Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

A few days ago I received a mail soliciting contributions from Obama. My friends here think that he is purer than driven snow, that he has the highest priorities of Americans and civil liberties on his agenda. Yet if the last two days have shown anything that he is just the same old politician playing the old game in a new garb.

Updated: First thanks for putting my diary on the rec list for a short time. Second for those of you who are truly progressive here, who fight or the constitution and not strayed by blind adulation...stay strong. We need you to keep fighting the good fight whether it is against one of them or against one of ours. Democracy and civil liberties are lost one privilege and one legislation at a time no matter how honorable the intentions of the legislators might be. It is for us the citizens to fight for our rights. We not only have to hold the feet of the Republicans to the fire but we have to hold our senators, congressmen and presidential candidates to the same standards. If we do not do that, if we fail to point out and say that someone is wrong just because the other option is worse or because of blind adulation then we fail in our civic duty and in our duty to the constitution.

I am sorry if I am not enthusiastic about Obama. It is hard for me to feel that way when now I have to live in fear of my calls, my emails, maybe even this post, being monitored by unknown suits all in the name of the security and anti-terrorism.

I was very happy when the Democrats won the congress but my enthusiasm has waned to the point that I can say that Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are the two most clueless and spineless leaders in congress. If this is the state of the Democratic congress why not elect Republicans? Since it seems right now that they are the ones running the show. The approval rating of this congress is higher among Republicans.

To illustrate my point let me point out section 802 of the shamefully named Protect America Act:

A civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

   (A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

   (B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

In other words now the telecoms or anyone else can spy on you with impunity. Any lawsuit against any entity that violates your privacy will be summarily thrown out. Moreover sec 803 strips the right of States to challenge the companies if they are found to be wiretapping or eavesdropping as long as they are collaborating with an intelligence agency or for that matter impose any administrative sanctions on them. And you thought the Patriot Act was bad?

In fact the whole bill dilutes the authority of the FISA court so much that Russ Feingold had this to say:

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President's illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration."

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

Where was Barack Obama on all of this? After hemming and hawing for 24 hours or more he came out with this statement:

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. . . .

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. . . 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.

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. 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.


Obama believes he will be President and wants these extreme powers for himself, no doubt, he believes, because he'll exercise them magnanimously, for our Own Good. Whatever the motives -- and I don't know (or much care) what they are -- Obama has embraced a bill that is not only redolent of many of the excesses of Bush's executive power theories and surveillance state expansions, but worse, has done so by embracing the underlying rationale of "Be-scared-and-give-up-your-rights." Note that the very first line of Obama's statement warns us that we face what he calls "grave threats," and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good.

Many people here have shown an unquestioning devotion to the Obama brand. But this capitulation with vague promise of "work with the senate" to remove the provision of retroactive immunity smacks of political posturing. We are electing Sen. Obama to serve the constitution and not to bend it at his will or to play politics with it. Glenn Greenwald summarized his posture best:

"I think we do a grave disservice if we try to convince people that Obama is really going to work to get amnesty out of the bill. Reid is already saying it's just theater -- they know it's going to fail -- it's just a way, Reid said, to let people "express themselves." It's all designed to let Obama say, once he votes for this bill: "Well, I tried to get amnesty out." He's going to vote for amnesty -- and his statement today seals the fate of this bill. Why sugar coat that?"

So the big question of the day is whether Barack Obama will live up to his promise he made last year and if required filibuster this shameful bill that grants immunity to people who break the law? The bigger question is do we hold him to higher values that he so eloquently expresses or do we give him a pass? Is Barack Obama a man of his words or is it just words?

What troubles me more is that this same week Obama became the first person since Watergate to opt out of a public financed campaign even after he had repeatedly said that he would take public financing.

So in one week Obama was complicit in demolishing two important anti-corruption measures that were set in place after Watergate: Publicly financed presidential campaigns and the FISA court. Is this a portent of the kind of change we are hoping for? For better or for worse Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee and it is up to us to stop the blind adulation and hold him to the standards we expect of a Democratic presidential candidate chief among which is upholding the constitution of the USA and not playing politics with it and the creeping progression towards an imperial presidency.

Tags: imperial presidency, obama, public financing, wiretapping (all tags)




you are being watched.

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

section 802 -- dammit. can't parse that anymore .. can we?

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

Meet the new tarheel, same as the old tarheel, only now he's keeping company with the repug trolls.

The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:

by venician 2008-06-21 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

at least I am asking my candidate to uphold the constitution and not get blinded by unquestioning messianic fervor. Nice try TR ing because you add nothing to a very important conversation about civil liberties other than deluded devotion.

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

"I am asking my candidate to uphold the constitution"

Who exactly is your candidate and why are you advocating for someone besides the Democratic nominee for president on this site?

by Can I Haz Moar Snark 2008-06-21 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

Exactly, why tarheel??????????????????

by venician 2008-06-21 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

advocating for someone else?  

he is advocating accountability for bedrock democratic principles...

( repeat / rinse and please dont spin)

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

McGramps what would you know about Dem principles?

by venician 2008-06-21 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

recc'd, very astute diary.

by rankles 2008-06-21 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

and rankle's back and already starting with the TR abuse and ready to follow along with his fellow repug trolls.

by venician 2008-06-21 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

shhhh kid

by rankles 2008-06-22 12:00AM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

my candidate is the democratic nominee. Unfortunately in 2000 blind adulation from people like you landed us in the state we are in today. Maybe you do not like the constitution. Maybe you are happy with an imperial presidency or even a monarchy but for those of us who know what the stakes are and who care about civil liberties and constitution we want Barack Obama to do more than just pay lip service to the constitution...which means standing up for the principles of civil liberty. Unfortunately what he did is shameful. We expect more from the Democratic nominee otherwise there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

I took that to mean the Democratic nominee is his candidate & he wants his candidate, the Democratic nominee, to uphold the constitution.  

by jrsygrl 2008-06-21 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

He has reasonable questions. It is not fair to paint this diary as trollish.

by JDF 2008-06-21 12:20PM | 0 recs
no he doesn't

becuase the fact is that the democratic nominee doesn't answer to us specifically and he certainly answers to more then the progressive part of the party.

The other fact is that the bill over all isn't that bad, and in fact what the dairest ignores is that like in any compromise niether side got completely what they wanted.

But overall if you actually examine the bill you'll see it's a lot better then the previous verisons.

by drache 2008-06-21 04:42PM | 0 recs
the bill is a travesty

of civil liberties and democracy. It is an abomination of all democratic principles. Maybe that might be alright with you but not for me. It is attitude like yours that got us in this path first the patriot act then the Iraq war and now this. Time to stop the blind adulation and stand up for our rights and liberties....which means asking the Democratic congress, senate and Barack Obama to do more than just pay lip service to the constitution.

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 06:58PM | 0 recs
oh look more melodramatics

Yes yes I know your rant by heart now becuase it's all I hear

Now let me ask you this, how exactly is it an abomination of all democratic principles?

How is it a travesy of civil liberties?

I mean frankly at this point it's almost like reverse fear mongering here.

People are all up in arms but I've never seen people deny the need for FISA, in fact the stickign point seems to be the telecoms and how to deal with them

And the fact is that there's a pretty convincing arguement for giving them immunity and not a lot of resistance.

Now to be truthful I think it should be the court's decesion but then again maybe not; but really are we going to go back to circular firing circles jsut because we don't get what we want, when we want it and we always get it?

How immature and infantile

There are 340+ million people in the USA and almost half support amensty/immunity of some sort so to an extent that was inevietable.

But frankly if people are just going to rant to each other and only talk to people they agree with then this place will become toxic and stagent and frankly that's just sad

by drache 2008-06-21 09:11PM | 0 recs
you belong in an authoritarian state then

since you do not mind people tapping your phone and reading our letters why bother with a small thing called the constitution. As far as people go, if you belong to one of those same people remember it these "people" who clapped their hands and elected W two times, they cheered along as he suspended haebas corpus, they stayed mute as we heard of such things called extraordinary rendition and finally they cheered the loudest hen we went into Iraq.

I hate to are you with ignorant people like you because you have not read the bill. You think it is alright because Barack Obama says so. But you entire premise is built on FISA court, but guess what according to this new bill the FISA court is declared obsolete. Read the full bill and then talk to me. Till then keep dreaming of your authoritarian state while people like me and few others fight for your civil liberties. adios.

by tarheel74 2008-06-22 06:07AM | 0 recs
blah blah blah

blah blah blah you're a traitor blah blah blah you don't know what you're talking about blah blah blah stop being a follower blah blah blah

You know I never thought I'd see the day when a supposed fellow progressive would attack me with teh GOP tactics and talking points.

You must make McCain all happy

by drache 2008-06-22 06:18AM | 0 recs
the weak minded

never refutes the points just deflects it with school yard taunts.

by tarheel74 2008-06-22 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: the weak minded

i am sorry did you have a point in that rant where you accused me of being a sell out and traitor?

Becuase if you did  I didn't see it, in fact I've had more reasonable discussions with my cat.

by drache 2008-06-22 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: 1984
The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:
Jacob Freeze
by venician 2008-06-21 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

Those are very sensible people.

by rankles 2008-06-21 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: 1984

Oh, good one! Best laugh I've had in weeks. Thank you.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

He said in his statement that he will work in the Senate to strip the retroactive immunity provision from the bill.  I have already e-mailed his office and stated plainly that he'd better do that.

There is a flipside, though.  Two things.  First of all, this bill only prevents civil liability.  It ignores criminal liability.  Think about that for a second.  The Republicans fucked up here.  The telecom execs, if any broke criminal law, well they can be prosecuted. Secondly, if Obama is President in six months he can end the program at that point.

Neither of those things makes this all right, but they do matter.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-21 10:33AM | 0 recs
may i ask a favour?

can someone break this down for me plainly?  i dont full understand this issue.

by canadian gal 2008-06-21 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: may i ask a favour?

which part section 802?  ....

Short of it is. If you have a permission slip given by the president and AG to tap lines and provided records. You're  save...

On the much wishful thinking of some / parsing " hey but criminal liability is open " --

No dems want it, no repubs want it and only way it would happen if a federal prosecutor does it on his/her own. At which point the AG's office takes over the case and withdraws it. Can't say any clearer... "Nobody wants (wanted) to hit companies w/ criminal liability in both houses, period. Never was, never will be on the table"

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: may i ask a favour?

803 is just as bad. All challenges to illegal wiretapping originated in State courts and now states are being stripped off the right to challenge this law or to impose any administrative measures on them. Like I said it is a step closer to the imperial presidency.

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

there was no talk of criminal liability in this whole deal from day one, even proposed by the democrats. they don't want to go there...

sure you can wish for it- but they are not for sending CEO's to jail for this. They are for making the companies pockets hurt for doing it...

shareholders may wanna take over the 'hurt part' after that :P

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

the statute for criminal liability does not work if the said person says he was sanctioned by the government.

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: What if he does nothing?

Secondly, if Obama is President in six months he can end the program at that point.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-21 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: What if he does nothing?

I know you think a president Obama can just pick up a phone and remove laws passed by congress...  NOT.

Next chance of it being debated after its passes is 2012. That how long the extended it for..

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 10:48AM | 0 recs
I know

you need to paint this as do or die, but a President Obama can sign legislation overriding it.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-21 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I know

Our Govt-- lesson 101.

"sign legislation...".

who passes legislation? congress. who passed the current one thru 2012? da same congress.

keep digging that hole.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I know

Yes, a lot of people didn't listen to Schoolhouse Rock in their childhood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv- oQ

by LIsoundview 2008-06-21 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I know

He said sign, not pass. The congress doesn't sign legislation, the president does. What a completely ridiculous argument.

by Mobar 2008-06-21 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I know

Omg , lol what comes before? mobar...

really not tough to see the point I made. i.e for him to sign it has to pass before.

and they are passing what is the current compromise. if they did not intend to pass it... they would not pass it now. ROFL

if they intend to not compromise, they would not pass it , now!

( repeat chorus)

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: What if he does nothing?

Depends on the speech and how hard he fights. I want to at least hear a damn good reason that doesn't just bullshit.

by vcalzone 2008-06-21 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: What if he does nothing?

another speech wont suffice for progressives. I doubt this calls for a telepromoter moment. they are really pissed off all over the progressive blogs / net...

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: What if he does nothing?

I think they want an explanation. Either he'll provide something more informative or he won't. Either he'll stand up and speak to us like we're adults... or he won't. But speeches always help, they just don't help if they're complete pandering mush.

by vcalzone 2008-06-21 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

Secondly, if Obama is President in six months he can end the program at that point.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-21 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

why should believe that when his statements now are to the contrary?

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

Tar - he has no clue about how the govt works.  

Laws passed by congress cannot be deleted by a president on his whim. It is here to stay till 2012. Then it comes up for scrutiny.

/ignore  him , he is like a fish out water over this.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 10:52AM | 0 recs
such a simple little troll

Are you saying the Restore the Constitution act of 2009 can't override anything in this legislation?

by Is This Snark 2008-06-21 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: such a simple little troll

it has to passed by legislation that is done by congress! the very same folks who passed this one thru 2012.

and the hole gets deeper!

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: such a simple little troll

Uh, first off there will be some different people in the next Congress.  Secondly, the program exists because the current President has ordered several departments to do these things.  A new President can, by Executive Order, tell them to stop.

The retroactive immunity is a separate issue from further wiretapping.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-21 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: such a simple little troll

wow .. now what have here is the  classic " no i will cry if i want to".

IT IS THE CONGRESS THAT PASSED IT!! NO president can override if it becomes law till 2012.  

THINK reaper if a president could, then why would bush want congres right now to pass it?  he could be that magical president and keep it on the books. why would our congress feel the need to compromise when they could just lay it on bush's feet.

really very simple reaper. It's a done deal thru 2012.

you can't HOPE IT/ WISH IT away..

... and "different people in the next congress"?...

what is that a new recycle program in congress?

I'm sorry but thats that of it. thats how it works..

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: such a simple little troll

The retroactive immunity is a separate issue from further wiretapping.

Your right about that. but does not mean no further wiretapping was removed from the bill. they just put some checks and balances on it.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: such a simple little troll

You are wrong. Just because a law says it is a done deal until 2012 does not keep the President from issuing an executive order ending the program. It also does not stop Congress from taking up new legislation that will essentially end previous legislation.

Does that mean it will happen? NO

But it is dishonest to suggest that it cannnot.

by JDF 2008-06-21 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: such a simple little troll

read my EOrders comment below...

In the real world of " reality" it is a done deal if it passes both houses.

For your scenario---the congress would have to have a bill then vote to eliminate the previous law . then go about restarting the process to write a new one. ( forget the turmoil it creates in the intelligence community)

all this time doing it w/ the very same congress that has passed it originally , in the 1st place. I have argued that over here ( many times).

when I say it done till 2012...its politically done.  Now we can hope that all the people who signed it die in an instant and you get a new set that will pass that new law. It is not dishonest to say its done... till 2012. Its reality!

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: such a simple little troll

if with a majority the democratic congress crafted this shameful bill that the Republicans have hailed as a gift conceding more than they asked for. Unless there is seachange or the red sea parts or something dramatic I do not see anything changing. The one hope was presidential leadership but Obama is busy consolidating his authority on the party and what he said now to endorse this bill is downright shameful.

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 11:22AM | 0 recs
EO orders

and just to clarify - for EO to  be defeated the congress would have to go back and just overide it with 2/3 of the congressional vote or and I have see the bill , but it can also avoid an EO through  existing langauge that speaks to directly to an EO overide.

More than 2/3 of the congress ( w/ dem majority in there) is behind this law. It is really political rabid wishful thinking if you think obama will do this agianst the wishes of his congress ( dems in majority). if passed it is done bro till 2012.

Best chance - it fails in the senate. thats yours/ ours / mine / democrats best recourse.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: EO orders

Did you actually just say that Congress can override an Executive Order?

Say what?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-21 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: EO orders

yes congress can overide an EO w/ 2/3 majority.

look it up...

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: EO orders
Well, that's not technically correct. There are only two ways for EO's to be overturned. One is for a federal court to rule that the order is unconstitutional. This is exceedingly rare, having only happened twice (the Supreme Court's decision in Youngstown being the most obvious example). The other way is for Congress to pass legislation that is in opposition to the Order or refuse to provide funding for the order. But the Congress can't directly override an EO itself.
by rayj 2008-06-21 01:07PM | 0 recs
I'm Not surprised
I'm happy with Obama's FISA compromise but am not surprised...he's a politician. He's going to disappoint us. If I were one of those people who I suspect live mostly in the imaginations of columnists at the National Review -- the people who think Obama is the messiah, capable of making the lion lie down with the lamb, cooling the planet with the touch of his hand, bringing the dead back to life, and so on -- I suppose I'd have just dissolved in tears and sworn off politics for life. Luckily, I'm not. And at times like this, I just cast my mind back over previous Democratic nominees -- Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis -- and think: FISA compromise or no FISA compromise, he's still the most effective, and smartest candidate I can remember since Bill and Hillary Clinton.
by iamold 2008-06-21 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Not surprised

so all his rhetoric of new type of politics based on principle and not posturing just that? words?

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Not surprised

He also talks quite a bit about compromise and "reaching across the aisle".  Presumably this would be an example.

by semiquaver 2008-06-21 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Not surprised

so who reached ? us or them?

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 01:04PM | 0 recs
Truth is, the media dont love obama
They're pissed at Obama over campaign financing. I find it hard to get worked up over this. If he were taking money from a few corporate interests it would be one thing. But finding 1.7 million donors is somehow a threat to democracy? Please.
by iamold 2008-06-21 10:53AM | 0 recs
that's just for show

He will raise and spend much more than that, a lot of it on tv ads that will help the bottom line of scores of affiliate stations.

They aren't really mad at him over that issue.

by desmoinesdem 2008-06-21 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Truth is, the media dont love obama
Uh... Did you just copy and paste this comment from Andrew Sullivan's blog? Bad form.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th e_daily_dish/2008/06/the-post-gets-h.htm l
by rayj 2008-06-21 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth is, the media dont love obama

Private $ can come from corporate interests--and these interests have and are contributing heavily to Obama's campaign.  

by trixta 2008-06-21 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth is, the media dont love obama

Uprated for HR abuse...

so its her opinion- dont like it okay- but HR it?

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 05:55PM | 0 recs
Outsmarted by Obama
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/21/ 103553/507/344/539693
by iamold 2008-06-21 10:56AM | 0 recs
who cares if you buy the hype?

I don't buy it either. So don't give Obama money--I'm not. Give money to state and local candidates of your choosing.

I call on all Democrats to vote for Obama, because he would be a thousand times better than McCain. But no one has to become a big Obama fan.

by desmoinesdem 2008-06-21 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: who cares if you buy the hype?

that does not answer my question. Are we going to hold him to the same standards that he sets for everyone else? should we not insist that he stand up for principles and uphold the constitution?

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: who cares if you buy the hype?

do you not see the entire progressive blogosphere talking angrily about his capitulation on this issue?

by authority song 2008-06-21 11:38AM | 0 recs

Even in the comments on this diary, I don't see the entire progressive blogosphere "talking angrily."

I see people claiming to be progressive members of the blogosphere engaging in abuse and name-calling with anyone that has anything legitimate to say about this issue.

It's as if there's some sort of new rule that states: "Well you're a former Clinton supporter, so you aren't allowed to be critical of anything about our candidate. And, if you do say anything critical about the candidate we both support now, I'm going to abuse the shit out of you."

Just sayin'...the truth is the truth!

by bobswern 2008-06-21 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Hardly!

Okay, that must be why there are front-page posts on most major liberal blogs with negative reactions to Obama's waffling - it's all a ploy to abuse Hillary supporters! You guys are laughable - it's not always about you.

by authority song 2008-06-21 12:48PM | 0 recs
And many of the authors...

...of those diaries speaking out about Obama's position on this issue are getting the crap kicked out of them, just like this diarist is here!

Your obnoxious comment is just more of the same.

How absurdly ironic.

by bobswern 2008-06-21 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: And many of the authors...

not really bob... take a look at dailykos for example..they are TR'ing folks who speak out against folks who are speaking out against this...:)

It's quite a show there..

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 01:09PM | 0 recs
Heads up

The Protect America Act was not passed.  The compromise bill is different, although it is pretty much the same in section 802.

by semiquaver 2008-06-21 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Heads up

Rather, the Extension to the Protect America Act as worded was not passed after it expired in February.

by semiquaver 2008-06-21 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Heads up

it passed the congress and now the senate has to vote on it. And as Greenwald pointed out once we get past the stage of senate floor theatricals it will pass there as well. The part that is shameful is the language of the bill and the nominee of the Democratic party who is the de facto leader of the party is supporting this travesty.

by tarheel74 2008-06-21 12:28PM | 0 recs
and leave the democrats to ewin an election.
I am so tired of the people who just want to whine that Obama is not perfect like any candidate was.
Go find something else to occupy your time.
by Grissom1001 2008-06-21 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

I take it you are one of those low-information voters. Here's a little tidbit for you. Barack Obama is a senator. That means he votes on Senate bills. This bill passed the House. That's the House of Representatives. The people in the House are called representatives or congressmen/women. It is not right to criticize a member of the Senate for something the members of the House voted on. Come back and complain when it passes the Senate with the immunity provision still intact. Oh yeah, come back and complain if Obama votes for it. If he votes against it then I guess you won't have any argument at all.
by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

barack is the head of dem party and our nominee. if you think he is just a senator, heh. He is going to be the next President of the united states...he is no longer just a senator ( as far power goes)

voting against something to placate when you  knew and gave your back door blessing to it for weeks on end ... is just that - placate. if whata question of him just singularly voting no. this would be a non issue...

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

" if this was what.. " - should read above.

Btw he can fili buster and not just vote no , which if he avoids to do so. it is another " present " vote from him.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

Welcome Bobcatz... your TR finger has been kind of quiet today.

So, how do you feel about illegal wiretaps?  I guess that now that Obama supports them, you kinda gotta agree that they might be a good idea?  Just asking...

by MediaFreeze 2008-06-21 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

Jacob, I don't argue with strawmen.

And I don't usually respond to trollish comments. I troll-rate them and move on.

Some people just want to waste other peoples' time and draw them into typically meaningless arguments in order to give themselves some kind of validation. I'd rather not feed their need for attention. They can get it elsewhere.

Which means this is the last time I'll be talking to you.

by BobzCat 2008-06-21 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

What I'm amused at is how Obama partisans have spent the last couple days explaining to us liberal lefties how impotent Obama actually is to make any changes in the Democratic Party.

"He is just a Senator."

"He can't work miracles."

"He has to play politics in order to win."

"It would be disastrous for him to stand against the will of the majority of Congress."

Hello... We talking about the same guy here that was going to upset the apple cart and bring change...change you can believe in... real change...to Washington?

by MediaFreeze 2008-06-21 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

This reply applies to alive's comment also.

What part of this don't you understand. Obama did not vote for this bill. It is a House bill. When, and if, he votes for it on a Senate version of the bill you will have room for complaint. Right now, you are trying to make it look like he was responsible for this bill.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 01:50PM | 0 recs
Not At All

I think it is you that do not understand the point alive and I are making.

He is running to be the leader of the country.

He has a responsibility not to just go along, especially since the matter was before the House, and the Senate fight is coming up. He has to stand up and lead.

If he is against Telco Immunity then he needs to get in front of the issue. It is not leadership to say he is against it and then duck behind procedural cover. We've seen plenty of that.

So, if you are right, and he leads a fight in the Senate, I will eat my words. But, you and I both know he will not do that.

So our efforts...our mutual efforts, I hope...are to convince this candidate for the Presidency of the United States that our rights are worth fighting for and worth winning for.

by MediaFreeze 2008-06-21 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Not At All

Oh, I understand the point you and alive are trying to make - that Obama is a bad, bad, man. The only problem is that you are complaining about something he had absolutely nothing to do with. Do you understand that?

If you don't like the House bill, and I doubt many people on here do, then start writing your Senators and other leading Senators to pressure them to stand firm on no immunity. Don't just use this House bill as a way to trash the  Democratic nominee.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Not At All

1. Leading is not voting just No to placate.

2. Leading is fili buster . that his senate colleague Dood did once...stop it in its track last time.

3. By voting 'no' ONLY,  fully knowing that others will vote yes and it passes . Tantamounts to voting present.  It's unadulterated statement.

Unless of course you think token placated effort is worthy of an applause...

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

barack is the head of dem party and our nominee

Our nominee? I seriously doubt you are a Democrat. You've shown nothing to make me believe you have any affection for the Democratic party.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

I don't have to prove anything to you.

I have written profusely on many subjects under this name. Judge for yourself.

by MediaFreeze 2008-06-21 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

You didn't follow the chain back to the post I was commenting about. That was written by alive, not you. Oh well, I finally got my first tr.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

He's a hillacrat and is still working his way through the stages of grief.

by venician 2008-06-21 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

Why, since we have a majority in Congress was this even voted for?? You know, one thing I differ alot on with this party is the fact that there is this impulse to demonstrate compromise. The Republicans not only don't compromise, they dig their heels in obstinately. For Christ sakes they impeached one of our sitting presidents over sheer lunacy & we sat back & left their man alone when there were actual, possibly legitimate impeachable concerns.  You know I get how diplomacy works, but maybe we should say phuck it & in this area act more Republican & dig OUR heels in. I mean what exactly are we afraid of for God's sakes; losing our country?? Last time I checked, things aren't looking too good.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-21 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I still do not buy the Obama hype

We have two choices....

Yeah...many of us us would rather have something else..but there is a clear distinction between our fantasy world and reality...
Maybe someone has an advanced copy of Obama's Senate Floor speech on this issue. Please share...if not..well.....

by nogo postal 2008-06-21 02:06PM | 0 recs
Rec a diary you appreciate

MyDD continues to have a rec list easily dominated by those opposed to the Democratic Party's nominee for the office of president.

This does not reflect the population of this site, it does not reflect the population of the Democratic Party, and it does not reflect the issues being addressed and considered by Progressives.

This is easy to fix.  There is a handful of folks who jump to rec every diary that in any way questions the Democratic Party's nominee for the office of President.  While this diary is not a prime example in every fashion, the title alone goes beyond simple criticism of the nominee and as such has attracted enough support to make the rec list.  How many people have the power to put a diary on the rec list, you ask?


So, if you value diversity of discourse and the pursuit of Progressive conversations and goals on this site, I ask that you take the time to click the recommend button when you see a diary you like.  When enough people do this for their own reasons, the rec list will cease to be simply a handle that a minority of willing folks can pull and will return to its purpose of reflecting the best commentary on MyDD.



by chrisblask 2008-06-21 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Rec a diary you appreciate

while i dont necessarily disagree that there are some people with ill intentions.  you came very close to calling me a troll today for daring to question a valid criticism.  is this what you want, an echo chamber?

by canadian gal 2008-06-21 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Rec a diary you appreciate

Honest dissent is one thing. However, there is a small group of users on this site that have no other goal than knocking down the most progressive candidate left in the race. They aren't trying to pressure him to be better. They are trying to turn people against him. I won't name names, in respect for the site rules. I don't have to, we all know who they are. You don't seem to be one of them, but I notice you agreeing with them more and more and coming to their defense in more than one diary. That could be why some people think you are part of their clique. As I said, I don't think you are one of them, but I also don't think you realize how much association with such people can affect your own reputation.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 02:57PM | 0 recs
um - you've been a member here for what....

10 days?  do me a favour please when you have developed a reputation here, then comment on who is a troll or not.

by canadian gal 2008-06-21 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: um - you've been a member here for what....

I mentioned in my first comment that I had been reading the site on a daily basis for months. Actually, I've been reading the site off and on for years. I think I've got a pretty good idea who is and is not a troll.

BTW, are you complaining that I didn't think you were a troll?

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Rec a diary you appreciate

most progressive candidate left

there is only one progressive party and its people on blogs nationwide are calling its nominee to be a progressive by fili bustering the FISA bill.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Rec a diary you appreciate

And some people, like a few on this site, are blaming him for the House bill instead of just calling for him to filibuster the bill.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Rec a diary you appreciate

thats because he gave his back door approval.

this is a presidential election year. he is our nominee...( head of the party)not a junior senator w/ limited powers on the hill anymore.

nancy, hoyer and reed discuss everything w/ him  BEFORE hand because it has a direct relationship going forward into his Presidency.

So when he says he is going try to remove it. Folks know he is placating. Because he was aware and gave his blessing to the idea weeks ago.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Rec a diary you appreciate

thats because he gave his back door approval.

And, you know this because he called to tell you?

nancy, hoyer and reed discuss everything w/ him  BEFORE hand because it has a direct relationship going forward into his Presidency.

True, and they probably told him this was the best they could get out of the House. In that case, what would you expect him to do, given that the House is very touchy about its independence from the Senate?

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Rec a diary you appreciate

yeah he called me , because using ones infinite wisdom would be appaling. To actually have a thought that he did not give the go ahead is so much easier.

Our presidents sit in the whitehouse and when congress thinks of passing laws that would effect his presidency... they just come and wake a sleeping president and scream " happy birthday , he is a new law", now sign it/ live w/ it

yup the house is so sensitive that it could not table the effort...

have a nice day...

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 04:13PM | 0 recs
echo chambers suck

I would rather argue with you, when I disagree, than agree with everyone and have nothing to say.  That's why I came here in the first place, because it was an echo-chamber of people I disagreed with and there was debate (or at least argument) to be had.

My point is that there should be a lot of people reccing whatever it is they believe in.  That way there will be enough representative sample that the rec list will not be a tool to be manipulated by a handful.


by chrisblask 2008-06-21 05:37PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads