In recent weeks, some progressives have been alarmed at Barack Obama - who they fear has "moved to the center" for the general election. They have argued that his recent shifts won't help him pick up "swing voters," but it's clear that Obama is playing pre-emptive defense rather than trying to win new supporters. Obama knows that if he sticks to the progressive rhetoric that helped him win the nomination, a media narrative will take hold that he is running like George McGovern - and the campaign is deftly trying to avoid such a trap. But unlike Bill Clinton's right-wing capitulations in 1996, it's hard to conclude from Obama's recent "shifts" any long-term policy consequences. For those who fear that Obama's posture signals another Clintonian "sell-out," the time to hold him accountable will be after the election - when as President he will be in a position to bring about change. But for now, there hasn't been much to signal such an alarm.
Civil libertarians are furious at Senator Obama's decision to vote for the latest FISA bill - which includes retroactive immunity for phone companies who helped the government spy on American citizens. Obama also took a "centrist" position on two Supreme Court decisions - he condemned the Court's ruling that applying the death penalty to child rapists is unconstitutional, while agreeing with the Court's opinion that struck down the gun ban in Washington DC. And late last week, while maintaining his commitment to end the Iraq War, Obama said he may be flexible about when troops will come home.
Not only are some progressives upset, but a few have concluded it's a losing strategy. "Running to the middle to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000," said Arianna Huffington. "It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008. Fixating on - and pandering to - this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'être of the Obama campaign?"
The trouble with Huffington's logic is that she assumes Obama is doing this to win the sliver of voters who are currently undecided between the two candidates.
But Obama doesn't need those people. Assuming he doesn't bleed support between now and November, Obama has already won the election by any objective standard. What he's really playing between now and November is a game of "pre-emptive defense": don't give McCain any opening to grab a chunk of his voters with a wedge issue, sabotaging what should be a Democratic rout. Not all Obama supporters are progressive, and some are vulnerable to defecting if dynamics change. With four months left, it could still happen.
In July 1988, Michael Dukakis was polling ahead of George Bush Sr. - because enough working-class "Reagan Democrats" had concluded that the Reagan years had not helped them economically. But in one of the nastiest and most negative campaigns in history, the Bush camp persuaded them to vote Republican by elevating Massachusetts' weekend prison furlough program as a prominent campaign issue. We all know the tragic outcome of a Democratic front-runner who refused to play pre-emptive defense, as Willie Horton came to define Dukakis in the eyes of many voters.
It's conventional wisdom that in presidential politics, a candidate courts the party base to win the primary - and then "shifts to the center" in the general election. Obama's camp knows that failing to do so may typecast them as a "McGovern-like" candidate - and as perception becomes reality, a media narrative will take hold that could marginalize their chances. Many progressives will say that Obama is the unconventional transformational candidate who should defy that trend, but the campaign is not taking any chances. The trick now is how to do it without compromising basic progressive principles.
Before dismissing Obama's "move to the center" as a callous betrayal, it's important to assess each action he has taken to determine (a) if it's truly a "shift" in position, (b) what policy consequences - if any - are the result of Obama's "shift," (c) whether he had any power as a candidate to change the outcome and (d) what would happen if Obama took the principled stand that the Left wants him to take.
On Iraq, Obama has suggested he may alter his proposed timetables for withdrawal after an upcoming visit. Here, the policy consequences are tremendous - and there's little backlash for sticking to your guns. But Obama has always said "we should be as careful getting out as we were careless going in" - making it seriously questionable if he has ever "shifted" on this position. Iraq is the most important issue that progressives will have to hold Obama accountable on, but there's little in this recent statement that indicates cause for concern.
On the Supreme Court's ruling that repealed Washington DC's gun control law, Obama issued a statement in support that he believed in a private right to bear arms with some restrictions. This was a "conservative" position that offended gun control advocates, but what would be the impact of opposing the Court's decision? With most voters - and many Obama supporters - believing in a private right to bear arms, McCain could scare rural voters into thinking that Obama will take their guns away. As a candidate, Obama had no power to influence the Court; after their decision, his statement had no impact.
Likewise, commenting on the Court's death penalty decision had no policy consequences within Obama's control. And while many progressives oppose capital punishment under any circumstances, for Obama to take a public position that it's wrong to execute people who rape small children would have been political suicide. The Supreme Court has ruled against the death penalty for child rapists, so it's not likely to be revisited for a while. By saying he disagreed with the decision, Obama deflected any chance that Republicans will paint him as a coddler of child rapists - bringing back racist Willie Horton-like attacks.
Finally, there's the FISA vote that includes telecom immunity. Most Americans agree with progressives, so the backlash for "standing firm" would not have hurt Obama with voters. While some will argue that the policy consequences are huge, retroactive immunity means that telecom companies cannot be sued for their past collusion with the Bush Administration. From a legal standpoint, lost damages for such a potential lawsuit - while emotionally strong - are not likely to be substantial monetarily.
As a U.S. Senator, Obama had a say in the matter - but only one vote, and Congress was going to pass it anyway. Unlike when Bill Clinton chose to sign the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or Welfare Repeal in 1996 in order to play "pre-emptive defense" against Bob Dole, Obama had no power to stop telecom immunity from happening. Progressives upset at the FISA vote should direct their anger at Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress for caving on this issue.
When Clinton repeatedly "moved to the center" in 1996, he signed laws like DOMA and Welfare Repeal that he not only had the power to stop - but that created long-term policy consequences we are still facing today. Welfare ceased to be a "problem" for Democrats because we threw single mothers into the street, while DOMA empowered the religious right to pass hateful amendments across the country. What Obama has done, however, is avoid political fights without permanently crippling the progressive cause. It might make some of his supporters cringe, but it doesn't create lasting policy damage.
After Obama wins in November, progressives must hold him accountable for pushing a positive agenda. For at that point, he'll be in a position of power to change the political reality. Before progressives cry "betrayal" at Obama for issues beyond his control, maybe they should wait until he's actually in a place where he can do something about it.
Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of BeyondChron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily -- where this article first appeared. Outside of regular work hours, he volunteered on Obama's field operation in San Francisco, and ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
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
The simple fact is, HR6304 has passed.
It's law...
Deal with it..
Michale.....
For those of you unfamiliar with HR6304, here is Section 702 that has been mentioned..
``SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.
As you can see, it doesn't apply to US citizens..
However, there are provisions WITHIN 702 that apply to US Citizens, insofar as increasing 4th Amendment protections..
``(b) Limitations.--An acquisition authorized under subsection
(a)--
``(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the
time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
``(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably
believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose
of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person
reasonably believed to be in the United States;
``(3) may not intentionally target a United States person
reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
``(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to
which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the
time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
``(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
As you can see, it's very specific in it's protections of American citizens.
CONT
Yes. The specific protection is they have to say "Oops" when they toss out the 4th amendment.
So, your contention is that the government won't obey the law anyways??
Congrats. You just torpedoed your entire argument..
Because if it's your contention that the government won't obey the law, then it really doesn't matter WHAT law is passed, right??
Michale.....
Yes, Obama is moving to the center. The center of extreme right wing policy and facism.
Okay, he's in the center. The center of the wrong damn road.
"The compromise bill was essentially crafted by leading liberals in the House who see no inconsistency between civil liberties and privacy rights and protecting America from another 9/11 attack.
The compromise bill would provide strict supervision by the special FISA Court of all intelligence agency anti-terrorist surveillance activities, with strict time limits on renewal of court orders. It would require written findings and accountability by the Justice Department and individual warrants and court orders if any U.S. citizen is involved, directly or indirectly, in the surveillance. And importantly, it expands congressional oversight of the program, including the House and Senate Judiciary Committees as well as the Intelligence Committees in both chambers."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/obamas-sister-soljah-mome_b_111454.html
Michale.....
First, it's not a compromise. Compromise means that both sides sat down, decided what they MUST have, and what they WANT TO have, and what they can live without. If they MUST have it, they don't compromise on it, if they WANT to have it, they are willing to give some of it up in return for what they MUST have, and some other stuff that they want to have. In this case, bush sat down and said I want this, and the Congress said, "Okay, here ya go!" That's not a compromise, that's a capitulation.
Second, when you say strict supervision, that means that the FISC will be able to look over wiretaps to ensure that they fall under the law and the fourth amendment. However, under this bill they will either NOT be able to look over it AT ALL, or they will be able to look over GROUPS of wiretaps, without knowing WHO they are, HOW they are tapped, WHY they are tapped, WHEN they were tapped, or even if they are LEGALLY tapped!
Does anyone know if the FISA /telecom exec immunity bill also granted immunity from prosecution for release of customers' private information BEFORE 9-11?
After all, the administration has used 9-11 as their reason for ... well... everything. If they used it to justify spying and prying into the private personal business of ordinary Americans before 9-11, as I'd be willing to bet they did, then their reason is bogus, and so is the offer of immunity.
Obama better tread carefully in his shift to the middle. Yeah, maybe a "no" vote on this FISA bill might have been futile in terms of whether it passed or not, but the prospect of not being able to directly and immediately influence the outcome of the Iraq invasion didn't stop his loud protest of that action, did it? And, that single action garnered him a huge measure of support for his Presidential bid.
Obama needs to remember that the fire under his boiler is not from the political middle---it's from the left, from the young civic neophytes, and from the formerly apathetic disenfranchised, many of whom have gone decades without voting.
That's his core voting segment----and if he turns the fire down under them too much, he can forget about frying up grillades out of the middle swing votes, because his Presidential grits are just not going to be done by November.
"Obama needs to remember that the fire under his boiler is not from the political middle---it's from the left, from the young civic neophytes, and from the formerly apathetic disenfranchised, many of whom have gone decades without voting."
But while those constituencies can get you the nomination, they alone cannot get you the presidency. Obama is going to expand his reach, and, in doing so, strengthen his hand with respect to fundamental change.
Obama's "base" is America, and when he runs his unprecedented "50 State Strategy" well into November, the fruits of his labor will bear that out.
Allow me to put some facts before ya'all
HR6304 has NO Constitutional Conflict... FACT
HR6304 actually strengthens an American's 4th Amendment protections... FACT
HR6304 doesn't provide TelCom immunity except under very specific circumstances... FACT
HR6304 provides Court **AND** House/Senate oversight to FISA related activities.. FACT
Not ONE SINGLE person or orgainization has been able to point to a single section of HR6304 that violates the US Constitution. Even the ACLU concedes that it brings court oversight back into the process..
Given these facts, how can anyone continue to bash Senator Obama and weaken his chances against McCain??
Michale.....
Thanks for brining the truth this morning!!!
Allow me to ONCE AGAIN prove YOUR "facts" to be nothing of the sort:
1. H.R. 6304 HAS a Constitutional conflict, in that it allows the govt to spy on WHOMEVER they want WITHOUT a warrant, and WITHOUT the courts approving it!
2. See #1, and stop lying!
3. H.R. 6304 allows the telecoms to get ANY lawsuit thrown out as long as they can show that the AG told them that it was okay. Since the AG ALREADY said that it's okay, under the CURRENT FISA law, where it is MOST definitely NOT okay.....
4. H.R. 6304 provides for the courts to have oversight ONLY if the govt ADMITS that they know a person is a citizen. In ALL other cases they can simply tap the phone WITHOUT a warrant, OR a court!
And once again, do I really have to point out that section 702 violates the Constitution by allowing the executive to spy on WHOMEVER THEY WANT WITHOUT A WARRANT???
1. Prove it..
2. See #1
3. Very simplified but essentially correct. It's called "Good Faith" and it's a valid legal precept...
4. This is your most facetious argument to date. Yes, HR6304 is predicated on the belief that the Government will obey the law. But, then again, EVERY LAW we have on the books is predicated that the law will be obeyed. Using your reasoning, NO LAW is a good law because ANYONE can break it.
Section 702 applies to NON UNITED STATES PERSONS insofar as action is determined. 702 DOES contain protections that DO apply to US Citizens
It's a foolish argument that has no bearing on the issue of constitutionality.
Michale.....
Going to Iraq shows Obama has a seriously stupid side in terms of safety.
"The Audacity of Hope" was a slightly clumsy book title, but the theme of hope is right on.
His recent "moves to the center" have caused many of us to lose hope that electing him would bring real change.
"Most Americans agree with progressives, so the backlash for "standing firm" would not have hurt Obama with voters."
"As a U.S. Senator, Obama had a say in the matter - but only one vote, and Congress was going to pass it anyway."
Those are good arguments for voting against it.
"Not all Obama supporters are progressive, and some are vulnerable to defecting if dynamics change."
Why are these defectors more important than the progressives that are currently upset with BHO?
Thank you so much for bringing some much needed sanity to this issue. I have been disgusted with the level of debate about Obama's supposed "shift to the center". I am am happy that you see his recent position on the Supreme Court issues and FISA as nothing more than attempts to subvert potential Republican lines of attack. Your observation about the Supreme Court decision over the death penelty for child rapist was spot-on! I don't agree with the death penalty at all, much less putting child rapist to death. But Obama had to take the position of opposing it. He just had to.
Finally, you're right to take on those who question Obama's attempt the reach out to all areas of the electorate. Contrary to what some might wrote, moving to the center is not "for losers". Because as you say, "...isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'être of the Obama campaign?" Yes it is, and it seems people have forgotten that. Obama is trying to creat a Democratic-leaning coalition to produce fundamental change - one that includes disaffected Republicans and independents. And what's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.
Please blog more often Mr. Hogarth because the level of resonable, insightful debate regarding this matter is sorely lacking in the blogosphere right now. Sorely lacking.
"I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens " and set an example to the world " that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient." Cont
Part 2
"A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come
together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power " and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.
It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security."
-- Barack Obama January 28, 2008
"We know it's time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd's candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.
The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I've been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens -- and set an example to the world -- that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America "- no one is above the law.
-- Barack Obama February 26, 2008
Why? would it not alarm progressives, he has never been what he claims to be....he tells the jews I'll protect Israel...and dines with the Pro Palestinian "Saids" , he goes to church but never hears anything, he says he was against the war in 2002 but he never voted...he said he didn't know Farrakhan but bought the home he is living in from him.......He talks out of both sides of his mouth
Let's also remember that on FISA the "immunity" (as far as I know) only extends to civil suits and NOT to criminal charges. Therefore, while there will be no record breaking class-action payout, there could be criminal charges brought against the telecom heads.
That would depend on two things, neither of which is very likely to turn out right:
1) that the AG actually file charges AGAINST the telcos. Do you HONESTLY believe that an AG employed by bush is going to bring charges against the telcos that were involved? Cause I just don't see it happening....
2) that bush NOT issue a criminal pardon upon leaving office. If he does NOT issue one, then all well and good, but if he DOES issue a pardon, then there's NOTHING that anyone can about past offenses. Not President Obama, not the Congress, not the SCOTUS, NOBODY!!!
Not after George Bush issues a blanket retroactive Pardon to the Telecoms for all illegal activity they have, or may have engaged in, in connection with his warrantless surveillance program.
At last, a rational, far-sighted appraisal of Obama's recent comments! Thank you, Mr. Hogarth. Some of the children who post here are willing to stomp and hold their collective breath until they're blue in the face, then pick up their toys and go home if they don't get exactly what they want. Recent reaction to Obama's issue positions continues to remind me of what Arthur Ashe said in response to those blacks who thought that he wasn't militant enough in the 1960s: "They (his critics) would rather lose gallantly than win practically."
The powers of destruction work much faster and more decisively than the powers of restoration. You can cut down a tree in an hour. It might take 20 years to replace it. It has taken us 8 years to get into the mess we're in now. It may take longer than 8 years to get out of it. Myopia and pandering are what killed the Clinton campaign. Progressives had better learn and remember those things. This is the first real chance we've had since 1968 to start a progressive revival that could take US -- not just Obama -- well into this century.
LET'S NOT BLOW IT.
"As a U.S. Senator, Obama had a say in the matter - but only one vote, and Congress was going to pass it anyway".
Brings to mind my mother's admonition: "If your friends all jump off the bridge, does that mean you should, too?"
The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution is not Obama's to play politics with. He is now the leader of the Democratic Party. He should be leading his fellow senators away from the bridge, not follow them off the bridge and the crash below. Just because FISA will pass tomorrow, anyway, does not give Obama cover to vote for it.
Imagine if, as the head of his party, he stood against the rest and demanded they join him in holding to their oath to preserve, protect and defend this Constitution of the United States of America. Imagine if he lead instead of followed. Why, isn't that precisely what we look for in a President__a leader not a follower?
And if he won't now stand by his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution now, how can anyone believe him when he repeats that oath as President of the United States?
We can accept compromise on so many things: NAFTA, guns, the criteria for the death penalty__even Iraq, but the Constitution should never be compromised. Too many men and women have died to protect our Constitutional freedoms for Barack to treat it like George Bush Jr. has.
In a candid interview via satellite from China, Olympic...
Update: Keith Olbermann had Rachel Maddow on "Countdown" Tuesday night to celebrate...
UPDATE: A day after Roseanne's blogs from below...
"How honest are we if we tell the truth most of the time &...
Obama's been to Hawaii. We're moving...
I've read the comments. I know what some of you think. Yawn. It's not a story. He's not...
LOS ANGELES — Barack Obama is getting praise from Nashville, courtesy of one...
The New York Times' Kit Seelye is backing up NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who reported on...
NEW YORK — The suspense didn't quite compare to the identity of "Deep Throat,"...
Loading comments…
Posted July 9, 2008 | 01:13 AM (EST)