‘I am someone who is no doubt progressive’

Whether Barack Obama is “moving to the middle” is a topic of considerable discussion, though I tend to think most of the handwringing is overwrought and misplaced. But I was taken aback by the ferocity of Bob Herbert’s column in the NYT this morning, in which he complained that Obama is “not just tacking gently toward the center,” but “lurching right” and “zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.”

So there he was in Zanesville, Ohio, pandering to evangelicals by promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it. Separation of church and state? Forget about it.

And there he was, in the midst of an election campaign in which the makeup of the Supreme Court is as important as it has ever been, agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder. What was the man thinking?

As much as I tend to enjoy Herbert’s work, this column is way over the top, and in some instances, simply factually wrong. For example, if you simply read the AP report last week, you’d get the impression that Obama’s “faith-based initiative” is just like Bush’s. Unfortunately, Herbert didn’t read the actual speech, or he would have known that this simply isn’t true. This isn’t an example of Obama “lurching” towards Bush’s position; it’s an example of the opposite.

Likewise, Herbert blasts Obama for reversing course on supporting a state’s right to execute child rapists. I happen to disagree with Obama on this issue, but the fact is Obama has been consistent on the issue, and even wrote about his position in his book. Again, there’s no “zigging” here. Obama’s position before is the same as it is now.

Herbert even mentions, in his indictment of Obama “mov[ing] away from progressive issues,” that the senator might be “doing the Obama two-step” on his withdrawal policy on Iraq. Herbert should know better, and Obama’s position is exactly the same as it was before. The McCain campaign has spun a lot of reporters in circles, but Herbert is usually better able to cut through the nonsense than this.

For what it’s worth, Obama is aware of this talk, and he tackled it head-on today.

I didn’t hear the remarks, but the text makes it sound like Obama has heard just about enough of the baseless criticism.

Barack Obama had heard quite enough of the complaints that he is pirouetting, leaping, lurching even, toward the political center.

He is at heart, he told a crowd in suburban Atlanta, a pretty progressive guy who just happens to pack along a complicated world view.

“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he said. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”

To this, he adds, parenthetically: “And I must say some of this is my friends on the left” and those in the media.

“I am someone who is no doubt progressive,” he said, adding that he believes in universal health care and that government has a strong to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like.

I can’t help but think the hyperventilating in some corners has become wildly excessive. On some issues (gay marriage in California, reforming the bankruptcy laws), Obama has moved to the left. On others (Iraq, death penalty, faith-based programs), he hasn’t moved at all. He switched gears on public financing, but that was pragmatic, not ideological. Obama is wrong about the FISA “compromise,” but one issue, albeit an important one, is not evidence of “zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.”

In fact, one of the great ironies of the last couple of weeks is that there’s been hysterical cries about Obama “moving to the middle” without him really moving much at all. In some ways, this is actually the best of all possible worlds — voters (most of whom consider themselves moderates) are being told that Obama is angering liberals by campaigning as a centrist, while at the same time, Obama is just about as progressive as he was before.

In this sense, Obama is getting credit for moderation without really having to moderate. It’s disappointing to read a sloppy attack like Herbert’s, but in the big picture, maybe that’s a good thing for voters who think Obama’s “too liberal” to hear.

If Bob Herbert buys into McCain-stream Media Memes, who is left?

Good for Obama – time to take matters into his own hands and set people straight. He needs to frame progressivism as the new middle – and that truth has a liberal bias.

  • Hey Steve,

    Just wanted to give you a big high five for being just about the only sane person left in the lefty blogosphere…these last two weeks have left me bewildered beyond belief reading some of the more strident anti-Obama stuff coming from OUR side…but at least I know that I can always come here and get a healthy dose of reality!

    that’s all really…I just wanted to thank you for being so dang level-headed.

    cheers

  • As someone who has read Obama’s books and knows his platform I say thank you for saying this.. Obama has been saying these things from the start. What makes it so hard to for the Media and the RNC is that Obama cannot be pigeon holed. The media and RNC are used to simple black and white answers for complex problems. Obama speaks to us like adults. He knows that complex solutions require sound thought, great judgment, consensus from average Americans and a plan of action. For example; the typical Republican answer to fixing the poor economy is tax cuts. Obama’s answer is to tieing the economy,the enviroment and the Iraq war. He shows that these problems are interconnected issues. For instance the Iraq war. He knew the main reason for going over there is our dependence on foreign oil so he says lets become energy independent at the same time creating new industry and new jobs..

  • I have to go with Herbert on this one. You can excuse broken promises as pragmatic, debate nuances and interpretations of statements and the meaning of those statements, but Obama promised a new politics-“change we can believe in”- and his behavior lately is certainly nothing new.

    On the same web page the Herbert column appears there is an editorial in opposition to FISA.

    Eviscerating the 4th amendment, at least for me, is not one of those things that reasonable people can disagree about. Obama, in supporting this bill, is betraying his oath to support and defend the constitution and, frankly, betraying me personally.

    I don’t disagree with those who argue that Obama will be better than McCain, but that is small praise for a man who is supposed to be a transformational President.

  • It’s media’s job to cover stories like this. They did this with Clinton too who ran a very similar campaign in 1992 (read his acceptance speech. He was on a strict diet of 2 scoops of hope and 1 heap of change…and a few big macs along the way). Liberals are going to nail this guy for “abandoning” his policies, Repubilcans will say he’s a flip flopper. In the long run, people need to realize that Obama needs to embrace the center in order to win.
    His message should adhere to all possible voters. Sure he’s all about abortion rights, but if he wants to win, he’s going to need to tout his favor of Bush’s faith based initiatives, and so on. It’s not flip flopping or abandoning, it’s politics.
    I think Herbert’s point is that Obama is just a politician, and though people took his call for “new” politics at face value, it’s time to take it with a grain of salt.
    Obama never flip flopped to his base, he just told them what they want to hear; they were just to awe-struck and ignorant to question his rhetoric.

  • But I was taken aback by the ferocity of Bob Herbert’s column in the NYT this morning, in which he complained that Obama is “not just tacking gently toward the center,” but “lurching right” and “zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.”

    I don’t know if Herbert mentioned it in his column but FISA is more than just one issue. It is a crucial issue. It is about one of the fundamental underpinnings of America, the rule of law. Obama is about to support a bill that puts the President and his corporate supporters above the law. When running for the nomination, Obama promised to stand against this unamerican travesty. Now, when his leadership could have stopped this horrible law from occurring, he has broken that promise by supporting it. Tomorrow he will vote in favor of its passage and we will be one step closer to the sort of lawless dictatorship that is more familiar in places like Zimbabwe than here.

    This issue alone, particularly Obama’s stunningly craven and nonsensical reversal, has caused a lot of whiplash and a lot more disillusionment.

  • I don’t mind Obama’s stance on abortion, or his faith-based initiative, or NAFTA. What has bugged me is FISA, but most of all, dissing Clark because these issues are not the issues AMERICANS care about, but Washington DC.

    In the latest e-mail from WePac, Wesley Clark opens with: “Politics is tough. So when one of our own is down, we have to have their back.”

    He’s referring to Darcy Burner, but if we’ve learned anything these past eight years — cross that, 16 years — it’s that picking up a pitch fork joining the lynch mob every time the establishment goes after one of our own is not a winning strategy.

    This has always been my worry about Obama. It’s not shifting “right” in the way most people mean it, but the way DC means it, where what is “Left” or “Right” is determined by whether or not you campaign for the current leader of the Republican Party. Howard Dean is a centrist politically. Paul Krugman is a free market economist. The blogs I read tend to push policies the public overwhelmingly supports. What makes Clark radioactive, and Obama conservative, is that fact that Clark campaigns against the other party, and Obama dances any time the pundits ask for a show.

  • I think Obama’s failure to lead against FISA and then his espoused support for the bill with his weak condemnation of corporate immunity put a lot of progressives on the defensive, myself included.

  • Reports like this are an exaggeration and don’t help us listen critically to what Obama IS saying.

    And what Obama IS saying gives us cause for disappointment and great concern moving forward. For those of us who feel this election is largely about a clear return to the rule of law and respect for Constitutional separation of powers, Obama’s broken promise to filibuster “any legislation” that contained retroactive immunity for telecoms that cooperated with illegal surveillance activities by the White House is a big deal. As is his willingness to misrepresent a piece of legislation (“bipartisan compromise,” my hat!) He has reversed himself on an important principle and not been very straight about it.

    It might not be a “lurch to the right,” but it’s serious.

  • “not just tacking gently toward the center,” but “lurching right” and “zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.”

    Remember that the wingnuts are simultaneously saying the Obama is lurching to the Left.

    And Also no other than Fred Barnes said sunday on FNS that it may appear that Obama is moving toward the middle, but if you read the fine print he really is not.

    This was not a compliment but rather he said this because he was worried that Obama is cleverly positioning himself for the General Election and is outflanking the hapless McCain.

    the hyperventilating in some corners has become wildly excessive.

    Yep. Sure enough it has. Time to chill.

  • Geeeez – I tend to agree with your last statement. Unless Obama can make me believe once again in “change we can believe in”, I will go to the polls voting for the lesser of two evils. My enthusiasm for actively supporting him has pretty much dissolved.

    Also, I missed reading Obama’s views on religious-based initiatives. Can someone steer me to this (is it somewhere on his website?)

  • Obama’s FISA move is a smart political move. It’s just a proposed bill that will go through a world of transformation before it gets signed, plus it was very timely of him to act on this to show his foreign policy toughness at a time when it was being questioned.
    When you get smacked around, you have to act fast, otherwise you end up like John Kerry (no diss to him). It’s a bill right now, a little more than a structured idea. I doubt with the kind of economic/foreign-policy team he has, that this would have been a capricious, naive move on his part.

  • Geeeez,

    I don’t mean this as an insult, but your former point-of-view is what people are talking about when they make fun of the ‘messiah’. Obama was never going to be perfect, even from the ‘new politics’ angle. That’s being realistic.

    Everyone around here agrees that his vote on the FISA bill is a really bad call. Fine. But it is not, in fact, the end of the world. If I’m not mistaken, it is sunsetting in five years regardless (note: if I’m wrong about that, apologies in advance … too lazy to look it up).

    I don’t really see anything else that he has done lately that has been so horrible. With regards to his campaign financing (which is perfectly legal), he still has the moral high ground with his stances on PACs, lobbyists, and 527s. With regards to his Iraq withdrawal, absolutely nothing has changed (he has repeatedly said that he would be careful getting out … his plan for 1 or 2 brigades a month comes from talking to military leaders as being a careful plan – but conditions can and do change and their advice can change accordingly).

    I guess I’m just wondering what the uproar is about. If it’s solely about FISA, let me know.

  • I do not care an owl’s hoot whether Obama moves hither or yon and whether he is on Mount Olympus or in Hades. I have to deal with facts and they are ugly.
    1. Senator Obama supports the ongoing “star war” anti-ballistic defense program which most experts think will never stop a determined opponent. It is a huge giveaway to the military/industrial complex.
    2. Senator Obama will leave American non-combat troops and civilians in Iraq among an armed and hostile population. That is what I call a “dumb” war. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson found out that you cannot do that and so will a President Obama.
    3. Senator Obama has yet to comment on HR 362 which asks our President to essentially blockade Iran, which is an act of war. How does he “stand” on this resolution if he is not already meekly lying down or strongly in support? How can I tell the difference?
    4. Senator Obama implicitly (he thinks that the Bush administration is not spending enough) wants to spend more DoD funds on the development of new weapons. Why?
    5. Instead of scrapping the “faith based” monstrosity, Senator Obama wants to feed it more goodies with our tax money.
    6. Senator Obama plans to expand the US army with 65,000 soldiers. Exactly why? What for?
    I have been asked why I criticize Senator Obama whom I prefer as our next Presisdent over Senator McCain. Simple. It is easy and cheap to criticize one’s opponent. We must keep the feet of our own candidates to the fire and as closely as possible. So what if they get burned by their dumb remarks or policies sometimes?

  • Obama is my home state senator. Judging from his senatorial positions, I have never had any illusions that he would govern in any other mode than as a Clintonian, technocratic, centrist. That is what the system now selects for and the system will make the man.

  • As a long time Illinois progressive, I am confused by the wobbliness of support for Obama that so many are expressing here.

    This is a guy who has a real world view and a rea world approach to the issues facing America. If there is an issue you are worried about, you can be sure that it’s on Obam’s radar. Your faith will be restored come 2009.

    Stop focusing on Obama and keep the focus on McCain’s antiquated, authoritarian view of this country.

  • It’s a good thing that Democrats didn’t hyperventilate over FDR throwing Japanese-Americans into internment camps — a far more odious and unconstitutional offense — like so many of you are now doing with regards to FISA. We would have ended up with President Dewey.

    It seems that far too many of you have lived up to the nonsense people were spewing about Obama supporters being naive fanbois. The man is fallible, and his views are incredibly complex. He is going to do things that people disagree with, but please try to keep it in perspective.

    Bad FISA Legislation =/= Invading Iraq

  • It’s a GIGO kinda problem. The media has been crowing about HOW liberal Obama is. Why, he’s THE MOST liberal Senator in office right now, according to “some people,” and just because that talking point has been proven to be not true, doesn’t mean it’s not true. (?)

    But if you believe (or been led to believe) that Obama is the most liberal Senator, then some of his more centrist views will, indeed, look like he’s leaping towards the right.

    Same thing with the recent kerfluffle over Obama’s supposedly abandoning his platform to get the troops out of Iraq the nanosecond he takes the oath of office. He never said it would happen that fast, but his critics kept saying, at the time, that that WAS Obama’s position, and theyr’e by and large the same people who are now saying “flip-flop” now as he reiterates what has always been his opinion on getting out of Iraq. If you believed the thunderdolts who told you Obama is going to “cut and run” immediately, then hearing him talk about his actual plan – 18 months, depending on the situation on the ground, actually listening to generals and heeding their advice, etc. – seems like a betrayal.

    Listen to the man, not the interpreters. Most of them do not have his, or your, better interests in mind when they do their hatchet jobs.

  • Interestingly enough Obama got a lot of criticism amongst financial bloggers for giving his two sense about the Inbev deal with Bud. Apparently Obama’s comment that “we” should make sure they don’t get sold to a non-US company sparked a big brother fear among bloggers. Have we forgotten that FDR halted production of the auto industry and made them produce army vehicles exclusively?
    Sure, times have changed and the political climate is different, but I don’t think Obama’s FISA stance is a step backwards or nearly as stringent or “big brotherly” as people make it out to be.

  • Except Obama isn’t progressive. He’s centrist pablum Democrat, who’s sided with the DINOs more than once and the sell outs every time.

    That’s not progressive.

    …Not to say that he’s lurching anywhere, but he’s not progressive.

  • Franklin

    I have never expected Obama to be perfect; and I have never expected him to not have to make compromises. BUT supporting the FISA bill that is eviscerating a civil liberty is not a compromise-it is a betrayal. And it is a betrayal that does not portend greatness from an Obama administration.

    I don’t think it is unreasonable of me to expect the man to do what he has said he would do and provide “change that we can believe in.” A bit naive perhaps.

  • A few scattered thoughts both on the topic, and in relation to a few commenters.

    First
    The notion that Obama is moving to the center or flip-flopping is absurd on numerous levels. His stances have been consistently nuanced while providing a solid foundation, something that many reporters don’t seem to understand — they’re used to more black/white issues, rather than the various shades of gray so prevalent in every issue.

    Second
    The one thing on which he could be accused of flip-floppery is public campaign financing. But that holds no water, either, since the deal was straight forward: He would enter the system if McCain not only did the same, but also promised limits on 527 expenditures. McCain’s camp refused to even listen to such a proposal. Thus, the conditions Obama laid out were not met. Thus, there was neither flip nor flop.

    Third
    The FISA bill has eroded some of my enthusiasm for the guy. Okay, eroded a LOT of it. I realize he’s trying a delicate dance — be true to the progressive values he claims to believe in, while also appearing strong on national security — but this is not the issue on which to two step. It’s clear: The law sets the precedent that any company can violate the law as long as the government says it’s okay, and that blatant violations by the executive branch of the Fourth Amendment are to be ignored. This is unacceptable. Period.

    Yes, few “regular folks” seem to care much about FISA, but it goes to the very heart of our country, of what our founders saw as important, and what makes our country different than Russia or Syria or China or the other bad actors we seem to rail regularly rail against.

    I’ll wait until the actual vote occurs, since the bill isn’t final and a lot can happen with it before then, and see how he votes. If it’s anything other than against, he won’t get a penny from me and I’ll wind up once again voting against someone, instead of for someone.

    Last
    The notion that Obama was going to “change politics” is nice and, having read both his books, totally admirable, exciting, and motivating. But he never promised to be perfect. He mentions, repeatedly, that one can operate in the current political system while still being different. How?

    By not being deceitful. By not pandering to any and all groups who demand it. By not taking money from 527s and special interests. By not taking a black/white view of every issue. By fighting back against Republican smears as soon as possible. By showing respect to political adversaries, while also showing why their way is wrong.

    Had he done all of that? For the most part, yes. And that’s the politics of change I thought he meant when reading The Audacity of Hope — someone who can operate within the game without playing it in the dishonest and callous ways others have in the past (and current).

    Hell, just look at McCain’s campaign — they have knowingly put out misleading and downright false information and then acted as if it’s rock-solid reality (e.g. gas tax holiday).

    For whatever reason, though, some people took his message to mean he’d never take a campaign donation, never go after and correct the distortions of his opponent, never utter a bad word about anything or anyone at any time, never do anything wrong, and never acknowledge political realities and do what is necessary to run a successful campaign.

    In other words, some people projected on him their desires for some sort of political messiah, even though he’s never positioned himself as such. Some of his followers certainly have, but he hasn’t.

    Anyway … sorry for the dissertation.

  • Obama’s FISA move is a smart political move. It’s just a proposed bill that will go through a world of transformation before it gets signed… -Krishnan

    I’ve seen a lot of people make both of those claims in the past month. What I haven’t seen is a reasonable explanation of those assumptions and to “act on this to show his foreign policy toughness at a time when it was being questioned,” is the worst attempt at an explanation I’ve seen yet.

    Acting tough is making the case that we can have security and privacy. This FISA ‘compromise’ is a cowardly power grab. There is no strength or security in sacrificing our freedoms.

    Cue Mr. Franklin.

  • Thank you for your consistent level headed insight/commentary about Obama. I do not agree with Obama on the FISA compromise but have found him to be entirely consistent on other issues like Iraq. Maybe it’s just because I dont watch TV. Hope to hear you again on Rachel Maddow.

  • slappy’s first sentence (about GIGO) is consistent with what I believe caused the over-the-top Herbert column. Those in the maw of old-line media still believe in attending to — and still trust to a large degree — old-line media. Ergo, Herbert is feeding on what the MSM is saying is saying about Obama, not looking to the source. If all I knew about Obama was what I read or hear from the MSM then I, too, would think Obama is a flip-flopper who has abandoned plans to leave Iraq and was moving to the right on a plethora of issues because that is the MSM spin, albeit far from complete and correct. Herbert seems to be reacting to the MSM caricature of Obama, not to Obama himself.

  • With respect to FISA, I am more upset with Steny Hoyer than I am with Obama. After all he and the rest of the blue dogs were the ones who pulled this crap. And Pelosi went along with it.

  • Doubtful – in regards to your comments “and to “act on this to show his foreign policy toughness at a time when it was being questioned,” is the worst attempt at an explanation I’ve seen yet,” I’m in complete accord with your assessment. It is a pretty horrible explanation that was more to explain why he did it than to support it.

    It was about this time 4 years ago the Swift-Boaters started their ad campaign against Kerry. He let the whole thing ruminate in people’s minds for 2 months before saying something small. The GOP is throwing everything at Obama this time – even his middle name – and he needs a quick fix, and I believe FISA provides him that.

    Let’s keep the discussion clean.

  • 27. On July 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm, -daze said:
    slappy’s first sentence (about GIGO) is consistent with what I believe caused the over-the-top Herbert column.
    ___________

    thanks, daze, but remember, I’m not a real progressive so I don’t know what I’m talking about.

  • I don’t think Obama should vote in support of the new FISA bill and I have written to him and told him as much, and I have also told him that I will not be contributing any more money to his campaign if the FISA passes with his compliance. Obviously I still sup[port him with my vote in the Fall, but I am very disappointed with his recent behavior. Of course he does not need my small ($25.00 & $50.00) contributions any more, however he should remember to keep his promises. I am still hoping for a change of position.

  • thanks, daze, but remember, I’m not a real progressive so I don’t know what I’m talking about.

    Seen this a couple of times now…what’s this referring to, please?

  • You guys had your chance to vote for a candidate who was clearly against FISA. You guys blew it. You guys had the chance to vote for a candidate who was really for bringing our troops home. You guys blew that too. And now you sit here complaining about broken promises. Boo hoo. You should have voted for a candidate with a proven track record of consistency.

  • slappy – even stopped clocks, etc etc. . . no i call ’em as i see ’em, both when i disagree and when i agree. if its seems inconsistent, it is just because i dont prejudge the content by the author (ok, maybe when little bear was here.) i actually liked it when the name was at the bottom of the post.

    maria – that is the first time i’ve seen it, but there was a very heated debate about language and sensitivity (over-, in-, etc) a week or so ago. to a large degree it was a personal back and forth that didn’t involve anyone else at the time and while the record still exists for anyone that really wants to find it, it likely would serve no purpose to repeat it here.

  • Boo hoo. You should have voted for a candidate with a proven track record of consistency.

    But Russ wasn’t running, and I don’t like write-ins.

  • Geeeez – OK, thanks for the follow-up. And I agree that the potential for a great administration has been toned down a notch with this particular move. I guess I’m just waiting to see more info before I get totally depressed.

  • Dear Gridlock & John S.

    I’m just a down-to-earth Populist of the Jim Hightower type. So FISA was a big deal to me. I didn’t like the manner in which he seemingly wiggled out of that disaster – Bush & Co. got everything they wanted PERIOD. That was not a compromise and Obama knows it. I thought in this one instance, he would stand with Feingold & Dodd. It proved to me how deep-rooted the corporate stranglehold is in our government. With Obama, I thought that would change.

    I’m also afraid Obama will wither like Pelosi when it comes to holding this administration accountable for all their misdeeds. We can move forward and forget of course but what then will the history books reveal? Can we learn from the past if the past is “sanitized”?

  • silus @ 33… who was that person we could’ve voted for? The Senator who voted to give Bush carte blanche to bomb Iraq…and then again for Iran?

  • You guys had your chance to vote for a candidate who was clearly against FISA. You guys blew it. You guys had the chance to vote for a candidate who was really for bringing our troops home. You guys blew that too. And now you sit here complaining about broken promises. Boo hoo. You should have voted for a candidate with a proven track record of consistency

    Dear lord …

    GET. OVER. IT.

    Pick a new hobby. Maybe take up cycling. Perhaps yoga. Just grow up and get over it already.

    Sheesh.

  • maria @ 36…

    It was recently brought to my attention that I’m an a-hole, and not a real progressive (much like your neighbor’s daughter isn’t a real Goth but a Hot Topic Goth), and I deserve to have my daughter be born mutated and my death would be a boon to mankind. And this opinion was uttered by a regular on this site, so obviously, it carries some weight. So, whenever possible, I try to add the disclaimer, lest anyone think my opinion matters.

  • Giving Telecoms immunity from prosecution is not really a problem. I think it is sad, but we have granted amnesties in the past for crimes committed, and this would be one more of the same.

    It’s the ongoing eviseration of the FISA Court’s authority to warrant searches that is the problem with the new law. The NSA will claim just how important their new programs are, but the fact is they generate about one hit in a thousand for every tip they give the FBI, and every one is already an ongoing FBI investigation.

    As the FISA court has said, there is nothing “Reasonable” about searches that achieve a 0.1% hit rate, and thus nothing Constitutional about those programs.

    But if Obama is elected President, you can bet the libertarian wing of the Republican’t party will be screaming for the FISA court to be strengthened, just as you will hear the Isolationist wing of the Republican’t party screaming for us to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq under an Obama Presidency. These people are only being surpressed because Boy George II is President.

    Since I consider myself Progressive and I know I’m much closer to the center than some, having Obama leaning towards my side is certainly fine by me.

  • The GOP is throwing everything at Obama this time – even his middle name – and he needs a quick fix, and I believe FISA provides him that. -Krishnan

    I *get* that you believe that. What I’m asking for is a rational explanation of why you believe it. I haven’t heard one from you or anyone else espousing this, well, this rationalization.

    Please explain to me how supporting a power grab that is an affront to the fourth amendment and our right to privacy will engender Obama to the population at large and prevent the effectiveness of Swift Boat style attacks?

    If anything, it’s opened the door and provided the grain of truth to the charge that he’s a flip-flopper, which is the very topic of this thread.

    And, broadly, the notion that it is acceptable for Obama to be flat out wrong on such an important issue becuase of what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did four years ago is giving them much to much credit for their lies. It’s reasoning like this that gives them lasting power.

    Let’s keep the discussion clean. -Krishnan

    I assume this is meant to be some sort of disarming tactic whereby saying this you deflate my position as some sort of an ad hominem. I don’t feel my comment was worthy of pedantic chiding, but I assure that was quite mild for me. Nothing has enraged my passions so much lately as this FISA bill and you were spared the brunt of it, but I reiterate, I haven’t seen a valid reason yet for Obama’s support, just rationalization and assumption.

    Seen this a couple of times now…what’s this referring to, please? -Maria

    I, too, am curious why slappy’s Progressive card was revoked.

    You guys had your chance to vote for a candidate who was clearly against FISA. -silus

    Actually, for most of us, Kucinich and Dodd were out of the race by the time our states voted, so we did not indeed have that chance.

  • Lance,

    I agree, so many are hung up on the corporate immunity, which is awful, but it’s really just a smoke screen for the power grab and expansion of executive spying power.

    I’m glad some of us haven’t missed the big picture.

  • correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t this FISA thing not even come up for Senate vote yet?

    Obama is a sitting Senator right?

    Maybe, just maybe we should hold off on acting like Obama just kicked our puppy until this thing plays itself out all the way.

    sheesh, it’s like a room full of Glenn freakin’ Greenwalds in here today.

  • I was always surprised to hear Obama referred to as “a progressive.” He was not my first choice, but I was really excited about him by the time my primary came around. After FISA, not so much. I too called and explained that I would still vote for him but would stop giving money if he voted for the so-called compromise. I do still like him, though, because he has nuanced views, seems intellectually honest, and is not and has never been and never will be a member of the DLC. However, though he is quite progressive on several issues, I never considered him “a progressive.” Hence, I’m not disillusioned.

    p.s. I believe the candidate referred to @ 33 is probably not Clinton but rather Kucinich.

  • Maybe, just maybe we should hold off on acting like Obama just kicked our puppy until this thing plays itself out all the way. -neilt

    If you act after the vote, you guarantee your failure.

    Obama voiced his support for the bill but has not voted yet. Now is the most important time to act as long as acting involves responsible choices: withholding contributions (time and money), letter writing, phone calls, etc.

    Your comment belies a fundamental misunderstanding about how representative government works.

    Acting before a vote is an attempt at productive activism.
    Acting after a vote is just complaining.

    There is a world of difference.

  • “it’s like a room full of Glenn freakin’ Greenwalds in here today.”

    And that’s bad because…?

  • I agree, so many are hung up on the corporate immunity, which is awful, but it’s really just a smoke screen for the power grab and expansion of executive spying power.

    I’m glad some of us haven’t missed the big picture.

    Of course the administration’s pretended interest in protecting telecoms is a smokescreen for its own misdeeds. But the big picture includes this: litigation against the telecoms was the only way to find out the extent and scope of executive spying that’s taken place. Only through that discovery process did we have a chance, because this administration invokes executive privilege when they’re asked what they had for lunch today or what time the last train leaves.

    It’s one thing not to be too interested in punishing telecoms (though I disagree strongly, I’ll spot you that). But the ability to expose the administration–and have the ammunition for future action preventing these abuses–rests entirely on this litigation proceeding.

  • Gotta be a different Mary at 48. No way has our regular Mary ever made it through a whole Greenwald column. She can’t even finish a three-paragraph article linked here without making a fool of herself commenting on what she hasn’t read.

  • I’m fine with Obama, but he pandered on the “mental distress” abortion issue and the child rape Supreme Court issue. He went for the red meat instead of talking about implementation of the death penalty is so incredibly problematic that it not ought be confused with considerations of who deserves to die for their crimes. One argument is based on the reality of the death penalty, the other is based on some sort of right/wrong about the heinousness of certain crimes. I was disappointed in how he dealt with both issues. I do not note a paper bag and I feel quite calm about it.

  • doubtful

    you misunderstand my point – sure, put pressure on your elected representatives to vote in a manner that you see fit, of course you do that (I’m not a four year old, I understand how representative gov’t works)

    I’m just asking people to lay off the histrionics here, my word – I keep seeing words like “betrayal” and “capitulation” being thrown around like, yes, Obama has personally kicked your puppy. It’s annoying and quite frankly childish. I see people acting like the skies have fallen when in fact all Obama has done is make a few comments about upcoming legislation. Urge him to change his position? Fine.Urge away. Start letter writing campaigns, phone your Senators, publish letters to the editor of your local newspaper, do all those things, that’s pressuring your representatives. But people here, and around the web, are acting so g*ddam fatalist about this, like it’s a fait accompli and that Obama is now running as Bush III. Quite frankly it’s annoying.

    and tiresome.

    and Mary, I know I’m in the minority here – but I find Glenn Greenwald to be a preening gasbag who is utterly incapable of admitting he’s ever even the slightest bit wrong. Again, I know I’m in the minority here so please refrain from jumping down my throat 😀

  • p.s. I believe the candidate referred to @ 33 is probably not Clinton but rather Kucinich.

    I sure as hell hope it’s either that or Dodd, otherwise #33 is high — only those two and Feingold have shown an ounce of integrity on the issue.

    And slappy — the a-hole charge may be correct, but from one to another, no biggie.

    🙂

    I’m wondering what you did to get a corner cut off your Progressive Card. You’ve been quite consistently progressive/liberal from where I’m sitting.

    **uses Google**

    Ahhh … you posted what I found to be an awesome shot at Mary, and then someone responded rather nastily right after (but didn’t have the guts to use a real ID at the time).

    And all over the use of the word “retarded” (which, last I checked, meant “to cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede; progressing slowly”).

    Someone needed a hug …

  • Wait, so you don’t tell a guy not to kick your puppy when he says he’s going to but only after he’s actually done it?

    WTF?

  • Crissa,

    nonono, you tell him to not kick your puppy – you don’t act like he’s already kicked it!

    (annnnnnd the puppy-kicking metaphor officially runs out of steam)

    😛

  • It’s depressing but not at all surprising that Obama’s comments on late-term abortion seem to have completely slipped under the radar of most commenters and blogs. They imply a lack of familiarity with the legal precedent and language surrounding Roe (specifically, Doe) and place him firmly in the anti-choice sweet spot in terms of rhetoric and framing.

    Whether it represents a “move” to the center is honestly immaterial to me. He may well have held this opinion before. But it’s way too “center” (i.e. rightwing) to sit well with me.

  • It’s one thing not to be too interested in punishing telecoms… -Maria

    Oh, believe me, it is not either/or with me. The rule of law and investigation of this Administration ranks very high with me. I was speaking to people like Obama who find fault with the corporate immunity while turning a blind eye to the privacy issues and expansion of executive power. It seems like a lot of people are hung up only on that issue, when on the whole, the bill is awful.

    In fact, you and I are arguing the same point – that getting hung up on a singular issue concerning the FISA bill is unproductive.

    I’d add a third issue that bothers me as well: the redefining of WMD. The definition of WMD included in the FISA bill is so watered down a grenade would qualify.

    Don’t our representatives read these bills?

  • The notion that Obama was going to “change politics” is nice and, having read both his books, totally admirable, exciting, and motivating. But he never promised to be perfect. He mentions, repeatedly, that one can operate in the current political system while still being different. How?

    I guess I’m afraid Obama really is trying to change politics. I can’t watch another SBV redo, I can’t, and the whole Clark episode gave me deja vu. For God sakes, don’t dance just because the establishment wants a show, and campaign for your guy and against the other guy. The other guy is never going to like you because he understands what his job is in a campaign: to campaign. Meaning, making the case he is better qualified than you. It may be polite to agree with him, but our guy is more qualified than theirs.

  • Neilt,

    Sorry, but the way the Senate works, and the way the vote on this bill has been structured, the real vote on the bill already occurred last week. That was the “cloture” vote, that Obama voted FOR. Once cloture was passed, the deal is done. Had 41 senators stood up for the constitution and the rule of law, this bill could never have passed.

    Now it will take a simple majority, which is assured, to pass the bill. So 20-odd senators can now vote against the bill, pretending that they oppose it, knowing that, by voting for cloture, they’ve ensured its passage.

    Further, it will take a majority, which there will not be, to strip immunity. It would take a supermajority to fix the bill so it doesn’t allow snooping on Americans without oversight. That won’t happen either.

    All this with Democratic “control” of Congress — especially the House — and with an overwhelmingly popular “new politics” leader in Obama, who could have stopped this if he’d cared to.

    Enjoy the kabuki theater, but you really should learn something about the games Congress plays before suggesting anybody shouldn’t react to outrageous operation.

  • No politician has ever missed being elected by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

    Go Obama! Next he’ll probably endorse Bush’s tax cuts

  • Can people please get off his back over FISA? I realize some on the Left think it was the Holy Grail but this is exactly why the Left doesn’t win (I’m on the Left myself, btw). He made the smart move politically, he just cut off a potentially potent line of attack from the repubs in the fall campaign and he’s driving the Right crazy. If he doesn’t do what he’s doing on FISA they would have run ads on all over VA, OH, PA, MO, FL, NC, MI the entire fall about how Obama’s making it easy for terrorists. They will run those ads anyway but moves like this help innoculate him from the attack which is why he’s driving them crazy.

    Embrace the campaign and understand that they are trying to win. Political purity does us no good if we lose. I would trade some deft political moves and imperfection over losing in November everytime at this point.

    McCain cannot win. End of story.

  • Dresden,

    Sorry, but the changes to FISA are a large step in the direction of a surveillance state. Ceding more power to government may sound good to you, since you believe your guy will win.

    When you give up on the principle of limits on governmental power — and that’s what this FISA “reform” amounts to — and when you allow corporations to act illegally at the behest of the president — and that’s what retroactive immunity amounts to — then you are a huge step closer to an elective dictatorship.

    I’m not interested in electing a dictator, even a benevolent one. It’s contrary to the spirit of this country. That you don’t understand that this isn’t about winners or losers, but about the rule of law and limits on governmental power, is your problem. Don’t expect any agreement from me.

  • Let’s look at the practical aspects of this bill — ignoring the ‘telecom immunity’ position and concentrating on the 4th Amendment portions.

    First, whatever the bill says, whether it was passed or not, does anyone imagine that this would change the actions of the Bush Administration over its last six months? (This is why he is so willing to threaten to veto it — becuase he’ll act the way he has whether the bill is passed or not.) The 4th Amendment has been ignored pretty totally already, this won’t matter one bit.

    Second, will this in any way inhibit the Obama Administration from investigating what occurred? No. He, and Congress will have the same power to compel testitmony that they already had — and civil immunity does not mean that a witness can refuse to testify before Congress — in fact, it makes compelling their testimony easier because they cannot claim that the matter is part of a pending law suit.

    Third, can Obama be trusted not to misuse these powers the way George Bush misused his supposed powers. If he can’t be trusted, he isn’t worth voting for in the first place. But in fact, I have seen no evidence that he would misuse these powers, he has already promised to cancel any of Bush’s executive orders that violate the Constitution as his first act in office, and just in case he should be tempted, a law passed in one Congress can be repealed by the next — a Congress that will have much, much larger Democratic — and progressive — majorities.

    Fourth, why did Pelosi bring it up in the first place? Because she has been around long enough to watch the Republicans twist things, and she knows that a cry that ‘we wanted to give the President powers to protect us, but the Democrats wouldn’t let it come to a vote’ might just be enough to swing some districts to the Republicans. (In fact, I think she, like most people, underestimates the size of the Democratic Tidal Wave coming, but I understand her caution.) And remember, all those who have been condemning her for not moving in a more agressive way, exactly how small her majority is — and even more importantly, because of the numerous ‘blue dogs’ that make up that majority, remember that she may not have an ‘ideological majority’ on her side. This will change next Congress, but she can only work with who she has now. (Despite the Republican attempt — and failure — to establish a semi-Parliamentary system where the majority stayed in line on almost all votes, Democrats, rightly, don’t act that way.)

    And the majority in the Senate is composed of Joe Lieberman and the Nelsons, and few moderate Republicans to balance them off. (Again, this is why the ‘impeachment fantasies’ were always just that. Again, i challenge anyone who supports this, or condemns Pelosi for not attempting it and taking it off the table, to name me the 17 Republican Senators who would be needed — assuming every Democrat voted for conviction — who could possibly be convinced to vote to convict.)

    As for other supposed examples of Obama ‘running to the right’ these seem to exist merely in the minds of McCain and some commentators. His position on Iraq is precisely the same as it has been from the beginning. His position on the recent death penalty case might be regrettable — I oppose him both as a total opponent of the death penalty and because of the practical difficulties that open up if it is allowed for anything other than murder — but it is precisely the same one he has held since his legislative days. His position on ‘faith-based’ programs is also not new — and remember that the idea of such programs receiving government money does not begin with the Bush Administration, but considerably before this. Accepting the idea of them does not mean accepting the absurd and Unconstitutional way in which they were administered in the Bush Administration — such as ‘automatically’ ruling out non-Christian (frequrently non-Fundamentalist) programs and permitting the recipients to prostelytize (sp? I’m rushing this) with the money they received.

    (I’d like to see — to find out how he really feels about Church-State Separation — Obama’s response to the various stories that have been developed by the Mikey Weinstein organization on religious (partoicularly evangelical Protestant) preaching in the military.)

    I want to ask one question of many of you. The ‘Liberal Blogosphere” was developed almost excl;usively in opposition to the worst Administration in American History, and its negativity has certainly been suitable to that — if the name calling and exaggerations at times haven’t — but have you forgotten what it is like to be positive or hopeful, or have you lost all belief in the Democracy you profess to support — a system that creaks, staggers, and stutters, but seems to eventually ‘get there’ in the end?)

  • On FISA, I think the nightmare scenario keeping Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats awake at night is a terrorist attack between now and November. No matter how it goes down, you know, you just know that the GOP will find a way to blame it on the Dem’s FISA stance if they don’t get something passed now on FISA . Hell i wouldn’t put it past some of Cheney’s thugs to rig some attack. And the public would have eaten it all up. Lets face it, we have a long way to go to retrain the press corps and the public to not rally to the strong but wrong guys in a national security emergency. Given human nature, we may never do so.

    The other unfortunate reality is that we have Blue Dog caucus that keeps us from getting the right bill passed. So the Dems had two options: hold out for a better bill until after the elections when the Dem majority will have increased and take the terrorist attack risk; or pass a flawed bill now and play it safe. I don’t like it, and you can tell from Obama’s statement that he doesn’t like it much either. But that is the bet they are making, and we won’t know until november if it paid off.

  • nathan: You said what i did much more succinctly, but I’ll just add a couple of things. It is not an actual terrorist attack that is the danger — that would change things so totally unpredictably that it isn’t possible to take it into consideration. But the only weapon the Republicans have left is that some people still believe they are stronger in protecting us against terrorism than the Democrats. Why give them a chance to use that weapon by not bringing the bill to a vote?

    And this isn’t a ‘locked in stone’ Constitutional Amendment. We still will have the chance to pass a much better bill come January.

    And again, whatever happened with the bill would not affect Bush’s actions in the slightest.

  • What a load of patronizing bullshit coming from many of the comments here. I must have missed all the “outrage” coming from the left on any thing other than FISA which is a major ordeal and worth all the uproar.

    But I fail to see this centrist crap. With the country having been moved so very far to the right the center is extreme left. If you don’t think so then define it. What is center? Used all the time but few bother to define what that means. What Liassom of NPR calls extreme left dem base is according to the polls is a policy of withdrawal most Americans support…According to the polls most Americans would be classified as extreme left since most want National health care, Iraq withdrawal, are against the new FISA
    capitulation, against permanent tax cuts for the very wealthy,…so what the hell is CENTRISTS?

    The so called “left” (center) has only attacked Obama on his FISA stand. Obama has yet to justify his move to the “right” on FISA since his explanations make so sense and were expertly addressed by Glenn Greenwald, point by point.

    Politically ignorant claim the left is bashing Obama so they can ignore his FISA shift, the same people on the right are using it to say he flip flops from his liberal stand on everything calling it a move to the center. There is no center now that the right wing radicals have dominated the government the past 7yrs.

    To me everything is either left or right, plus or minus Kucinich…this honest, truth telling, progressive liberal should be the progressive’s guiding light.

    Obama has moved to the right on FISA…that’s it. There is no center thanks to the radical right.

  • Dresden wrote

    “He made the smart move politically, he just cut off a potentially potent line of attack from the repubs in the fall campaign a…”

    Geeeez, if a smart move politically these days is to sacrifice an important constitutional amendment to avoid criticism and name calling by the other side, this country is in serious friggin trouble.

    I didn’t support Hillary because I felt that she voted for the Iraq war resolution as a political calculation to look tough and forestall criticism by the Republicans in her quest for the Presidency. I have to vote for Obama because he’s all I have to vote for; but because of this FISA “compromise” I am now unable to view him any more favorably than I do Hillary.

  • I do not care an owl’s hoot whether Obama moves hither or yon. I have to deal with facts and they are very ugly.
    1. The new FISA law substantially increases the power of the administration because the so-called 72 hour “grace period” has been emasculated. The administration can now contest any “no” ruling by the FISA court and the review can take up to four months.
    2. Obama “keeps everything on the table” with regards to Iran and that includes a first strike with nuclear weapons.
    3. Obama is silent on HR 362 which, if passed and acted on with a blockade, is the equivalent declaration of war on Iran. Must be a “clever” war in his opinion.
    4. Obama supports cross-border intrusions from Afghanistan into Pakistan, another example of a “clever” war. Shades of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
    5. As President Obama wants to send two combat brigades to Afghanistan as soon as feasible. The truth is that the resurgence of the Taliban is due to too many foreign soldiers in the country and hence too many civilians being killed.
    6. Obama wants to expand the US army with 65,000 soldiers. For what purpose?
    7. As President Obama will leave American non-combat troops and civilians in Iraq amidst an armed and hostile population. That is asking for disaster. Have we forgotten history’s lesson which shows over-and-over again that insurgencies can be dormant for years only to re-erupt violently as it did in the Philippines? At any time after the so-called 16 month “reduction pregnancy” a President Obama may be forced to send combat troops back into Iraq. He has already publicly stated that he will do this, if necessary, even during the so-called “redeployment”. The first Americans that must be taken out of Iraq are non-essential (for the Armed Forces) civilians. Obama does not get it.
    8. Obama chides the Bush administration for insufficient financial support for the development of new weapons. Does he plan to throw more funds at the weapons builders?
    9. Obama supports the “star wars” anti-ballistic missile program which can always be overcome by a determined opponent. It is more money thrown at the military/industrial complex for nothing. It also starts “dicking” with Russia again.
    10. Obama wants to increase the tax gifts to the uncontrollable monster called “faith based”.
    11. Obama chides President Bush to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Peking. Hey, baby, you do not kick your banker in the balls! You will need the Chinese “bankers” once the war in Iraq becomes known as Obama’s war and you will need to finance your own “special requests”. You should have kept your big mouth shut for once because Chinese have much longer memories than you have.
    The apologetics of Obama are evidently a sorry lot. Let them come forward on this site and demonstrate that even a single one of these eleven points is wrong. They prove, among others, that Obama is not a “peace” but a “war” candidate who has sailed for years under a false flag.

  • First, whatever the bill says, whether it was passed or not, does anyone imagine that this would change the actions of the Bush Administration over its last six months? (This is why he is so willing to threaten to veto it — becuase he’ll act the way he has whether the bill is passed or not.) The 4th Amendment has been ignored pretty totally already, this won’t matter one bit. -Prup

    So the Democratic response to Bush’s decimation of the 4th is to…legalize most of it? How does that make sense?

    And really, we know Bush is ignoring the Constitution. It’s obviously Obama we care about. He should be standing up for it in opposition to Bush.

    This is a really, really weak argument.

    Third, can Obama be trusted not to misuse these powers the way George Bush misused his supposed powers. If he can’t be trusted, he isn’t worth voting for in the first place. -Prup

    Baloney. The best way to trust power won’t be abused it to have strong checks and balances in place, not hope our elected officials won’t abuse them. This bill is designed to limit the checking power of the court on the executive.

    Fourth, why did Pelosi bring it up in the first place? Because she has been around long enough… -Prup

    Because she’s worthless and needs to go. You say she’s been around long enough. I agree. Time to get someone with a spine in her position.

    I want to ask one question of many of you. The ‘Liberal Blogosphere” was developed almost excl;usively in opposition to the worst Administration in American History, and its negativity has certainly been suitable to that — if the name calling and exaggerations at times haven’t — but have you forgotten what it is like to be positive or hopeful, or have you lost all belief in the Democracy you profess to support… -Prup

    You can twist and turn and rationalize all you want. This bill is affront to the Constitution and the country. I’ll not make excuses for a politician just because he has a D after his name or is, on most other counts, a great politician. Even Obama says it starts with us, he takes direction from us, so how, other than exercising our rights to petition and discussing these issues among our peers are we aiding Democracy?

    Or would you prefer we just smile and swallow our disdain? Because that doesn’t sound like Democracy to me.

  • Comments are closed.