by stevent, Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EDT
WE were right all along. Hillary voted nay for the cloture and nay for the final bill. Obama voted yes for them. We have to remember 6 months ago that it was Hillary Clinton who supported Dodd in filibustering first before Obama decided to do his part.
So take that to all Obama supporters who thinks Obama is more progressive than Hillary. Now to highlight what our progressive movement have lost:-
- 4th Amendment - FISA
- Gun control - DC Handgun ban
- Death Penalty - For child rapist
- Pro-Choice - Late term abortion (Mental health problems)
- Universal Healthcare - Obama ran against Hillary's UHC plan
My question to everyone, where is the line? When will be hold Obama accountable? If we don't do it this season, we will never have a chance. I don't think anyone wants a repeat of Kennedy-Carter fiasco which cost us to lose to Reagan. So now is the only chance we got to ask Obama what are we to him. Are we his progressive base or are we his 21st century Hollywood fundraising club?
by Josh Orton, Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:56:52 AM EDT
At DailyKos (UPDATE: and here at MyDD), recommended-list diarist HatchInBrooklyn tries to defend Obama's FISA stance:
We all know that in this day and age a serious Presidential candidate absolutely cannot vote "no" on a bill even loosely related to preventing terrorist attacks. If Obama were to oppose the bill as a whole, he would be handing McCain--who didn't even bother to show up and vote today--a huge opening to scare voters and paint Obama as weak on terrorism.
No. No no no no no. No.
Democrats must always stand against Republicans on national security - because Republicans have proven miserable failures on national security, and yet still try to politically intimidate Democrats by painting them as weaklings yearning to surrender. It's precisely why Barack Obama deserves credit for opposing the war in Iraq. It's why Feingold deserves credit for casting the sole vote against the PATRIOT Act in the Senate. And, because the American people don't like to be fooled twice, it's why most of our fellow citizens no longer fear a terrorist attack and favor ending the war in Iraq.
There is more than one possible justification for voting the way Obama did on FISA, but this is quite possibly the worst.
by MKyleM, Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:55:31 AM EDT
I wonder if Kos likes apples?.............
by roxfoxy, Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EDT
I thought long and hard before posting this. You see my problem is that I'm not just an avid political junkie of sorts; I also happen to be fascinated by the reading in-between the lines of political gamesmanship. I also happen to like our nominee but I like to call and express it as I see it. Again this is my opinion on this singular issue of FISA .
I'm going to go out on a limb and state an unpopular opinion (I'm sure I'm going to be hammered for it here). I like to preface it with the fact that if you are a political junkie and simply look at an issue without bias for its hidden political maneuvering----the FISA issue was one where Obama used his political savvy talents to his benefit. Smart move why- Because the story line changes for the masses.
Some past examples: The republicans successfully managed to politically maneuver the IRAQ timetables with "you can't let the enemy know when we are going to leave"
Or when the dems wanted to tie timetables to funding --" you don't support the troops and are putting them in harms way from the necessary equipment they need".
It was actually quite brilliant- in that it put us democrats on our heels. After all who wants to project the age old we don't support troops mantra to its test again.
A blogger at dailykos put down what I wanted to write and felt about today's FISA vote. So I shall simply post his response. Now I don't want to be a kill joy to the one's who are celebrating this move by Obama. I just want you to see the other side of the coin of how to be politically savvy.
By pre-announcing that he would vote for the amendments, and then, when they lose, he'd vote for the final bill, Sen. Obama took the wind out of any possible filibuster attempt. It's an old trick in the Senate to set things up to allow members to cast symbolic votes in a way that doesn't impede the back-room agreement. In addition, Sen. Obama repeated a number of false statements that have been made by immunity proponents and defenders of the bill (for example, that the meaningless exclusivity provision is a victory).
Sen. Obama could have twisted some arms to get at least 41 senators to unify around a minimal set of demands, for example, the Bingaman amendment (no immunity until the IG report comes out, so we at least find out what the telecom companies did). But no, instead we are supposed to be snowed by the show.
Now his assumption is based on the fact that you cannot simply on one hand call Obama the head of the party , the nominee to be the leader of the free world and then kowtow to ' oh but what can he do on this , he is simply a senator right now'.
Bottom line: Well played Obama.
by hootie4170, Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:38:00 AM EDT
Thought I'd get this out there.
FISA reform passes, 69-28. Obama votes yes. Hillary votes no.
Well let the wars begin once again...Sad.