The Washington Post reports that Barack Obama is running into some unexpected fundraising trouble with efforts to recruit big-dollar Clinton donors to his side not going as well as he hoped, and internet contributions falling off their previous furious pace. I wondered about this possibility in late June, and it seems to be coming true. The combination of Obama mostly focusing on showing his more centrist side while also maintaining a stable lead in the polls seems to me to discourage activists from giving to the campaign. People are thinking to themselves, why not save that money and by a G3 iPhone or give it to progressive Senate candidate?
« Why The Reimbursement Fight Matters | Main | Iraq in Strategic Context »
The Cash Machine
11 Jul 2008 10:15 am
Comments (188)
indeed. taking money out of your wallet is a difficult task when you're using one hand to hold your nose.
I am withholding my contributions because of his FISA bill. Obama's move on that isn't a centrist swing, because neither party is really the part of law-breaking or constitution-trampling.
He can earn my financial support back, but I'd imagine there are many people like myself that have no intention of supporting someone compromising integrity on what should be such an easy issue.
Yeah I'm not willing to give him any money now thanks to all of the shit he's been pulling. Maybe I can make a more rational decision later but right now I want a refund.
You mean people like the profoundly hypocritical Markos? The fact that through the end of June 2008 he hadn't given a single dime to Obama is, well, a disgrace.
really, patrick and nathan? Who would you rather vote for? If you want the democrats to win, you have to realize that not everybody in this country is one, and in order to win a general election, you have to appeal to people who aren't democrats.
If people stop giving to him, not only is he going to have money, but perceptions about him are going to change for the worse.
Stop being childish and look at the long view.
Me too. And I had such high hopes. Prefer to give to real liberals.
My initial plan was to continue my $100/month through the campaign. FISA changed that. He gets none of my money now. That goes to Act Blue and the ACLU.
But that's fine, 'cause Obama told me it was OK if his vote was a deal-breaker.
We'll see when the numbers come out. Remember that we heard this story earlier in the primaries right before big numbers, so there's no value in media speculation.
You'll notice that the article has no evidence whatsoever that fundraising was slow in June, just Obama supporters noting that there's a lot of money to be raised and that raising money for Clinton is hard. In fact, the shorter version of the article and other articles on the internet yesterday misused an Obama quote which was about fundraising for Clinton, which I notice has disappeared.
Me too. And I had such high hopes. Prefer to give to real liberals.
My initial plan was to continue my $100/month through the campaign. FISA changed that. He gets none of my money now. That goes to Act Blue and the ACLU.
But that's fine, 'cause Obama told me it was OK if his vote was a deal-breaker.
I think Matt's June post might be valid. Everyone thinks Obama has a lock on it, which is why people might rather spend their money on gas than give it to a progressive candidate.
Iran's launching missiles and doing poor quality photoshop jobs to help McCain, but it will be to no avail.
I just contributed to the EFF to continue this fight and I'm forwarding the letter to Obama and the DNC to let them know that this is a contribution that they didn't get.
Ah yes, FISA, an abstraction that will, in practice, effect how many people in their daily lives? Support of faith-based charities? How are he, it's the separation of church and state, man!
Meanwhile, say good-bye to to things that effect people's everyday lives, like health care, say hello to more war and, oh, I don't know, say so long to Roe and Griswald, just to start.
"Principles", and "integrity" in politics is the refuge for back-benchers and losers, like, um, most Democrats.
Obama must find a way to bring Hillary's supporters into the fold. He's running a campaign with half of the party. It's just not sustainable.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
I just contributed to the EFF to continue this fight and I'm forwarding the letter to Obama and the DNC to let them know that this is a contribution that they didn't get.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better!
Stop being childish and look at the long view.
Sadly, this seems to be all the netroots (or maybe it IS nutroots after all) are capable of these days. If Obama doesn't pass their purity test, they throw a tantrum, take their ball and go home.
Ironically, these are the same people that have been fuming for years about the ideological purity of Republicans, and now they expect - no, DEMAND - the same of Democrats.
Obama swings to the right and campaign contributions from earnest, thoughtful Americans who *craved* progressive change have diminished????
Nobody could have predicted...
(Well actually, I did.)
People are thinking to themselves, why not save that money and by a G3 iPhone or give it to progressive Senate candidate?
And I'm thinking to myself, why not give money to a progressive Senate candidate who won't listen in on my iPhone?
Stop being childish and look at the long view.
Sadly, this seems to be all the netroots (or maybe it IS nutroots after all) are capable of these days. If Obama doesn't pass their purity test, they throw a tantrum, take their ball and go home.
Ironically, these are the same people that have been fuming for years about the ideological purity of Republicans, and now they expect - no, DEMAND - the same of Democrats.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better!
Shine -- but it's OK if Obama doesn't win because the Constitutional Champions will have been Right. And as we know, the only thing that matters is FISA. That's it.
And anyway, Obama doesn't need their money. Kos told us so.
If Obama's fundraising is lagging, it's not FISA or anything like that. If the hyper-engaged netroots were the key to Obama's internet fundraising, then it would have been Edwards or Dodd who was raking in all that cash, since, pre-Iowa, they were the darlings of that set. More likely, the problem is that the rhythm of the general election campaign is not that conducive to inspiring waves of semi-spontaneous donations. During the primaries, he was always either beating Hilary or losing to Hilary, both events that were likely to get people to open their wallets. Now, he is just kind of doing what he is doing -- making appearances and holding a steady, if underwhelming, lead.
It is possible that things like the European trip and the convention could change that pattern. I don't know. But, right now, that campaign is no fun at all -- he is ahead enough that he is getting all the press scrutiny, but not so ahead that it really feels like he is winning.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better!
Progressives, independents, liberals and any fans of freedom quit or reduce giving to a candidate that enthusiastically supports the gutting and effective repeal of the 4th Amendment. No way to predict that reaction............
There are plenty of Senatorial candidates out there with more progressive principles and much more competitive races. If one is donating on a budget, it simply makes more sense to give to them.
Reward good behavior: the simplest rule for giving to any charity.
cnnr, if McCain wins, surely another 4 years of Bush policies will be excellent for "the long view."
Sorry, as a consumer I demand a specific product, I will not waste my money on something I dont want. My wife and I have directed our money to more progressive candidates. We still give but want to spend our money on things we care about.
Obama obviously is one of the worst two-faced-monsters. Guy barely gets the nomination and cant backtrack on campaign promises fast enough. What else will he find convenient to backtrack on in the future? It appears he is not willing to stand in there and "change" Washington, in fact, he seems quite happy to go right along with it all.
I don't want purity, I just want allegiance to the Constitution.
"And I'm thinking to myself, why not give money to a progressive Senate candidate who won't listen in on my iPhone?"
Yeah, because John McCain would be so much more circumspect while he's invading your privacy and listening to your phone calls. And thinking of new wayst to kill brown people.
I don't want purity, I just want allegiance to the Constitution.
You're right on, Matt.
I just gave $100 to the ACLU and faxed the receipt to Obama. The cover note made it clear that I was planning to give to his campaign, but the ACLU got the cash instead due entirely to his FISA vote and the ACLU's suit in opposition to the FISA update.
I think my checkbook eloped with the Senator's promises.
Any claim that the drop in contributions is tied to his "move to the center" is pretty far-fetched. Is there any evidence whatsoever that FISA has played a significant role in his fundraising. The far simpler and more plausible explanation is that the primaries ended and the vast majority of americans and democrats aren't focused on the race right now.
Obama has my vote, but after FISA he will not get a nickel from me.
Count me among the Obama donors who've instituted a donation pause until he stops tacking right and trashing the Constiution. He's got my vote, but my wallet stays closed until I see some changes.
The Firedog Lake/Color for Change coalition got the June/July donation that I would have made to Obama 08. That's what caving on FISA did to my desire to donate to the campaign.
You're right on, Matt.
I just gave $100 to the ACLU and faxed the receipt to Obama. The cover note made it clear that I was planning to give to his campaign, but the ACLU got the cash instead due entirely to his FISA vote and the ACLU's suit in opposition to the FISA update.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better! I'm giving to the ACLU, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold - they represent me.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better! I'm giving to the ACLU, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold - they represent me.
You're right on, Matt.
I just gave $100 to the ACLU and faxed the receipt to Obama. The cover note made it clear that I was planning to give to his campaign, but the ACLU got the cash instead due entirely to his FISA vote and the ACLU's suit in opposition to the FISA update.
Any claim that the drop in contributions is tied to his "move to the center" is pretty far-fetched. Is there any evidence whatsoever that FISA has played a significant role in his fundraising. The far simpler and more plausible explanation is that the primaries ended and the vast majority of americans and democrats aren't focused on the race right now.
after obama's astonishingly horrible judgement on the FISA bill, I refuse to give any time or money to his campaign. i'm going to still vote for him. but yeah, my time and money should be dedicated to building a veto proof majority.
I continue to kick in $20 a month until I get to $199 and then I'm done. I don't want to show up on FEC reports that are all over the internets. FISA sucked but it was over when the Harry Reid made the Intelligence Committee bill the controlling bill instead of the Judiciary bill. Obama still kicks ass. The guy is going to fix more constitutional issues in one day as the Executive then tilting at windmills in the cesspool that is the U.S. Senate. Even a great FISA bill was never going to do squat. Bush is going to be a shredding, pardoning fiend from November '08 to January '09 - good FISA bill or bad.
My message to liberals who can afford it: Give Obama money or you suck.
$200 to Obama today, just to make up for all you Enemies Of The Good.
you can thank me when he wins.
There's a small (but over-represented) group of liberal whiners who want Obama to lose, because then they can say "See, if he'd listened to our lily-white purity, it would have been alright". Of course, they would rather see a Republican win, since this gives them something to whine about for another four years. If a Democrat wins, then suddenly they have to face the possibility of living in the real world. Can you imagine the rush to the therapists?
These are the people who say: no money because one of my self-righteous ideals was compromised. Well, you can behave like whores for McCain if you want to, but real Democrats will work and give and do what they can to make things better. So shut your self-righteous mouths about your empty principles. You aren't Democrats - just attention whores like Markos. He needs Republicans in power to get readers - and you sheeple follow his worthless ass.
Nice to see all the dumb fucks have convened in this thread.
The whole martyr act is getting old--"I am patriot! I stand with constitooshun!" crowd is almost guaranteeing a McCain win. Because that guy will really protect the constitution.
Nice to see all the dumb fucks have convened in this thread.
The whole martyr act is getting old--"I am patriot! I stand with constitooshun!" crowd is almost guaranteeing a McCain win. Because that guy will really protect the constitution.
Nice to see all the dumb fucks have convened in this thread.
The whole martyr act is getting old--"I am patriot! I stand with constitooshun!" crowd is almost guaranteeing a McCain win. Because that guy will really protect the constitution.
Ah, I see the concern trolls are out in full force today. Could it be that the donations went down as the primary was winding down and the general hadn't taken off yet. Neah, it's everything to do with FISA, right....
Let's see those June numbers.
In the early days of the Clinton/Obama debates, I worried that all the new people attracted to politics through Obama's vitality would wear away when they realized that he wasn't and couldn't be pure. I didn't expect it from the more experienced political hands.
That being said, I am disappointed in Obama's FISA vote in the Senate, and will not give as willingly of my time (of which I have little) or my money (of which I have less). Given the numbers by which cloture was passed, I think he could have spoken strongly against FISA, voted against cloture, and started running ads in red states setting up the telecom companies as the bad guys. Who doesn't like paying their phone bills?
But hey, I don't get paid to think as strategically as his people presumably do.
Obama could not filibuster the FISA bill because his colleagues did not muster the votes to sustain a filibuster. You can't blame him for the defection of the Blue Dogs, and it's simply dishonest to do so. I don't remember Feingold or Dodd filibustering either - so why should Obama take the blame?
Please, grow up, and recognize that even if Obama ain't perfect - and you ain't either - he's way better than any candidate we have seen in 40 years. Don't throw that away and elect John "Village Idiot" McCain. Do you really want another four years of Bushie World?
Nothing new here. The so-called 'progressives' around here hate winning more than anything else because then their viewpoint is in the position of responsibility and they can't keep playing the constant victim quite so well. They want nothing more than the same thing they've railed against for the past eight years -- another eight year round of Republican dominance and control.
They're all too happy to take up the same chorus Ralph Nader was chanting madly in 2000.
Sorry, punishing Obama for his FISA vote is not an insistence on ideological purity. That vote was wrong and Obama should hear that message loud and clear. You can't let everything slide even during a campaign.
The FISA vote will not bring him any centrist/conservative votes because it's not that high-visibility an issue for average voters, who are apparently focused on Iraq and the economy. I find it fairly improbable that his vote was the result of political triangulation. I think Obama might like to retain that power for himself as President, and may even have been influenced by telecom lobbyist bucks. He may have been swayed by bogus (IMHO) national security arguments or back-room horse trading.
But if Obama wants to be perceived as a 'new kind of candidate', this is not the way to accomplish it.
We need to make Obama aware of the flavor of his mandate, if he actually winds up receiving one.
Such violent aggression towards those who have funnelled their donations from Obama towards more progressive candidates and groups. I also note a bit of the Phil Gramm approach: you're all a bunch of whiners.
You folks are persuasive.
Wow. I wish I had a hundred dollars to throw him, although I am one of those dumb fuck purists who would probably give it to Regina Thomas or the ACLU first. Could the economy be part of the problem?
Like other commenters here, I too will vote for him (or against McCain) but no money. For me the real killer is his dishonest "Everything is ok with this bill except for the immunity part." He is not stupid. I am confident that he knows that this erodes our Constitutional protections. Does he think WE are stupid?
Or, maybe he is. What are the chances that the new FISA law will be used to monitor communications between potential "people of interest" transacting with the Obama campaign?
To those telling us hysterical liberals to take the long view I say: "Harry Reid" and "Nancy Pelosi." Isn't it SO MUCH better now the Democrats have Congress and the Sentate? What exactly have they done differently? Under their leadership they have established the precident that Republicans don't have to testify before congress if they choose not to. Oh yeah and continued funding for the war they promised to end.
I'll end with a cute riddle:
Q: What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat.
A: The Republican fights for his constituents.
Obama clearly wasn't happy with the FISA bill, but supported it regardless because preventing the Administration's continuing flagrant violation of the Constitution was more important than punishing companies for being misguided patriots a few years back, rather like the Senate passing the War Powers Act. The telecoms clearly got the message that participating in warrantless wiretapping will not be tolerated, and penalizing them further would have been a feather in the cap but not much more.
Frankly, Obama's been a long time coming in coming to grips with the demands of practical politics. We don't have unlimited choices for President, and even with a Democratic majority he'll need to reach out to Republicans now and then.
On a side note, the "my way or the highway" attitude suggests to me many hardcore liberals aren't open to examining counter arguments from other interested parties, and this does not create good policy. The refusal to go for a guy who isn't seen as ideologically pure reminds me of Stevensonian Democrats withholding support from JFK.
As with a number of others above, I am not going out to spend on an electronic toy. I returned the Obama campaign's last fund appeal with a simple "no" and and explanation that I would spend my limited funds on candidates who were committed to upholding the constitution. At present, candidate Obama is about as likely to get money from me as Steny Hoyer. I closed by wishing him well with his new friends and hoped that they would be contributing in my place.
I wonder if it's the same short attention span problem led the various "I stopped donating to Obama" posters to: 1. withdraw support based on the pseudo-scandal of the day and 2. keep hitting the "post" button because their urgent message didn't immediately appear in the comments?
Hmm, defenders of the constitution who don't care about winning back the White House, even though winning the white house is the most likely way to change the policies they hate. That's really fucking productive. It's like they want to spend the next four years going, "WAAAAAH, John McCain wants to spy on me."
Regardless of how heated the debate may be, most of those supporters will come back to the fold as the campaign moves on.
However, letting your candidate know you are displeased with him by closing the checkbook for a few weeks is a time honored means of political communication. Rest assured the NRA and relgious right are reminding the Republicans of this every time they even THINK about doing something "centrist."
Note, by the way, that being wary of government spying and corporate collusion with corrupt government officials IS a centrist position. How many Americans think the government reading their mail is a good thing?
Progressives have as much right as conservatives to be angry when a politician crosses them on an important issue.
So, those disappointed with Obama are overly emphasizing the value of remaining "pure" to the Constitution? What other Amendments can we give a little on, allowing those on the Right to advocate dilution or ignoring? That is, and still not be guilty of whining about it as it happens? How about just a little bit of slavery? Maybe just a few women here and there denied suffrage? Maybe a few local sheriff departments and prisons meting out cruel and unusual punishment and we all turn a blind eye? Oh, and don't forget some poll taxes, those would be nice here and there. There are probably constituencies to be mined, votes to be had pushing for such ideas. Let's give Obama the leeway to expand his base and not cry about it if he suggests such ideas. Quitcherbitchin, even with all the above give backs Obama would still be better than McCain, right?
Some people have principles and some people don't. Obama sold us out on a matter of core principle so fuck all you Obamatrons who can't understand why we haven't joined your cult. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Its an incredibly stupid move on Obama's part anyway. We all know he's afraid to fight, but he's going to end up having to go on offense at some point whether he wants to or not. Too bad he's squandering all of his offensive opportunities to make a move to the "center" that will only hurt him not help him.
Amazing. It's like the rabid Obama supporter simply is incapable of reading comprehension. As a supporter myself (tho not a rabid one) this worries me greatly.
There is nothing wrong with withholding your cash if you disagree with the candidate. It seems most who are doing so are still going to vote for Obama in the general election. What he did was stupid. I love the guy and even I can see that. It is a clear flip flop.
You people need to calm down. Obama is not in any danger of going broke and people are still going to vote for him. Don't you think one of the guy's strength is people can disagree with him and still vote for him???
I don't want to be a mindless Obamabot. I have seen enough of those surrounding G. W.
Also, please note that my criticism shouldn't be taken as applying to our host here, who's given 500$ (including 250$ in May). Thanks, Matt.
Stop being childish and look at the long view
The long view is now.
And, I don't know about you, but I'm just fine, thank you.
today i opened up my wallet and joined the ACLU. a much better use of my money, i think. why would i give to a candidate who wants to take my freedoms away? isn't that what the terra-raqis are trying to do?
I doubt any decrease in fundraising is primarily due to activist discontent. But the general disillusionment with Obama is nevertheless one of the most encouraging developments of this election cycle. Insofar as the netroots demonstrate independence from the party, and particularly such a popular standard bearer as Obama, they demonstrate their potential as a truly effective outside pressure group. Now the key is whether they can motivate this kind of activist anger on issues beyond the important, but somewhat arcane FISA capitulation, to issues such as as bankruptcy and prison reform.
Regardless of how heated the debate may be, most of those supporters will come back to the fold as the campaign moves on.
However, letting your candidate know you are displeased with him by closing the checkbook for a few weeks is a time honored means of political communication. Rest assured the NRA and relgious right are reminding the Republicans of this every time they even THINK about doing something "centrist."
Note, by the way, that being wary of government spying and corporate collusion with corrupt government officials IS a centrist position. How many Americans think the government reading their mail is a good thing?
Progressives have as much right as conservatives to be angry when a politician crosses them on an important issue. As usual, the establishment trolls cannot even begin to discuss the progressives' complaints on their merits.
Amazing. It's like the rabid Obama supporter simply is incapable of reading comprehension. As a supporter myself (tho not a rabid one) this worries me greatly.
There is nothing wrong with withholding your cash if you disagree with the candidate. It seems most who are doing so are still going to vote for Obama in the general election. What he did was stupid. I love the guy and even I can see that. It is a clear flip flop.
You people need to calm down. Obama is not in any danger of going broke and people are still going to vote for him. Don't you think one of the guy's strength is people can disagree with him and still vote for him???
I don't want to be a mindless Obamabot. I have seen enough of those surrounding G. W.
Regardless of how heated the debate may be, most of those supporters will come back to the fold as the campaign moves on.
However, letting your candidate know you are displeased with him by closing the checkbook for a few weeks is a time honored means of political communication. Rest assured the NRA and relgious right are reminding the Republicans of this every time they even THINK about doing something "centrist."
Note, by the way, that being wary of government spying and corporate collusion with corrupt government officials IS a centrist position. How many Americans think the government reading their mail is a good thing?
Progressives have as much right as conservatives to be angry when a politician crosses them on an important issue. As usual, the establishment trolls cannot even begin to discuss the progressives' complaints on their merits.
"The long view is now"? Well, whatever that means, I'd suggest your horizon would be benefited by performing an anal extraction on your puzzled head.
It may be childish, but I've had the same thought -- that I would not contribute any more money to Obama until A) he throws me (and my fellow lefty-liberals) a bone or two or B) it looks as if the race is getting uncomfortably close.
I understand the pragmatic political running-to-the-center strategy -- minimizing your perceived vulnerabilities -- because you have to win the election first. But damn, it sure dampens my enthusiasm/hope.
"The long view is now"? Well, whatever that means, I'd suggest your horizon would be benefited by performing an anal extraction on your puzzled head.
"The long view is now"? Well, whatever that means, I'd suggest your horizon would be benefited by performing an anal extraction on your puzzled head.
I notice the "fundraising trouble" mentioned in the article is not FISA or a "centrist turn" or Obama's small lead or the lull in the schedule--it's big-dollar Clinton supporters expecting big-dollar Obama supporters to pay off Clinton's debt.
Of course, repaying the multimillionaire Clinton for the money she loaned herself to run a highly negative campaign long after she had no chance of winning the nomination should take precedence over getting a Democrat elected president.
I suspect the Post article is mostly just gossip and Village wish-fulfillment for a tight race--there don't seem to be any current hard numbers, and the "three straight months of declining donations" line is more than a month out of date--but it certainly shows where Clinton's priorities lie. Thank god Obama got the nomination. Too bad she's still bleeding him for it.
According to a person on dkos, a statement from Team Obama:
Spokesman Dan Pfeiffer:
"The Wall Street Journal report of our fundraising numbers is way off the mark. It appears that after 18 months, some in the press still haven’t realized that anyone who is talking about numbers doesn’t know what our numbers are."
Ok, progressives - just how do you expect Obama to fix FISA, given the lack of solid support in the Senate and the way politics works? You want your ideas to be taken seriously - let's hear what can be done in real life. What concrete measures would you take here and now?
you can thank me when he wins.
Me too! I'm upping my contributions to compensate for the crybabies. Good riddance assholes.
$200 to Obama today, just to make up for all you Enemies Of The Good.
you can thank me when he wins.
Me too! I'm upping my contributions to compensate for the crybabies. Good riddance assholes.
Please! It's the middle of the summer!
People with lives have better things to do and think about than the Presidential election. The lull has very little to do with the Obama's "lurch to the center" -- if he had toed the liberal line on the Supreme Court decisions and with FISA, he'd have no more money in his war chest.
If/when it looks like McCain has a real chance of winning the election, you'll see a lot of Democrats opening up their wallets.
Yes, you're right, fellow commenters, no matter what Obama does or says we should all give him money anyway. That way he can rest secure knowing that he can always count on our dollars while ignoring our beliefs. That's an excellent message to send to any candidate.
Look, it's fine to say that you, personally, don't consider FISA to be a big deal, but some of you seem to be suggesting that because McSame is a big loon we should forgive Obama any transgression, no matter how offensive we might find it. Does Obama really need an army of sycophantic ATMs to win this election?
You piss on your base, they stop opening their wallets for you. Obama is supposed to be a smart guy, how come he didn't see that coming?
And we'd see a lot less of the duplicate comments if the comment posting system actually worked properly, rather than tossing up server errors while at the same time posting the comment. Is this ever going to be fixed?
Thank you Dominion, well said.
I always hold my nose and pull the lever for the Dem candidate for Pres. But I'm tired of the choice being how fast do we race to the bottom.
So far, with Obama's inability to get out in front of an issue, take the lead, and show people the way. I don't see how he will be able to get anything that is even half-way decent accomplished during his term.
Obama clearly wasn't happy with the FISA bill, but supported it regardless because preventing the Administration's continuing flagrant violation of the Constitution was more important than punishing companies for being misguided patriots a few years back, rather like the Senate passing the War Powers Act. The telecoms clearly got the message that participating in warrantless wiretapping will not be tolerated, and penalizing them further would have been a feather in the cap but not much more.
Frankly, Obama's been a long time coming in coming to grips with the demands of practical politics. We don't have unlimited choices for President, and even with a Democratic majority he'll need to reach out to Republicans now and then.
On a side note, the "my way or the highway" attitude suggests to me many hardcore liberals aren't open to examining counter arguments from other interested parties, and this does not create good policy. The refusal to go for a guy who isn't seen as ideologically pure reminds me of Stevensonian Democrats withholding support from JFK.
"but some of you seem to be suggesting that because McSame is a big loon we should forgive Obama any transgression,"
Well, do you want a democrat in the office or another, possibly even loonier, Bush term? Presidential elections nearly always come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils.
I love all the people who think that we not only have an obligation to vote for Obama despite our disappointments (which we do, and no one has said they're not voting for him)—we have an obligation to give money to someone we're profoundly disappointed with. Rather than cussing out ACLU donors, why don't you stop going to restaurants, maybe sell off some possessions, so you can fulfill your sacred obligation to the utmost.
Obama's recent behavior is extremely discouraging to those of us who would donate to him.
His failure to lead on stopping the FISA bill is a disgrace. His vote for the FISA bill is a disgrace.
My money will be going to congressional candidates who believe in the Constitution, like Dan Seals and Darcy Burner.
If Obama wants to protect the telecoms instead of the Constitution, let them fund his campaign.
Tomemos, rather than making uninformed judgments, maybe you should do some real work, rather than sitting on your ass reading second-rate novels?
Eh, he hasn't offered us any new t-shirts lately.
How about the "Vote for Obama even though he voted for FISA" t-shirt? ;^)
This all seems quite encouraging to me. I made a donation recently because I was happy that he came out against the attempt to amend California's constitution. Otherwise I wouldn't have due to the moves to the center.
I think it would be silly and short sighted to not vote for Obama because of this sort of thing, but not giving him money is a measured response and one that encourages good behavior.
I was going to make a cash contribution to a politician (obama) for the first time ever. Ive volunteered time in the past but no money. But then Obama sold out on FISA and to the worst president ever so I'll be sending the money to the ACLU instead. He can make up the difference from AT&T, who by the way is who you are paying tons of $$$ to with your stupid iphones.
This crap is just ridiculous. I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I never fully realized what a bunch of whiners we have. You guys would have loved Stevenson - that guy knew how to lose with class. Never compromised a thing - just took it up the butt from Ike. And he did it twice!
Don't you geniuses think that having a Democrat in the White House might be better for your Constitutional Rights? Nah, better to put your faith in St. John. How crazy is is that Obama didn't go for the three man filibuster. That was a sure-fire loser. Stevenson was a Senator from Illinois, too. Why didn't Obama study his strategy more? Could have made this election much more fun. Damn!
if progressive issues are important to people why wouldn't they give their money to competitive races in the house/senate or issue groups?
i've got 50 bucks to spend a month, i'm giving to the person or group that's agitating for change. i have no doubt that everyone's life is better off w/ an obama presidency. and in the voting booth i'll be excited to vote obama. but i want the national conversation on progressive issues, principles, and policies to change. sorry but more republican-lite rhetoric on important progressive issues isn't not going to earn my money. he doesn't need to pass a purity test, he needs to go on the record as trying to reframe the issues. turning the other cheek on the significance of the 4th amend, being cool w/ restricting a women's reproductive autonomy, and calling a decision that restricts capital punishment unconstitutional is not a bold move to shift the conversation on how we think and talk about progressive ideals. he can roll over for right wing talking points w/ someone else's money.
This crap is just ridiculous. I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I never fully realized what a bunch of whiners we have. You guys would have loved Stevenson - that guy knew how to lose with class. Never compromised a thing - just took it up the butt from Ike. And he did it twice!
Don't you geniuses think that having a Democrat in the White House might be better for your Constitutional Rights? Nah, better to put your faith in St. John. How crazy is is that Obama didn't go for the three man filibuster. That was a sure-fire loser. Stevenson was a Senator from Illinois, too. Why didn't Obama study his strategy more? Could have made this election much more fun. Damn!
This crap is just ridiculous. I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I never fully realized what a bunch of whiners we have. You guys would have loved Stevenson - that guy knew how to lose with class. Never compromised a thing - just took it up the butt from Ike. And he did it twice!
Don't you geniuses think that having a Democrat in the White House might be better for your Constitutional Rights? Nah, better to put your faith in St. John. How crazy is is that Obama didn't go for the three man filibuster. That was a sure-fire loser. Stevenson was a Senator from Illinois, too. Why didn't Obama study his strategy more? Could have made this election much more fun. Damn!
Pardon the multiple posts. My Mozilla Browser froze whenever I hit the 'Post' button.
When will geniuses like Tim figure out that the only thing that will bring about progressive change- regardless of who's President- is having more and better Democrats in Congress? That's the place to invest your money.
After reading Lady Lynne de Rothschild's comments about elitism and closing her checkbook to Obama, I'm more encouraged that we as individuals have a great deal of say in both policy and electoral victory than the DLC types who led the race to the bottom. I really don't want the money I give to pay back Clinton for her personal loans to the campaign, and if her limousine pals can't help her then I sure can't.
I decided to not donate when Obama decided to opt out of public financing.
Having seen what Nixon did when he had mega bucks sloshing around, I decided long ago, when public financing was passed, that I would not support a candidate who opted out of the general election financing system. I hoped to see public financing extended--not ignored and contracted.
Now, Obama is the first general election presidential candidate to opt out since then passage. Too bad he's supposed to be on my side, representing my political values.
He thought he had an ATM machine--into which he needed to deposit nothing; it was just there, somehow, and he could keep pulling out oodles of cash.
I know that during the primary I decided to donate more than I could afford, bcz I figured the Dem nom could surely handle a mere two months on the public finanacing amount. Kerry did have cash flow problems, but his convention was significantly earlier. IIRC, the Dems put the convention back to help with exactly this kind of problem (well, along with the Olympics--but not worried about the US Open tennis tournament?? Heh.).
Not this Dem nom, alas. To me, he does seem to be saying lots of no-Dem types of things. Throw in his throwing away his promise on FISA and I'm getting actually PO'd.
this thing could have been defeated by the Democratic members of Congress using the tools in their power to do so and yet they didn't so this thing passing shouldn't fall completely on Obama's shoulders. though i am disappointed i'm still gonna support the guy because i still believe he has what it takes to get this nation back on the track to, at the least, being regarded in a respectful manner by its citizens and the world. however, and this is the thing that really bugged me the most as one of his most ardent supporters (hell, i even recently donated money and paid for one of his signs in my yard) i just couldn't get past the facts of what this bill entails, what he said he would do, and what he eventually did. ya see, that's something i'd expect from anyone else in congress running for President, but because i believed Obama when He said He would vote against any bill including retroactive immunity and then didn't, i now feel a bit disappointed in the fellow.
now i understand some people getting all salty because it may seem some of Obama's base may be hitting him a bit hard on his position on Fisa, but you can't run a campaign basically saying you're fundamentally different from candidates of the past in substance and style and then give the people that same ol' thing that's got so many in the country cynical about politicians in the first place. don't be surprised when your people call you on your bullshit. we've seen what happens when rational debate and thought gives way to blind loyalty. hell that's why congress is sitting on a solid 9% approval rating. but obviously they don't give a shit.....
and if any of you reading this take away nothing else from this, understand one thing: The decisions these congresspeople and the president makes, no matter who he is, affects lives, yes yours and mine, in very real ways (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, 1978 FISA law, Iraq War, War on Terror) and your rights are not 'quaint', but very real and substantial things. this bill is yet another chisel chipping away at those rights so some of these politicians can have political cover from attacks both real and imagined. this has got to stop. this has got to change. and i don't give a rat's ass what some apologist gets on tv or on some blog and says how some candidate dodged a bullet over this issue, we need to keep calling these politicians on what they say and how it jibes with what they do. Its what a good liberal does, instinctively....
this shit is not a game.
Yes, the ridiculous FISA vote stopped my monthly donations.
Ironic that in his attempt to neutralize Republican attacks and appeal to the swing/independent/centrist voters he may have lost the financial support to actually reach those voters.
Obama will still get my vote, just not the cash.
this thing could have been defeated by the Democratic members of Congress using the tools in their power to do so and yet they didn't so this thing passing shouldn't fall completely on Obama's shoulders. though i am disappointed i'm still gonna support the guy because i still believe he has what it takes to get this nation back on the track to, at the least, being regarded in a respectful manner by its citizens and the world. however, and this is the thing that really bugged me the most as one of his most ardent supporters (hell, i even recently donated money and paid for one of his signs in my yard) i just couldn't get past the facts of what this bill entails, what he said he would do, and what he eventually did. ya see, that's something i'd expect from anyone else in congress running for President, but because i believed Obama when He said He would vote against any bill including retroactive immunity and then didn't, i now feel a bit disappointed in the fellow.
now i understand some people getting all salty because it may seem some of Obama's base may be hitting him a bit hard on his position on Fisa, but you can't run a campaign basically saying you're fundamentally different from candidates of the past in substance and style and then give the people that same ol' thing that's got so many in the country cynical about politicians in the first place. don't be surprised when your people call you on your bullshit. we've seen what happens when rational debate and thought gives way to blind loyalty. hell that's why congress is sitting on a solid 9% approval rating. but obviously they don't give a shit.....
and if any of you reading this take away nothing else from this, understand one thing: The decisions these congresspeople and the president makes, no matter who he is, affects lives, yes yours and mine, in very real ways (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, 1978 FISA law, Iraq War, War on Terror) and your rights are not 'quaint', but very real and substantial things. this bill is yet another chisel chipping away at those rights so some of these politicians can have political cover from attacks both real and imagined. this has got to stop. this has got to change. and i don't give a rat's ass what some apologist gets on tv or on some blog and says how some candidate dodged a bullet over this issue, we need to keep calling these politicians on what they say and how it jibes with what they do. Its what a good liberal does, instinctively....
this shit is not a game.
So is everybody who is not going to vote or donate to Obama because of FISA going to be happy when McCain is elected in November?
I mean, really, really happy?
I mean, is there a point to that?
Circa 2000, we all saw Nader voters toss the election to George W. Bush, apparently on some theory that there was no "real" difference between Bush & Gore. And then what did we get? We got 8 years of HELL. Are you going to do that AGAIN?
The real evil doers in the last 8 years, in my view, work or worked for the Bush administration. The real evil doers were not some stupid in-house attorneys working for a stupid telecom company, who were and probably are not experts on FISA and/or the scope of presidential powers. So when the government comes & says "it's legal," they said OK. You're going to tell me (while people are being TORTURED) that this the most pressing and heinous affront to our constitution? I mean I want higher phone rates as much as much as the next person, but, really... there are people without healthcare, there are people dying, and 'bomb, bomb Iran is just around the corner.'
Nice to see all the dumb fucks convening on this thread. If you "martyrs" cared so damn much about the constitution, why are you inadvertently helping McCain? We don't have time to sulk or punish Obama's campaign on the basis of a single vote. Sure, it's an important issue, but it certainly isn't the most important one.
All those witholding donations from Obama and giving it to the ACLU better hope that the ACLU will save us all from the affects of a McCain presidency.
Reading some of these comments I am awestruck by how short sighted and stupid many of them are.
Seriously, are so many of you one-issue voters and contributors?
Do I like the FISA vote Obama cast? Hell no. I hate it.
Would I like McCain appointing two more conservative judges to the Supreme Court? No. Would I like McCain starting a war with Iran? No. Would I like McCain allowing the CIA to continue torturing POWs? No. Would I like McCain to continue to allow indefinite detention without formal charges? No. Would I like McCain to try and dismantle Social Security? No. Would I like McCain to have control over our economy? No.
Seriously folks. Keep your eyes on the ball! I've never met a candidate in my lifetime that I agreed with 100% of the time. Is FISA a big deal? Sure it is.
Is it worth losing the presidential election? God no!
A president Obama, while not perfect, is light years better than a McCain presidency. Are you really that whiney about a single FISA vote that you're willing to allow McCain free reign to trample the constitution and our country FAR more extensively than Obama ever would for the next four years?
Grow up folks. Getting a Democratic president is more important than getting four new Democratic Senators.
Why is it expected that WE have to follow OBAMA on this? That frames it exactly backward. If there's a divide between Obama and the netroots, why is it "you netrooters need to give to Obama!" and not "Hey Obama, you need the netroots' cash, so do what they want!"
(especially when what the netroots want happens to be the majority opinion of the entire country, as is the case with telecom immunity!)
Obama is supposed to work for US, not the other way around. The sooner he learns that, the sooner the spigot reopens. There's no value in being the left's version of the religious right, giving money for years and years and getting nothing in return; I want to be the left's version of big business, giving money to get a return on my investment in the form of increased civil liberties and increased protections for those liberties.
The "we'll swallow any crap from a candidate as long as he calls himself a Democrat" crowd is a MAJOR reason why so little ever changes for the better in this country. Look, even from the most crassly political viewpoint, it's a dumb attitude.
Exhibit A: the microscopic approval rating of the current Congress. Turns out that promising to stand for something, and then reneging on that promise, isn't a great way to build your political brand. Gee, nobody could have predicted that!
The "if someone we like disappoints us even once we'll take our money and go home" crowd is a MAJOR reason why so little ever changes for the better in this country. Look, even from the most crassly political viewpoint, its a dumb attitude.
Exhibit A: President Bush just won two razor thin elections to give the entire country and the world eight years of misery and hell. Turns out that waiting for the PERFECT candidate that will never disappoint you instead of working hard for the best we have at the moment - who happens to be damned good overall - is a real great way to get the other side elected.
I mean come on folks. What's Obama done, aside from FISA, that is so upsetting?
He's agreed to support faith based charities, so long as their work is strictly secular. Oh nos! Supporting charity!
He's declined to condemn a Supreme Court decision on handguns. Oh nos! He's declined to whine about something that he has no power to change unless he becomes president and can appoint better justices, in the process taken guns off the table as a wedge issue in key swing states.
He's declined to vote against a FISA bill that, based on the final vote margin, WOULD HAVE PASSED ANYWAY! Oh nos! He decided not to look like he couldn't lead his own party during the middle of an election season by losing an intraparty Senate battle.
I'm more outraged by his fund raising for Hillary Clinton. She is a multimillionaire who would still be a multimillionaire if she paid off her own debts. That, plus she ran up a lot of that debt after she had no chance of winning the nomination.
So it feels to me like any money I might give to Senator Obama would in some way be going to subsidize the lavish lifestyle of a multimillionaire and the egocentric vanity campaign of a narcissistic sociopath.
That's what I told the poor Obama rep when he called asking for money the other day. He had a scripted argument, so I suspect I'm not the only one who feels that way.
That, Michael, is something that I can agree with completely.
Hillary ran up that debt after all mathematical chances of her winning had been eliminated. She ran up that debt attacking the man who was going to be the party's standard bearer in the fall. She doesn't get a single red cent from me. My money is going towards candidates who are running for office.
Not donating to Obama =/= Supporting McCain.
That said, I also wonder why it is so hard for some to realize that many who make small-dollar contributions to Presidential candidates are (correctly) motivated by an expressive conception of politics, and not some strange idea about maximizing their own influence, because if you don't give Barack $25, then "ZOMG McCain is going to win!!!" People really don't think on the margin, do they?
The "we'll swallow any crap from a candidate as long as he calls himself a Democrat" crowd is a MAJOR reason why so little ever changes for the better in this country
A lot changed for the better in the 90s, and a lot changed for the worse in the '00s.
The major reason so little ever changes for the better is because we've had Reagan for eight years, Bush for four, Bush again for eight, and we've got the prospect of McCain now.
If we want to change things for the better, step one is winning. Period.
President Bush just won two razor thin electionsBzzt: wrong already. He didn't win the first one, he stole it. He was allowed to steal it because it took the Gore campaign- i.e., the usual sort of useless Dems- too long to find their spines. By the time they did, it was too little, too late.
Gore's uselessness is also the only reason why it was close in the first place.
That's what supporting the usual Democratic in-crowd gets us. But some people never learn.
wow. This post has gotten a lot more responses than I thought it would.
I don't like Obama's FISA vote either, but I do like a lot of other stuff. And I infinitely prefer him to McCain and I actually want a change in November. What's more I NEED a change, especially an economic one. And I'd rather have imperfect change than none at all.
I'm gonna go donate another ten dollars right now, so I can do as much as I can within my power to ensure that change.
And to the person above who said that Republicans care about ideological purity, that's why they win -- baloney. They win because they're willing to compromise ideological purity.
Senator Obama’s “move to the center” did not just start following his election as the nominee of the Democratic Party. Obama’s initial support of Senator Lieberman during 2006 election cycle clearly showed his tendencies to “move to the center”. How is the decision to support Lieberman working out for Senator Obama? The 2008 election cycle again demonstrates Obama’s tendencies to “move to the center” by supporting John Barrow’s bid for reelection (Ga 12). While I hope Regina Thomas can defeat John Barrow, Ms Thomas is up against a well financed Blue Dog with an Obama endorsement. My small financial contribution to her campaign looks pretty puny against such odds.
In retrospect Obama has never fully embraced a populist message . His critique of NAFTA and is mild compared to the damage done to workers in this country since NAFTA was implemented. Obama’s loudest response to NAFTA is that education is cure all to correct the damage done by NAFTA. All the education in the world will not return lost jobs or factories that once provided good jobs with benefits. Education is supposed to prepare future workers for the much ballyhooed green job market. What the hell is a green job and what curriculum offers a pathway to a green job.
Senator Obama said it’s OK if his stand on FISA is a deal breaker. Barrack you failed my 7th grade civics class (1961). Even a professor of Constitutional Law can fall victim to the 9/11 scare tactics. Unlike Hillary’s “shame on you Barack Obama” moment, his stand on FISA truly earns a legitimate “SHAME ON ON YOU BARACK OBAMA” !
Will I vote for Obama? Hard to say as Texas is unlikely to turn blue in the General Election. Unless the polls show a trending for Barack in Texas a protest vote for Bob Barr is real possibility.
My future political contributions are destined for Act Blue and the bigger goal of more and better Democrats.
Mad as hell in Texas!
wow. This post has gotten a lot more responses than I thought it would.
I don't like Obama's FISA vote either, but I do like a lot of other stuff. And I infinitely prefer him to McCain and I actually want a change in November. What's more I NEED a change, especially an economic one. And I'd rather have imperfect change than none at all.
I'm gonna go donate another ten dollars right now, so I can do as much as I can within my power to ensure that change.
And to the person above who said that Republicans care about ideological purity, that's why they win -- baloney. They win because they're willing to compromise ideological purity.
A lot changed for the better in the 90sNot nearly enough (see how much good it does to win the Presidency but forget about the importance of Congress?); and
a lot changed for the worse in the '00sBecause triangulating doesn't win any solid, defensible progressive gains.
Loyal Obama crowd: you want us to give our money to Obama. You know exactly how to do that: start fighting Republicans at least half as hard as you're fighting us. Get Obama to start bringing home some political bacon, in the form of bills designed to reduce the secuirty state. Start pushing for bills which the left wants - we're not even asking for the usual lefty stuff, there's plenty of "left" issues to take up which are actually supported by a majority of the country.
Get your man to start doing some of that. If you want our money so badly, fucking earn it. If liberal money is so important that the election is hanging on it, why aren't you pressuring Obama to go after that money? Do you not want him to win? You must be fine with President McCain, as long as you don't have to put up with DFHs.
"Bzzt: wrong already. He didn't win the first one, he stole it. He was allowed to steal it because it took the Gore campaign- i.e., the usual sort of useless Dems- too long to find their spines. By the time they did, it was too little, too late.
Gore's uselessness is also the only reason why it was close in the first place.
That's what supporting the usual Democratic in-crowd gets us. But some people never learn."
The Supreme Court wouldn't have been involved at all if the election hadn't been so close. It wouldn't have been so close if all the people who, because they saw no difference between Gore and Bush, voted for Nader had voted for Gore instead. Ironically, looking back we can see that there was quite a lot of difference between Gore and Bush.
Right now, Obama is leading by 3 points nationally.
You can whine and throw temper tantrums like spoiled children because Obama let you down ONE TIME on something you care strongly about.
Or you can join the adults in realizing that there are HUGE differences in policy between Obama and McCain and get a Democrat elected for once.
Personally, I want to win too badly this time around to be an ideological purity troll. I'll take an imperfect Democrat over a Republican president thank you very much.
Senator Obama’s “move to the center” did not just start following his election as the nominee of the Democratic Party. Obama’s initial support of Senator Lieberman during 2006 election cycle clearly showed his tendencies to “move to the center”. How is the decision to support Lieberman working out for Senator Obama? The 2008 election cycle again demonstrates Obama’s tendencies to “move to the center” by supporting John Barrow’s bid for reelection (Ga 12). While I hope Regina Thomas can defeat John Barrow, Ms Thomas is up against a well financed Blue Dog with an Obama endorsement. My small financial contribution to her campaign looks pretty puny against such odds.
In retrospect Obama has never fully embraced a populist message . His critique of NAFTA and is mild compared to the damage done to workers in this country since NAFTA was implemented. Obama’s loudest response to NAFTA is that education is cure all to correct the damage done by NAFTA. All the education in the world will not return lost jobs or factories that once provided good jobs with benefits. Education is supposed to prepare future workers for the much ballyhooed green job market. What the hell is a green job and what curriculum offers a pathway to a green job.
Senator Obama said it’s OK if his stand on FISA is a deal breaker. Barrack you failed my 7th grade civics class (1961). Even a professor of Constitutional Law can fall victim to the 9/11 scare tactics. Unlike Hillary’s “shame on you Barack Obama” moment, his stand on FISA truly earns a legitimate “SHAME ON ON YOU BARACK OBAMA” !
Will I vote for Obama? Hard to say as Texas is unlikely to turn blue in the General Election. Unless the polls show a trending for Barack in Texas a protest vote for Bob Barr is real possibility.
My future political contributions are destined for Act Blue and the bigger goal of more and better Democrats.
Mad as hell in Texas!
For the Daily KOS readers here, and there are probably a few, here's a worthwhile diary to read.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/10/212516/077/495/549720
Title: Don't Donate to Obama!
Count me among the Obama donors who've instituted a donation pause until he stops tacking right
Same here. Why in hell would I donate to a candidate *right after* a week of bald-faced pandering to the other side? That would be like tipping a waiter who sneezed on my food. Better luck next time, skippy.
And no, I'm not a "purist", or "want to lose", or "abandoning the party", or any other stupid straw man accusations that you can stuff.
Loyal Obama crowd: you want us to give our money to Obama. You know exactly how to do that: start fighting Republicans at least half as hard as you're fighting us. Get Obama to start bringing home some political bacon, in the form of bills designed to reduce the secuirty state. Start pushing for bills which the left wants - we're not even asking for the usual lefty stuff, there's plenty of "left" issues to take up which are actually supported by a majority of the country.
Umm, it's the middle of the general election. If Obama is a centrist President, then you can bitch. I think he will do as you suggest.
What really sucks is that all the extra money I'm giving to compensate for the clueless self-righteous putzes pulling their donations is just going towards paying off Hillary's campaign debts. Unity my ass!
If Obama is a centrist President, then you can bitch. I think he will do as you suggest.
1. 'IF'? lol @ naiive u.
1b. Just what do you think is 'centrist' about this? MORE PEOPLE OPPOSE TELECOM IMMUNITY THAN DON'T. It's a 'centrist' move in the same way that evolution and creationism are just two competing theories.
2. Yeah it'll do a lot of good when he's already gotten the office he wants. He'll totally be over a barrel THEN.
3. Oh well you think so, so I'm 100% reassured now. PLEASE forgive me my earlier doubts!
Seriously though, not 48 hours after he bows to giving the executive more power, you can come to me and claim you "think" he'll work to dismantle the security state? What are you smoking?
So is everybody who is not going to vote or donate to Obama because of FISA going to be happy when McCain is elected in November?
All I know is that I'm not particularly happy that the Democrats won Congress in 2006.
And given Obama's FISA flip-flop, I have reason to suspect he may renege on other items also.
Seriously though, not 48 hours after he bows to giving the executive more power, you can come to me and claim you "think" he'll work to dismantle the security state? What are you smoking?
Fuck off anonymous prick. Seriously can you explain the new law? I doubt it.
Half the whiny bitches didn't like Obama in the first place. They were for Edwards or Kucinich, etc. Then I bet many of the others like at Obama's website are Republican provacateurs.
Obama's reversal was craven and insulting. I consider myself a political realist, so I"m willing to take a lot of posturing, triangulation and intelligence insulting rhetoric. But the defeat of FISA is existentially important and Obama's justification of his reversal wasn't just insulting it was a willful attempt to confuse and mislead not just his supporters but the American people.
I know there is a huge difference between McCain and Obama and that McCain would be an unmitigated disaster. He has shown himself to be, if anything, more willing than Bush to engage in secrecy and law breaking to launch illegal and immoral wars.
Yet, I'm finding it, much as Yglesias describes, difficult to sacrifice myself financially for the Obama cause after such a betrayal.
Obama's reversal was craven and insulting. I consider myself a political realist, so I"m willing to take a lot of posturing, triangulation and intelligence insulting rhetoric. But the defeat of FISA is existentially important and Obama's justification of his reversal wasn't just insulting it was a willful attempt to confuse and mislead not just his supporters but the American people.
I know there is a huge difference between McCain and Obama and that McCain would be an unmitigated disaster. He has shown himself to be, if anything, more willing than Bush to engage in secrecy and law breaking to launch illegal and immoral wars.
Yet, I'm finding it, much as Yglesias describes, difficult to sacrifice myself financially for the Obama cause after such a betrayal.
Jim Crozier | July 11, 2008 12:58 PM--I'm curious: How many disappointments on the part of a candidate/pol does it take to cause you to say, hhhmmm, maybe this isn't the person I want to vote into office?
Not specifically about Obama--but, generally, what does it take?
I began drawing a line at not supporting civil liberties quite awhile ago (like with Nixon), but I actually cut the Dems slack when they dropped any action and real investigations of Iran-Contra and its permutations. Then, with BushBoy, we got all the old miscreants back in power and doing even worse things. They were back in power because Daddy Bush pardoned many and the rest were just ignored.
That worked out well, didn't it?
When do we say to our representatives, the pols we support: No more! You cross this line and I simply am unable to support you. What does it take? What might cause you to say that?
BTW, as a leading edge baby boomer I've done my share of voting for, supporting the lesser of two poor choices. Maybe I'm just too old to think it's all going to work out sometime in the future. My personal future is getting shorter and shorter--I worry about the young people in our country and what they will have to live with based on the decisions of, well, 44% of our Dem US Senators this past week, among other things.
When do we say, Enough!
Makes me think of some lines from that famous Simon and Garfunckel song:
And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson,
We'd like to know a little bit about your for our files
Going to the candidate's debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio,
Our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson.
Jotting Joe has left and gone away,
Hey hey hey.
MH:
Have you no concept of a sliding scale? You imply that a centrist Obama presidency would be a disaster with your previous post.
Do you really not realize the huge difference between an Obama presidency and a McCain presidency? Between a Democratic Congress and a Republican Congress?
Yes, the Democratic Congress hasn't been as effective as we'd have wanted it to be, but that is largely because we have a basically non-existent margin in the Senate and a hostile president. There's only so much that can be accomplished there.
Folks like you act like because Obama caved on FISA, there is no difference at all between him and McCain. They act like supporting Obama to the utmost is a waste of time, effort and resources. Having a Democrat, nearly ANY Democrat, in the presidency is the biggest possible step we could take towards getting what we want.
You complain that you'll have no leverage over Obama once he gets into office....
YOU HAVE NO LEVERAGE NOW!!!
Your leverage disappeared when he won the primary. Your choices are either work to get Obama elected or let McCain get elected. That's it. Period. Finito. Obama IS the nominee of the Democratic Party for the presidency, selected after the longest, most exhausting, comprehensive and gruelling primary in modern history.
He has won and you can either try and get a Democrat into office or let a Republican get into office. These aren't straw man arguments. They're the facts.
I'm astounded by the number of accusations of "childishness" or "being okay with a McCain victory" towards people who are universally being careful to state that (unlike me, one of those awful Naderites) they are going to vote for Obama even though they aren't donating (right now). I didn't realize that there were so many supporters of the Democratic Party with such beaten down and impoverished political imaginations. Any outrage is ok as long as the Republican is more outrageous? There's nothing to be done but submit? Come on.
The rational way to approach political activism is to determine one's goals and then plan a strategy which will maximize the likelihood of achieving them to the greatest extent possible. This will tend to lead one to attempt to gain and preserve some political leverage.
There's another way to approach political activism which involves taking one's pick from the flavors of politics currently on offer as packages from established parties and politicians, then ferociously defending that least-worst option from all critics, right or left. This approach is defensive, depressing, and tends to lead not only to an encroaching moral blindness towards issues not on the table (eg Palestine), but also to the options getting worse in each round.
jawbone:
Maybe it is because I'm not a baby boomer, and therefore not caught up in the generational baby boomer struggles that Simon and Garfunkle sang about...
...or maybe it is because I come from one of the reddest states in the U.S. and have seen how much worse it can be...
...but most likely its because I've seen the consequences of ideological purity costing us the last eight years of Bush and no just how much worse it can be if people just sit out or don't work 100%. I want to win one for a change, and if that means not getting everything of what I want and having to settle for 80% then that's something I'm willing to accept. 80% is better than the 5% I'll get with McCain.
My wife is not a U.S. citizen. She's Swedish. Granted, she is here legally and has an application pending for permanant residency, but you don't think something like FISA scares me? You don't think the Patriot Act scares me? or Guantanamo Bay?
These things terrify me.
But they also drive home to me just how important it is to get a Democrat elected president and get Bush appointees out. It drives home just how important it is to get liberals, even moderate liberals who will sometimes disappoint me or make compromises, elected. This is too important to lose. McCain, for all of his moderate image, voted with Bush 95% of the time he was in the Senate.
It will take more than one Obama vote for something Bush supports, after compiling one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate during his time there, to make me give up on him. It SHOULD take more than that for everyone on this board.
Ultimately it comes down to this: Of the two possible next presidents, who will be closer to me? I'm a VERY liberal person, but I'm also a pragmatic one. I'll take Obama over McCain in a heartbeat and not even think twice about it.
I realize I haven't answered your question directly, because I really can't.
Like everyone I have a walkaway point, but right now it would take an awful lot to make me walk away from Obama. I need a Democrat in office too badly right now. I want it too much. If you truly care about getting a liberal agenda accomplished, or even just putting the halts on a rightwing agenda, getting Obama instead of McCain as our next president is PRIORITY NUMBER ONE!
I can tell you for sure that I was inspired by Obama, and was going to give to his campaign after his announcement of not using the public financing, and a day later, heard of his FISA flip-flop.
Now all my moneys go to ACLU and EFF as they seem to be more concerned with our constitutional rights than the spineless democrats.
I'm sure he'll win in November, but he'll have to make do without my and my family's financial support.
The FISA vote will not bring him any centrist/conservative votes because it's not that high-visibility an issue for average voters, who are apparently focused on Iraq and the economy. I find it fairly improbable that his vote was the result of political triangulation. I think Obama might like to retain that power for himself as President, and may even have been influenced by telecom lobbyist bucks. He may have been swayed by bogus (IMHO) national security arguments or back-room horse trading.
Exactly. If anything, it costs him the Ron Paul voters, who are a Republican-leaning demo capable of being flipped over to the Dems this year, and who could be a valuable bloc in the West and Southwest, where he is yearning to pick up EVs.
Bad politics, bad policy. But what do I wake up to this morning? NPR, telling me what a great move this is because Obama showed he could stand up to that crazy, left-wing, moveon-supporting Democratic base.
LOL! And I'm supposed to support this kind of bullshit? What happens the next time he caves to the right? More media fellatio, with no interruption in fundraising--and this is supposed to move our country back to the left?
Come on. If Obama sells out the left, he should expect a reaction. And every time he makes an important decision, that calculus should be rumbling in the back of his head.
Ironically, these are the same people that have been fuming for years about the ideological purity of Republicans, and now they expect - no, DEMAND - the same of Democrats.
Yes.
Yes yes yes.
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.
I'm what you might consider far-left (although talking to some of my far-left friends these days it's amazing how rightward I've drifted). I left the Democratic Party in the 90s because I didn't like the Clinton agenda. Then 2000 happened, and I was like oh noes! I need the D's to keep these crazy motherfuckers out of office!
But here's the thing: just like the left needs the Democrats, the Democrats need the left.
In 2006, I personally raised over $10,000 for the Democratic Party [so, suck on it, haters, with your $10 "compensations"]. Most of the money I raised came from people ideologically similar to me.
And the pitch I would make would be: Look, I know the Dems are disappointing, but we're trying to rebuild the party. As more donations come from people like us, and fewer come from traditional sources, the balance of power is going to shift toward the left, because that's where the money comes from.
So what happens? We take back Congress, and we nominate a candidate who succeeds in large part because of a record-breaking number of individual contributions. But the power doesn't shift.
We are not the ugly stepchild of the Democratic Party. We are not to be relied on for money, volunteer labor, and votes, then swept under the table at every opportunity to gain praise from David Broder.
We are the life blood of this party, and our agenda needs to hold weight.
The commentor who compared us to the NRA upthread was dead on. That is EXACTLY the role the left should be playing within the party. Washington has a million incentives for the Dems to move rightward. Someone needs to pull them back to the left.
These lessons need to be learned--and yes, haters, July is a good time for Candidate Obama to learn them.
scythia:
The balance of power didn't shift with large numbers of individual donors?
In that case why did Obama decide to forgo any lobbyist donations to his campaign? Any PAC donations? How come he insisted that allied organizations like the DNC also do this?
Seems like you've gotten a fairly immediate return on your investment right there to me. Of course, in theory you COULD hamstring the nominee of your party by attacking him from the left THE VERY FIRST TIME he steps out of line with your newfound financial clout and therefore give profound disincentives for future candidates to do as Obama has done and rely on small donars like yourself.
...which is, I guess, exactly what large numbers of people are doing over FISA.
As one of the Obama "haters," I will concede that there is, indeed, a distinction between not donating for a candidate & not voting for them.
Fine. (But I'm maxed out, and some people out there need to $@#(@* give!)).
Teach him a lesson now, fine, but please come back in Aug/Sep.
To Kalkin, the awful Naderite: "The rational way to approach political activism is to determine one's goals and then plan a strategy which will maximize the likelihood of achieving them to the greatest extent possible. This will tend to lead one to attempt to gain and preserve some political leverage."
Just curious, how's that been working out for you? I mean the last 8 years since you first voted for Nader have just been the bestest, haven't they? How many of those "goals" have been achieved? Just curious.
I mean what is really the 'plan' here? Vote for Nader. Hope enough people vote for Nader so Obama loses. McCain is elected. The country moves ever rightward as we invade a few more countries and, you know, enact a few more tax cuts. Maybe a little WWIII. Someone else (Clinton?) runs for the Dems in 2012. Nader runs again, of course, because Clinton is not idealogically pure enough either (no one is). Clinton loses. And so on, and so on, and so on.
I mean, really, I honestly want to understand: how is that helping anything?
With each Republican presidency things just keep getting worse. Things get righter and righter and righter. Heck, Nixon would probably be considered 'center left' on today's spectrum. We've got to start somewhere, and that means getting the Presidency (in a relatively conservative political climate, despite the anger at the Repubs), governing in a semi-competent fashion, thereby gaining the country's trust, and thereby providing the political capital to move a little more left. And a little more. And a little more. There's no other way that it's going to happen. Not in this country.
All you angry-at-Obama people bring to mind those who in 2000 were angry at Al Gore and Democrats. So they voted Nader and gifted us with 8 years of Bush.
How did that work out?
Damn! The concern-trolling/straw-manning is intense!
Purity test? What in hell are you talking about? FISA is/was a big-deal issue that Obama could have showed leadership on, but chose not to.
Instead, he took the insipid approach which has turned many, many left-leaning voters sour on the democratic party. This doesn't seem that hard to understand, honestly.
All the direct mail I get from the dems these days, with the little check boxes for 'donation amount'? They get sent back with a big '0', a bold-faced FISA and a mostly polite, if direct, explanatory note.
I'm sorry, but this shit matters.
Is FISA a big deal? Sure it is.
Is it worth losing the presidential election? God no!
Is there anything that's worth making a stand about? Any principle at all not worth trading in?
Amen, scythia.
And amen to the poster who pointed out that this is not a "hissy fit" but a "time-honored means of political communication."
As for those of you who think that this is all about FISA and that Obama is CLEARLY better than John McCain on every other issue, look again. First of all, as scythia and others, have ably explained, FISA is important -- it goes to fundamental issues of government accountability (the core of democracy!) as well as the fundamental rights eloborated in the Fourth Amendment.
Secondly, this isn't just about FISA. It's about a candidate who just brazenly flouted a campaign promise he made a mere six months ago -- BY DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE PROMISED. If there's no blowback for breaking a campaign promise, then what prevents any candidate from saying whatever it takes to get elected then turning around and doing the opposite once in office? How can democracy possibly function under such conditions?
Thirdly, FISA isn't the only issue on which Obama is staking out a position that lies within mainstream Republican, rather than mainstream Democratic, territory. Of late he has expressed agreement with the Scalia--Thomas--Alito wing of the Supreme Court on issues ranging from the death penalty to gun control to abortion. He has repeatedly and explicitly stated that he does NOT agree with the Roe v. Wade decision in dertain particulars (specifically, the requirement that abortion bans include an exception for mental as well as physical health). He says that women deserve "some" control over their bodies and lives, "in consultation with pastor and family." Throughout the campaign, his rhetoric has downplayed or dismissed the rights and concerns of women and gay people -- in fact, his campaign has more often than not treated gays as completely invisible. I'm by no means convinced that even his Supreme Court nominations will be as obviously better than John McCain's as so many people airily suppose. Depressing, but true.
.
I still have yet to hear a single person respond to this question:
Which is more likely to do more good, getting upset at the indisputably bad cave-in on FISA and throwing a rightious temper tantrum, and therefore getting McCain elected, or swallowing a bitter pill and getting Obama elected.
So by all means Oelek. Make your stand. It will feel good until approximately the second week of November, when you'll wake up and realize the cost of being a one-issue voter means a third Bush term in the form of John McCain.
Things do not happen in a vacuum. FISA is, yes, an important issue. I'm sickened by it. Everyone is sickened by it. It isn't hard to understand AT ALL that it has soured some of us on the left a bit.
What IS hard to understand is your complete inability to comprehend that you have two options for our next president: Obama or McCain. That's it! It doesn't matter if you're upset at Obama. You have no other option at this point. Those are the only two people who can win. For all your complaints about those of us who are more than willing to give Obama a pass on this are sellouts, here's a partial list of other issues that you should care about that McCain will be a disaster on if he's elected. (Taken from Strozek's DailyKoS diary.)
Racial Profiling
Children's Healthcare
The Campaign for Energy Independence
Liberal Justices
Veterans' Benefits
Sensible Immigration Reform
Funding Public Education
Equal Pay
Withdrawal from Iraq
Predatory Lending
Progressive Taxation
Lobbying Reform
Direct Diplomacy
Nuclear Anti-Proliferation
Public Healthcare Program
Defend Social Security
Net Neutrality
Democratic Secretary of State
Democratic Secretary of Treasury
Democratic Attorney General
Competent FEMA Management
Democratic Secretary of the Interior
Democratic EPA
Democratic Secretary of Labor
Democratic Secretary of Energy
Democratic Secretary of Homeland Security
Impartial Department of Justice
Higher Minimum Wage
Provide Sick Days for Low Income Workers
Effective FTC
Labor Friendly NLRB
Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act
Defend State Gay Marriage Rights
Expand AmeriCorps
Expand the PeaceCorps
Preserve Roe v. Wade
Combat Global Warming
Green Collar Investment
National Infrastructure Renovation
Prevent Unnecessary Oil Drilling
Genocide in Darfur
End Torture
But I'm maxed out, and some people out there need to $@#(@* give!
Lynn, if you truly are maxed out, you should be giving money to congressional candidates, particularly those trying to unseat Republicans.
I'd be saying this even if I wasn't pissed at Obama. A $1,000 donation to a candidate with a six-figure war chest is going have a much greater impact than to one with nine figures. It also allows for a much greater impact, especially if you can afford to spread out over several races.
For future reference, it's also probably better not to max out so early in the election cycle. You should stagger your donations throughout the year, with the last one coming about six weeks before the GE.
I still have yet to hear a single person respond to this question:
getting upset at the indisputably bad cave-in on FISA...therefore getting McCain elected....
Your premises are bad, Jim, so you'll excuse us if we ignore your conclusions.
Oh my oh my.. how the self-righteous do congregate.. Lifeblood of the party indeed! More like the albatross around its neck. Obama isn't going to need the few donations that the self-righteous minority netroots threaten to withhold, so please, go ahead and buy yourselves that subscription to RepublicanBeaver.com. As for the whining about FISA, it's not a great bill, but it's far from the worst thing you'll see in your lives, so grow up and get a handle on yourselves. I'd rather the netroots fucked off, realized that Democrats don't need a few whiny purity whores, and learned just how few choices they do have.
I'd rather the netroots fucked off, realized that Democrats don't need a few whiny purity whores
Pot, meet kettle.
scythia:
I'll add the middle piece there then scythia:
1. Getting upset over bad FISA cave-in
2. Withholding money contributions and attacking your candidate repeatedly, much to Republican delight
3. Increasing odds of McCain getting elected in what is, to this point, still a very close election.
The last Rasmussen poll I saw had Obama with a 3 point margin nationally over McCain. That's after the week McCain has had where he trashed Social Security, America's economic problems and birth control for women.
Close election + lack of support from a candidate's base = bigger risk of losing for your candidate.
Which is more likely to do more good, getting upset at the indisputably bad cave-in on FISA and throwing a rightious temper tantrum, and therefore getting McCain elected, or swallowing a bitter pill and getting Obama elected.
If you want my money, you ask politely.
Otherwise, the answer is "No."
And I don't owe you any explanations at all. To the contrary, it is you who answer to me.
Jim, it's July. The polls don't matter. Short of a MAJOR gaffe, nothing's going to put a dent in either candidate's electability. Most of the public isn't paying attention. Get a grip.
Close election + lack of support from a candidate's base = bigger risk of losing for your candidate.
Bingo. As I said before, this is a lesson I would like the Obama campaign to learn in July, when nobody's watching but us political junkies, rather than in October, when he pisses off AARP or labor or NARAL or some other core constituency with a lot more media play than us.
As I mentioned, Jim, I have some experience working campaigns, and if this were October, I'd be right in there in lockstep with you. But it's not, and to act like it's always five seconds to midnight is a sure-fire way to marginalize any voice within your party you might have.
I want to bring up something Lynn wrote, because it seems germaine to what I'm talking about:
We've got to start somewhere, and that means getting the Presidency (in a relatively conservative political climate, despite the anger at the Repubs), governing in a semi-competent fashion, thereby gaining the country's trust, and thereby providing the political capital to move a little more left.
I think, historically speaking, this is pretty misguided. First of all, the contemporary political climate is not conservative. Not only is the Republican brand shot to hell, but the majority of Americans support virtually all of the Democrats' policy positions (as they have for years, but that's another issue).
In addition, conservative self-indentification is at a nadir. Now is the PERFECT time to be pushing progressive policy positions, and begin peeling off blocs of the Republican base--as I mentioned earlier, such as libertarians.
Moreover, I think if you look at actual left-right shifts in the American political climate (1932, 1980, 1994), you'll see that they're not incidental, but cataclysmic.
What's needed is an effective messenger candidate, who can seize upon the country's discontent, and use it to present a heretofore outlying political platform as mainstream. They introduce new conventions into political discourse, and the press/pundit class is too blinded by their widespread popularity to mount much of a defense.
That's what I thought we had in Obama. When he talked about standing up to the Republicans on national security, about winning the debate on our own terms, I thought he meant it.
I didn't expect him to be Black Jesus. I did expect him to be Black Reagan. That's why I'm disappointed.
I'm upset with the way his entire campaign has been handled since the start of June. FISA is just the flashpoint.
*incremental, not incidental.
Gaahhh. I blame Yglesias. Reading this blog is destroying my ability to avoid grammatical errors.
Anybody want to make a counterargument to the article I posted? Anyone at all? No?
Guilt tripping people into voting for Obama probably works. Guilt tripping them into donating to him by insulting them, not so much. Unless you'd like to show me your income tax returns & credit card bills & prove you're giving all you can possibly afford, I don't see how it's your business to lecture people that it's wrong and stupid and a betrayal to donate to nonprofits or Congressional candidates instead of buying ads for a guy who just sent a strong signal that: (1) he expects to raise hundreds of millions of dollars (2) he doesn't need to keep his campaign promises on issues important to you. Yes, a president is more powerful than a Congressperson or a nonprofit. But because of that, your donation is equivalent to a drop of water in Lake Superior; a given small donation to a presidential campaign is tremendously unlikely to have any actual effect on the outcome of the race--and may well be worse bang for your buck, as far as actually getting policies to change for the better, than other contributions. And how good a bang for your buck it is depends on how the candidate acts.
I doubt the FISA thing is actually the main cause of any funding shortfall--based on the ActBlue donations it probably lost him in the hundreds of thousands, maybe a couple million tops--but to the extent that it is, it was totally & completely predictable to any competent campaign strategist; Obama decided it was worth the cost. So you can probably stop hyperventilating about it. If you're really freaked, you can probably donate more to make up for the shortfall--that's great, but probably not necessary.
Duncan Kinder:
Have you ever heard of cutting off your nose to spite your face? That's what I'm arguing you're doing now. Withholding money from Obama because he "doesn't ask nicely" hurts YOU just as much as it hurts HIM. That's what a lot of people in this thread haven't internalized yet IMO.
If you want a liberal agenda the next four years, then Obama is your option. Period. He doesn't have to "ask nicely", though, given that overall he's a good politician and a reasonable guy so he probably WILL ask nicely. But the point is he doesn't have to. Once he won the nomination, he made himself, more or less, immune to any attempts to twist his arm or blackmail him because he's all liberals have no. We don't have another option if we want to win the presidency.
It sucks. It's unfair. But damnit, that's life.
scythia:
I agree that attempting to teach Obama a lesson in July vs. October is better than nothing, but I still think its counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish.
Obama is with you on 95% of the issues. McCain is against you on 95% of the issues. Why even bother trying to "teach Obama a lesson" as you put it when he's already BY FAR the better of your two options?
Yes it is early. Yes, MORE people will be paying attention in the fall, but I refuse to believe that NOBODY is paying attention now. How many people voted in the Democratic primary? 36 million? That's not even counting the probably millions more who were paying attention but didn't actually vote but likely will in the general election. Don't try and tell me that nobody is paying attention until the fall.
And yes, while you're correct that polls are meaningless this far out, I'm taking nothing for granted at this point. I'd rather Obama get a big cash advantage NOW than turn in a dismal month of fundraising (by his standards) and have to face a full month of August media press about how his campaign is on the rocks. Momentum matters in politics.
I wouldn't give Obama another dollar until he grows a spine, remembers he's a democrat and stops wondering whether he should have been in the GOP.
Change? Where is it?
So, am I right that this is why I should give Obama money?
1. If I don't, McCain will be sure to win and that will be bad, because he will spy on me, but Obama won't, even though he voted to enable spying. I don't buy that.
2. You should, because the only reason he didn't oppose it is because he couldn't win the vote. I don't buy that no principle is worth my support unless a majority agrees with it.
3. Support for the Bill of Rights is mere childish political ideology, get over it. All righty then, I guess McCain getting elected will be no different, so again, I don't buy it.
I don't see any reason to give Obama my money. Since I don't think he will be inclined to be quite as blantant as McCain, I'll probably vote for him, but I'm not working for him on my job or in the campaign. Those who support his sort of lukewarm lack of leadership are free to do so.
word. scythia.
Bah.
Enough replying. I don't think anyone has changed anyone else's mind here.
Everyone is free to do whatever they want. My views are completely expressed above in way more detail than I had planned on offering. Folks can either get over FISA and move on to pursue a larger liberal agenda...or not. It's up to them.
Anyone who seriously can't see the huge differences between a McCain presidency and an Obama presidency is either willfully ignoring reality or too stupid to try and bother convincing.
Jim Crozier:
You're at perfect liberty to donate to Obama if you want to - so I suggest you do.
I, however, am not going to. It sucks. It's unfair. But damnit, that's life.
Scythia:
A couple things:
1. I'm afraid I got carried away in the giving dept. early on, but I have begun to give to other things. In the last month, I've given to the DCCC, the DNC and DFA (former Deaniac here).
2. Me being "misguided". I agree that mood is one generally where people are upset with the status quo & pissed off at the Republicans, and that we (Democrats) (a) can win, and (b) SHOULD win, but this is far, far from certain. Say what you will, the country is still a conservative place. People are particularly conservative when they pick a President. (Is this just because we always lose the far left to a third party?) The "revolutions" you cite from the last 75 years (1980 & 1994) were both CONSERVATIVE. Today, people are prepared to vote for a Democrat, but they're still not prepared for a "Liberal." I often read blogs (not here) where people are afraid (STILL) that Obama is "too liberal." He's the "#1 Liberal in the Senate," after all. I wouldn't necessarily be concerned by this commentary, but these statements are often from DEMOCRATS (Hillary Democrats) that say they're not sure they want to vote for someone who (besides being a secret muslim) is so extreme & liberal.
People used to say that Obama has the chance to become the liberal version of Reagan. Maybe he can be. Maybe he can move people over to the left. Maybe he can get healthcare passed. But it's not going to happen if he's not elected. And it's not going to happen just with a Democratic congress. And it's not going to happen based on anything the ACLU does. Especially if we give John McCain the next Supreme Court appointment.
Why doesn't everybody shut the f*** up and give Obama more money? He needs it!
A scene in a small, local restaurant:
Scythia: (snapping fingers imperiously): Garcon!
(waits two minutes and then bellows:)
"Waiter!!"
Waiter: Yes?
Scythia: Is this arugula perfect?
Waiter: Perfect? (apprehensive look)
Scythia: Yes - homegrown, organic, local and picked without vegetable suffering after living in a free-range and harmonious environment?
Waiter: Er.. I don't know.. I guess I better go check. It sure looks like good arugula to me.
Scythia (grabbing waiter by the throat) Good ain't good enough. If it ain't perfect - I punish you!
Waiter (extracts self from Scythia and staggers off to the manager's office)
Manager Yes?
Waiter: There's some kook at table 13 who wants perfect arugula or else I get punished.
Manager (sighing) Ah, Scythia is back from vacation. Just do what the chef does.
Waiter: What does the chef do?
Manager" Pisses on it, sprinkles on some sugar, and presents it as authentic local arugula with organic honeyglaze sauce. Works everytime....
Boratia, LOL. But a couple of things:
1) I'm the waiter, not the patron (both in terms of socioeconomic status and function w/in the party).
2) Pisses on it, sprinkles on some sugar, and presents it as authentic local arugula with organic honeyglaze sauce. Works everytime....
I do not think this metaphor means what you think it means.
Obama is with you on 95% of the issues. McCain is against you on 95% of the issues.
Okay, hoss, back the fuck up. First off, Obama is NOT with me 95% of the time. He's with me maybe 25% of the time. When you show me a candidate who talks about drug decriminalization, prison reform, dismantling copyright law, and reparations--both to descendants of slaves and to third-world countries American corporations have pillaged--give me a call.
Now, you may be thinking: "scythia, you crazy leftist. Go smoke your peace pipe and read your little red book. We need don't need moonbats like you mucking up our political process."
All well and good, except:
1) You do. When we sat out 2000, the Dems lost. And a lot of us didn't even bother to vote. When you're running against a Republican party that routinely gives their fringe candy and soda pop in exchange for votes, you can't afford to write off the support of 5% of the electorate.
2) When activated, we're your most potent members. We're the ones who will go to ridiculous lengths, donating our time and energy, driving all around the county GOTVing, doing voter registration in the rain. And all for candidates we disagree with on 75% of the issues!
I'm realistic. Every time I step into a voting booth I compromise my positions. That's a fact of life for someone like me. And again, as a veteran of campaigns, both successful and not, I'm willing to do what it takes to win.
I'd rather Obama get a big cash advantage NOW than turn in a dismal month of fundraising (by his standards) and have to face a full month of August media press about how his campaign is on the rocks. Momentum matters in politics.
Here's the thing, bro. As much as I'd love for Obama to crush wire-to-wire, he's not good enough to do it. He couldn't do it against Clinton, and while I think she's a more formidable opponent than McCain, he's now saddled with the baggage of the entire Democratic establishment, so his campaign will now suffer from much more hesitation and second-guessing than before.
You will have to face the "Obama on the rocks" narrative at some point, and it will be better if it hits in August, allowing him to springboard out of it at the Convention, than if it hits in September or October.
IMO, if the comeback narrative can be tied to a coming-home, "once was lost but now am found," self-rediscovery auspiciously timed in conjunction with the acceptance speech, then that's a huge progressive win. Not that we have the power to do that, but if the left's gonna voice dissatisfaction we're best to do it now.
Lynn,
Today, people are prepared to vote for a Democrat, but they're still not prepared for a "Liberal." I often read blogs (not here) where people are afraid (STILL) that Obama is "too liberal." He's the "#1 Liberal in the Senate," after all.
Right. The point is, Obama could vote to overturn Roe and double Gitmo tomorrow, and they'd still be using this line. Caving on FISA does nothing to counteract this narrative; it just makes him look weak for flip-flopping, and angers the base.
But from what I can tell, both based on polling data and my own experiences on the ground in '06, is that the percentage of the country susceptible to arguments like this has dropped, from...say 45% to 30%.
That's what I mean when I say the country has grown less conservative. I think this is likely a temporary dip, and I want to exploit it as much as possible.
Combine that with a rock-star candidate like Obama (Kids have his posters up in dorm rooms! Popular musicians namedrop him in their songs!) and you have the potential to erase decades of negative "liberal" branding, while changing the contours of political discourse significantly.
"And it's not going to happen based on anything the ACLU does"
Since 2001, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, & a handful of good investigative reporters have accomplished more to prevent people from being tortured than all the Democratic politicians in Washington put together. And they've done it with much, much, much, less money than was spent on the 2004 Democratic campaigns, & significantly less money that was spent on the 2002 or 2006 Democratic campaigns.
Scythia, if you are the waiter, try a bit less of the boss talk. As for the metaphor.. well, you are the one with the perfection fetish, not me. As for your issues that you would like to see Obama agree with you on, sorry, but reality doesn't come with a free pony. Drug decriminalization is not politically realistic, or even arguably desirable. You really want to decriminalize crack, meth etc? Or do you just want to smoke weed in peace? Prison reform means a lot of things to a lot of people. Not many of them want much to do with it as an issue. Copyright law can't be dismantled without international ramifications of an extreme kind. As for reparations - dear God, if we paid reparations to everyone with a possible grievance, you wouldn't have a budget for sandwiches left. By your own admission, these aren't issues that any politician will touch - and most of the USA would probably say that they didn't need touching. Why this somehow means that a disagreement over FISA makes you go crazy with visions of punishing people, God knows, because FISA ain't anywhere near your issues list. Did you miss the basic rule of politics - we choose candidates to represent, not agree with us. Big deal if you and Obama aren't in perfect alignment. If you decide to support him, do it wholeheartedly - if not, don't, but don't go looking for prefection and then blaming someone else.
Okay, hoss, back the fuck up. First off, Obama is NOT with me 95% of the time. He's with me maybe 25% of the time.
Well, I said I wasn't going to reply further, but I have nothing better to do right now so I guess I will. Flip-Flopper on replies!
Seriously? My reply was so insulting that "back the fuck up" was warranted? Wow. Sheesh. Chill out.
But that aside, 25%? Honestly? A guy considered to have one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate is only with you 25% of the time? Go through the list of issues that I put in up above and tell me how many of them you disagree with Obama on. There are 42 issues. So by your number, you and Obama only agree on 10-11 of them.
I'd say that list of issues is a pretty reasonable listing of the top 40 or so liberal issues in the U.S. today.
Now, you may be thinking: "scythia, you crazy leftist. Go smoke your peace pipe and read your little red book. We need don't need moonbats like you mucking up our political process."
All well and good, except:
1) You do. When we sat out 2000, the Dems lost. And a lot of us didn't even bother to vote. When you're running against a Republican party that routinely gives their fringe candy and soda pop in exchange for votes, you can't afford to write off the support of 5% of the electorate.
2) When activated, we're your most potent members. We're the ones who will go to ridiculous lengths, donating our time and energy, driving all around the county GOTVing, doing voter registration in the rain. And all for candidates we disagree with on 75% of the issues!
I'm not writing you off because I think trying to punish your own candidate for apostasy and therefore risking throwing the election to a candidate you agree with absolutely nothing on is short-sighted, counter productive and arguably incredibly stupid.
Lost in your rightious rage about how much Obama needs you is how much you need him right back. Exactly how are you going to get ANYTHING AT ALL you want on your liberal agenda without him? You need him at least as much as he needs you.
If Obama loses he can go be a Senator again, with a much higher profile, as a leading voice in his party, and then try again in four years. He doesn't exactly have a terrible fallback position.
However for you, and for me, if Obama loses we're still stuck with McCain for four years minimum.
You speak of the advantages of Republicans giving their fringe candy and soda pop, therefore implying, no, demanding that Obama do the same for you. Now think for a moment where the Republican brand name is. It's in the toilet for doing exactly what you said, giving their fringe candy and soda pop. They're on the precipice of becoming a permanant minority party because everyone automatically thinks of bigoted Christian Conservatives and Corrupt Corporate Cronyism when they think of Republicans.
Do you really think Obama needs to pander to 5% of the electorate STILL? Shit Scythia, he just spent the longest Democratic primary in recent memory pandering to you.
At what point will you cut him some slack and let him try and move to the center to pick up independents and moderate Republicans? If you want him to be the liberal Reagan, then you need to give the man some freaking rope to manuvuer with rather than having him a choke chain.
Meant for this:
Now, you may be thinking: "scythia, you crazy leftist. Go smoke your peace pipe and read your little red book. We need don't need moonbats like you mucking up our political process."
All well and good, except:
1) You do. When we sat out 2000, the Dems lost. And a lot of us didn't even bother to vote. When you're running against a Republican party that routinely gives their fringe candy and soda pop in exchange for votes, you can't afford to write off the support of 5% of the electorate.
2) When activated, we're your most potent members. We're the ones who will go to ridiculous lengths, donating our time and energy, driving all around the county GOTVing, doing voter registration in the rain. And all for candidates we disagree with on 75% of the issues!
to be in italics to show that was scythia's words, not mine. I was replying to that, not stating it as mine. Sorry about that.
Careful there, Jim Crozier. You should know better than to use them imperialist tools like reason and facts! That's Republican talk, right there. *s*
Scythia, based on your issues list, I'd say you might represent .5% of the electorate at most. Is it good politics to gain your vote by risking that of the remainder of the electorate? And no, I don't think your issues would be remotely viable in US politics anytime this century.
Drug decriminalization is not politically realistic, or even arguably desirable. You really want to decriminalize crack, meth etc?
Not to hijack this thread, but the whole reason crack and meth exist in the first place is because cocaine prices are artificially inflated by the black market, forcing the invention of cheaper--and more dangerous--substitutes.
As someone who routinely has to step over crackheads on his way to work, getting rid of crack, and the violence associated with it, is a high priority for me. But I don't think it can be done without dropping the price of cocaine, and breaking the syndicates' monopoly hold on the market.
As for the rest of your arguments, I was polite to you the first time b/c I'm a former canvasser and so I'm nice like that, but Total/Deliberate misreading of my position + No paragraph breaks = No substantive response. Thanks! Have a great weekend!
Jim, you have to use the <em> tag every time you break a paragraph on this site. I think this is to avoid open tags fucking up the whole thread
I actually HAVE better things to do, but I'm enjoying this convo too much to break away.
I'm gonna cut to this statement, because I think it's the crux of our disagreement:
I think trying to punish your own candidate for apostasy and therefore risking throwing the election
I don't think this is true. If this were October and the race was even, you wouldn't be hearing a word from me. But given that all the dynamics favor Obama, and that we're still four months out, and that we're in a lull between the primaries and GE campaign, I think it's a good time to put the screws in.
At what point will you cut him some slack and let him try and move to the center to pick up independents and moderate Republicans?
Bro, I'm down to do this WHENEVER. But for reasons I (and others above) have outlined, I don't think his FISA does this. Moreover, I think it costs him an indy/leans-R bloc (Western libertarians) that is totally winnable for him in the fall.
But I don't think you pick up indy/right-wing votes by moving to the center. I think you do it by
1) standing firm on your principles, as integrity and strength rate highly with these voters.
2) creating new wedge issues (i.e. PRIVACY from fed gov't) on which these voters' preferences differ from the Republican party line.
3) showing these voters how the Republicans have violated values (i.e. fiscal responsiblity, gay sex in airport bathrooms) they previously ran on.
As far as the list you posted...the problem is, Jim, last week you could have posted the same list with "No Telecom Immunity" smack in the middle. As upset as I am about this issue, the larger implications are far more damaging. Can you guarantee Obama's going to come through on the rest of those items, or will others be crossed off when potically expedient?
Until I see evidence to the former, I think a donation freeze is justifiable.
Do you really think Obama needs to pander to 5% of the electorate STILL?
No, nor do I expect it. But even as Obama's swinging rhetorically to the right, he needs to do something sub rosa to show he won't govern that way. Telecom immunity, which is a low-profile issue even when half the country's not on vacation, would have been an excellent opportunity.
Dog whistles, every once in a while. Frequencies no one but the Democratic base can hear.
Scythia, if you ever did post a substantive response, I'd be more impressed, but you simply ramble on, with a laundry list of impractical and even ludicrous issues, and then expect the rest of us to agree with you. I can live without a response from you quite easily, but don't kid yourself that you offer anything like an argument that wins much respect from anyone. I am sure you would benefit from a long weekend as well, and I hope you enjoy your arugula.
arrgghh...*e.g., not *i.e.
Thanks for the tag advice. I was wondering about that.
"I don't think this is true. If this were October and the race was even, you wouldn't be hearing a word from me. But given that all the dynamics favor Obama, and that we're still four months out, and that we're in a lull between the primaries and GE campaign, I think it's a good time to put the screws in."
Okay, I suppose I can understand that. I think you're correct. This is where the meatiest part of our disagreement is at. If I understand you correctly, you feel that this election is close to a certainty with the present dynamics and therefore sending a message to Obama that he better not GOVERN as a centrist right now is well timed.
Whereas I've seen Democrats find ways to lose elections far too many times to feel comfortable, even if I do agree that all the trends point towards an Obama victory. I prefer not to take the chance.
So, really, that's our main area of contention.
Moving on...
"But I don't think you pick up indy/right-wing votes by moving to the center. I think you do it by
1) standing firm on your principles, as integrity and strength rate highly with these voters.
2) creating new wedge issues (i.e. PRIVACY from fed gov't) on which these voters' preferences differ from the Republican party line.
3) showing these voters how the Republicans have violated values (i.e. fiscal responsiblity, gay sex in airport bathrooms) they previously ran on."
Interesting thought. I am not sure I disagree with you completely, but I will point out that this was pretty much the Karl Rove strategy in both 2000 and 2004. Granted, it led to victories...but by very thin margins. If you want large scale transformational changes, then I think you need a mandate that comes from winning BIG.
And to win big I think you do need to move to the center a bit. I don't want Obama to govern as a centrist anymore than you do, but a huge part of his message is that he will end partisan bickering and all that. It's a large part of why he's doing so well with independents against a Republican, McCain, who was supposed to be VERY strong with independents.
As far as the list you posted...the problem is, Jim, last week you could have posted the same list with "No Telecom Immunity" smack in the middle. As upset as I am about this issue, the larger implications are far more damaging. Can you guarantee Obama's going to come through on the rest of those items, or will others be crossed off when potically expedient?
Until I see evidence to the former, I think a donation freeze is justifiable.
It's justifiable if you think that an Obama victory is close to a sure thing. (Which speaks to our main area of disagreement.) If I felt that Obama had a 90% chance of victory, I'd feel free to slap him around a bit for FISA as well and not donate.
I just don't think the election is anywhere close to being that wrapped up so to speak. As I said, Democrats have a grand history of finding ways to lose these things and the stakes are too high for us to lose this one.
Do you really think Obama needs to pander to 5% of the electorate STILL?
No, nor do I expect it. But even as Obama's swinging rhetorically to the right, he needs to do something sub rosa to show he won't govern that way. Telecom immunity, which is a low-profile issue even when half the country's not on vacation, would have been an excellent opportunity.
Dog whistles, every once in a while. Frequencies no one but the Democratic base can hear.
Gotcha. I can understand that. I'm not sure everyone who is posting in this thread, or in all the other liberal blogs I read once in a while, have taken their thinking that far though. I think a lot of them really are intending to take their ball and go home.
And that's the danger of something like this. Enthusiasm for a candidate isn't like the faucet in your kitchen. You can't turn it on and off at will for everyone. Some of those people that are getting riled up during the course of sending Obama a message may not come back home in November. I don't want to have to have Obama needing to pivot BACK to the left to recapture these folks down the line if it turns out he'll need them after all.
For me, Obama declaring an end to lobbyist and PAC money for the Democratic party was much nicer than any dog whistle could be. Not only was it politically shrewd, it was also a tangible and very direct acknowledgement of all the small donors out there. He didn't have to insist that the DNC do the same, but he did anyway.
We Democrats tend to focus too much on the negative. We have one of the best candidates we've fielded in decades. Why not focus on that?
Thanks for the tag advice. I was wondering about that.
"I don't think this is true. If this were October and the race was even, you wouldn't be hearing a word from me. But given that all the dynamics favor Obama, and that we're still four months out, and that we're in a lull between the primaries and GE campaign, I think it's a good time to put the screws in."
Okay, I suppose I can understand that. I think you're correct. This is where the meatiest part of our disagreement is at. If I understand you correctly, you feel that this election is close to a certainty with the present dynamics and therefore sending a message to Obama that he better not GOVERN as a centrist right now is well timed.
Whereas I've seen Democrats find ways to lose elections far too many times to feel comfortable, even if I do agree that all the trends point towards an Obama victory. I prefer not to take the chance.
So, really, that's our main area of contention.
Moving on...
"But I don't think you pick up indy/right-wing votes by moving to the center. I think you do it by
1) standing firm on your principles, as integrity and strength rate highly with these voters.
2) creating new wedge issues (i.e. PRIVACY from fed gov't) on which these voters' preferences differ from the Republican party line.
3) showing these voters how the Republicans have violated values (i.e. fiscal responsiblity, gay sex in airport bathrooms) they previously ran on."
Interesting thought. I am not sure I disagree with you completely, but I will point out that this was pretty much the Karl Rove strategy in both 2000 and 2004. Granted, it led to victories...but by very thin margins. If you want large scale transformational changes, then I think you need a mandate that comes from winning BIG.
And to win big I think you do need to move to the center a bit. I don't want Obama to govern as a centrist anymore than you do, but a huge part of his message is that he will end partisan bickering and all that. It's a large part of why he's doing so well with independents against a Republican, McCain, who was supposed to be VERY strong with independents.
As far as the list you posted...the problem is, Jim, last week you could have posted the same list with "No Telecom Immunity" smack in the middle. As upset as I am about this issue, the larger implications are far more damaging. Can you guarantee Obama's going to come through on the rest of those items, or will others be crossed off when potically expedient?
Until I see evidence to the former, I think a donation freeze is justifiable.
It's justifiable if you think that an Obama victory is close to a sure thing. (Which speaks to our main area of disagreement.) If I felt that Obama had a 90% chance of victory, I'd feel free to slap him around a bit for FISA as well and not donate.
I just don't think the election is anywhere close to being that wrapped up so to speak. As I said, Democrats have a grand history of finding ways to lose these things and the stakes are too high for us to lose this one.
Do you really think Obama needs to pander to 5% of the electorate STILL?
No, nor do I expect it. But even as Obama's swinging rhetorically to the right, he needs to do something sub rosa to show he won't govern that way. Telecom immunity, which is a low-profile issue even when half the country's not on vacation, would have been an excellent opportunity.
Dog whistles, every once in a while. Frequencies no one but the Democratic base can hear.
Gotcha. I can understand that. I'm not sure everyone who is posting in this thread, or in all the other liberal blogs I read once in a while, have taken their thinking that far though. I think a lot of them really are intending to take their ball and go home.
And that's the danger of something like this. Enthusiasm for a candidate isn't like the faucet in your kitchen. You can't turn it on and off at will for everyone. Some of those people that are getting riled up during the course of sending Obama a message may not come back home in November. I don't want to have to have Obama needing to pivot BACK to the left to recapture these folks down the line if it turns out he'll need them after all.
For me, Obama declaring an end to lobbyist and PAC money for the Democratic party was much nicer than any dog whistle could be. Not only was it politically shrewd, it was also a tangible and very direct acknowledgement of all the small donors out there. He didn't have to insist that the DNC do the same, but he did anyway.
We Democrats tend to focus too much on the negative. We have one of the best candidates we've fielded in decades. Why not focus on that?
If I understand you correctly, you feel that this election is close to a certainty
And that we're far enough away from it. I don't think serious campaigning begins after Labor Day, aside from Swift Boat-esque smears that we're not really capable of creating.
Some of those people that are getting riled up during the course of sending Obama a message may not come back home in November.
Right, but that's why FISA was such a fuckup. The only ones who pay attention to the issue are the ones who are opposed. It's an anti-dog whistle. The only people it placates is the DC chattering class.
For me, Obama declaring an end to lobbyist and PAC money for the Democratic party was much nicer than any dog whistle could be.
No, Jim--it was your dog whistle. That's my point. There are little things he can do to signal to those paying attention that his administration won't be conducting business as usual.
This isn't a great example, because it's high-profile, but for me, Obama agreeing to negotiate with foreign leaders was a similar moment. You can talk all you want about the war, but to someone who pays attention, saying that indicates a clear break from Bush's foreign policy, and a big clue into how an Obama admin would handle foreign affairs.
It was the right thing on a practical level, and on a political level--no longer is Bush's non-negotiation policy the only acceptable position. He acted on his principles, and shifted the Overton window as a result. When you're a hugely popular frontrunner, that's the power you have.
The problem is, he made that statement in March. I'm not convinced he's got the huevos to make a similar statement today. Everything I've seen in the last month--since Hillary dropped out and he took on her advisers--suggests otherwise.
We have one of the best candidates we've fielded in decades. Why not focus on that?
Cause he's not acting like it. He's playing not to lose, trying to please the Dem establishment (and presumably HRC's big-money donors) and reverting to a Gore-like stiffness in the process.
It's a large part of why he's doing so well with independents against a Republican, McCain, who was supposed to be VERY strong with independents.
He's down fourteen points among independents! And all he's done for the last two weeks is pander to the center.
See, here's the thing: EVERY Democrat (except a few in solidly blue districts) moves to the center. It inevitably rings false. Independent voters see this every two election cycles. They're familiar with the patterns, and they can spot it a mile away.
So if you're running a campaign on how you're different from other politicians [read: Democrats] and then you do exactly what every other [Democratic] politician does, you undermine your own narrative.
There's no cheese down that tunnel. As the "future of politics," and one of the sources of his primary success, I think we oughta let him know.
OMG Scythia, you are still here and kicking ass. AND I agree with you on absolutely everything. I wish *you* were running for President!
Meanwhile, I hope I see you around. Drop a comment on my Livejournal or something to say hi...
Is it too much to ask that the Democratic candidate act like a Democrat? Being a Democrat is a lot like being Catholic. We are used to being taken for granted, treated like idiots and not getting what we need from our representatives. But there are limits. For Catholics, it was the cover up of child abuse. For Democrats it may be the destruction of the Constitution and the rule of law. How do Catholics protest? They stopped giving or reduced the amount of money to the Church. Maybe Democrats are doing the same. Somethings are just not acceptable no matter what.
And that we're far enough away from it. I don't think serious campaigning begins after Labor Day, aside from Swift Boat-esque smears that we're not really capable of creating.
In a normal election cycle I'd agree with you. This one won't be normal. We just had 36 million people vote in the Democratic PRIMARY alone. That's probably a small fraction of the people who were paying attention but didn't actually come out to either caucus or vote.
Then of course there's the fact we have a war going on, and people always pay closer attention then, and there is no incumbent which raises the stakes, and season it with a very, VERY unhappy electorate and you have a country that is paying more attention a lot earlier than normal.
And that doesn't even get into the historical implications of having the possibility of the nation's first black president or women president making people tune in earlier than usual.
Right, but that's why FISA was such a fuckup. The only ones who pay attention to the issue are the ones who are opposed. It's an anti-dog whistle. The only people it placates is the DC chattering class.
To me, that's why the REACTION to FISA was such a fuckup. The outrage and the people deciding to "send a message" is what has given this story its traction.
If the base had swallowed their tongues and accepted it, Obama could have spun it as a win. The Democrats put an end to wireless eavesdropping, mandated congressional oversight AND FISA court oversight in the future AND didn't eliminate the possibility of future criminal prosecutions.
All that just for giving up on civil prosecutions for companies and executives that have more money than god and could have just paid their fines and been done with it? Not bad overall given the reality of the world we live in and the fact that surveillance is going to happen. Period. Intelligence gathering is needed...sadly.
No, Jim--it was your dog whistle. That's my point. There are little things he can do to signal to those paying attention that his administration won't be conducting business as usual.
So without even thinking hard, we've come up with two different dog whistles to the base in, what? Three months? That's not a bad ratio. We could probably spot a few more if we took some time to think about them. You said you wanted a dog whistle every once in a while. Well, how often do you need one? He wrapped up the nomination about a month ago. Do you need one a month? One every couple of weeks?
Cause he's not acting like it. He's playing not to lose, trying to please the Dem establishment (and presumably HRC's big-money donors) and reverting to a Gore-like stiffness in the process.
I think comparing Obama to Gore is a bit of a stretch given that he just asked to move his next major speech into a stadium that packs in 75,000 folks. The excitement will be there.
He's down fourteen points among independents! And all he's done for the last two weeks is pander to the center.
See, here's the thing: EVERY Democrat (except a few in solidly blue districts) moves to the center. It inevitably rings false. Independent voters see this every two election cycles. They're familiar with the patterns, and they can spot it a mile away.
So if you're running a campaign on how you're different from other politicians [read: Democrats] and then you do exactly what every other [Democratic] politician does, you undermine your own narrative.
Most people thought the previous Newsweek poll a bit of an outlier. Did anyone really think that Obama had a 15 point national lead? Obama is still leading among independents in most national polls. I think that Newsweek one just shows the regression back to the mean that is common in polls that are a large outlier initially.
I consider fivethirtyeight dot com to be the best source for polling and projections. (My previous post that had a link in it didn't post. Apparently putting lots of links in the post flags them for Matt's review. Hmm. Or maybe I was just posting too often and the system thought I was spamming.)
Scythia:
I actually agree with much of your last post.
One thing on FISA though. While I totally agree that, right now, the only political reaction that's happened so far has been neutral or negative for Obama -- in fact, in many quarters, EXTREMELY negative, I'm not so sure his voting against the measure now (which, of course, his single vote would have been largely symbolic either way) wouldn't have had a negative effect down the road. The low-information, middle segment of the country ("the swing vote") isn't paying much attention right now. But -- assuming they get past the whole secret muslim/Rev. Wright hurdle to take a look at Obama -- the largest reservation these folks have is Obama on "terrorism." So, it's going to be what McCain hammers him on the debates and in ads and stump speeches once this thing gets going. "He's not going to keep you safe"; "he's going to tie the hands of intelligence officials" etc, etc, etc. "Terrorists will be able to plot and plan without hindrance." I think it could have had an effect, potentially a very damaging effect, and he's now undercut/preempted that argument.
Talking to "our enemies"? I think he can totally explain that & knock it out of the park on that point, even to the middle voters, as far as I'm concerned. Not voting for FISA because it's important for us to ... ? what? have some more lawsuits? (And I say that as a lawyer). Not so much. Not going to resonate. He's trading a boon to the plaintiff's bar for our nation's security. We need better intelligence, and Obama is keeping us from getting it. So the argument would have gone. It can't go there now.
That's the politics. (Or the hypothetical politics.) Here's the thing: Substantively, telecom immunity is way down the list for me on priorities. I understand that for many (whom I agree w/ on other things), it is way, way high up. If someone wants to explain that there's seriously problems in the bill on what's going to happen going forward, I would understand, but the last 8 years has been such a monstrous violation of the constitution and the laws and the basic tenets of human decency that, really -- unless we're going to start prosecuting members of the Bush administration -- what is the $*#(#$ point? I think the psychic energy & political capital & resources of the Democrats & the new administration going forward needs to be on making sure what's going to happen NOW is right thing. Just my feeling; I realize others seriously disagree.
FISA did it for me. No more money to Obama. I concur with the commenters above me, my campaign dollars are going to real progressive candidates.
FISA did it for me. No more money to Obama. I concur with the commenters above me, my campaign dollars are going to real progressive candidates.
I wanna cut Obama's nuts off!
I don't think Joe Sixpack cares about retroactive immunity for telecoms.
C'mon folks! It's all about bread n' butter issues like our jerbs!
Them furriners done took our jerbs!
We want more protectionism!
More jerbs! Less cheap stuff made by Chinese kids!
I wanna cut Obama's nuts off!
I don't think Joe Sixpack cares about retroactive immunity for telecoms.
C'mon folks! It's all about bread n' butter issues like our jerbs!
Them furriners done took our jerbs!
We want more protectionism!
More jerbs! Less cheap stuff made by Chinese kids!
Just curious, how's that been working out for you? I mean the last 8 years since you first voted for Nader have just been the bestest, haven't they? How many of those "goals" have been achieved? Just curious.
Well, I was too young to vote in 2000, so I first voted for Nader in 2004. Things haven't been going so well, obviously - we've got two wars, a shitty economy, attacks on civil liberties, an increasing crackdown on immigrants, no motion on healthcare, etc. The Left has obviously not been too successful. But can we really blame that failure on the fact that the Left has been too unwilling to get behind the Democrats? I think it's pretty obvious that the strategy of the vast majority of progressives has not, in fact, been the one I would advocate. Maybe instead it might make sense to put the Left's share of the blame for the problems we see on the party which has consistently voted the wrong way, and which has been in power in Congress since 2006?
I mean what is really the 'plan' here? Vote for Nader. Hope enough people vote for Nader so Obama loses. McCain is elected.
Actually, that's not the plan. The point of voting for Nader is not to defeat Obama, it's to help establish a Left that's independent of the Democratic Party. This is not primarily an electoral project, but the Nader campaign can be an organizing tool. (Of course, Nader himself hasn't been great at this, but that's another subject, since it doesn't really affect the argument for voting for someone to the left of Obama.)
If enough people voted for Nader instead of Obama, that could theoretically throw the election to McCain. (Of course, in 2008 I'm pretty sure Obama will win regardless.) And a McCain victory is worse than an Obama victory - no question, they're not identical. But lesser evilism offers no hope of a world where the US doesn't invade or bomb foreign countries, or get proxies like Israel to do the same, and kill hundreds of thousands of people, whenever it appears to be in the interest of the ruling elite to do so. Obama's talk about the options on the table regarding Iran, and an undivided Jerusalem, and air strikes in Pakistan, and flexibility and residual forces in Iraq, has made this pretty clear. Building a grassroots movement and shift the parameters of US politics offers at best a long hard slog to a better world, but a vote every four years for the front man for the B-team of imperialism doesn't even offer that.
With each Republican presidency things just keep getting worse. Things get righter and righter and righter. Heck, Nixon would probably be considered 'center left' on today's spectrum.
Yes, Nixon implemented some surprisingly progressive policies. But since then, for the last 30+ years at least, mainstream politics has been moving right - this happened under Clinton and Carter, too. That's not because Nixon was a better guy than Clinton. It's because of the state of grassroots politics. In the late 60s and early 70s, social movements put constraints on policymakers so that even an asshole like Nixon had to give some concessions. Clinton, by contrast, was facing real pressure for most of his term only from the right.
We've got to start somewhere, and that means getting the Presidency (in a relatively conservative political climate, despite the anger at the Repubs), governing in a semi-competent fashion, thereby gaining the country's trust, and thereby providing the political capital to move a little more left. And a little more. And a little more.
This is a conservative political climate in terms of mainstream politics and activism. Popular opinion is in a lot of ways way to the left of what's on offer. Majorities are in favor not just of universal healthcare via mandates but of single payer, and are opposed to the war in Afghanistan.
Obama isn't leaning right because that's what he needs to do to win. He's leaning right because he belongs - in multiple senses of the term - to a ruling class which is looking for only very limited movement away from the Bush administration. He's not secretly on our side. Any political capital he gains for center-right policies doesn't benefit us.
There's no other way that it's going to happen. Not in this country.
In this country, like any other, real change has always come from below. As even Obama, back when he was leaning left against Clinton, used to say.
To me, that's why the REACTION to FISA was such a fuckup. The outrage and the people deciding to "send a message" is what has given this story its traction.
If the base had swallowed their tongues and accepted it, Obama could have spun it as a win.
I'm sorry, Jim, but that's simply false, for two reasons. First of all -- leaving aside the question of whether it is worth "winning" if "winning" is identical to "losing" -- it's not just the base who held the line on this issue. TWENTY-EIGHT DEMOCRATIC SENATORS voted against this bill (and spoke out against it strongly before doing so), including both of mine -- Clinton and Schumer. That's not "the base," that's "the party." Those are Obama's colleagues, doing what they were elected to do -- which is represent their constitutents. That's their job.
Obama chose to lead from the back on this one. He was wrong, and like anyone who makes a questionable decision, he will pay a price. Maybe he will still feel that it is a price he can afford, or that paying this price is better than whatever price he thinks he would have paid by keeping his campaign promise to filibuster. But either way, decisions carry consequences whether you're running for office or just taking out the trash. Obama is a grown-up. He can handle consequences, and he knew there would be some.
Secondly, he could not under any circumstances have spun the FISA bill as a win for the Democrats, because THE REPUBLICANS ARE SPINNING IT AS A WIN. Because it IS a win for them! They got everything they wanted! The bill does NOT put an end to warrantless eavesdropping; it legalizes virtually everything the President was hitherto doing illegally. It makes it impossible even to find out what the President was (and, presumably, is) doing, because no one can now be subpoenaed to tell us. And those "future criminal prosecutions" you dream of will never happen, because the President will pardon everyone involved on his way out the door, as they always do. The civil suits were our ONLY hope at getting to the truth -- and getting some small measure of accountability for a felonious government.
Obama 95% with you / McCain 95% against -- meaningless stats generally but when it comes to the really big ticket items, like FISA, they seem to be on the same page... Whoa! that's when the money stops.
Obama needs to wake himself back up after that hard fought duel with HRC. not put us all back to sleep with politics as usual.
Comments closed July 25, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Matt,
Love your blog, but I've got a nit to pick.
"People are thinking to themselves. . . ."
Really?
Seems Broderish, not in the bland conventional wisdom sense but in the willingness to generalize about what's in the heads of hundreds of thousands of people who, for the most part, really don't think like you (or me) at all.
Posted by Ryan S | July 11, 2008 10:32 AM