As a young voter I still am going to support the Senator 100% but I have to say I am a bit disappointed. I'm also doubtful he will be able to get immunity removed from the bill, but you never know. Reading the blogs has been realllllllly depressing today. What does everyone think?

I think you should call your Senators and encourage them to join Dodd & Feingold in opposing the bill as it now stands. If either of them is up for re-election this year, you might want to let him/her know that you're keeping this vote in mind when it comes to deciding which candidate will get your vote. AND tell everyone you know to call his/her Senator and do the same.
Don't be nervous about calling - these people work for you and you have the power to fire them. They know that - or they should - but a little reminder, or kick in ass, every once in a while is good.

I do think that Obama deserves a jab on this, or worse. He may feel he's in a lose/lose situation in terms of how he responds to this issue. Don't worry though: the Atrios wanker award will have no impact on the election, but partisan hammering on Obama (and more slander) by corporate media could have a large effect on the election. I say "could" because I think Obama is more than capable of turning the illegal spying issue back around on the Republicans and Blue Dogs. He could easily characterize them as unpatriotic cowards who prefer Sadaam's methods of governing to Jefferson's. It's a pity that Obama or his advisors seem to think he's not capable of that feat.

My previous paragraph wasn't entirely coherent, but I've gotta run now. Ta-ta.

What is sad about his overtly political position on FISA is he didn't have to do it. Newsweek has him trouncing McCain in the polls. Sadder still, the right wing will sanctimoniously state that Obama has abandoned his most ardent supporters and they will be correct, no smear. I think he and his campaign were punked.

I think I have an idea of what he is trying to do here, though it hinges on the immunity provision being taken out. If he can get that killed, the President will no doubt veto the bill, in which case he can accuse the President and McCain (who would probably criticize Obama) of not caring about our security and only about the corporations. Of course, he has to get that provision killed, and I have difficulty seeing how he can do it.

I read your post last night, Bob, and could not have disagreed more fervently...It has been our express responsibility as citizens to question our leadership since the publication of the Federalist Papers. I hear you when you say that we have little choice at this point than to vote for Obama; but for many it will no longer be without the reservations that I, apparently, alone possessed. He just stabbed his starry eyed, young folks base in the back, and for that he is definitely a wanker. No Constitutional scholar worth his salt would voluntarily vote to gut the Fourth Amendment regardless of how he feels about the retroactive immunity provisions.

Further (sorry to be a bore) he is apparently running ads for John Barrow here in Georgia AGAINST his more progressive opponent. Does this sound familiar? Kind of like his support for Lieberman over Lamont in '06? BTW, Barrow is on your list of additional "cowards" in your post below. Way to generate excitement among his Progressive allies here in what appears to have become a new swing state.

Nippers -- You're not a bore. I appreciate your comments, though I respectfully disagree...

>>He just stabbed his starry eyed, young folks base in the back, and for that he is definitely a wanker.

Why? He pledged to try to remove the retroactive immunity. That's what makes this bill so awful. And he wants it OUT.

>>No Constitutional scholar worth his salt would voluntarily vote to gut the Fourth Amendment

He didn't vote for anything.

>>Further (sorry to be a bore) he is apparently running ads for John Barrow here in Georgia AGAINST his more progressive opponent.

I'm trying to figure out this move by the Senator. My hunch is that it's all about "the devil you know." Have you seen that episode of 'The West Wing' when this same situation comes up?

>>Kind of like his support for Lieberman over Lamont in '06?

Senator Obama endorsed Lamont during the general election.

Don't lose hope, Nippers. Senator Obama is a once-in-a-generation candidate. But he's not perfect. They never are and no-one promised that Senator Obama would be.

I read on Kos that he is going to release a new statement tonight. But then again, it is the internet, so I'm not sure if I can believe that. Plus it was on the comments...

I'm equally disappointed, and all of the "he's gonna get that immunity removed" talk on the more fervent pro-Obama blogs (not to pigeonhole you, Bob) reminds me a little bit of the end of 'Newsies', when Christian Bale breaks his own strike and the little kid insists to everybody that "he's foolin' 'em!". Insisting that he's going to work to get the immunity removed, without making it a deal-breaker, is kind of fruitless. The only way we have the power to make demands is if there are consequences for not meeting them. If the consequence is "we'll vote for it anyway", then where's his authority coming from?

Oh, I'll still vote for him, still work and support and everything. But if he'd actively fought this bill, then he'd be truly inspirational, and truly -new- for politics, in all the best ways. Instead he's a politician making a political decision. I can't fault him for that, but it's important to acknowledge.

--d

Bob:
1. Retroactive immunity aside, this is still a horrible bill. If effectively takes oversight of spying away from the courts. Not something I trust this Administration (or any other) with. This is, essentially, Congressional approval of the Unitary Exectutive Theory. And, given the Precedential nature of our legal system and the unwillingness of the courts to intervene in what it considers political matters, not an idea that should even have been entertained.
2. He has said that if he cannot get immunity stripped from the bill he will (future tense) still vote for it.
3. Obama supported Lieberman. An irony not lost on his campaign given Lieberman's recent actions.
No one ever said he was perfect, just different. I see no differences in this panty wetting exercise between Dem leadership and the new Dem leader. Given the last two years of "change we can believe in" I am just saying that I have reservations. The point is moot anyway. I don't vote for overt fascists.

I too am disappointed in Senator Obama's statement. But after I sat and thought about it for a minute, I realized that there wasn't much else he could say.

Polls are starting to go his way, we haven't heard a scandal du jour since he left his church and things are starting to fall into place. Coming out against this bill in harsher tones than necessary would have fanned flames that are dying out.

He's stuck between a rock and a hard place and it's the House Democrats who put him there. The anger should lay with Hoyer and Pelosi and any representative that voted in favor of this bill (including mine, unfortunately), not with Obama.

Contact your Senators and let them know how you feel. This thing can be beaten on the Senate floor... does anyone hear Chris Dodd pulling out his filibuster guns?

I'll have to end it here since I'm still at work, but when I get home, I'll continue my thoughts in a more cohesive manner, which you can catch on my blog.

>>He has said that if he cannot get immunity stripped from the bill he will (future tense) still vote for it.

He didn't say any such thing.

Bob, I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Digby on this. He is the heir presumptive to lead the Democratic Party and almost certainly the next President of the United States. There was a lot of validity to that silly SNL skit a few weeks ago. No one wants to get in the way of the next President and the currying of favor on the Hill is an art form unto itself.
If he had wanted this FISA thing scuttled we would not be having this conversation.

He's stuck between a rock and a hard place and it's the House Democrats who put him there. The anger should lay with Hoyer and Pelosi and any representative that voted in favor of this bill (including mine, unfortunately), not with Obama.

He's not really stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's not like he'd be leading a charge to mandate that Rev Wright perform abortions on female soldiers, it's an issue on which -we're in the right-. As the game-changer he's proven to be thus far, he could fight the frame of it as "Democrats are weak on terror unless they give us what we want" and change the tone of the controversy. He's a constitutional law professor and the most remarkable political orator in my lifetime- he could fight this instead of being like, "oh, fuck, guess I'm stuck now".

The House Democrats are absolutely to blame, but it's disappointing that Senator Obama isn't leading right now. He could lead.

--d

I can't get over the feeling of utter betrayal. It's really as if they are not even members of our party, but instead some treasonous Democratic Replicons placed in office by the very administration we are trying to check every day. Despite all the opposition by the people, disregarding the flooding of the Congress with emails, faxes and phone calls, our leadership has passed this bill that I can only describe as malevolent. I can't shake the feeling that this is almost the final nail in the coffin of the grand experiment started 200 years ago. It is a seismic shift away from what the founders intended like no other we've experience so far. I know that sounds overly dramatic and doomsday, but to me there is no clearer indication that we are not the same country we were even just yesterday. We have literally flayed Liberty and wear it's skin as a gruesome facade while lecturing the rest of the world on how democratic we are.
What's more, opposing this bill is an easy win for Barack Obama, and he took a cautious pass. There is more ugliness to this bill than just the granting of immunity to the telecoms. It is wholly unnecessary as the current FISA law provides the tools necessary to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists.
Yes, House Democrats are too blame, along with the Senate Democratic leadership. This has been in the offing for months. While the blogosphere was occupied, roiling over the continued presence of Hillary Clinton in the campaign, these bottom dwellers were putting the finishing touches on this legislation almost certainly in communication with each other and, most horrifyingly, probably with the House Republicans and the White House.
What's most sad is the idea that perhaps the Democratic leadership is going along for the ride, as they do with any request from the White House, so as to not appear cowardly during an election year. As always, however, the press conference was hardly over before they were branded as just that, cowards, by the Republicans as they crowed about getting even more than they had originally asked for.
For all that they are to blame for, Barack Obama could have announced complete opposition to the bill and unleashed another torrent of emails, phone calls and faxes upon our House leadership.

Instead, he took a cautious pass. Harry Reid will not strip telecom immunity from the Senate version. The very fact that he mentioned doing something he had no balls (or desire - he's happy to help that industry out) to do the last time tells me it's no more than lip service.

I don't want Barack Obama to take a cautious pass on this. In addition to bombarding Congress like we did the last time, I think we should make our feelings known to the Obama campaign as well. Perhaps not with the same fury, but definitely let him know how we feel. From the House Leadership, we'll get the same cowardly response we always do, but from Barack Obama I think we'll get more. I think he'll listen.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:

Remember me? YesNo

Comments: