What the anti-privatizing Social Security and anti-corporate media consolidation movements showed that even with Republicans in power in the House, Senate, and Presidency the people can "hold their feet to the fire." That's what I mean. Let's get Obama elected, he's the only game in town, and then press him to move our way or we'll dump him in 2012. As for JFK, they did operate a terror war against Cuba even after the Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose. It's probably the lowest point for the Kennedy Administration. But they had to prove to the Right-wing Cubans and their allies that they were just as "tough" on the Commies as the Republicans. Bush was able to sound like a moderate and rule like a fascist -- why can't Obama sound like a moderate and rule like a true progressive? I will be against Obama in a heartbeat if he ever triangulates against the progressive wing of the Democratic party to pass something that the labor unions etc. do not want. He's reaching out to people of faith which is smart because not all of them are gay-bashing, war-loving, Ted Haggards.
"You Can't Always Get What You Want"
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the greatest, most progressive president of the 20th Century. He also tried to stack the Supreme Court and imprisoned 112,000 Japanese-Americans without due process. Does that mean the country would have been better off without Social Security, labor union rights, and should have stuck with Herbert Hoover?
John F. Kennedy is often lauded as the greatest president of the post-World War Two era. He launched a terror campaign against Cuba, defoliated large swathes of South Vietnam, and was slow in responding to the civil rights movement. Would the country have been better off with Richard Nixon?
In 1968, when Robert F. Kennedy ran against Eugene McCarthy the Left viewed Kennedy as a "ruthless opportunist" and a hypocrite whose opposition to the Vietnam War was too little, too late, and who spoke about rights for black people while emphasizing his "law and order" credentials to appeal to rural white voters. But was Nixon better?
The FISA bill, with its immunity for the Telecom corporations, is a travesty and should be filibustered. I disagree with Barack Obama's support of this legislative attack on the U.S. Constitution. It's a betrayal of his claim that he would always uphold the Constitution. Obama says he disagrees with the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the Louisiana death penalty statute. I've always opposed the death penalty and have been horrified when Democratic presidential candidates like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry support this barbaric practice. Obama also apparently thinks the Supreme Court's retrograde ruling on hand guns, which is guaranteed to end up killing thousands of innocent people, was acceptable. I disagree. RFK was killed with a $30 Iver-Johnson revolver, a "Saturday Night Special." I also wanted the Democratic Congress to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. And I wanted Congress to cut off all funding for the Iraq war.
To quote the great 20th Century British philosopher, Sir Mick Jagger: "You Can't Always Get What You Want."
But we still need Barack Obama to win in November.
What Obama has done is obvious: He has attempted to neutralize the Republican attacks. If he voted against the FISA bill the Republicans would have an opening to claim that he is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief because he voted to tie the hands of the president in the epic struggle against terrorism. If he comes out against the death penalty too strongly they'll say he's "soft on crime." And if he opposed the high court's ruling on handguns the NRA and the gun nuts would be energized beyond belief. He's tacking to the center. He's a politician.
The gap between the rich and the poor is wider than it has ever been in American history; the economy has tanked; people are losing their homes; we're in the midst of an energy crisis; the war in Iraq is draining the Treasury; the Constitution is in tatters, and so on, and on and on.
Some among the Left Netroots now seem to want Obama's head on a platter for his recent capitulations. Ralph Nader says Obama has been "talking white." (A black friend of mine asked sarcastically: "Does that mean he's speaking English?") The Left demands "purity." But Realpolitik demands that Obama placate Wall Street to a degree. And we all should recognize that the United States of America is going to continue to be an Empire no matter who is president.
In case you haven't noticed, the Left has been getting its ass kicked for 30 years now, all through the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush era.
Obama is not a socialist who is going to nationalize the banks -- if he were, he would never have gotten close to becoming president. We're not electing Che Guevara.
Compared to Robert Kennedy in 1968, Obama has many political disadvantages. Kennedy had huge name recognition and was already famous when he started his campaign. Nobody knew who Obama was when he started in January 2007 (and his name is foreign sounding to many Americans). Kennedy had a vast personal fortune to draw upon. Until recently when he garnered some book royalties Obama really wasn't even close to being "rich." And RFK was white. Obama has an uphill climb, even with all his successful fundraising, because he is African American and must overcome deep and entrenched racism. (There are a number of racist websites that have popped up targeting Obama and just wait for those white supremacist 527s.) Obama can still lose this thing.
But we might have a chance of electing the most progressive candidate the American political system will allow. After he's elected we will hold Obama's feet to the fire. There will be disappointments. But what's new about that? The Left is always disappointed. At least with Obama we have the potential for real progressive change. The alternative is Bushism without Bush.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
First, let it be understood, we have a co-opted government. What the lever of control is, be it money, personal information, or overt threats, we have very few independent thinking, and acting, legislators. This group includes Dood, Feingold, Sanders, Webb, and Wexler, to name just a few. Outside people like these we are S.O.L.. Obama's capitulation on the FISA bill is wrong no matter how you couch it. Relieving the Telecoms from the possibility of "civil litigation" (which this bill will do), is in essence the whole ball of wax. The level of proof between criminal and civil prosecution is what is at stake here. John Dean stated on "Countdown", this very difference in his defense of Obama's regarding their criminal acts. I truly do understand the workings of politics, as you described in this blog, Joey, but how many times do we have to see the feelings of the majority, who rail against this war and all this administrations missteps and gross manipulations of law, trampled on before we lose all hope. To take this tact, as Barack is doing, only tightens the race, and makes a Repuglican victory more possible. I'm sure that that is not what you want.
"Obama is not a socialist who is going to nationalize the banks "
Joseph, I commend you for recognizing that Obama is a true "Socialist". It is important to understand that Marxist teachings have always taught leaders to say one thing to please the populace and then do whatever they want...once they get into power. This fact should not be a shock to anyone that comments on politics. These teachings have been true for Democrats and Republicans throughout the history of politics. This is even more true in the last several election cycles.
So it shouldn't surprise anyone that Obama or McCain seem to be saying what they think will get them into power. But, with Obama, he has to please a continuance that is seemingly never pleased.
Democrats seem to be the most unhappy, rhetorically violent, and openly highly critical continuance in politics. Obama has his hands full by trying to please this lot of Democrat voters. I see it as an impossible task.
Never the less, Socialist Democrats will support him no matter what he says or does.
This election is a popularity contest in the eyes of Democrats. This election has nothing to do with electing the most important and powerful figure in our free Capitalist society and the free World. It seems that Socialism is all important to Democrats.
I hope that the ideals of Socialism do not rule the day in this next election.
Of course I meant to say constituency ...Not continuance.
How many times is an author going to try to apologize for Obama's lying to me? How many times am I going to have to say "blow it out of your @ss. Why don't you go run tell Nancy and Harry that we don't appreciate Telco legal teams drafting the bill that will give them immunity. This FISA bill passes, buddy boy, count me out. Period. And Vincent Bugliosi has just written a book on the case for prosecuting this criminal and yet you weaklings cry. Spare me.
good bye
Does anyone here wonder why there are only 15 senators voting against this FISA bill? Are you all going to second guess the entire Congress and 85 senators? I trust that Obama knows what he is doing
Furthermore,I don't feel that this issue trumps issues like the energy crisis and the economy. If we don't get those things straightened out, then it won't really matter if someone listens to your stupid phone conversations.
And lastly, if you really want to punish the telecoms, why don't you just give up your cell phone. Hit them in the wallet ehere it counts, not Obama
Big Telecom is, in effect, doing what the executive branch has instructed
them to do, presumably, which is to 'co-operate' with the national security
establishment. Under those circumstances, it does not make too much
sense for 4th Amendment-related suits to be permitted against them (B.T.)
Indeed, the 85 senators know what they're doing (or at least 36 of them do).
I will most definitely second guess this whole bullshit support from the Dems for this FISA bill and my evidence is....Congressma Jay Rockefeller who has received $50,000 in campaign donations from Verizon & AT&T employees in the last year:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html]]
You think he was taking that money over the last year to change things in a way that benefitted the people in his district? Seriously? Please defend his wanton sell out of his people I would love to see the verbal gymnastics necessary to sell your soul to the devil in one fell swoop.
I know my Senator, Sherrod Brown, is concerned with provisions of the bill that allows wiretapping Americans' overseaes conversations without a warrant or probable cause. I trust him rather than some guy taking in tens of thousands of dollars from theT-Com industry.
Furthermore, you are just one more sell out to the American ideal of no search/seizure without a warrant. And lastly that makes you one of those people so willing to give up liberty for security or as the Republicans might say...an appeaser. Ouch. But true.
Most Democrats in Congress are gutless centrists or conservatives, so it's no surprise they would support this bill, as they've done with so many other disastrous pieces of legislation. Most of them voted for the Iraq war and continue to vote its funding to this day. Are you happy with that, too? Because it's a majority of them, must it mean they're right and not to be questioned? Grow a spine.
Bush doesn't compromise but he sure gets things done, albeit criminal, anti-American things. That's what compromise means to me, nothing happening because it's easier to give in, just like everybody else.
If he opposes FISA, he's only open to the attacks you cite if he allows the right to frame the issue.
The whole point of Obama SHOULD be exercising an enormously energized base to reframe the issue properly: The agencies don't need an expansion of FISA -- or absolved corporate criminals -- in order to do their jobs. They can already tap anyone they want -- without a warrant for up to three days! There is already a process to get this done.
That's the reframe. He's got the money, the intellect and the support to do it. Just not the confidence, apparently. He made it to the finals, he's the strong odds-on favorite, and all of a sudden he's changing up his game?!? What's that all about?
Thank you AuntSally, you put the whole thing in exactly the correct perpsective. Brava!
"You Can't Always Get What You Want"......."But IF You Try Sometime, You Just Might Find You Get What NEED"
Th Left needs to pull the Center away from the Right. Why is it never said that" the conservatives have ALWAYS been wrong" ?? Buckley, Perle, Kristal, Will, Krauthammer have tried to rewrite history to their liking (to push the center to the right), and MSM force feeds the American pubic their crap under the guys of fairness.
Once in office, I doubt we the people will be able to hold his feet to the fire. Right now, while he's running, we might have a chance. He needs to hear from us. Call his Senate office, leave a message. If you're lucky, a real live person will answer. 202-224-2854. Raise hell, fire the feet.
Right up front I have to say if he votes for the Telecom immunity I will be very disappointed.
I don't think this is an issue to "jump ship" over, but yes it is a disappointment. When I (or anybody) would say that Obama and Hillary ( again she is voting just like Obama on the Telecoms) were just about the same on the issues you would get attacked for even suggesting such at thing. And I fully understood that she was not only running to the middle she was politically in the middle. What did Obama ever say to make anybody think that he was a liberal? The left projected everything they felt or thought onto Obama and now the reality is quite different. Compromise is not a sin -- It is a reality of Democracy. We already have a President who does not compromise. Do we need another one?
Of course, if he really was this fire brand liberal he would never get elected and then where would we be?
I AM voting for Obama.
It may not be in your mind for an issue to motivate you to 'jump ship' over but it should be an issue that motivates you to call his campaign and get pissed off about.
If you wait till he's in office, it's too late. He's already got your support and your vote and he has no reason to be concerned with your concerns. That' just how it works. Stop being such a pushover.
What leverage do we have as regular folks to hold Obama's feet to the fire after he is elected? Nada. We let him know how we feel about the FISA issue now while he needs our money, our volunteer time and our vote.
I don't know what school of negotiation you come from Mr. Palermo; but I've never heard of giving up your leverage, letting the deal go through, then going back and asking for what you want as a successful model for negotiation. Maybe that explains why Democrats have been so lousy at dealing with the Republicans. They put all their cards on the table then ask the Republicans to fold. Then they cry foul when they don't. Stupid and weak.
Now you're asking voters to do the same thing. You promise Obama and the Democrats will do right by us if we just elect them. You want us to put all our cards on the table and hope that they fold. We've seen our civil liberties compromised by Republicans with the help of gutless Democrats for 7 years now: the Patriot Acts, The Military Commissions Act, The Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Act and so on. All bills that should have filibustered by Democrats but no...
If ya hadn't noticed the Republicans have been filibustering their asses off since 2006. They don't leave their cards on the table. I'm not about to either.
I think that it is a simple point to say that you can still support Obama AND be disappointed in his position on the so called FISA "compromise" at the same time. I also agree with Mr. Eskew and Glenn Greenwald that a strategy of "move to the center" could backfire by making Obama look wishy washy. I hope the brilliant campaign organization that got the Sen. the nomination doesn't blow it by following conventional wisdom that usually proves less wise than conventional.
Obama, a foreign sounding name? Obama is a fine, old Irish name.
Quibble: We found out how it would have been if Nixon had beaten JFK when tricky Dick beat Humphrey to replace LBJ. Nixon's dirty tricks led to peace with honor in 'Nam after the bug out from the US embassy in Saigon & ended with Nixon resigning. Watergate defined RMN.
First let me say that I am an Obama supporter. Even more so after his FISA support.
Second, let's lay to rest one gross misconception.
The new FISA Measures have ZERO Constitutional conflicts. They do not target Americans and there are actually enhanced protections for American citizens. I have read the entire House FISA measure so I speak with some authority on this. If necessary, I can quote the relevant sections.
So, that argument is moot. There are ZERO Constitutional conflicts with the new FISA measures.
Now, the argument of Telecom Pardon/Forgiveness. Let me say that "immunity" is a misnomer because retroactive immunity is illegal.. There is ample legal precedence, however, to establish that forgiving a person or entity for doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
Regardless, I view this as a judgment call. And, since Obama clearly has more information of the circumstances than I do, I will trust his judgment.
Besides, let's face it.. The vast majority of the Left really don't care what the Telecoms did. They just want a shiny new baseball bat with which to beat the Bush Administration with...
Also, consider this.. What if it could be unequivocally proven that what the Telecoms gave up allowed to Bush Administration to thwart a major terrorist attack that would have killed hundreds. Would that change your mind about things??
Michale.....
Unpersuasive. The Constitution's protections are rarely limited to citizens; certainly, they aren't in the Fourth Amendment.
No, my mind would not have been changed by a terrorist attack. This old line about preventing terror attacks does not justify violating the principles our nation were founded on. I for one refuse to trade my freedom for a false sense of security that will put this country on the slippery slope to facism. I am pretty sure the government is tapping our phones and emails anyway but I would never support any legal invasion of the right to privacy. You can be a super patriot and believe this wiretapping won't be used on U.S citizens if you want. I for one will not drink the FISA kool-aide that you and others are peddling.
So, have you discussed this with the 15 Democratic senators that disagree with you? I am not denying your right to your position, but where do you specifically disagree with those 15 senators some who will filibuster this bill?
Again Michale, you completely misrepresent this FISA Bill. It allows for surveillance of overseas communications of American citizens without a warrant or probable cause. The 4th Amendment is part of The Constitution, which states that all searches/seizures require probable cause and a warrant. So your statement that this FISA bill has zero Constitutional conflicts is patently false.
I'm kind of getting tired of finding you on various boards on this blog to correct your false statement to this effect, you've got your (R) talking points down pat but that doesn't make them factual. Enough with the propaganda already.
This is rationalization. Not support.
Great point Spox, I think there's going to be something like 140 million people voting, it's a huge country and any presidential candidate is going to have to play his or her cards intelligently -- as Obama is doing. We must remain realistic. I knew the Left would start doing this because the Left does it every time, some people want purity, but from studying the Kennedys and FDR I can tell you that there is no such thing as "purity" -- just politics -- but the issues facing this country today are too important to lose another election because a couple hundred thousand people don't like gays and lesbians or think someone is going to take their guns away.
Mr. Palermo, where did you stand on Sen. Clinton and her embrace of a mix of liberal (universal health care) and more moderate (foreign policy) positions? Were you as forgiving of her? I do not recall your previous posts on her, but I why it is ok to give Obama a pass but not Clinton previously?
Loading comments…
Last night, John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis...
UPDATE: A day after Roseanne's blogs from below...
Update: Keith Olbermann had Rachel Maddow on "Countdown" Tuesday night to celebrate...
"How honest are we if we tell the truth most of the time &...
I must admit that listening to McCain answer Pastor Rick Warren's questions...
Posted June 27, 2008 | 03:51 PM (EST)