Exactly my thoughts when I read that on HuffPo. What is he doing?

Why?? He is killing me. He could win this, but he's going to lose. And I'm going to sink. This country is going to sink.

You're fucking kidding me.

I'm moving to France. Later!

And he pulled the ol' announce it on a Friday night maneuver.
Goddammit this is some disheartening shit...

Maybe, just possibly, the "ridiculous, contrarian-left, pro-Nader movement"arians had a point?

First FISA and then this, what is he thinking?

Every compromise involving the environment means the environment loses. I am not impressed with Obama on this, but he may be right in sensing the temper of the low-information american voter.
We know all of McCain's election promises are empty. I hope this one from Obama is as well.

>>"Maybe, just possibly, the "ridiculous, contrarian-left, pro-Nader movement"arians had a point?"

I didn't call the Nader people ridiculous did I?

Just because we disagree with the senator on these couple of issues doesn't make him poisonous.

Hey, remember, our guy has to get elected first. Frankly, if he's just "shifting" here to appease the lesser-read folk who think drilling is a good idea, then he can "shift" back when he's president.

Let's not get carried away by what appears to be Clintonian triangulating. Senator Obama is running one of the smartest campaigns in history -- he's a smart man who has surrounded himself with smart and capable people. I don't think the Senator woke up Friday morning and said "You know, I think drilling is good, in spite of all the evidence I've seen to the contrary!" Maybe he's triangulating, and maybe he's pandering, but if it gets him instead of McCain elected, fine by me.

Let's get him elected before we give up on him.

The thing is, he doesn't need to pander to get elected.
This is making my hair hurt.

Maybe he's trying to illustrate that his considering drilling is part of a larger energy policy that helps Americans instead of oil companies. He's showing that he can speak intelligently on the subject vs. McCoot's "Off-shore drill now we gotta do it dag-nabbit!"

It doesn't matter. Right now, it's Congress' ban on offshore drilling that's keeping it from happening. Obama could be elected today and announce tomorrow that he's all in favor of it and NOTHING would happen unless Congress votes to reverse its stance. And that doesn't appear to be happening! The Republicans were left talking in the dark (with the cameras off!) the other day when Pelosi adjourned the House because the Democrats wouldn't give on the issue of offshore drilling.
So Obama says he's open to compromise, the same folks who thought the gas-tax holiday was a good idea perk up their ears and maybe lean toward him. That's a good thing. And if our Representatives and Senators hold strong there will still be NO additional offshore drilling.

I apologize for blogwhoring here, but I'm going to do it anyway since my comments on this would otherwise take up too much space here:

http://fifty50blog.blogspot.com/2008/08/now-obama-has-case-of-stupids.html

You know, I have to say you people are surprising me here. You bitch and moan and complain about the dogmatic Right. You also laud Senator Obama for his ability to unite and come together on issues to solve problems. But when he dares to suggest a concession of any kind, even one that's fairly minor (have a look at what he's proposing before you go nuts on it, btw) and you suddenly lapse into "NO CONCESSIONS!!! OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!!! WE'RE RIGHT, THEY'RE WRONG AND TO WORK *WITH* THEM IS TO SHOW WEAKNESS!"

Well I'm sorry, I'm the biggest opponent to offshore drilling you will find and I am one of the biggest proponents of alternative energy there is, but dudes, you HAVE to work on compromises in this political climate our you WILL fail. You can not ram your opinions and policies down the nation's throat you'll simply propagate the same partisan bullshit that we've spent the last 8+ years dealing with.

Obama is smart, he's progressive and he's politically saavy. Why not give him some breathing room and let him do his stuff. That's IS why we like him so much, is it not? Or is it only because you agree with him on everything?

Just askin'...

Electablog: after November, if Obama wins and especially if there is a veto-proof Senate, there is no need whatsoever to compromise with the right wing on a policy that is universally agreed to be useless in increasing energy supply or bringing down energy costs, either now or in the future. This isn't any issue to "work across the aisle" on. The Republicans have only worked across the aisle over the past 25 years to peel off the votes of conservative and so-called moderate Democrats, not to liberalize their own proposals in the slightest.

My point is that nobody has truly worked across the aisle in a very, very long time. Obama is liked, in part, because of his ability to unite people and to bring people from disparate factions together. But, suddenly, once he starts that process, Progressives are shocked and outraged? That bothers me. It shows the same stubborn partisanship that we all criticize conservatives for but it's okay if we do it, apparently, and that's an argument I don't buy.

I *trust* Barack Obama. I believe he has the ability to forge coalitions that will come up with solutions that everyone can live and have far more widespread support than partisan ram-rodding will EVER achieve. C'mon, folks, change means actual change; an actual switch-up in how politics works in Washington, D.C.

Electablog: I agree that it is silly for liberals to express outrage every time they disagree with Obama. And also I've been around long enough, as you have maybe, to remember when the Congress was fairly bipartisan, so I agree that coalitions are necessary to legislate and govern.

My general point would be that there are certain issues liberal politicians should not compromise with right-wingers on because they are central to any progressive agenda. One of those issues, in my opinion, would be trashing of the 4th Amendment through telecom immunity and FISA revisions. Another would be any policy that would prolong the world's energy dependence on fossil fuels, whether pumped from foreign or domestic sources. When Obama panders to the right wing on what I consider to be core issues, it undermines my general trust in him. But I do agree with your general implication that there is too much groupthink on the progressive side, expressed impulsively, as there is in most other sectors of American society (in my opinion).

Yes, Bob, you did. The word ridiculous did not originate with me.

Now that we have "compromised" on NAFTA, CAFTA, FISA, GWOT, The Palestinians, The Iranians, the Afghans, permanent bases in Iraq, mercenaries, Big oil, Big Coal, Wall Street, big insurance, Off budget war funding, gun control, abortion, funding for religious organizations, impeachment and the big F.U. of "if this is a dealbreaker...", I think I can honestly say that he is not "poisonous", he is "change we can believe in."

The question comes to mind, what price is paid for progress if one sells one's soul in the process.

Further (I really, genuinely, hate to be the turd in the pool here, but), what happens when he is constrained by the additional five trillion dollars in debt he had no problem voting for and the Reps spend the next four years raking him over the coals like they did Clinton? When he further "compromises" the Dem brand to the point where no one would ever listen to an actual progressive, what happens then? Another Reagan/Bush I, BushII using the disaster capitalism/shock doctrine to make things even worse? Accommodation is fine, but there really needs to be a line in the sand or the picture becomes so muddy that there really is no difference to vote on. Perhaps it really would be best for us to actually hit bottom; cattle cars and all.

O.K., that was really sick, But you know (hopefully) what I mean.

Finally (yes, I do have a point here), you write a goddamn awesome column. I would like to remind you that Neville Chamberlain was considered a statesman in his day...and then came the blitzkrieg in Poland. When our best writers spend all of their time cheerleading for a Neville Chamberlain when what we need is someone who will tell us to fight on the beaches in defiance of nearly insurmountable odds, then is when I feel the cause is lost.

Obama has never surprised me, you have. You will have your Obama Presidency, I just hope (I really do) that it is not a pyrrhic victory.

Neville Chamberlain? Dude, what are you going on about???

Nippersdad: Neville Chamberlain was not responsible for WWII. Here's a link to a nice 2005 white paper from the U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute that discusses the logical and historic fallacies related to this Chamberlain trope:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB622.pdf

I apologize if my metaphor is not accurate.