He responded.
While most Americans settled into a relaxed Independence Day weekend, Barack Obama tried to quiet mounting criticism from supporters over his decision to back a new White House spying bill. In an unprecedented letter released on the afternoon of July 3rd, Obama addressed the thousands of supporters who organized a large spying protest on his social networking portal.
Noting that he expected to take his "lumps" and "be held accountable," Obama respectfully defended his surveillance reversal. While maintaining that immunizing companies accused of illegal spying undermines deterrence and "accountability for past abuses," Obama said he now backs legislation granting immunity (and other executive powers) because it provides a "real mechanism for accountability" via future investigations. The explanation ran 852 words -- more than double the length of his original statement announcing support for the spying bill on June 20 --
and then campaign policy aides continued the discussion for over an hour with visitors on Obama's site (pictured at right). The unusual exchange sparked an intense debate over the weekend, as activists and bloggers questioned whether it heralded a more interactive political era, or a reminder that doubletalk can spread on any medium.
On Sunday night, the spying protest group released its official reply, collaboratively edited through a wiki and representing some of the 19,000 members. It pressed Obama to take his fight against immunity to the Senate floor this week. Since Obama's letter said he still wanted to "strike" immunity from the bill, the group urged him to take charge:
We ask that you back up your words with action by addressing your constituents on the floor of the Senate with the same oratorical power you used in Philadelphia to lay out your vision of a "More Perfect Union." The American people have just as much right to know of the dangerous precedent this Congress would be setting by granting retroactive immunity to [companies that spied] on law-abiding citizens as we did to relearn of segregation and Jim Crow. The arm of government oppression reaches far and wide, Senator, and we must beat it back on whatever front we find it.
The Senate begins debating the spying bill again on Tuesday. Obama arrives in Washington that day to address a Hispanic convention.
The protest group has not only become a huge force on Obama's site -- it is now double the size of any other user-created group and its traffic slowed the campaign's server last week -- it has also swiftly asserted itself in the broader spying debate. Organizers have been covered and quoted repeatedly in the mainstream media, including a New York Times profile of founder Mike Stark, tapping the interest in online organizing to amplify a civil liberties message.
The group's wiki even includes a "proposed strategy" to "fan the flames of coverage by making the novel outreach approach a story in its own right," levering media attention to recruit more members for lobbying Congress. Over the weekend, it began spinning off local networks to target individual Senators through a "fifty state strategy." Now there are Facebook groups for constituents to pressure Senators McCain, Feinstein, Klobachar and Coleman and Alexander -- along with a page for "Wisconsinites" to "thank" Senator Feingold for defending civil liberties. The group decided to focus on other Senators after discussing how to broaden the effort beyond Obama. Over 3,500 members converse through an email listserve on the campaign's social networking platform, with hundreds of messages a day. In fact, the group has begun moderating participation to limit topics and exclude certain tactics, such as attempts by activists to halt campaign fundraising in retribution for Obama's position on spying.
By simultaneously increasing its membership, mission and ambition, the spying group exhibits the characteristics of a successful net movement. MoveOn began with the single objective of fighting Clinton's impeachment, but evolved to tackle other issues that resonated with its members. The spying protest began last month by urging Obama to change his vote. After quickly drawing him (and his senior staff) into a dialogue, however, it is nimbly shifting its focus to Obama's role in the immunity floor fight -- an easier request on common ground -- while launching campaigns to target Senators with constituents recruited through MyBo. Even if the Democratic Congress completes its capitulation on surveillance policy, the spying group will still be the largest organizing network on Obama's site. With 6,000 more activists than the top-down "Action Wire" group, which the campaign created for official pushback, the spying group might even function as supportive but aggressive counterweight to the campaign's traditional message. If Obama is not confronting McCain on other constitutional issues, for example, members could organize media or social network efforts to do it for him. If the campaign is not correcting the media for distorting factual statements by Gen. Clark, the members could rally a truth squad overnight.
Obama excelled by appealing to the public appetite for movement politics, rather than typical campaigns. And unlike campaigns, movements are animated by ideas, policies and values -- not blind allegiance to a single person. If Obama is lucky, he will continue to benefit from these energized, sophisticated activists who support his candidacy while they press his hand, and use his campaign platform to mobilize turnout while organizing causes beyond his election. The spy group's open letter reminded Obama of this collective dynamic. "As you have said time and again Senator, 'we are the ones we have been waiting for,' and we are here, working to bring about real change in Washington."
More: To hear opposing views on this topic, check out this debate I just did with the Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll:
This piece originally appeared at The Nation.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
If there are enough votes to pass this bill, with OR without Obama's vote, how can it be helpful for for Obama to vote against it to make his base happy, if it will pass anyway, AND if his vote against it will be used to accuse him of being soft on terrorism??
This election is neck and neck. Obama's lead is negligible, so at this point, either candidate could realistically be our next president. The ONLY issue McCain has a lead on, and it's a big one, is terrorism/foreign policy.
Unfortunately, you can't have everything you want, and I hate to say it, but with a race this close, a vote against this bill COULD cost him the election, and I rather have this bill and a President Obama, than have this bill anyway, but with a President McCain...or even without this bill...but it will almost definitely pass, regardless. The question is, are you willing to sacrifice a Democratic president just so you can say that Obama stood up to this bill and voted against it, even though it didn't stop it from passing and cost him the election? Is that worth electing John McCain our next president?
Mark Klein, an AT&T employee, whistle blower and witness in a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, alleges AT&T illegally gave the National Security Agency access to its networks.
Mark Klein stated in an interview on democracynow.org this morning (July 7) that: "in 2003 I was assigned to that office, and I got hold of the documents which were available—they're not classified—and the documents showed what they were doing. They were basically copying the entire data stream going across critical Internet cables and copying the entire data stream to this secret room, so the NSA was getting everything". Regarding Obama and Pelosi, Klein said that "the Democratic leadership is overriding the fights that Feingold and Dodd are trying to wage, and they're basically carrying out a secret agreement with the White House. Remember, there were never any open hearings on this. They met in secret with the telephone lobbyists and with intelligence agency officials. It was all a secret deal, a conspiracy against the American people. They never had hearings".
Sounds like the Chenney/Oil industry secret meetings that we the people were left out knowing or participating in.
Klein says the deal is a free pass for Bush. "I think it’s a pretty plain impeachable offense" and may have "the effect not only of giving immunity to the telephone companies, but it may also allow the administration to block legal accountability for this crime".
Change fascists applaud. I dissent.
Here are the sites:Â
For House "Representatives": http://www.cloudbyte.com/traitors.html
For "Senators": http://www.cloudbyte.com/senatetraitors.html
That is an invitation to really turn the country over to lobbists.
I guess if the immunity issue stalls the bill and leads to further debate in the senate that's a good thing. I just hope in the course of the debate that someone brings up the real problem with the FISA bill, that it gives the executive branch unlimited power conduct espionage on electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This bill basically gives the president the power to suspend the Fourth Amendment whenever he pleases without any accountability whatsoever.
Hell, I'd give the telecoms their immunity. Just please don't throw out the Constitution. It's a pretty important document....
AdvanatageObama 08!!!
I have also raised the issue of the possibility of there being "agents provocateurs" involved in the stirring up of this pot. The amount of ruckus being raised is just too "coincidental" to other issues being raised about Obama leaning toward center, or even to the right.
I understand that he has previously stated that he would filibuster any bill that included telecom immunity. However, me thinks that there is more going on here than meets the eye of those of us not really involved in his decision making.
As for our constitution being trashed as the result of this new bill, oh please.... the Fourth Amendment got trashed by the Patriot Act. It is that act that needs our attention.
Obama '08
over at salon.com. Greenwald is very much what some of us who share the professional world that he and Obama inhabit DEARLY WISH THAT OBAMA HAD PROVEN HIMSELF TO BE.
Very clear breakdown, addressing Obama's statement statement-by-statement. What's dubious, what's wrong, and what's knowingly misleading. FISA has been around 30 years and is going nowhere. Nothing changes if the amendments, which provide for greater spying - not less - are not adopted, or even addressed. What expires in August are provisions of the Protect America Act, another piece of Bush 'gimme' legislation which a year ago Obama voted against as being a terrible infringement on the 4th Amendment when that suited his political purposes. Now he's using the same legislation - terrible in 2007, wonderful in 2008 - as an excuse
for pushing FISA through over the objections of his supporters
There can be another 'october surprise' whenever the military/industrial establishment
decides its time to have one to tamp down citizen boldness. Obama's falldown on FISA will change nothing on that score. But once FISA is passed, we have taken from our
children and grandchildren something which will not be willingly given back in the
future.
Further, as someone fairly well versed in the law, anyone that thinks that any of these Telecon's were going to suffer any great injury from the lawsuits or from criminal prosecution is simply naive. So in the end, this is a matter of one principal out of thousands. Do you really want to sacrifice all of those thousands of other principals that are supported by the election of Obama in order to save this one principal of questionable value?
If it wasn't apparent before, it should be clear now that the MSM is working 24/7 to defeat Obama. The MSM always picks their winner and loser, and the loser gets called a flip flopper, which is what they are now calling Obama on public financing (which he isn't) and Iraq (which he isn't) and abortion (which he isn't). So does it help that the netroots is now joining the MSM party and crucifying him over this? No. It's just blood in the water for the Republicans and their MSM.
He has enough on his plate they should leave him alone.
Every minute we spend on this site attacking Obama should be matched with a minute attacking every other Senator, including McCain, who plans to vote yes.
But no, we are too busy attacking the one guy who has the most to lose by voting no and demanding perfection from him. And he may very well lose because of it.