Matthew Yglesias (June 20, 2008) - The Silence Breaks (Foreign Policy)

The trouble is that unlike Barack Obama, I'm not going to be President and odds are neither are you.

I still think I have a pretty good shot at it.

Posted by Hillary Clinton | June 20, 2008 4:32 PM

I'll still vote for him, of course. But Obama is now officially the lesser of two evils.

He should be ashamed.

Posted by Andrew | June 20, 2008 4:32 PM

That's a pretty disappointing piece of non-committal evasive meaninglessness from Obama. It would've been nice if he at least didn't insult our collective intelligence by using the word "compromise."

Posted by James Gary | June 20, 2008 4:35 PM

i just don't get it. is it because the republicans would say that he is "weak on terror" or whatever? he is not leading.

Posted by jay | June 20, 2008 4:37 PM

This is not what I have expected and predicted for months. It's worse. Obama is in the terminal stage of Lupner's disease. Though I am sure the Obamabots will defend, justify, and rationalize as always, this shows that there is barely a nickel's worth of difference between Obama and McBush, either on the substance of this issue or in their willingness to make any pander they view as beneificial to getting elected. I don't even see this as a good political move. Obama is likely to lose far more loyal Democratcs voters (like me) than he will gain.

Posted by Marlowe | June 20, 2008 4:38 PM

A disappointment to be certain.

That having been said, I think those of us on the liberal site of the political spectrum in the blogosphere may be overreacting a bit.

I'm reminded of something John Marshall said recently on Talking Points Memo. Several times in the past, he's disagreed with Obama on something and eventually had to concede that Obama was correct all along.

Perhaps this will be one of those times, and perhaps not.

Regardless, I've never met a candidate for anything in my entire life that I agreed with 100%. I'm still thrilled to have Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket this coming Fall, despite being very disappointed with him at this time on this particular issue.

Posted by Jim Crozier | June 20, 2008 4:40 PM

This is not what I have expected and predicted for months. It's worse. Obama is in the terminal stage of Lupner's disease. Though I am sure the Obamabots will defend, justify, and rationalize as always, this shows that there is barely a nickel's worth of difference between Obama and McBush, either on the substance of this issue or in their willingness to make any pander they view as beneificial to getting elected. I don't even see this as a good political move. Obama is likely to lose far more loyal Democratcs voters (like me) than he will gain.

Posted by Marlowe | June 20, 2008 4:41 PM

So much for my hope that the system could work.

Posted by Consumatopia | June 20, 2008 4:42 PM

this shows that there is barely a nickel's worth of difference between Obama and McBush

Other than in health care policy, foreign policy, tax cuts for the rich, undoing Bush's excesses, and the need for more lime green jello in the White House.

I'm disappointed, what Democrat not named Steny Hoyer would be, but let's not go Nader here.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | June 20, 2008 4:42 PM

Definitely not happy. But I'm still with the guy. I agree with him on far too many issues to let this turn me away from his candidacy. This might come as a shock to many, but he is a politician.

Posted by NHCt | June 20, 2008 4:45 PM

LOL

Obama's going to be warrantlessly wiretapping too.

Posted by Al | June 20, 2008 4:49 PM

Let the base-fucking begin!

Posted by Alan in SF | June 20, 2008 4:52 PM

You should post the full statement, if only because Obama does state that he will fight to remove the immunity provision for telecom companies. Reid also has indicated that he will try to hold a vote on a bill without the immunity provision before holding voting on the House's compromise bill. So, the non-immunity version will probably get a vote and lose. Then, the compromise will get a vote, including Obama's, and pass. That's how I interpret the statement.

So, Obama's full statement still leaves plenty to be desired, but I think it's a little better viewed in whole.

Posted by dpw | June 20, 2008 4:53 PM

Can anyone here actually explain what is wrong with this bill, other than retroactive immunity, which he promises to try to get rid of? I'm sensing muddy groupthink here. What is the problem in real terms with the bill?

I think this is where Obama actually stands.

Civil libertarians are missing the forest for the trees. We are torturing people and denying due process. The surveillance stuff is really small potatoes. We are going to tap phones, sometimes of American citizens who are not themselves suspects but who may be making the wrong call at the wrong time, so to speak. This was always going to happen; I don't think there are very many members of Congress who don't support that. The issue is process, legal structure, warrants, etc., which the bill provides. And of course, retroactive immunity, which Obama is still opposed to.

Does anyone want to set out just exactly what the problem with the bill is?

Posted by Mike | June 20, 2008 4:53 PM

Very, very disappointed.

Posted by jbryan | June 20, 2008 4:53 PM

Is it not important to point out that, in addition to what Matt excerpted above, Obama said the following:

"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."

This is a rather important part of his statement.

Now, whether or not he means it or is serious about removing this language is another issue.

However, if he is serious, and if he and his Senate colleagues succeed in getting the retroactive immunity language removed from the bill, then the let down will not be nearly as bad (for me at least).

If the language stays in, however, and Obama still ends up voting for it (or puts up only token opposition), then the disappointment (again, for me at least) will be real.

I will of course still support and vote for him, but my enthusiasm will have taken a bit of a hit.

Posted by Aaron M | June 20, 2008 4:53 PM

I think my hope just changed.

Or is my change still hoping?

Darn it. He's got me so confused.

A good Messiah is so hard to find these days.

Posted by Confused Liberal | June 20, 2008 4:54 PM

I can understand why Congress would want a compromise on telecom immunity, if only to push things along in frying the bigger fish (that's the way immunity is supposed to work, isn't it? you grant someone immunity and, in exchange, you get them to testify against the bigger fish ... or have I been watching too much L&O?). But this compromise gives the Dem. side too little too late (I'm still confused, though ... if the telecoms have to produce some sort of certification that they were just following orders, doesn't that mean Bush & CO has to either throw the telecoms under the bus -- which makes them look silly for making a big deal about immunity -- or they can no longer slither out of admitting to something that's so blatantly unconstitutional they should be impeached immediately).

Moreover, Obama's comments really don't make much political sense, do they? It isn't as if "granting immunity to a big business" (even with GOP efforts to get people to conflate business interests with their own) is so politically popular. And how do his statements distinguish Brand Obama from tired old Brand GOP -- he's just saying that the GOP was right about their strategy which is something I would have thought Obama was too smart to do.

I understand why candidates in the general need to be so many things to so many people and bend a bit in the political winds. But they should be smart about it and this just seems so ... so stupid and pointless.

Posted by DAS | June 20, 2008 4:55 PM

You should post the full statement, if only because Obama does state that he will fight to remove the immunity provision for telecom companies. Reid also has indicated that he will try to hold a vote on a bill without the immunity provision before holding voting on the House's compromise bill. So, the non-immunity version will probably get a vote and lose. Then, the compromise will get a vote, including Obama's, and pass. That's how I interpret the statement.

So, Obama's full statement still leaves plenty to be desired, but I think it's a little better viewed in whole.

Posted by dpw | June 20, 2008 4:56 PM

Doug H, thanks for acting like a card carrying member of the MSM (are you?) and chopping off the qualifer of my post--I said there was little diffence between Obama and McBush on THIS issue (not all issues) and on general electoral morality. I don't deny there is is difference between Obama and McCain on many issues. But there is no issue more important to me than civil liberties/rule of law (foreign policy, economic equality, and Social Security are close or equal) and Obama is supporting a bill that, even sans the telecom imunity provision, is an evisceration of the Constitution. And I don't see him putting much effort or political capitol into opposing the immunity provision either beyond a pro forma no vote. It is hard to see how McCain could be worse on this issue and, since I see it as a paramount issue, it is difficult to see how I can vote for Obama. I'm tired of Democrats who think they can throw over large numbers of their loyal supporters on core issues like this because they have no where else to go. Obama claimed to be different and an agent of change for politics as usual. I never believed am and neither should anyone else now.

Posted by Marlowe | June 20, 2008 4:57 PM

Consumatopia-
I am afraid this is an example of the system working. As in: Obama got co-opted by it. I swear "The Wire" and David Simon's view on the power of institutions explains everything. As for Matt's positively hilarious nothing-to-see-here shrug, well, it's just a tad dismissive, doncha think? We're only witnessing the dismantling of a 200-plus-year-old constitutional democracy before our eyes. The hope that Obama will be a benevolent dictator isn't much to cling to.

Posted by bobbo | June 20, 2008 4:57 PM

Though I am sure the Obamabots will defend, justify, and rationalize as always, this shows that there is barely a nickel's worth of difference between Obama and McBush, either on the substance of this issue or in their willingness to make any pander they view as beneificial to getting elected

This is the kind of thinking that got us Bush. I was watching the Family Guy episode last night, where Peter goes back in time and screws up his relationship with Lois. Then Gore is elected president and all sorts of awesome things happen in the present, to Brian's great wonderment. A funny subplot there.

I guess there is a consistent position to be maintained that the same people who were right before are right again, but I happen to think there was a difference between the 90s and the last 8 years, and I don't think Gore or Obama would be that much different (or conservative) than Clinton.

Posted by mpowell | June 20, 2008 4:57 PM

One word description of this statement: bullshit.

No, wait: disappointing bullshit.

Bring on Sam Nunn!

Posted by glockenspieler | June 20, 2008 5:02 PM

He can kiss that $500 million in grassroots fundraising goodbye now.

Barack forgot the first rule of life:

don't sh*t where you eat.

Posted by lampwick | June 20, 2008 5:02 PM

No reason to be surprised by that language - it's the same language he used in letters to me when I asked him to oppose the FISA changes every other time.

Posted by Julene | June 20, 2008 5:02 PM

A good Messiah is so hard to find these days.

Hi, Mr. Troll. Sorry to disappoint you, but most of Sen. Obama's real and actual supporters never thought of him as a Messiah, much to the chagrin of the Clinton camp. Me, I'm agnostic -- I don't believe in saviors or messiahs of any sort. Sen. Obama is a politician; one I think will be good for my party and for my country, but one that will still, without doubt, disappoint me many times over the next eight years.

I can be disappointed in his actions on this issue without believing that every other issue or stance on which I support him should collapse and be ignored and that I should now equate him to a new fallen angel of Republican authoritarianism.

Posted by jbryan | June 20, 2008 5:03 PM

Holy crap!

Matt, you may want to blog about Obama opening up a FIFTEEN POINT national lead over McCain. I wonder if Obama will push harder on this legislation with such a large lead?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss

Posted by Jim Crozier | June 20, 2008 5:04 PM

Disappointing.

The Obama campaign clearly took their time thinking about this over the last 24 hours. I wonder what their calculation was. Because as a pivot to the center, it leaves something to be desired.

Posted by southpaw | June 20, 2008 5:05 PM

"Gore or Obama would be that much different (or conservative) than Clinton."

You're wrong on Gore, but right on Obama. The problem is that Clinto was pretty damn conservative on most policies, and even worse on civil liberties. In the policics of, say, 1932 to 1976, Clinto is essentially a very conservative Southern Democrat (minus the racism, I will thankfully gran) or moderate Republican. The only reason Clinto looks as good as moderate as he does is because he served as somewhat of a stopper to a Republican party that has gone off the deep and in the last thirty years and, essentially, become the John Birch Society.

Posted by Marlowe | June 20, 2008 5:05 PM

"Gore or Obama would be that much different (or conservative) than Clinton."

You're wrong on Gore, but right on Obama. The problem is that Clinto was pretty damn conservative on most policies, and even worse on civil liberties. In the policics of, say, 1932 to 1976, Clinto is essentially a very conservative Southern Democrat (minus the racism, I will thankfully gran) or moderate Republican. The only reason Clinto looks as good as moderate as he does is because he served as somewhat of a stopper to a Republican party that has gone off the deep and in the last thirty years and, essentially, become the John Birch Society.

Posted by Marlowe | June 20, 2008 5:06 PM

Mike:

The bill establishes the John Yoo Dictatorship: a private entity (AT&T, for example) can break any law and get away with it, if the Attorney General tells them he has a secret memo that says it's legal. So it does impact torture and all the rest, too, because it endoreses the Nixon doctrine: If the President says it's legal, it's legal.

Among many, many other things.

Posted by Alan in SF | June 20, 2008 5:07 PM

Commence circular firing squad formation!

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | June 20, 2008 5:16 PM

It's a bummer but I guess I've always assumed the government was tapping the phones anyway! Maybe too much bong induced paranoia! At least now there will be rules.

Posted by ligedog | June 20, 2008 5:17 PM

Of course this bill protects us from future lawbreaking by declaring that FISA is the exclusive means ... oh wait - that's exactly what Bush asserted was unconstitutional and so he went his own way. So the notion of go-forward protection is a ruse.

Obama raised a hope that he'd change the national security discussion away from one where we'd have to sacrifice liberty for security. He crushed that hope today.

Will I give him money? ... probably not now.

btw: the entire House leadership pushed this bill forward. Pelosi, Hoyer, and Emmanuel.

Posted by jackifus | June 20, 2008 5:17 PM

Something just occurred to me about your earlier post in which you stated"

'a "compromise" by which telecom firms that illegally assisted the Bush administration's surveillance efforts can be sued with the proviso that they get off scot-free if they can produce evidence that the Bush administration promised them (cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye) that their illegal request was, in fact, legal. Since everyone already knows this happened, the companies all get off scot-free.
'

Almost from the get-go, Dems agreed to compensate the telecoms for any damages they might incur from lawsuits. Essentially, government would pay any citizens who were harmed, and the lawsuits would be used to get at exactly what the Bush administration was looking for when it spied on Americans. Getting vengeance on the evil telecoms was never in the mix.

If the result of this compromise is that lawsuits can go forward, and that telecoms must show assurances from federal authorities that what they were doing was legal, mightn't these suits still be useful? Couldn't they be used to ascertain what information about ordinary Americans the administration was after? The telecoms can't prove that what they were doing was guranteed to be legal by the government without showing that those specific assurances corrresponded to specific acts of eavesdropping. The suits might still be useful to show which individuals ordered the aquisition of which information.

Posted by Njorl | June 20, 2008 5:19 PM

that's the way immunity is supposed to work, isn't it? you grant someone immunity and, in exchange, you get them to testify against the bigger fish

No, they're not bargaining with the telecoms. They're granting immunity without getting anything (other than campaign contributions) in exchange. One this passes there's no leverage to obtain any more information.

Posted by KCinDC | June 20, 2008 5:21 PM

Holy crap!

Matt, you may want to blog about Obama opening up a FIFTEEN POINT national lead over McCain. I wonder if Obama will push harder on this legislation with such a large lead?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss

Posted by Jim Crozier | June 20, 2008 5:04 PM

From reading the article, one come across the following bit of info about this poll:

"The NEWSWEEK survey of 1,010 adults nationwide on June 18 and 19, 2008, has a margin of error of 4 points."

Isn't it a cardnal rule of political polling that a poll based on "adults" is the worse form of polling because it fails to identify who are actual voters?

But hey, whatever, go ahead and take comfort in Obama's leads in these meaningless polls four months before the actual election. It's going to such a delight to see your reactions when Obama crashes and burns like all other liberals who run for President.

Posted by Chicounsel | June 20, 2008 5:23 PM

The fundamental equation (in case anyone forgot):

GOPers = Dems = republicrats = whores.

Here's what we need: a third party which will run candidates that will accept campaign contributions ONLY from individuals, written on personal checks, and in limited annual amounts ($2,000 ?).

Until that happens, happy whoring!

Posted by kafka | June 20, 2008 5:27 PM

I'll second jbryan's point. Looking at comments sections in a number of blogs, quite a few Obama supporters are speaking out against this. This at least proves for many of Obama's supporters, it was never about a cult of personality or going with the popular guy. We didn't flock to him just because he gave good speeches--it was based on ideas and policies.

When Clinton was president, the GOP stressed the need to limit executive authority while playing to paranoia about the onset of Big Brother. FISA was brought up as one such grave abuse against civil liberties that Mr. Clinton had at his disposal. All it took for the GOP party leadership and the rank-and-file to jettison these fears and reverse their policy preferences to the extreme was the election of one of their own.

So, again, I'm very encouraged by what I see from other Obama supporters. The idea that you can disagree with a person on some issues but still support them for others is a nuance that most rank-and-file partisans will never comprehend.

Posted by chris09 | June 20, 2008 5:28 PM

The suits might still be useful to show which individuals ordered the aquisition of which information. - Njorl

That's what I thought at first too. Except it seems that all that is required is a statement from the AG at the time stating that what the telecoms did was ok according to the law (which might place the AG in jeopardy, but if they were gonna go after AG A.G. without any corroborating details, they would have done so already, I think ...).

IMHO, immunity to the telecoms would have been a good thing, if it required, e.g., them to name specific names (e.g. let Congress go all McCarthy on them) or provide testimony in court about who said what was ok.

But this bill doesn't really require enough of the telecoms that they would really give enough info to finally nab BushCO ... or at least it doesn't seem like it does.

Posted by DAS | June 20, 2008 5:33 PM

Alan,

Thanks for addressing my question. However, what you're refering to is the immunity. And as I and Obama said, yeah that's a problem. He says he wants it out; we'll see what he does. I have a feeling he'll eventually vote for it with immunity, at which point I'll be with you. But he hasn't done that yet. So far he's with you (and me).

But again, what about the larger bill. What's your view on legal wiretapping? That's what the bill is really all about.

Posted by Mike | June 20, 2008 5:34 PM

"The trouble is that unlike Barack Obama, I'm not going to be President and odds are neither are you."

The jury is still out on my candidacy.

Posted by Hill | June 20, 2008 5:48 PM

Obama's going to be warrantlessly wiretapping too.

His AG needs to focus on paid trolls like Terrorist Al, to see whether their instructions are coming from RNC HQ or Tehran.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 20, 2008 5:57 PM

RNC HQ or Tehran. - pseudonymous in nc

Or both. Remember Iran/Contra?

Some of us are still wondering whether wingnut condemnations of Iran are more or less the same as the condemnations of the Reverend Jonathan Whirley against PAGAN.

Posted by DAS | June 20, 2008 6:08 PM

A pity, but I doubt most Americans value their right to privacy very highly. They wouldn't do half the sh*t they do on the Internet if they did.

Posted by Bat of Moon | June 20, 2008 6:11 PM

The idea that you can disagree with a person on some issues but still support them for others is a nuance that most rank-and-file partisans will never comprehend.

Whatever makes ya feel good, but the obvious point to the this atrocity is that Obama & the Dems don't care what you think, have nothing but contempt for you.

And don't give Obama any points for voting against immunity in an amendment certain to fail cloture. This is all choreographed by Obama, Hoyer, Pelosi, & Reid.

I still think this bill immunizes everybody who committed war crimes under Bush's orders. Check out Greenwald for full text. And I think that third paragraph way down there is the purpose rather than telecom money.

Posted by bob mcmanus | June 20, 2008 6:14 PM

Mike: I hope Obama will do something about immunity, too, but my understanding is it's a done deal. The fix is in, and it will pass as is. Obama's promise to "work" sounds like CYA.

As far as I can tell, the bill establishes the "A-G says there's a secret memo from someone in Justice saying it's legal" for any future transgressions as well. Which means the President can order corporations to do illegal things -- spying or who knows what else -- and there will be no investigation, no public disclosure, no consequences.

See Glenn Greenwald and other legal specialists for a much better analysis.

Posted by Alan in SF | June 20, 2008 6:38 PM

Whatever makes ya feel good

No one here feels good about this, Bob.

Posted by jbryan | June 20, 2008 6:45 PM

See Glenn Greenwald and other legal specialists for a much better analysis.

Balkin

Posted by bob mcmanus | June 20, 2008 7:19 PM

Thanks Alan. Could be CYA, might not be. We don't know yet.

On future immunity, that's a different debate. I'm not in favor of going back and making legal what didn't used to be, but you could argue that there is a need for cooperation with private sector in security. This makes them immune from lawsuit, but it doesn't eliminate Congressional oversight of the legal opinions being given to cover the corporations' asses. It also doesn't amndate cooperation, it just keeps them from getting sued if they have a BS legal opinion waved in their face and are threatened with being outed as not cooperating with counterterrorism.

Look at it from the telecoms' perspective for a moment: they will want to do what is legal to help, but how can they know what will be seen as legal if they can't trust the government to be straight about that. So absent some guarantees, that will shut cooperation down. That's not a good thing in the view of like 90% of Congress. Retroactivity on the other hand is another matter altogether, is it not. Is there not a consensus in Congress on the need to offer assurances going forward? Is that not a widely accepted principle.

What is needed here is to get a hold of the legal analysis and phiony advice that our government is brandishing. That is what the problem is and was. Yoo was the problem, no doubt, well, so let's get the right kind of people in there. And that, my friends, is a political process culminating in getting a rule-of-law oriented person in cahrge of the Executive branch, and thereby getting some good loyal Obamabots in control of the Justice Department, if you know what I mean.

Posted by Mike | June 20, 2008 7:34 PM

BTW, Glenn Greenwald is an obsessive raving lunatic, and that's coming from a card carrying ACLU member.

Posted by Mike | June 20, 2008 7:50 PM

Thank goodness Obama sold out! What a relief! Forget the friggin' audacity of hope because aside from the halo effect with that word it is one major burden and stress point getting up one's hope and now I can relax completely after getting excited and having been duped into thinking that Obama was something other than just another con man. And I was on the verge of sending him money but am now registering as Independent no more Democrat party. I was an idiot to think anything was going to change.

Posted by Mellors | June 20, 2008 8:31 PM

BTW, Glenn Greenwald is an obsessive raving lunatic, and that's coming from a card carrying ACLU member.

Oh, the "argument from authority," huh? Well then-- I'm a vegan lesbian single mom who not only belongs to the ACLU, but happens to be chained to a tree as I type this, and I say Greenwald's perfectly sane and rational.

Posted by James Gary | June 20, 2008 8:48 PM

Can someone help me understand (possibly just by giving me a link) what the bill's position on future wiretapping is, and why so many civil libertarians find it objectionable? (I don't really care about whether telcoms are retroactively punished or not, but then I'm the type of person who doesn't really care if genocidal dictators live out their retirement years in tropical paradises as long as they aren't doing any further harm) Obama's public statement makes it sound like warrantless wiretapping is out, and he says that the bill "restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance"--so if this isn't totally inaccurate, is the issue that "FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes" were already making it too easy to get a warrant?

Posted by Jesse M. | June 20, 2008 9:28 PM

Don't worry, little people, when I am President I shall use my awesome powers to protect your freedom as I deem necessary.

Obama!

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 20, 2008 9:30 PM

I've considered the statement's clause that as Prez, BO will closely monitor FISA for abuses. First, it is unwise to unleash the genie in the hopes of future good-faith compliance or monitoring. Second, I don't want a Prez of any stripe or good intent to have the power to beneficiently monitor a program that constitutes a serious encroachment on my rights.

Posted by mofo | June 20, 2008 11:08 PM

I told you.

Suckers.

This is the bullshit statement:

"But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."

Bullshit. Pure bullshit.

And he knows it. And if he doesn't know it, he's not qualified to be President.

Told you so.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 20, 2008 11:43 PM

"restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance"/i>

They were already the exclusive means. Passing another law saying that they are doesn't do anything to prevent the president from continuing to ignore it.

Posted by KCinDC | June 20, 2008 11:56 PM

As I said this morning if I were the next President of the United States I'd be happy to be handed unlimited power by the GOP, too.

You want Barack Obama to have over-broad powers to spy on people he has no evidence against?

We already hd the tools to investigate and prosecute crime before 9/11.

What we all have to know about the surveillance tools Bush asks for is that they go beyond that, giving the government what they need to create un-reviewable and un-punishable instruments of oppression. Not president needs this and Barack Obama lost an important fight.

Posted by Swan | June 21, 2008 12:40 AM

I'll still vote for him, but I don't think I'll be donating again. This is obviously a serious disappointment.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 21, 2008 8:23 AM

Hands please...who'd like to win one for once?

Compromise then kick ass. Let's get him in the house then see what happens.

Posted by judson | June 21, 2008 10:16 AM

Judging from those who defend Obama by saying "he opposes the retroactive immunity, and he's going to work against it," I just figured out how Clinton should have explained her Yes vote on the AUMF. She should have said that she voted for the bill, but she opposed the "declare war on Iraq" part and she planned to work against it!

As for this kind of nonsense:

Compromise then kick ass. Let's get him in the house then see what happens.

Yes, because the Democrats always work for the cause of righteousness in the end, even if we don't put any pressure on them to do so. Why, look at the Democratic Congress that we elected in 2006—who could ask for anything more?

I want Obama in the White House, but I also want you to stop deluding yourself about what he'll do there.

Posted by tomemos | June 21, 2008 12:57 PM

Oh yes, you've made your feeling on abuses of power quite clear: they are fine as long as you don't agree with the people getting trampled.

"but on some level I'm sort of rooting for massive abuses" - Yglesias

Got you loud and clear the other day.

Posted by capital L | June 21, 2008 4:00 PM

Speaking of Obama, this YouTube campaign ad sums it all up:

http://www.youtube.com/user/fightthetruth

But it's the ending that was the kicker to me.
Completely unexpected, and hilarious.

Posted by Denny | June 21, 2008 5:36 PM

Free James Gary!

Posted by MarkC | June 21, 2008 6:26 PM