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

[clbrune]

Uhm, no offense, but the author claims there is some kind of "novel" interaction here, due to the "90 minute interchange on MyBarackObama.com between campaign officials and supporters", but then states that no one from the campaign side responded to anybody.

What's novel about a statement posted on the internet? Nothing.

And FWIW, I'll vote for Obama over McCain.

Obama didn't lose my vote. He lost my contribution.

[Michale32086]

"Obama didn't lose my vote. He lost my contributi­on."

So, you will vote for him to win...

But you won't help him win....

WOW..

With supporters like you, who needs the GOP??

Michale...­..

[Marlyn]

Me too, unless he chooses Hillary as VP. I'll go GREEN forever, if that happens.

[Michale32086]

@MaryanneAZ

I really don't mind honest dissent..

But I don't see any of that here.. All I see is dishonest spin, outright fallacies and immature personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issue at hand...

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@Tommybones

>Obama's response is steeped in misleading
>and outright dishonest statements.

For example...­??????

Please list them in order of importance and severity..­.

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

It has been mentioned that Section 702 of HR 6304 violate the US Constituti­on..

But what is NOT being said is that section 702 doesn't apply to US Citizens..

``SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.

As you can see, the title of Section 702 explicitly states that it applies to persons OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES and OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS..

So, any quote from Section 702 is completely irrelevant to the US Constitution as it doesn't apply to US Citizens..

THIS is exactly the kind of dishonest Rovian spin that clouds the issue.

Michale...­..

[111]

H.R. 6304 legitimizes unconstitutional mass collection of Americans’ communications. These authorizations are not directed at a particular individual. It authorizes entire programs of surveillance and requires only that they be directed outward and not intentionally target Americans or purely domestic communications. The new court orders created by H.R. 6304 are most commonly known as “program” or “general” warrants and they violate the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of particularity.

http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file902_35782.pdf

"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.

"This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort."

Barack Obama, 2/12/08

He had it right in February.

[Michale32086]

"Barack Obama, 2/12/08 "

That was then..

Do you REALLY want a president who "stays the course" regardless???

Do you???

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

}}}H.R. 6304 legitimizes unconstitutional mass collection of Americans" communications. {{{

I have asked before and I will ask again..

PROVE IT.....

If you can't, yer just wasting everyone's time...

Michale...­..

[BlaineKinsey]

You do not have to be inside the United States on a continuous basis to be a U.S. citizen, and you do not have to be inside the United States on a continuous basis to be a legal resident of the United States. It can be extremely difficult to determine the identity of someone who is transmitting or receiving an electronic communication (especially via e-mail), and it can be extremely difficult to determine the location of someone transmitting or receiving an electronic communication. Section 702(c)(4) of Title VII of FISA would be amended by Section 101(a) of Title I of H.R. 6304 to state: "CONSTRUCTION -- Nothing in title I shall be construed to require an application for a court order under such title for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." Because of the loose construction of this sentence, this provision would enable the government to engage in electronic surveillance of most international communications without a court order and without any determination that there is probable cause for surveillance of the electronic communication of a particular person, even in those situations in which the international communication is sent by or received by a U.S. citizen or other legal U.S. resident.. This was done intentionally to satisfy complaints by the Director of National Intelligence about the significant limits of modern technology with respect to identifying targets and their location.

[ebanks84]

What makes me totally appalled is that not one of you questioned the FISA when Bush originally posed it. Now that an honest candidate let you know what it's all about, you run the honest man into the ground nitting and pitting about something that is "not important" at this time and that can probably be dealt with better when he's in office. Most of the answers to your questions are right here. The legislation is posted as to what you need to know.

If a third of you had followed Bush as closely as you are following Obama, we wouldn't be in this position in the first place. Here is a man who is giving you the opportunity to express your feelings and you take advantage of it by trying to FORCE him to do what YOU WANT instead of what he feels is best. He's the man with the knowledge and experience to know what is the right thing to do here. He's the man with the judgement for doing the RIGHT things at the time time. And you have a nerve to threaten him with your money. Money doesn't make this man. Character does!

Now I see just how easy it is for people to turn on someone who can make their lives better just because this man is not jumping at your commands. Don't weaken the party over insignificant issues before we start, please!

[kroses98]

NO ONE expected anything from Bush, and we ALL worked for IMPEACHMENT, which our Democratic Congress took off of the table!!! That was an insult to our intelligence, as was Senator Obama's attempted lame "response to his supporters!" We believed in Obama, and he has let us down.

[Bootoomee]

Then vote 3rd term for Bush. I think you are a troll. Or maybe just plain ignorant.

[tommybones]

"not one of you questioned the FISA when Bush originally posed it."

SAY WHAT????

[JanSP1971]

I was disheartened for a very short time, then I remembered why I support Sen. Obama and why our country NEEDS Sen Obama.
I agree if we the American people paid half the attention to what Bush and his boys were doing maybe we won't be in the shape we are in now. Why didn't we all speak up when things started going so... wrong? Why was Bush put into office for a second term?
We have to keep our eye on the big prize. We have to support and help Sen. Obama take back our country and show the world who we really are. The world is watching and wating to see if we get it right this time. America may have gone off track the last 7 1/2 years but we have learned a very valuable lesson and this time we will get it we will become the America that the world looks up to and respects. OBAMA IN 08!

[Marlyn]

and if Obama "feels it is best" to ignore the Constitution because we need to, then he is just the same a Bush.

[jpetaluma]

ebanks is right. No one is listening, and we will lose because of all the Obama bashing. I'm sick.

[tommybones]

Everyone backing Obama on this FISA decision NEEDS to read the following astute articles on the subject:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

He has several articles which eviscerate the nonsense being spewed in support both the FISA bill and also Obama's capitulation.

[Michale32086]

And yet, he has not ONE cite from HR 6304...

Why is that???

Michale...­..

[LarBear]

Michale32086

You spin as though NOT being Un-Constitutional makes for a good Law...
That would be the assuption of a fool, IMHO...

That seems to be your whole spin and defense of this FISA Bill...

Just as your spin on the Telecom's and Administration violating the Constitution has not been proven in Court yet, so the act does not exist... The act does exist... The Crime has Not been charged is all...

WE have no Court Documentation you are an intelligent Human... Guess that means you are NOT?

[Totto]

Glenn Greenwald is a younger David Horowitz. All outrage and no tolerance for deviation from his orthodoxy. Bet (like Horowitz) he'll be on the far right in his later years, it'll be an easy transition. Apparently, he's made up your mind for you.

[Titonwan]

Glenn Greenwald has forgot more constitutional law than you will ever know. You just had to erase all doubts on what a complete and total fool you are. Listen to the AT&T troll "Michale32086" for all your soothing propaganda. He gets paid to make the ignorant comfortable with the raping of the 4th Amendment. Go to sleep, Michale will sing to you.

[globalcitizenlinda]

Okay, you can now start supporting McCain who is NOT AGAINST the FISA Bill

[tommybones]

If the United States electorate hadn't been rendered docile and ignorant, they would know that Obama's response is steeped in misleading and outright dishonest statements. In fact, all reasons given by Obama and his ardent followers are false and easily refuted. What does this tell us? For one, it makes it clear that there is another, no doubt more nefarious reason, as yet unacknowledged by the "elite" mainstream press. Secondly, it means Obama is engaging in a Washington-style propaganda campaign against his own followers, en masse.

In any case, those who actually have truly educated themselves on this issue cannot, in good conscience, sit by and idly follow Obama and the Dems down this road like lemmings to the slaughter, merely under the guise of political "pragmatis­m."

[Mogamboguru]

I shall be damned if I ever support McCain.

Even if he only was the lesser of two evils, Obama wins by insurmountable margins over McCain.

[Totto]

Well then, it seems there are two choices left. Don't vote or vote for McCain. How paranoid and cynical some us have become. Or perhaps St. Hillary will come and save us.

[Marlyn]

Vote GREEN.

[ebanks84]

Yet, I don't hear any other suggestions from you. No one is asking you to "follow the lead" if you don't want to. That's strictly your decision and your opinion alone. But don't sit back and think we all think like you or are prepared to act as you do.

[tommybones]

Suggestions?

Voice your dissent against this bill. Stop supporting politicians who refuse to defend the Constitution. Volunteer your time and money to politicians who DESERVE IT. Those who actively support the Constitution and don't merely paying lip-service to it. Actively engage in discourse with your fellow citizens. Show them how short-sighted their opinion may be in regards to the FISA bill.

[racom]

tommybones expressed an opinion, I thought that was allowed for crying out loud. I didn't see him asking for votes or money!!!

[yvette7112001]

I'm having a hard time understanding why it is just Obama being attack? It seems to be that for most of you and by your comments this is more than a left or right issue...it is a Constitution Issue...so much so that you are willing to allow this to be a "deal breaker" for you with Obama...th­at must mean that you are now supporting MCCain...n­ot voting (which means you have up Mccain's chances) or voting for Nader...Co­ol..that is your right...th­at is your choice but when will you be going after everyone that supports this bill...whe­n will you stop talking about this as if all Obama supporters agree with you...beca­use I don't...I knew Obama was a politician after all he is in politics..­.I understand that Obama has much much more against him than any other candidate and so in a way Obama has to move to the "center" although some you fail to realize Obama has always been there...Al­so, I thought that we wanted a person that thought and took in other's viewpoints­....This nation is not the far right or the far left...the majority are in the center...

[111]

You forgot Cynthia McKinney - the Green Party.

Obama is under scrutiny here because he is the presumptive Democratic nominee and, a several months ago, he took an especially strong stand against what he is now supporting.

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.

"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.

"This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080212-obama_statement_122/

[Michale32086]

Senator Dodd??

Surely you jest....

http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=2571

Michale...­..

[kroses98]

It isn't just Obama, but he is the one we believed in, and he is the one who is running for the presidency. He is the one who made us believe, and he is the one who took it away from us!

[tommybones]

Most will still vote for Obama on election day, but will no longer send money or volunteer their time for him. Instead, they will support true progressive candidates for Congress. The idea that it's a choice between blind allegiance to Obama or a vote for McCain is a misconception (no doubt relied upon by the political calculators within the Obama camp).

[Marlyn]

"you are willing to allow this to be a deal breaker for you with Obama"

The DEAL BREAKER for me is his plan to expand Bush's unconstitutional faith-based initiatives, and this doesn't help, or his waffle on a woman's right to abortion, or his rejecting the truth that General Clark expressed?

O O Obama ...

[JimR]

Why don't you actually READ what Obama's plan on those initiatives really is, before spouting your mouth off and risking looking dumb.

[CynthiaCr]

Yesterday morning in response to all the rage we've been carrying on various 'n sundry issues for the past 8 years being aimed at Obama's FISA conclusions, someone with the handle juevosrancheros posted the following link to a very very long (2 Excedrin) and equally helpful link:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/serious-question-really-why-is.php

Read on down from the following if you're short on time:
__________­__________­__________­__________­______
"As I understand it, the FISA statute provided that before the government could legally obtain otherwise confidential information from the telecoms, two and sometimes three things had to occur:

1) The government had to serve the telecom with either a court order (warrant) or a written request for access accompanied by a certification from the AG that the request is lawful;

2) The telecom had to make sure that the warrant or request had all the proper information and authorizations. If it did not, they were required to refuse access; if it did, they were required to permit access.

3) If the government had not gotten a warrant ahead of time but used an AG certification instead in #1, then it had to go to the FISA court within a certain number of days to get a warrant issued after the fact."
__________­__________­__________­__________­______
* AG = Attorney General, who would be certifying the request was lawful & at the time, I believe that would have been uhmm, Gonzales..­.:(

[HumeSkeptic]

Simple question: if corporations acted according to the law, why do they need immunity?

Think much?

[Michale32086]

Do you believe in the concept of violation of the law for the greater good???

A simple YES or NO will suffice...

Michale...­..

[Totto]

Thanks. Most of this hysteria is likely coming from three places: Hillary supporters who cling to hope at the Convention, "purist" Kucinich supporters who voted for Nader in 2000 (Gore wasn't "good" enough) and got us into this mess, and McCain types who are trying to pull Obama down. To believe that one person, even a well intended President, can make everything better is naive. There is a Democratic House of Representatives that needs to have much of this rage directed at them and a few Senators as well. What was it that Hillary said about "obliterating" Iran? And a three month gas tax "holiday"? The mind boggles.

[racom]

You left me and a few more out. We just want our candidate to do what he said, fillibuster the attempt to undermine the constitution. Some of us want our country preserved from the right wing dictatorship that seems to influence this issue. We want constitutional freedom and civil liberties restored for our children. What do you want?

[111]

Gore won in 2000

[LarBear]

You left out WE who support the Constitution (PERIOD)
WE who Consciously put our Life on the Line for our Beliefs in our Constitutional Nation..
The support Obama regardless whether he fullfills his sworn Oath of Office as a U S Senator to uphold and defend the Constitution is contempt of what we did... Then to think as President, his sworn Oath of Office would be anything but meanigless, as it is to G W Bush, is obscene, IMHO...
A Fear vote for Obama is a Fear vote...

[juevosrancheros]

Thanks for re-posting that link, Cynthia :)

[HumeSkeptic]

Senator 0bama should be applauded for taking the time to respond, but not not for his response. He is sticking to the position that many of us consider wrong.

If retroactive immunity remains in the bill, he should vote "no".

Immunity has nothing to do with national security. It has everything to do with protecting big corporations who might have violated basic rights of citizens. Allowing immunity would set a very dangerous precedent.

The above said, I still plan to vote for the Senator. To express my disapproval, I have stopped my fund raising for him and stopped volunteering my time to his campaign.

I would be happy to resume my enthusiastic support if I find that he is willing to stand up for principles and fight in some other equally important issue that might come up before November.

I prefer to be loyal to principles and causes dear to me, rather than to any Party or a person.

.

[TheIndependenceParty]

Thank you, HumeSkeptic. You stated my position precisely. I must say I do not expect Sentaor Obama to back away from his position, and would not be eager to see the RepublicRats response if he did. It might be some consolation to have him stand in the Senate and speaK OPENLY AND PLAINLY in favor of the amendment to exclude retroactive immunity from the provisions in the bill. Even to argue for a one year sunset, ... in the beginning of the new presidential term!

[Michale32086]

"I prefer to be loyal to principles and causes dear to me, rather than to any Party or a person."

What if your principles are anathema to the country..

Would you want your representative to be loyal to you or loyal to the country??

Don't tell me.. Let me guess..

You never would even CONSIDER the possibility that your principles are a detriment to your country..

That about sum things up??

Michale...­.

[HumeSkeptic]

What if your principles are anathema to the country..
----------
In that case, those should be rejected by others. Let's take the present case. Is siding with the people whose rights might have been violated a bad principle? Is requiring rule of law a bad principle?

The representative must be loyal to the country. But what is "country" if not its Constitution and its values?

I would readily consider that my principles are detrimental to my country. Give me an argument for retroactive immunity for corporations who violated our basic rights. How is that good for our country?

I will eagerly await your response.


.

[tommybones]

More empty rhetoric by Michale. Do you ever back up your attacks with examples? And/or facts? The very example of a baseless argument is one that can be used equally against anyone in the room. Your response here is a perfect example of this...

[jpetaluma]

Good for you moral Michale. Enjoy your next Republican president along with your cup of principles.

[Independent voter]

My dear Republican friend,

FISA is apparently not very important to the security of our country. Bush himself decided that telecomm company profits are much more important than the new FISA legislation. So how important can FISA be?

So please take your Republican ideas and Rove way of thinking and sit on it.

[tommybones]

Spoken like an active participant in a democracy, and not merely an impotent lemming. Well said.

[okayigive]

The more I research the more I wonder what exactly is the issue? Prior courts have ruled FISA is constituti­onal-Unite­d States v. Duggan; United States v. Nicholson and In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

In the case of immunity to my understanding the compromise give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the NSA’s domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. To me this does not forego any civil and criminal actions which occurred prior to 9-11 , nor does it prevent criminal actions being taken against the executive branch for action after 9-11. Is this argument over a civil actions for actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 a day, and punitive damages and an award of attorney's fees and against criminal penalties of fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both?

[ChicagoPat]

The president does have the authority under FISA to surveil FOREIGN targets (i.e. not U.S. citizens with Constiutional rights) without warrants (thus the republican talking point that we're "giving Al-Queda constitutional rights is a pathetic lie). The problem is, Bush and Cheney felt that since Al-Queda doesn't deserve Constituional protections, neither do we.

Bush can and most certainly will blanket immunize all of his cronies before he leaves office. Regrading the civil suits, I really don't care if the telecoms pay a dime (although they should), I just want to see FULL DISCLOSURE of the nature and extent of their lawbreaking. If we are ever to prevent this debacle from happening to this country again, we need to have it ON THE RECORD.

[jhink465]

In addition to Bush and his gang, there are many in congress (both Dem & Rep) who would be exposed as culpable in this spying travesty. They all should be exposed and made an example if you want this kind of thing to come to an end.

[HumeSkeptic]

1. Why any kind of immunity? What is the purpose if not the protection of big corporation who might have violated basic rights of citizens?

2. And if immunity is not a big deal, why did corporations spend millions to have it in the bill?

[BlaineKinsey]

Not so fast. In a decision released two days ago by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the President did not have the authority to contravene the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). On March 27, 2008, I wrote an article titled "The Fog of FISA" in which I included a detailed discussion of the fact that the President's power is clearly and significantly limited by the Constitution, and I would reprint that discussion here, but it is far too long for the Huffington Post comments.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_blaine_k_080327_the_fog_of_fisa.htm

[nk007]

Okayigive,

You see the problem with the critics of Obama is not really about the constitutionality of FISA, and especially the current House bill compromise. It is all about the issue that Obama did not agree 100% with purist like the estimable Glen Greenwald. In all the criticism about Obama betraying the people for supporting the violation of the Constitution I have not seen any one specify how the FISA compromise Bill that Obama is willing to vote for (by the way with reservation) violates the Constitution. They have not cited a single Supreme Court decision on FISA that supports their position. While I think that the compromise bill is not the best, and I vehemently oppose immunity to the Telcom industries, I think that anger over Obama's position has gone over board. It is as if people were just waiting to find some missteps in order to bring him down. Apparently the left has learned a great deal from the right: Attack any one you disagree with by exaggerating, twisting the facts.

[Titonwan]

What are you being paid for being an AT&T troll?

[athy]

Good post. Mr. Ostertag.

This morning I read the following analysis written by CNN reporter.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/clinton.poll/index.html

"Poll: Some Clinton supporters still not embracing Obama"

Author concluded that based upon CNN poll results, many Clinton supporters will remain home and not vote come November..
The author left out all the other serious options being considered by Clinton supporters (and others) who feel that the democratic election process has been grossly violated by members of the Democratic party…


People may decide to support/create reputable, principled third party candidate system (Nader/Gonzalez ticket looking better to many each day) in an effort to try and expand the two party system in US;

Dem party voters may also choose to look at McCain more closely-and study HIS background-noting fact that MANY Republicans can’t stand the guy because he does think on his own and doesn’t always blindly follow Republican ideology- he is guided by his values and principles when making choices. Voters may not agree with McCain’s choices BUT trust McCain’s values and principles.

When people choose between rock and hard place, they may be forced to ask which place will provide more security and safety for them. Who do they trust more based upon his past actions and decisions- even though may not agree with person all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISYNRkoOxRc

Voters won't stay home this November -they will go out and vote...,

[Larry of Corrales]

It makes me laugh to see so many Obama supporters who are so tickled pink that he responded to their concerns. Perhaps they didn't notice that he has changed his position on many of the things that were the reasons they supported him in the first place. I personally am issue oriented. A candidate has to support the issues I am concerned about before I will support him or her. It is not enough that the candidate is personable and has a nice wife or great husband or nice children or nice smile.

Obama promised to get us out of Iraq in 16 months, he promised to fillibuster any attempt to grant immunity to the telecoms, etc. etc. As he backs out of these promises he will lose more and more of his supporters. I have previously sent money to support his campaign but until the old Obama comes back that support will stop.

[kalimuzo]

Republican talking points. How many things has Mcain changed his mind on. Obama did not flip flop, he compromised. What else did he "change" his position? D.C. gun ban? he said he has always felt the 2nd ammendment guranteed an individual right, but communities also had the right to have common sense laws, the supreme court ruled that the D.C. ban went too far, but communities can still make common sense rules, and he agreed, the death penalty? read his book audacity of hope, that has always been his position.

[mtrav]

Wjp cares how many things McShame has changed his mind on. Obama has failed to lead the Democrats and get rid of that monstrous FISA bill. They don't need a compromise, they already have the law without back handed immunity for the rich and powerful.

[Jazzylady26]

excuse me, but who cares about what mcshame is saying? this man is supposed to representing us, and he isn't supposed to be changing his stance every time the wind blows. There was never any need for him to compromise; there was fisa already in place and besides, there are already more than enough votes to pass the current version - without nobama. but then, he already knew that.

[clbrune]

What's the compromise is first opposing immunity and then supporting it?

That's what a flip-flop is. That's NOT a compromise.

[Liberal2]

"...Republ­ican talking points. How many things has Mcain changed his mind on..." Not the point. Besides, rethugs are known to be lying if their lips are moving.

"...Obama did not flip flop, he compromise­d..." Rovian talk for "He conned you, sucker."

Obama has shown himself to be the phoney (aka DINO) I suspected him to be.

Edwards and Kucinch, the only two honest democrats that ran.

[HHarvey]

I don't think you sent money to his campaign at all. You mentioned it "Makes me laugh to see so many Obama supporters who are so tickled pink that he responded.­.. yada yada yada" that is the exact response one would expect from someone who was not an Obama supporter.

[ebanks84]

Yep. A fox in the hen house, no doubt.

[Independent voter]

Give this guy a break.

Why aren't people who supported Obama with money, time and votes not allowed to have a dissenting opinion. I supported Obama heavily and I and very disappointed.

[Totto]

Sounds like a post at Lucianne.com. It's interesting that you are so amused at the "good and decent" people you so despise. In case you hadn't noticed, Barack has always been "center-left".

[nk007]

Please show us proof that you "sent money to support his campaign." How much money did you send? If I knew I would make sure that I send him my contribution plus your contribution as long as it is no more than $1000.00 because the law will not allow me to double that without violating the maximum allowed. I am just so tired of people like you who are distorting Obama's position to justify why you won't vote for him, and may be to recruit other people not to vote for him.

[drblack]

When it comes to Freedom and the Constitution,the Rule of law and an open and accountable governmnet their is NO room for compromise.
These are the bedrock that America is built on.
This shouldn't even be an issue ,except we have a Corporate media and a Corporate Government who simply want to do whatever is best for themselves with no thought to the Future of America or its people.
Obama could use this to show how weak on Freedom Republicans are,instead he allows republicans control of the debate.

[ebanks84]

Where was your concern when BUSH first posed the FISA issue? Did you speak out then and did you allow our rights to be impuned?

[racom]

Many of us spoke out. Now how do we allow or not allow dubya to do what he does?

[Independent voter]

The people did not allow Bush to trample our rights. The elected representatives of the people - Pelosi in particular - let Bush do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.

The only time that the people have any miniscule influence over a politician is when he/she is trying to get elected. That is why it is important to scream in Obama's left ear.

[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'?

[ProPsych]

Those who are upset with Obama feel betrayed because he promised them "change" and has made some changes in his positions. I feel the "change" Obama was talking about had nothing to do with a particular stance on an issue. The change has to do with accountability and openness. When was the last time you heard so much from a candidate about what he was thinking or why he was doing something?

I don't expect him to always make decisions I like. I don't expect him to always maintain a position when his evolving understanding about the consequences of that position might compell him to do otherwise. I don't expect him to ignore half the country while appeasing the other half. That's the kind of president we've had for much of the past 30 years.

I expect a president to be extremely intelligent and to treat us like we are. I expect a president to communicate clearly about what he is doing, even when it is unpopular or contrary to something he originally believed. I expect a president to govern the entire country, not just the segment that elected him, and do what will unite us and maintains our principles. I expect a president to be level-headed and to make informed decisions.

To have a president who meets these expectations would represent a huge change. I think Obama will be that president.

[bison2]

good comment!

[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.

[racom]

Thank you, I expect him to keep his word and protect the civil liberties of all the people.

[ProPsych]

I'm speaking more broadly about what I expect from a president. In terms of FISA, the corporations did what Bush's corrupt administration asked them to do. I'm not as interested in having the right to sue those corporations as I am in making sure that the party behind that corruption leaves power. If you are upset with Obama's decision, that is your right and you have had plenty of opportunity to express your feelings. I think it's time to move on, no pun intended. If you think voting for McCain or voting in protest for Nadar will make things better than voting for Obama, that's your right, but I don't agree with you.

[blaqntelligence]

A BIG ^ Five.

300,000,000 people with 500,000,000 opinions and some are angry he didn't vote to their particular liking.

We've nominated him because of his ability to see the "big picture". If you or I felt we could do a better job, we should have applied for the job.

[ebanks84]

It's stalwarts like you who keeps this party strong.

[TheIndependenceParty]

We are talking about a sitting president who admits to have violated wholseale, the provisions of the Fourth Amendment with the witting collaboration of huge corporations. Not a focused, warranted wiretap based upon probable cause, ... but an intercept of virtually every communication in the nation, whether between foreigners or US Citizens.

Even Bush admitted to what he had done, ... and every signing statement that defeats the purpose of the bills he dislikes are available to us all. "Openness" is no improvement. Adherence to the Constitution and the law, ... is something every president swears an oath to uphold. In that sense, it is an absolute!

It is preposterous that we are even discussing whether our presidential candidates will recognize and enforce our Constitutional rights!

[ProPsych]

This idea, enforcing our Constitutional rights, is used to justify many things, good and bad. For example, our forefathers said in the second amendment that we should have the right to bear arms. When they wrote that, they were talking about muskets and militia, not individual citizens owning sub-machine guns for the purpose of mowing down deer and each other. I'm not saying that presidential candidates shouldn't recognize and enforce our Constitutional rights, only that issues are not as black and white as people make them out to be. How the Constitution is interpreted varies from administration to adminstration, court to court. I'll take my chances with Obama.