Obama Tries and Fails to Put Out the FISA Fire in His Own House

In an unprecedented attempt to put out a fire in his own house, Senator Barack Obama yesterday issued a response to supporters who had been protesting his position on government surveillance. The release was followed by an 90 minute interchange on MyBarackObama.com between campaign officials and supporters (though as far as I could tell, the campaign officials made no comments themselves but just read the comments being made, leaving it unclear who was actually reading and for how long)..

Unfortunately, there was nothing in Obama's response that addressed the harsh criticism some of his supporters have voiced. I could go into detail on why the statement stinks, but since this is the Internet I don't have to, since I can instead direct you to the excellent point-by-point analysis offered by Glenn Greenwald. My focus here will be the novel political dynamic unleashed by the Obama campaign's social networking site, MyBarackObama.com.

These are uncharted waters we are dealing with here. Yesterday I asked the question whether 18,000 people protesting on the campaign's own web site (out of hundreds of thousands) were a lot or a little. Apparently they were enough to get the attention of the campaign and the candidate.

The comments were a mix of people who were star-struck that Obama had noticed them and written a reply, people who felt any criticism on the site was inappropriate, people who just spouted typical Internet invective at each other, but then an awful lot of extremely informed and thoughtful people who did not back down an inch.

Some defending Obama's position questioned whether the protestors were really from the Obama camp or were Republicans who had logged on to wreak havoc. However, since MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site, one can check the profile of each commenter, see how long they have been active on the site, what action groups they are part of, and so on. It appeared that many angry critics were people who had put a lot of time and money into the campaign.

The whole episode raised more questions than it answered. Certainly what is going on here is something new. There are going to be many more controversial issues. A presidential candidate can't always be having to log on to the Internet to defend himself from his own supporters. I am reminded The Obama campaign promised to give its supporters new Internet tools to empower them to make the campaign their own. Now that it as done so, the leadership has to be wondering if it was a good idea. of the musicians who have figured out how to make modest livelihoods marketing their music directly to fans over MySpace, only to discover that doing requires spending hours every day maintaining the sort of direct relationship fans on social networking sites expect.

On the other hand, overall this has to be considered a victory for, and an extension of, democracy. This is a clear-cut case of a candidate promising one thing and doing another. Turns out that in the age of the online campaign there will be a higher price for this time-honored activity.

The folks at Obama HQ better tighten their saddle. They have let the horse out of the barn, and it might be a bumpy ride.

* Some sample comments:

Frankly, I'm disappointed. No, Senator Barack, it's not a "deal breaker". But even using these words is almost like taunting your position in our face. Almost like you are taking our votes for granted because you know we have not choice but to vote for you. No, I don't want McCain, but I can say with clarity that my personal enthusiasm, and many of others who I talk to, have certainly diminished by a huge margin.

At the end of the day, the question is, do you want your supporters to vote for you because you are the lesser of the two evils, because they have "no choice" when comparing the alternative (as you say yourself) or do you want people to vote for you because they are proud of what you stand for?

- Christine

Christine, I, too, did not like that "deal breaker" line. I felt like it was dismissive, especially when he has been trying soo hard to get the gun advocates, the evangelicals, the death penalty advocates...It's like, ok, get lost. I got plenty more voters and money!! What has happened to him???

- JonnieRae

Comments

[Michale32086]

@noam4prez

>I expect Obama not to abridge my right to
>sue a law-breaking corporation. He is not
> "ignoring half the people" on this issue.
>He is appeasing the lawbreaking corporations
>at the expense of all the people.

In other words, you are saying you don't really care if the Telecoms are punished or not. You just want to be able to sue them and make some money off of it...

Does that about sum up your position???

Michale.....

[HumeSkeptic]

Is it not true, Michale, that you constantly question the motives of the poster rather than addressing the basic validity of the argument of the poster? You have done that more than once on this thread.

Clearly, when noam4prez says "my rights", he/she is speaking for the citizens of the U.S. affected by the actions of telecoms, not him/her personally.

This is a very ineffective way to make your point, if you do have a point to make.

.

[Michale32086]

You are correct... I cast aspirations upon noam4prez's motivations without due cause.

My sincerest apologies to you, noam4prez..

Having said that, the simple fact is that a person's rights can still be upheld thru criminal prosecutions of the telecoms..

The ONLY purpose that civil liabilities would serve is to make plaintiffs rich and bankrupt the telecoms..

Would such bankruptcies serve ANYONE's purpose, besides the terrorists??

Liability can be done criminally if there is liability due...

Michale.....

[whatchamean]

From my blog (no right turn) on my.obama.com: I joined his campaign from day one of his announcement to run. I have volunteered, written hunderds of blogs, thousands of emails and phone calls on his behalf, argued his case under heavy fire at my local Starbucks and donated to his campaign. Today, I feel great disappointment that he has abandoned one of the pillars of what
moved me to work so dilligently for him, that is his pledge to provide change to the way that politics and policy are conducted. His caving on the FISA immunity for telecoms is a big deal as it sends a message to corporate America that there are no repercussions for breaking the law. As the presumptive president,his actions are already setting precedent for what is acceptable behavior for elected officials and our government at large going forward. This vote would send the wrong message at a time when the world is watching to see if this guy is for real. Doubt about about this is collecting for me and others, that is why this group has formed on his site. We stand outside the the virutal gate and shout with our desktops that this is a very bad move.

[Marlyn]

Sadly, I agree.

[JackLivigni]

What the heck? Is this article for real?

Bob... get real. There is no fire in casa Obama except in your mind.

[rasthedestroyer]

Where were all you bleeding liberals 6 mos. ago 2 yrs. ago for that matter 10 yrs. ago, this did'nt just happen overnight, and to put the blame for your apathy on the Sen. a little disingenuous. Americans have allowed the constitution to be trashed by men who had nothing but self serving intentions. Sen. O's vote won't mean a thing if the Democratic party does'nt do it's job and call for Impeachment hearing's. Maybe some of this heat should be thrown at Sis. Nancy or Uncle Harry. They were in congress way before the Sen.. the system is broke and someone is willing to the best of his ability to fix it. If your not helping then your just hindering the process. [Speak truth to power]

[Michale32086]

@racom

>Exactly. When anyone is so ready to compromise
>on the foundation of our country you have to ask,
>what's next? What other freedoms are to be
>politically bantered away? How far do you take it
>before the constitution becomes what Bush called
>it, 'nothing but a GD piece of paper'?

And yet... And yet... And yet...

You cannot point to ONE SINGLE ASPECT of HR 6304 that compromises the US Constitution..

Why is that???

Michale.....

[Marlyn]

H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act

(I had to look it up.)

[Michale32086]

I didn't.. Considering the last week or two, I almost have HR 6304 memorized.

What's your point??

Can you show me a SINGLE section of HR 6304 that violates the US Constitution??

Michale.....

[bigfro]

Warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. You really believe this drivel you write. Here is some infor from "GLENN GREENWALD"

"This is just false. The new FISA bill that Obama supports vests new categories of warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President (.pdf), and allows the Government, for the first time, to tap physically into U.S. telecommunications networks inside our country with no individual warrant requirement. To claim that this new bill creates "an independent monitor [to] watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people" is truly misleading, since the new FISA bill actually does the opposite -- it frees the Government from exactly that monitoring in all sorts of broad categories.

Why else would Bush and Cheney be so eager to have this bill if it didn't substantially expand the Government's ability to eavesdrop without warrants?"

Get an education or I'll smack you down more with some more direct logic to squash your backwoods hearsay.

[Michale32086]

"Why else would Bush and Cheney be so eager to have this bill if it didn't substantially expand the Government's ability to eavesdrop without warrants?""

Ahhhhh

So you have declared yourself..

You are ONLY against HR 6304 because the Bush Administration is FOR them... I believe you are part of group #3....

It must be really REALLY nice going thru life and let others do your thinking for you...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

"Here is some infor from "GLENN GREENWALD" "

Haven't you read HR6304 yourself??

Why can't we get infor from 'bigfro'???

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@stop7997

>Are you a Constitutional scholar?

No.. But I am a man with a reasonable reading comprehension level and a whole bucket load of common sense..

Now, it's my turn..

Have you read HR6304 in it's entirety???

No???

Then what is your argument?? That your Aunt Bertha told you that HR6304 was "bad"???

Until you have read the measure yourself and can point to specific sections that violate the US Constitution, you haven't a leg to stand on...

Michale.....

[Marlyn]

Immunity?

[Michale32086]

Please explain how exempt from civil liability constitutes a violation of the US Constitution?

Michale.....

[HumeSkeptic]

No.. But I am a man with a reasonable reading comprehension level and a whole bucket load of common sense..
----------

A wise person would let others judge his/her abilities. That way, one gets a more unbiased assessment.

[Michale32086]

>A wise person would let others judge
>his/her abilities. That way, one gets
>a more unbiased assessment."

If you are expecting that there can be an "unbiased assessment" in this political forum, you are more deluded than I thought...

And, trust me.. From your postings, I think you are pretty deluded... :D

Seriously, though...

Despite that "joke", you come across as a reasonable person...

Have you read HR 6304???

Michale.....

[racom]

michael is a walking law library with out a degree, go figure!!! Anyone who thinks they can read a piece of legislation and have command of all the particulars is hopeless and/or deceitful. Every legal document, contract and legal agreement has inconsistencies, loopholds and un-explained clauses in it and takes serious study.
Any one know a house owner who lost every thing in Katrina and found out that their insurance did not cover the loss? Insurance contract! What of those who thought their pension was OK and then found they had nothing left after the new, adjusted pension plan was adopted? Retirement contract! How about the house buyers burned by the mortgage company contracts with ARMs and other worthless contracts.
I, for one, am tired of the michaels of this world, our snake oil salesmen of the 21 century.

[NYSF]

To me it sounds like there are a bunch of trolls on the sight, as well as several old clinton supporters who see this as some sort of opening.
The real supporters of Obama understand that this is nothing more than a media created smoke screen.
But what is crazy is that in spite of all of this negative press, all of the overhyped spin about the race, and how close it is, Obama is still leading or tied in 32 states and close in another 8.
This scares me. I am smelling a set up here!
Make it seem closer than it is, so that when Diebold and friends team up with the repubs and the supreme court it wont be a shocker to the world!

[Marlyn]

I am no troll. I was an avid Obama supporter BECAUSE I thought he would uphold the Constitution and restore the damage that Bush has done to it.

Bush swore to uphold the Constitution, but he violated that oath in several ways, one being his faith-based initiatives that funnel money to churches to perform social services that should rightly be performed by our government. The Constitution says our government may NOT support any religion. Then Obama announces he plans to expand this unconstitutional program to included ALL religions fairly. Does he know that Scientology is a religion that specializes in providing "secular" social services? Is he OK with that?

As to FISA, Obama has announced in advance that he will APPEASE his opponents. He will fight against immunity for the telecoms because he believes it is illegal, but then when that fails, he will vote for it. That, my friends, is a FLIP FLOP in advance. (It hasn't happened yet, but tune in on Monday.)

This is not a smoke screen. These are REAL issues, and I fear it is too late for O to fix it up, even if he wanted to, which I don't think he does because he is in a cocoon right now.

[Michale32086]

}}}As to FISA, Obama has announced in advance that he will APPEASE his opponents. He will fight against immunity for the telecoms because he believes it is illegal, but then when that fails, he will vote for it. That, my friends, is a FLIP FLOP in advance. (It hasn't happened yet, but tune in on Monday.){{{

No, it is an acknowledgment that the safety and security of the country is MORE important than placating the Hysterical Left...

It's THAT simple....

Michale.....

[despike]

Yes, I think you are.

[brighterside]

Marlyn I don't know why your still up and arms over the faith based initiative. I'm going to even say you flat out didn't even read it which is sad because all you do is spew false information.

Once again, I mentioned this before. O-bama aims to dismantle the present Boosh faith based initiative and replace it with one that really affects the poverty level in our country.

Like I said I don't think you took time to read the initiative except the title. Please go do it and inform yourself before smearing what O-bama is trying to do.

[Titonwan]

The only "shocker to the world" is your profound ignorance on how badly this FISA bill is raping the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law. You should really be ashamed of the fact that you can type but have no curiosity to know better. Apologists are NOT patriots. Quite the contrary.

[NYSF]

Whew! You all are acting like a bunch of whining girls! (sorry feminists)
Are you serious? Are you really falling into the right wings trap? Are you really going for this? No wonder Bush stole the election twice! You all (DEMS) are a bunch of whining babies! You will crucify your own (DEMS) at the first sign of disagreement? (even though there is none)
Do you really let Pat Buchannan, Chris Matthews and the like run your lives?
This is pathetic! And while I do lean democratic, I would never join myself with a bunch of folks who behave like you are right now!
The man said "refine"! He HAS to refine his position!
How stupid are you all? Dont you want a leader that will refine his positions, and thoughts based on the information he is privey to? He will have access to much more intel, and will be able to make thoughtful decisions that are not based on campaign rhetoric!
Please people wake up!

[jpetaluma]

Thank you, NYSF. I have become so disgusted with the Obama Wrecking Ball that this site has come to represent. Why is no one discussing McCain's positions. This site is filled with Trolls trying to create division - and it's working! This is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Marlyn]

jpetaluma , you think anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

[Viola]

Maybe people aren't talking about McCain's position in this blog because the blog is about Obama's attempt to satisfy his critics over FISA. And actually, I haven't seen much commentary about the blogpost itself. Tho. in a way it certainly supports the position taken - that Obama did NOT succeed in mollifying his critics over FISA.

You're not helping, by the way.

[Independent voter]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[goodmorning]

It seems that some Obama supporters are suffering buyers' remorse. Don't despair. You can still return him Contact your Super Delegates (your Senators, Governors, and Representatives) and urge them to vote for Hillary in Denver. Unlike Obama, Hillary never put herself up on a pedestal and claimed to be above it all. She will vote against FISA.

[Marlyn]

"She will vote against FISA."

heh, oh sure ... just like she voted against WAR

[goodmorning]

Hillary is committed to voting against FISA. She did not say that she would vote against the war, and then voted for it. She has said that she will vote against FISA, and she will. No flip-flops.

[jackie4444]

My suggestion would be that those with buyers' remorse contact the Super Delegates and urge them to get together for lunch, vote on a candidate from among the group of DEMOCRATS WHO STOOD FIRM AGAINST FISA (HOUSE OR SENATE) . Whoever gets the most votes, the Super Dels then vote for at the convention - rather than EITHER Hillary or Obama. Hillary has said the
delegates aren't 'bound'. That would seem to indicate they could vote for anyone they daXx
well please.

I'm sure its only a fantasy - not because it would not be the world's best lesson on the risks of lying to grease your path into a nomination and an end to the 'you really have no other choice'
argument - but because ordinary citizens have so low an opinion of their own 'citizen-power'
you wouldn't find 10 people in the country who believe it could work.

Some commenter said last week what it all comes down to - the game is going to continue UNTIL THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES.

[Michale32086]

@jackie4444

You bailed on a previous thread when I asked you to point to the sections and/or subsections of HR6304 that violated the US Constitution..

Have you found these violations yet??

Michale.....

[KHAAANNN]

I don't understand why all the progressives on HP seem to think that Obama is the second coming of Dennis Kucinich. Obama doesn't have progressive credentials, and NEVER DID. Why everyone has their undies in a bundle about the FISA vote is beyond me.
Obama is exactly what we need in the white house, an intelligent, practical politician who understands what is best for the country, while at the same time genuinely caring about the common man. This means the ability to know when to fight and when to COMPROMISE (to live to fight another day.)
The only thing as bad as a hard-right take-no-prisoners Republican, is a hard-left my-way-or-the-highway PROGRESSIVE.
Politics is NOT a zero-sum game people. Get over it.

[JimR]

Bravo! I agree 100%.

[booksnmore4you]

Precisely. The immaturity of some people is hard to understand.

[blueshield]

Hmmm, Bob. Although you seem to have missed every one of them, I saw an awful lot of "extremely informed and thoughtful people" who gave BO the benefit of the doubt. And I don't think that 18,000 out of "hundreds of thousands" is a big enough percentage to cause anyone the "concern" you claim the leadership must feel about the open dialog.

In fact, most of your points here - "fire in his house", "raised more questions than it answered", "star-struck that O.bama had noticed them" take far more creative license than either the facts, or your arguments, can support.

O.bama directly addressed both the legal issues of the FISA bill and it's implications, and the inevitable political necessity of compromise to get bills passed today. Yet you claim "there was nothing in Obama's response that addressed the harsh criticism some of his supporters have voiced."

Let me be clear: I think the FISA compromise is unacceptable. But your post frankly sounds like someone in a romantic relationship who's having trouble accepting the object of their affection is an individual with real character, with ideas of their own, and not as dependent on you as you'd like.

[Titonwan]

Pretty idiotic logic on your part. For every one of those 18,000 "inconsequential" voices heard are many times that who don't post here. It's all over the blogs, sparky. This is bigger than you want to believe, but then again that's what apologists do. Apologize blindly for their fearless leader. Barack lied and the 4th's died.

[Michale32086]

@rlarkin

>You seem smart,

I try...

>maybe you can answer
>this question for me.

Again, I'll try...

>If I've been injured
>by a person or corporation do I not have
>the *right* to take that person to court and
>seek redress?

All things being equal, yes..

But, do you know for a fact that you have been injured?? Of course, you don't.. So, you DON'T have a right to go on a fishing expedition to see if you HAVE been injured..

Give you an example... In Japan, it is illegal to take a picture of someone without their permission. So, if you learn that there was a photographer who happened to be in the same city that you were in at any given moment, would you have the "right" to go thru ALL the photos that person took , on the off chance that he snapped a shot of you??

If course not..

>If the answer is yes, then isn't the FISA bill's
> "immunity" a violation of my human rights?

No, the answer is not yes.. But, even if it were, the new FISA measure only applies to CIVIL liability. You still have the option of having your local DA press criminal charges, if warranted... The only difference is, you would not be able to get rich off of the Telecoms IF, I repeat, IF there was a violation.

CONT

[Michale32086]

CONT

>I'm not a lawyer but I know the FISA
>at least isn't ethical and may be unconstitutional,
>considering that the Constitution doesn't grant
>rights, only protects them.

Please cite how you "KNOW" this...

Because Glenn Greenwald told you???

> We are born with rights not specified,
>but implied in the Constitution, and
>violating those rights is *unconstitutional*.

So SHOW me in HR 6304 where the violation is.. If you can't, then where is your argument???

>And that's what this FISA bill is about.
>Violating someones rights so that
>people in power aren't more embarrassed
>then they already are, falsely justified as
>necessary for national security.

And all I ask is that you SHOW me that what you say is true..

Why is that so difficult to understand???

If your rights are being violated, SHOW ME...

What could be more rational than that???

Michale.....

[rlarkin]

"...And all I ask is that you SHOW me that what you say is true."

I don't need to show you, Barack Obama himself has stated that the bill effectively grants retroactive civil immunity to the telecoms. As far as I'm concerned, it's stipulated, unless, *you* can show me that this bill does not actually grant this immunity.

Next, listening to my private conversations without a warrant is a violation of constitutionally protected rights. The right to seek redress is another protected right that is taken away by granting retroactive immunity.

Do I really need to provide citations from case law? Isn't it a 2+2=4 question? If a law facilitates warrantless wiretaps *and* takes a way the victims (this is NOT a victimless crime) ability to seek redress, and either of these actions violate the constitution, then the law is unconstitutional.

Seems clear enough to me. Someones rights *have* been violated, and the government is saying "Too bad".

Fishing expedition? This isn't about finding out if someone's rights were violated - that there are victims is an accepted fact. Keeping secret the identity of these victims, and the details surrounding the crimes committed against them, is a right the government should not have.

Enough legal talk, this has nothing to do with protecting national interests, this is about protecting people who broke the law. They're getting that protection too, not because they need or deserve it, but because they're rich and powerful.

Politics as usual.

[Totto]

This is how Gore lost the 2000 election. With our broken election system and corrupted Supreme Court he needed a larger, indisputable majority. Instead, he wasn't "progressive" enough for many who then voted for Nader. This is how we got the horror show we are now dealing with. No one will ever be "good and pure" enough for some. Prepare for McCain and further decline. Or work for and support a good and decent man (however imperfect).

[HillaryGoAway]

You people are mad because you want Obama to be just like you and he isn't just like you. Frankly, you are all getting extremely annoying with your counter-productive, self-righteous attitudes. Also, Bob, please don't insult me by telling me I am "star struck" because I appreciated Obama's response. And why are you people so upset that Obama used the term "deal breaker" ? He said it in response to YOUR outrage. It probably sounded to him like it might be a deal breaker to many of you. FYI: THERE IS NO LEADER THAT WILL PLEASE YOU 100% OF THE TIME!!! DEAL WITH IT!!! As one wise poster put it - spend your time and energy attacting McCain, the real enemy. It is fine to express your objections but this has gone beyond ridiculous.

[goodmorning]

I agree that there is no leader that will please anyone 100% of the time. You should have stopped right there. McCain is not THE ENEMY. He is an honorable American with opposing views. If you are an Obama supporter, as you claim, I would think that you would subscribe to the notion that we don't attack other Americans - we dabate them.

[tommybones]

If only you had a real rebuttal to the many thoughtful and cogent criticisms of Obama. Nowhere do I see a critic stating anything resembling "I want him to be just like me" or some other nonsense like that. Instead, I see reasoned analysis, based in respect for rule of law and true democratic principles.

Do you disagree with the criticisms? Why? Just make sure your "rebuttal" actually speaks to the arguments presented to you, instead of this mindless drivel.

[mmerose]

I was appalled by the possibility of Hillary Clinton as the nominee, and that just exacerbates my frustration that Obama has moved so quickly to sink himself into the "lesser evil" muck.

All of a sudden change doesn't seem to be something you can believe in, after all. Obama might have gained significant votes from constitutional idealists mustered by Ron Paul, but willing to move to a principled major party candidate. Now I'm looking at Ron Paul, instead.