who can't understand why this took the route it took obviously can't see the forest through the trees, as much as it reeks...Of course now we get to listen to all these weenies come out of the woodwork like somehow this 69-28 vote is all because of 1 man!!!!

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just To Clarify (2.00 / 1)

yes that was what he was implying, but look how quickly he tried to distance himself from it when challenged LOL!

by zerosumgame on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just To Clarify (none / 0)

yes, because you know me so well, you can get what I'm implying...Pretty comical stuff coming from a troll.

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How can you explain that a constitutional lawyer (none / 0)

voting against our civil rights and the constitution if not for his own political ambition! How can you excuse this travesty? If anything he should have fought tooth and nail for our constitutional rights but he chickened out just to be more palatable to the independents/republoicans!

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:35:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pick Your Battles (none / 0)

What was the risk? We already had an election on the issue of warrantless wiretapping in 2006, and look what people thought of the Republican fearmongering then!

Either we're going to keep cowering at the thought of Republican attack ads or we're not. Considering they'd be doing nothing but recycling the same ads they already lost with in 2006, I really don't think there's much of an excuse for cowering.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:15:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There was an election (none / 0)

on the issue of warrantless wiretapping? Do you really think that was a big issue on voters minds in 2006? I bet less than 10% of the population knows what FISA stands for. Hell, I bet less than 10% of readers of this blog have even read the bill.

by JJE on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:21:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There was an election (none / 0)

Republicans ran ad after ad on the issue of warrantless wiretapping in 2006. It gained them nothing.

I am not interpreting the 2006 results as some kind of massive mandate against warrantless wiretapping. I am interpreting them as pretty rock-solid evidence that Republican fearmongering on this issue is completely ineffective. This was one of their major themes, and they didn't defeat a single incumbent!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps they ran (none / 0)

ad after ad in some races. I don't recall that. Also, national security is a bigger issue in a presidential campaign than in a congressional campaign, so even assuming 2006 was a litmus test I don't know how much you can infer from it.

by JJE on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps they ran (2.00 / 1)

Presidential elections are also the time when you get the public's ear to actually explain your positions. Obama was supposed to be the candidate who would actually stand up for his positions, not one who would cower just because the Republicans might fearmonger.

Further, are we supposed to believe that every other Democrat who caved on this issue did so just to give Obama some cover? None of them are running for President, so they should have no reason to be afraid. 2006 is an exact precedent as far as they're concerned.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps they ran (none / 0)

maybe on this point, he agrees with the revisions, and doesn't think the spilled milk of companies listening to the president is really worth tying up the FISA revisions, which aren't much different than what are in place now? Who knows, I've said he's wrong on it, but the end all be all argument is just silly since it was passing with or without him.

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps they ran (none / 0)

There is a limit to how much explaining you can do. Before it before I was against it. I don't think he'd win the argument that it is more important to allow some nominal-damages suits to proceed than it is to allow the NSA to data-mine the electronic communications of foreigners.

Regarding the other Dems, they may, as Dog Chains suggests, simply have taken the view that the benefits of getting judicial oversight of the system, especially when the Right is arguing that this monitoring is within the sole purview of the executive and beyond Congress's power, outweighs the negatives.

by JJE on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps they ran (none / 0)

Well, conversely, if he thinks the bill is a great idea and perfectly consistent with the Fourth Amendment, he's done a pretty crappy job of explaining himself to the left. He's been more interested in saying "hey, I'm really sincere, I'm not just doing this to move to the center" than in actually articulating a coherent argument in favor of the bill. Really, I think the odds that the Republicans unanimously got this one right are vanishingly small.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If he's caving on such an important bill what will (none / 0)

he sacrifice next? Social Security? Abortion rights? You can no longer trust him! His word is shite!!!!

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:36:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Scan on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM EST

Very proud to call myself a Clinton Democrat today.

Thank you, Hillary, for standing against Bush/Cheney and standing up for the Constitution today.

allprogressives.com

Me too ! (none / 0)

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:37:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by MKyleM on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:10:49 PM EST

I actually agree with the diarist.

Obama's main challenge is to prove to Americans he will be willing to protect the country from whatever threat - terrorists, China, etc.

Clinton does not have to prove her 'testicular fortitude'...they can be seen from space.

The main problem, for me, is that I'm sure if you go back and look at her earlier diaries, she was railing against Clinton as a hypocrite and 'politics as usual'.

And she is. But, so is Obama and he always has been.

by zerosumgame on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry but protecting us from the Constitution helps America how exactly? How would lawsuits holding those telecoms accountable would harm America how exactly? After all the only bad thing that could come from those suits would be to show just how the taps were NOT used to "fight terrorism" but rather as political toys. And once again, no matter how many corrupt officials would be fired or jailed I do not see how that is a harm to us rather then a good thing?

Can you show me (2.00 / 1)

where the FISA bill is unconstitutional? Citing a case or two maybe? I hear "OMG the CONSTITUTION!" bandied around a lot but I find few people are familiar with the Fourth Amendment and even fewer understand the bill.

by JJE on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you show me (2.00 / 1)

freedom of speech and all that old-fashioned stuff, and being free in our persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. But I guess those are not parts of the Constitution you and dumbaya want, huh?

by zerosumgame on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:41:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for proving my point (2.00 / 2)

I ask for reasoned analysis based on the bill and the Constitution, you respond with non-responsive overwrought boilerplate.

by JJE on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:46:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for proving my point (2.00 / 2)

It's the zerosumgame way.

by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you show me (none / 0)

Again, the first FISA Bill in 1978 had a three day window where the government could obtain a warrant after the fact, that hasn't been mentioned much, nor has any Supreme Court struck it down, so you point?

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by MKyleM on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are right, no doubt.

The problem is that Americans aren't the smartest country of people on the planet. Or, educated and informed, I should say. They are easily fooled. And you're never going to get all of that information released before the election anyway (not with this Congress) - about who was spied on, etc.

Obama is a new figure on the scene. We have been following him and feel as if we know him. We trust him. The country as a whole is not there yet. Not only that, but they're hearing all kinds of crazy rumors about the guy.

If Obama can vote for a bill that is, as you can clearly see, going to pass overwhelmingly and avoid giving McCain a potentially damaging opening, then it is worth it.

He can fix it when he's president and he doesn't have to worry about progressives....he knows you and I will vote for him anyway.

by zerosumgame on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

worth it? How exactly is tearing more holes in our social compact good in any sense of the word? If he had not been so wishy-washy on it from the get go it would not have passed in this form. As it was he was ineffectual and tried to just ignore it for political points. that is nothing close to new politics...

by MKyleM on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look, there is a very real difference between running a real campaign (one that intends to win) and being a college professor.

In a college, you make arguments.

In a campaign, you put up a fight, a fight in which you must always keep yourself convinced your opponent is smarter than you.

National security is McCains biggest strength and, to many, a weakness of Obama. If you can negate an advantage of McCains that you can see coming from miles away, it is the smart thing to do.

Also, the people Obama needs to get on his side (suburbanites and seniors), do you think they care if the government is listening? Most likely, they will see it as a very small sacrifice in light of the terrorist threats we face.

As for punishing the telecoms, that is also something only people like you and I care about. The vast majority of Americans will want to move on! The GOP has a very easy argument to make to the American people. They will ask, do you think it is worth it to open these companies up to lawsuits that can essentially bankrupt the telecommunications industry. They will answer with a big NO!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

This is the "take national security off the table" argument that worked so well for us in 2002.

The Republicans will always, always, always demagogue national security. We don't acquire some magical immunity totem by going along with their demands, they'll just find something else to demagogue. Look at what they did to Max Cleland, for the love of God.

This strategy hurts Democrats with the base and it does nothing to actually prevent the Republicans from making their fearmongering arguments.

by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:46:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By giving another victory to Mr. 28% Bush makes (none / 0)

the dems look weak - if they once stood up to him, the american people might have respect for the party! This was another picture perfect capitulation and showed the dems continuing weaknesses regarding security

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ummm.

Good for Hillary but do you really think she would have voted this way if she was the candidate?

If you do, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:12:59 PM EST

by JustJennifer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you admitting Obama voted against his best judgement because he is the candidate? Because if you aren't I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?

He's focused on the prize. I hope he does what he needs to do to win the POTUS.

by hootie4170 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by christinep on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Ends justify the means?"

Sometimes (none / 0)

obviously.

by JJE on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not going to do primary wars, sorry.

If you don't see the HUGE difference between his position and hers then their is not much to talk about.

I never expected anything else from Hillary and I'm proud she's a Democrat.

Kudos all around.

by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:22:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by semiquaver on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's abundantly clear that he has, based on his several very strong previous statements on the matter. I'm upset, but I do sympathize somewhat with the "get on the bus or get run over by it" argument.

Anyway, it's all moot now that the bill's been passed. All we can do now is hope that Obama decides to pursue criminal prosecutions after January.

[ Donate to Barack Obama ]

HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!, STOP IT YOU'RE (none / 0)

KILLING ME! Ain't going to happen - he showed you today what he's made of and it's jello - there's no way he's going to re-visit this bill or prosecute anything or anyone - the first day in office,should he be elected, is the first dayof hisre-election campaign and he's going to keep FISA QUIET - WILL NEVER BE A PRIORITY FOR HIM. He's probably relieved that it happened today so that you'll have enough time to forget that he betrayed your trust!

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:11:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?

Does this take HRC out of the running as VP?

by hootie4170 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:19:48 PM EST

by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:21:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why would it? Running mates never have identical voting records, even on important pieces of legislation.

Besides, I don't think it's on the table as a legitimate G.E. issue anymore.

by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by orionwest on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:20:58 PM EST

This nonsense about the GE is bull! Obama was in no danger of loosing the GE opposing immunity for Telecoms. In fact it was more than likely a plus for him just look at recent polls since he's changed his stand. Contrary to the weak kneed spineless idiots on this site and others encouraging people to compromise on the Constitution I say go to the cattle car by yourself! Americans want a leader who will protect the Constitution not weaken it. Oh yeah sure I should just trust that Obama will instruct his Attorney General to 'investigate' possible crimes. Yeah the check is in the mail Obama!

Re: FISA (1.00 / 0)

Nice rant. Insulta and hyperbole all around.

Stay classy.

by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

Americans want a leader who will protect the Constitution not weaken it.

If Americans hadn't elected George Bush twice then you might have a point, but they did.

I think Obama could have weathered the FISA hurricane the Repubs would have sent his way but the bill would have passed anyway so it isn't worth giving the Repubs a free shot at him. YMMV, but it is Obama's campaign to run and I will give him the benefit of the doubt on how to run it best.

by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by KLRinLA on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you'd be less impressed with McCain, as his party consists of the main actors responsible for 1) the spying and 2) making sure immunity was in the bill. So if you are trying to get people to vote for McCain, Nader, or Barr, or anyone else, which will help teh wrost offenders, then truly you are the "idiot" sir/madam (as you call others here Idiots)

by orionwest on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please stop with the McCain crap whenever someone crits Obama. I'll vote for Obama but not out of respect or any kind of enthusiasm at this point!

Do you really think Nader would have voted for (none / 0)

immunity? Stop making excuses for your spineless candidate!

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:13:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think Nader would have voted for (none / 0)

I thought our candidate was just old politics and playing the game to win, how is that now spineless, I thoguht it was moving to the center, or triangulating?
I should say that Obama beat the Clinton's in the primary, the guy is not spineless

by KLRinLA on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Boo to Obama (none / 0)

Stabbed in the back - AGAIN!

Thanks Congressional Dems, and Obama in particular. Nice to see you are just as craven as I always thought you were. And cowardly to boot.

God I hate the Demcrats just as much as I hate the Republicans. At least the Republicans I are openly bad - Democrats try to justify it with all kinds of BS.

Like winning against Republcans means anything when you adopt all of their policies. WOOO HOO! Democrats did it instead of Reublicans - what RELIEF!

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:40:13 PM EST

Finally someone else who's disgusted with our (none / 0)

party - come join us as independents, it's nice and liberating here!

by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:14:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh no. (none / 0)

I want to change my party for the better.

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:08:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A suggestion (none / 0)

Why don't the mods here actually do something about the trolls on this site rather than continuing to take pot shots at Kos? Clean up your own backyard, so to speak. This front page article serves no useful purpose. If you want to respond to something on Kos, get a friggen account over there and FEEL FREE.

Let's elect a Dem President!

by SpanishFly on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:42:02 PM EST

by Spanky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:43:43 PM EST

I would agree with you Josh if the presidency was not on the line. Obama did what he had to do, and I am glad he did. FISA is one bill that can be fixed later, but this is the one really big chance for the democrats to win the presidency which leads to everything.

by Steve24 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:05:57 PM EST

It's easier said then done. Most Americans don't read political blogs or follow what Congress is doing in terms of legislation. They rely on sound bites and TV ads for their political information. Obama voted the way he did so the GOP and McCain wouldn't feed middle America a bunch of garbage about us Dems being weak on national security.