Netroots Activist: Obama Win Would Be Victory For "Centrist Government"

Washington Post:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama put himself on the opposite side of his party's leadership in the Senate yesterday by reversing course to support a compromise intelligence surveillance bill. His vote was the most dramatic in a series of moves toward the middle that have focused new attention on where he stands and where he would take the country.

. . .

One factor in Obama's success has been his ability to confound both left and right. But while that may be a measure of a skillful politician determined to win a general election, it has left unanswered important questions about his core principles and his presidential priorities. How well he answers them over the coming months will determine the outcome of his race against Republican Sen. John McCain.

Statements he has made over the past month have ignited a debate about who Obama is ideologically. His current policy positions have convinced some progressives that he is not one of them. Matt Stoller, editor ofOpenLeft.com, said that an Obama win in November would be a victory for "centrist government," adding: "Progressives are going to have to organize for progressive values."

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[PumaAnn]

I never heard Obama be clear on a single policy question during the primary. I could never quite understand the progressive idea that he was anything new or different, other than his slogans. I suppose some will complain that he baited and switched on them, but really, I don't think he did at all.

Take Iraq. Samantha Powers outted him in her interview. Nafta, same thing happened.

The flip on election campaign finance pleased a lot of progressives, and it shouldn't have. Either one stands by principles or not. Can't cherry-pick.

Mostly what we know now is that he will say one thing and change his mind, depending on the situation. That's consistently been the case.

[lorla]

This is the first article I have seen that shows someone is finally actually listening to what O has been saying since Dreams of My Father.
He has been saying that the most effective tool citizens have is organizing. He has been telling us for the whole campaign to organize, and he has given all of us a free seminar if you volunteer for his campaign. He has been giving us the answer all along, as well as the forum to voice it, on his website, and this ost is the first I have seen that is actually contemplating it's power.
BO-08

[imsosure]

Good

[LiberTLover]

And a John McCain presidency would be a resounding victory for Netroots activists?

[research]

No constitutional law professor could vote for the 67 days of warrant less spying that the new FISA bill gives BushCo.

Thus, Obama must be being blackmailed.

BushCo must have gotten dirt on him via all their illegal wire taps and internet spying.

Even as president, Bush rove and Cheney can continue to blackmail him. How centrist can he be?

I'll still vote for him, but the FISA spy on Americans issues is non-negotiable.

Kucinich is the only man in DC looking out for what American want. Impeachment and the rest.

Kucinich, Cindy Sheehan and other real democrats will get the rest of my campaign contributions.

[tbone99]

His compromises have not been compromises because truth be told, progressives got NOTHING .

No Universal healthcare, no end to govn'mt surveillence, no end to NAFTA, no end to billions to telecoms, no end to billions to Isreal , no end to government financed religious outreach, a probable change in reproductive rights, no end to NCLB, no end to billions to agribusiness, no end to vouchers and reiteration of a stronger death penalty. Withdrawl from Iraq will require further "assessment" In light of his about face on FISA, don't hold your breath..

Compromise suggests that both sides get something. All we've got is a historical "first" ( Condi Rice could have provided us with two "firsts" & essentially the same platform) and some dried up hope on the floor.

[RTIII]

If we "moved as far left as is possible for the U.S.," it's STILL a position that's clearly at most centrist and probably a little bit to the right of center. There IS NO LEFT in the USA. What we call left is the dead center in most countries - look to south America and Europe to see what a REAL left looks like.

Instead, all our lables are shifted to the right so they fit what we _do_ have. We have the far right, which remains far right, and what we call centrist is well right of center. And what we call left is the center everywhere else.

Obama is clearly a right of center candidate. He's no progressive, that's for sure.

He may still be a change agent, but after 8 years of the most destructive rule in our history, we need so much repaired, we need a "FAR LEFT" perspective just to try and get back to where we were.

Most of you have no perspective, probably because most of the US has never traveled abroad or studied other societies. To have a clue what right and left are you need to see how others do things.

It wouldn't hurt if we picked up some good ideas from our neighbors, too, like Universal SINGLE-PAYER Health Care, instant-ru­noff-votin­g, among many others...

[WorkingClass]

There are a few Americans who know right from left. We are very lonely.

[globalcitizenlinda]

Some in the liberal community are tood used to loosing presidential elections that they are determined to try and add Obama to their historical political failures

[milo9]

If he loses it'll be his fault not ours. Say what you mean and mean what you say, that would be a new direction.

[SickoPoliticos]

Maybe the Centrists or lobbyist will now fund his campaign.

I know I'll never contribute another dollar to this liar! I prefer someone who can't remember today what was said yesterday over a liar.

[milo9]

To all the Constitution shredding, Obama apologists, I say this: We're angry because to restore our Constitution we'll have to use $5.00/gal gas to fill up our Molotov Cocktails. If you pukes would have done your patriotic duty, we wouldn't be forced to such extreme measures. Bon Appetit!

[leftoflennon]

I'm progressive but this is tooo much.

They need to quit the WHINING!

[j0em0mma]

Defending the Constitution is not whining. And I don't believe you'd be stating it thusly if you were. And, describing it thusly is AD HOMINEM. Look it up.

[JohnTalbutt]

Joe, I really think you are a good guy and I don't but when you call people "sickos" and then accuse them of AD HOMINEM, it is funny..

[TruthHasSpoken]

It's all they do best, just let them whine. They are exercising the only constitutional freedom they remember.

[j0em0mma]

gawd u guys are sickos....

[williamg]

Ned Lamont must be furious. Remember him?

[wayoutleft]

tom delay must be a fat greaseball. remember him? jack abramoff must have his funny hats in a storage bag. remember him? larry craig must be a republican senator. you maybe read the same magazines. no?

[williamg]

Let's see, I have donated money to 6 candidates and organizations in my lifetime -- DNC, Moveon.org, Howard Dean for America, Barack Obama, and Robert Wexler and some Congressman running for reelection in Kentucky who endorsed Obama. I worked as an Obama precinct captain in the California primary, and traveled to Las Vegas to volunteer for him during the Nevada Caucuses.

In the 3 Presidential elections I have voted in, I have voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry. I voted for Hillary Clinton for Senate when I lived in New York. Since then, I have moved to California, and voted for Diane Fienstein and Barbara Boxer.

Not exactly the Republican type, don't ya think?

And today, I dare mentioned Lamont's name, and I'm branded as some sort of nutty Republican.

Some members of my party are as intolerant as the people on the far-right.

[TruthHasSpoken]

FISA teary eyed liberals (You signed it away 30yrs ago not yesterday):

I know the pundits have caught your attention for ratings. Here are a few things you need to understand. The president was already protected under article 2 during the time of war that was supported by the war vote. Since the fisa bill of 1978 the telecoms were already protected from immunity. The problem then was that the communication then was by phone or RF, today with sophisticated technology like emails, txt messages, etc they had their hands tied. Since the new wording wasn't in the old fisa bill this administration under article 2 in the time of war could still spy and the telecomms were still presented with their immunity. A lot of times this spying could be done without the fisa court still relying on the article. The problem here is not the president but the war vote without this the president wouldnt have the article 2. The solution with O and others took was to have court see through all the spying measures by making provisions for new technology and the compromise was civil immunity. Get a grip..

[j0em0mma]

I fail to see how the age of an unconstitutional law has any relevance? What's wrong with conservatives, they used to believe in the Constituti­on... Guess you're not from the William F. Buckley crowd... know what that means? You're a big government liberal, fiscally at least. Your group has done nothing but increase spending and violate your own conservative identity. Kudos! I love being lectured by a person who doesn't even understand his own political philosophy­...

[JohnTalbutt]

William F Buckly was an unreconstructed McCarthite who found some respect for the Constitution in his later years but long after giving whole hearted support for an unconstitutional war.

It would be great if the telecoms had no civil immunity. And civil suits do have some role in upholding the Constitution. NYC makes illegal searches and pays off when they do get sued. Hundreds of people who were illegally seized in the vicinity of the Republican Convention in 2004.

But, with all due respect to Sen Feingold, it is defeatist and inaccurate to view this vote as some watershed.

[TruthHasSpoken]

Isn't that why we had amendments in the first place? Times change and so should policies and ethical rights. When the cops get a warrant to search your house do you argue its a violation of your bill of rights? There are 300million people here and not everyone is good intentioned. The FISA courts were set up in the 70s to filter some of nuts with a warrant from the courts. I believe if it was 6and (1/2) years ago you would value your safety more. Like the way 70% of you supported the Iraq vote, look at this issue also in the long term of your protection within the law. By the way I am an Independent.

[wayoutleft]

sounds like change we can believe in to me. sign me up. i for one am all inspired again. where can i get a bumper sticker with that on it. (i drive a bus). or a t-shirt (i'm really fat). or maybe your girl has a t-shirt with an arrow that says "i'm with the fisa legislative history expert". invesco field- here i come!!

[Eoin45]

TruthHasSpoken, you get my vote for the most arrogant moniker ever used here.

[wayoutleft]

it's interesting because "truth" is an abstraction. "truth" per se can't speak. one can speak the truth; but "truth" can't speak. interesting. not neccessarily reassuring as to legal expertise- but interesting.

[wayoutleft]

this is progress toward campaign stability. i appreciate the implicit awareness that the "change" stuff was a con, that "centrism" is the new mantra. everybody is fairly comfortable with the fisa sellout, the bush-inspired faith based poverty slide, the war "refinement" taking the moral dimension of the war off the table, the coming health care "reform" that changes nothing, and splitting social security into rich social security and poor social security. it will all be ok with most of the posters here. for those who were fooled- i'm sorry. he is very inspiring. he is maybe the slickest at transforming social justice causes into his own personal ambition. but now that's over. the game is up. i expect the residue of college cutie enthusiasm, whatever of that survives, to be absorbed into some showboat national service scheme that provides idealistic moral gratification for young whites while leaving the rich free to eat the middle class alive. we may not have long to post before metered internet does to web surfing what gas prices have done to recreational driving. but that will be ok with the center too. because that's precisely what the passive center is: the vast majority that everything's ok with.

[PATina]

the vast majority that everything's ok with.

rewrite: the vast majority that's OK w/ everything.

And I agree. It seems that when the government (or a person in government­... more correctly) does something.­.. the vast majority tend to write it off as there's nothing they can do to change it... then go through various ways of trying to JUSTIFY what was done. Those further to the extremes (right or left)... do believe that something can be done... but have a hard time convincing that 'vast majority in the middle' who are content to do nothing.

[wayoutleft]

sorry. properly chastised. spare me on spelling too... i go for the syntactical punch at the expense of the frequent dangling participle­... i'll cop to dangling participles. i am in peer review hell anyway.

[thromulese]

It is very interesting that during the primary Hillary was demonized for her “centrist” ideas and her connection to DLC, which is reviled by the progressives (myself included). Now we have Obama giving off the same stink, but he’s doing it after we “bought” the product.

Seems like Hillary presented her true self (which the liberal wing roundly criticized) during the primary while Obama hid his true centrist views till he had the nomination. Obama is not what he said he was. If he was a product, we could sue for false advertising.

[olivia]

Which of H's selves was her true self?

It was hard to keep track.

[Biracial1]

I remember bi-partisanship, working across the isles... You heard what you wanted to hear; don't get mad because YOU didn't do your research.

[j0em0mma]

Here's a little research for ya:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.­"

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php

Now what?

[JohnTalbutt]

When you say "we" you are trying to fly under a false flag. Just admit you were against Obama and for HIllary all along and then your opinions might be worthy of respect if not credence..

[Eoin45]

"Obama is not what he said he was. If he was a product, we could sue for false advertisin­g." You heard what you wanted to hear. I've never been under the illusion that Obama was a progressive. The primary thrust of his message to me was that he wasn't going to be pidgeonholed by the old paradigms. And, I agree with Talbutt. What do you mean "we"? As for Hillary's true self, would that be the one who caught that sniper fire?

[j0em0mma]

Coulda sworn I heard him say this:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.­"

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php

[PATina]

Except the other day he called himself a Progressive. So is he a progressive and YOU only saw the centrist you wanted to see?? OR is Sen. O lying about being a progressive??