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
Loading comments…
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
I was one who wrote to Senator Obama asking him to run for president. I removed myself from his site after what he has said about FISA. His position and explanations do not make any sense to me. I feel as if he is lying or not being straight about the situation. Maybe that's wishful thinking and I want there to be some other explanation. While I still may vote for him, this situation has proven he is more politics as usual than he suggests and my enthusiasm for him is at a lull. I am an american citizen wanting to live in a democracy and our elected officials are not doing what it takes to protect to serve and protect our democracy. This means I have to stand up, protest, and make a loud noise. I think we need an alternative to elections to remove officials who fail to do their jobs well. I think we need to add a 'vote of no confidence' o something similar so that we can remove them. We need something to shake up this system. I don't know how we get their but yesterday I was directed to a site where they suggest reading the declaration of independence 5 times and to see how that changes or perspective on things. I think it is an excellent idea.
You sound just like the Bush worshipper
So who do you suggest we vote for? McCain? Sometimes the lesser of two evils is a choice though I think Obama will be an amazing president
Bush fans never acknowledged his dishonesties. They went from insisting that he was the messiah to pretending he doesn't exist.
I realize how ignorant you sound!!! You fixate on complete Media Spin and McBUSH spin and then try to make us feel guilty by invoking the name of BUSH to try to get us to vote for his CLONE. Oh yeah, that is tricky and clever.
If you would have read about Obama in the Chicago papers you would have seen he was just another Chicago-style pol. He won his first Primary for State Senate by getting the other 3 DEMS REMOVED from the ballot, went to the elections commission with a team of lawyers and challenged every signature on their petitions. He plays very dirty, just look at what happened to the people running for Senate in 2004, the Republican had to drop out, Obama ran against a black guy from Maryland, a carpetbagger not even from Illinois.
Oh yes, following the rules really makes him a bad person. He is a smart politician. Oh no! He wants to win!! Yes, you have convinced us he is EXACTLY what Democrats need!!!!
Dirty politics, in Chicago? those signatures Obama challenged on his opponents petitions. Come on Hank. It's not just that I grew up in Milwaukee I think it's about time someone did a check on those things.
I wonder if the databases are connected and the same dead folks' names were also removed from the registered voter lists. Actually though I read it somewhere (probably the Chicago Tribune online) the successfully challenged names were just lazily signed (forged) on the petition lists by the folks who were supposed to be going door to door and convince real live people to sign their petitions. Rules is Rules. I betcha his process 'n petitions were squeaky clean.
His own SUPPORTERS?!
With "friends" like that, he doesn't need "enemies." Unfortunately, he does. And now they're not only using Hillary's "talking points," they're using the far left's.
***Obamas Position On FISA***
My Position On Mr. Obama....I
Besides FISA ?,,,,,Pro-
And Its not Hillarys Talking Points or the Far Lefties !!!......I
I Supported and Defended him Alot !.....Trus
His position on Iraq hasn't changed at all; that's unfair, and the media is doing its best to get it wrong.
On this FISA issue more than any other recent unprincipled political maneuvering by this campaign..
Obama changed my hope.
None of this should catch anyone by surprise. Obama projected from the very beginning that he is a compromiser and not a fighter. All of his policy positions were the weakest of the three and I suspect he only put his foot down on many because Edwards was forcing the issue. I knew if Barack got elected that healthcare was out the window (some very weak compromise will come out), that the Milton right wing economic policies would stay in place (his advisers are University of Chicago people, for goodness sakes) and that most of everything he proposes will be from that weakened "lets make everyone happy" position.
Many in the blogisphere just wanted to demonize Hillary for being what they called a centrist, when the guy they were supporting was telling them that he was going directly for the center and would lead by being head of a committee. On all positions they debated, Obama was to the right of Hillary. But while Hillary didn't want to make promises she couldn't fulfill and tried to be realistic about expectations, people even wrote posts that she was killing their "hope".
People who I respected threw all of their normal analysis, and demand for action on issues, out the window and were manipulated with their emotions, turning Obama into whatever they wanted him to be (while they were mocking republicans for doing the exact same thing on their side). Now those folks are really seeing what they are going to get.
Idytme, absolutely right. What were these O worshippers thinking? Now they have forced a candidate on those of us who were more clear-sighted - a candidate who won't be much different from a Republican; in fact, might be worse.
Oh please.... I am not an "O worshipper
I think they call it "Buyers Remorse"
People in the blogisphere did not demonize Hillary.
She ran a disgraceful campaign, and she lost.
CONT
Granted, there are a few that are legitimate Obama supporters and are legitimately concerned about his FISA stance. They have no ulterior agenda, save their conscience. But even they cannot point to any specific part of HR 6304 that would indicate a Constitutional violation or conflict.
As I have done with every commentary, I invite people to READ HR 6304.
http://tho
It's really not that hard to follow although it does look a little intimidating at first. But it can be understood by the layman with little comprehensional effort...
My posts are not so much directed at the people who are simply trying to tear down Obama. They are unreachable. They have it in their minds that Obama is bad, evil, wrong and no amount of logical and rational discourse will change their minds. My goal is to reach those who WERE supporters of Obama before this and are now not. And those who are STILL supporters of Obama but still feel queasy about these issues.
To those, I would say, "Do we really WANT a leader who 'stays the course' in spite of new information?? You've trusted and respected Obama so far. Be mindful of the fact that Obama knows more than we do about the issue and, if you did trust Obama before hand, then there really isn't any reason not to continue that trust."
Michale...
"Be mindful of the fact that Obama knows more than we do about the issue and, if you did trust Obama before hand, then there really isn't any reason not to continue that trust."
Weird. I was just telling my wife this morning how I hate it when conservatives (at work, on blogs) say that we should trust our bosses or elected officials because they know more than we do. And then you say exactly that----but ironically, I don't think you really mean it.
I've read your postings. You pride yourself on being able to read and think things through on your own (which I support). If Obama had taken the opposite position on FISA, you would never claim that we should accept his position because he "knows more than we do about the issue." You would disagree, and say why. You would tell us (as you have elsewhere) that you believe that personal privacy is not worth one human life.
My take on that argument? It sounds reasonable, but it's the same logic used by despots to restrict all freedom. I think Americans have sacrificed a great deal to protect the constitution, including giving their lives, and undermining the constitution wastes those sacrifices and dishonors them.
I love our candidate. I'm voting for him, without question. But he's wrong on FISA.
"If Obama had taken the opposite position on FISA, you would never claim that we should accept his position because he "knows more than we do about the issue." You would disagree, and say why. You would tell us (as you have elsewhere) that you believe that personal privacy is not worth one human life."
That's exactly what I would say..
However, I **WOULD** concede that, since Obama knows more about the specifics than I do, I must allow for the possibility that Obama is right and I am wrong...
And therein lies the problem with most of the Anti-FISA crowd. They simply WILL NOT concede that they may be wrong and Obama et al may be right...
"I think Americans have sacrificed a great deal to protect the constitution, including giving their lives, and undermining the constitution wastes those sacrifices and dishonors them."
I agree with you.. If HR6304 did undermine the US Constitution, then you would have a valid argument.
"I love our candidate. I'm voting for him, without question. But he's wrong on FISA."
.....In your opinion. You must allow for the possibility that you could be wrong..
And be mindful of the consequences if you ARE wrong and Obama is right..
Michale...
Which part is he wrong about, and why?
This is the same thing I've noticed. I've read through the bill, and it's fairly obvious to me that most people, Mr. Greenwald included, don't have the foggiest clue what they're talking about.
Exactly my point..
I mean, we're not talking about science or absolutes. There really cannot be two points of view so diametrically opposed.
Someone IS wrong about HR 6304...
On the one hand, we have Mr Greenwald et al... I am not sure, but I don't think Mr Greenwald has ever supported Obama. It's certain that the Obama Bashers/Hillary camp don't support Obama..
On the other side, we have Senator Obama and the majority of Democrats in the House & Senate. Politically speaking, they have NO reason to support the measure and EVERY reason (politically speaking) to oppose it.
So, when one looks are the possible/probable agendas of the two camps, logical thinking would seem to indicate that the Obama/Democrats camp is the correct one.
But logical inference is still no substitute for reading things yourself and first hand knowledge.
Which is why I read HR 6304 myself. And it confirmed what I thought to be true...
For those of you who are on the fence on this issue, such a progression of thought might be beneficial to you as well..
Michale...
Are you a Constitutional scholar?
Michale, the ACLU finds this legislation unconstitutional for several reasons. you can read the reasons at the link below.
http://www
I see nothing in the actual HR 6304 that the ACLU alludes to.
It would have helped if the ACLU would actually quote the sections and subsections of HR6304 that support their interpretation.
I think that they did not do so intentionally so as to cloud the issue..
Many of the things the ACLU complain about were actually part of the old measures that HR6304 addresses AND fixes...
The ACLU is simply another organization with an agenda. And, as such, they are not being thruthful in their interpretations of HR6304...
Read HR6304 for yourself and you will see that Obama is right and the ACLU is wrong.
Michale...
Here is a perfect example of how the ACLU spins things:
"The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies.
What it DOESN'T say is that the dismissal is ONLY for civil liability cases. Criminal cases can still go forward, if there is sufficient evidence to support a case.
This is the kind of dishonest spin that is being used to undercut Senator Obama.
Michale...
Waste of time commenting to Michale32086, he pretends to know what the FISA bill is about. On a previous article where he was speaking with great authority I asked for his legal credentials, he has none. He argues against the ACLU, he argues against Glenn Greenwald and he is NOT a lawyer! Don't waste your time with him.
Do not pay any attention to this poster, he is a right wing 'water carrier' and will comment hundreds of times with the same nonsense repeatedly. Best to ignore!
Translation:
"I have no rational or logical response to Michale's argument. I must therefore display my impotence by making unfounded and illogical personal attacks on the messenger, thereby conceding the message."
He asked a simple question. Which part of HR 6304 is a Constitutional violation or conflict?
You can either respond like an adult, and attempt to answer the question, and engage in a civil discourse.
Or, you can respond like a child, and implore everyone to ignore the bad man asking tough questions, which is akin to "la la la la, I can't HEAR you."
Which will it be?
Why bother to reference thomas.loc
Once again:
HR 6304 section 702(g)(4)
`(4) LIMITATION- A certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted.
Mass collection of Americans" communications as permitted under the Protect America Act of 2007 authorizing basket, bucket, or blanket orders which violates the 4th Amendment"s requirement of particularity. ("and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")
Why do you omit sub paragraph (5) below? Because it contradicts your assertions?
SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.
(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.
`(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.
``SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.
Section 702 doesn't apply to US Citizens..
Michale...
@PumaJ
"I don't particularly agree with Obama's point of view on this FISA issue, but then I don't know what he knows. Not only do I not know Constitutional law as he does, but I do not know what else is going on behind the scenes, so to speak, that might be driving his current point of view."
If more people had your attitude then there wouldn't be nearly the problem that there is..
My personal goal in addressing FISA these last week(s??) has been to get those who are hysterical and shrill to calm down and look at things rationally and logically. As you so aptly put it, they "don't know what {Obama} knows." Therefore they must ALLOW for the possibility that Obama IS doing what is right for the country.
Sadly, many MANY I have talked to refuse to even concede the possibility.
That is why I believe that the majority of Obama bashers never were supporters at all and, as indicated by a previous poster, are there to simply look for any chink or crack in the armor to exploit it. Either as part of the Hillary Sore Loser crowd or as GOP looking to foment dissent.
CONT
"My personal goal in addressing FISA these last week(s??) has been to get those who are hysterical and shrill to calm down and look at things rationally and logically.
No, Michale, your personal goal has been to label anyone who doesn't believe in your totalitarian view of things as wrong (as in "I'm right AGAIN") or as hysterical and shrill whereas you are rational and logical (and, did I mention, RIGHT AGAIN!) Your stategy is to always have the last redundant word, giving yourself the illusion that you've won the argument. You've added nothing to these debates with your babble about CT ops, ticking bombs, and Star Trek philosophy. It is my sincere hope that Arrianna gives you your own blog, so you can have some place where you can hold your own hand and be endlessly infallible, saving us the intellectual waterboarding of your inane lecturing.
Yer entitled to your opinion of course..
But that doesn't mean it's anchored in reality..
You have tried your best to refute all of my arguments and you have still been found wanting..
Ergo, your only recourse is to attack the messenger.
I understand
Michale...
its the clinton parasites seeking a new host. that host is obama and the tell-tale signs of dismal triangulation are beginning to bubble up to the surface.
this will not get better until the dlc "conventional wisdom" followers are sent packing.
I'm thinking that too... but it still doesn't say much for Sen. O. He was doing so well before... to allow the losing team to now 'advise' him seems like a dumb move.
I do believe that it was good to bring some of her campaign workers on to his team (the more the merrier)..
i think its like anything else- the more successful something is, the more then established "experts" try to inflict their version of "safe" on it.
look at microsoft. it went from being the company that freed us from ibm's 3000 dollar and then obsolete in six month machines. now? they are as bad as comet cursors once were.
the "experts" took over and now microsoft is a gigantic version of what it was once the answer to.
i suspect that obama will see whats happening and fix it. no candidate is mistake-free and if he realizes his error and throws them OUT, things will be just fine.
As disappointing as Obama's turn to the old politics is, it is even more disappointing to see so many of his supporters defending him or even applauding him for it. So much for change.
Are you really disappointed? Concerned troll!
What do the Republicans and Democrats have in common?????
Thye both bash the Democratic nominee...
They don't eat their own. TO hear someone here say we should vote for Nader to teach the Dems a lesson is pathetic and without any insight. Yes, we already did that and got Bush. Besides what is it saying? That Nader who thinks Obama "talks white" is the type of man we respect.
Why not go after McCain instead of Obama
But the Democrats don't want the left vote
prejteach2
Thye both bash the Democratic nominee...
If commenting that Obama went from he opposed the FISA Bill and would fillibuster it, to I'm going to support it brought out those comments then should NOT the fault lie with Obama, not the objectors?
So........
QUOTE: "Why not go after McCain instead of Obama"
How about go after either if they Flip Flop, or fail to uphold their sworn Oath of Office... I believe that is the American Patriots way?
Maybe because they have other concerns - like food, gas prices, jobs - JESUS H. CHRIST!! It must be nice to have nothing to worry about other than the friggin' FISA bill. Which he has not voted on yet. If you nimrods can't stand it - take your opinions and walk them over to McCain. He can use your support and since you will not get anything for it, your whining on a website will not be necessary. He made an intelligent attempt to reach out to you granite heads - he assumed that you would be intelligent enough to understand the politics and his concerns. Wonder why he bothers...
There is no fire, just something to keep the media and our appetites fed after the epic primary and during a relative lull in real news.
This is simply one of the most open campaigns in history working out the kinks of democracy from within and with transparency.
Obama must first win, second govern and protect us all, and third fight his ideoligical battles.
It would not be American to do otherwise
"Obama Tries and Fails to Put Out the FISA Fire in His Own House"
OF COURSE!
Within weeks, he's becoming more & more of a "TYPICAL" politician
I thought he was "simply the best" but now I've learned that he is "just like the rest"!
I had to have been one of Obama's biggest supporters and defenders however, I must admit... the downward Obama spiral for me was when he said, "Impeachment (of Bush-n-Dick) is Not Acceptable”.
He also said, “I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority,”
THAT DID IT 4 ME!
In my opinion, when the POTUS declares a war for the wrong reasons IS "INTENTIONAL BREECHES OF THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY"
What else is it?
Obama's decisions on these topics took the air out of my Obama balloon for sure! I've truly lost my interest & motivation!
The simple fact is, Congress gave Bush authorization for every action the Administration has taken..
And THAT is why impeachment is a non-option
Michale...
Except for his lies that led us into an unnecessary war. Those are problematic.
Michale you are always wrong. How do you do it so consistently?
Congress only authorized military action if Saddam Hussein thwarted the UN inspectors and "AFTER ALL OTHER DIPLOMATIC MEANS HAVE FAILED". The UN inspectors were actively and successfully doing their job but Bush attacked anyway. He certainly didn't wait for all other means to fail. That is an impeachable offense.
Signing statements, Gitmo, illegal suspension of Habeus, and violation of the Fourth Amendment are also impeachable offenses.
Did they tell him to lie... and use false evidence to support the lies?? Or did they just fall for the lies?
Dr. Demon, if every one of us voted for Nader, we could send the Dems a message that they better support progressive values or fade away!
I've said it before, I'll say it again... the Democrats would NEVER be able to prove a case for impeachment. Only Congress has the power to declare war. But they essentially gave the president the go-ahead to invade (you can protest until you are blue in the face, but you have to have your head deep, DEEP in the sand to say that vote was a vote for war). The U.N. is on record as saying that Saddam had WMDs. The Democrats are on record as saying the same thing.
Sure, it's a nice fantasy to dream about impeachment and putting Bush and Cheney behind bars. But it ain't gonna happen.
So now what? Well, we could hang onto our impeachment fantasy as we ignore changes taking place around us.
Or, we can grow up, take a good hard look at the mess we were left, choose the best candidate of those remaining to lead us and work to improve the country.
impeaching, or at least bring articles against, is easy. as you said proving is an entirely different ball game, because in this particular situation it would require using classified documents to make the your argument. if the first process were to happen, i believe Bush would resign for the good the country before the presentation of evidence. the democrats, however, are unlikely to take these steps because of an election year.
Mr. Ostertag, I think that you, Mr. Greenwald and many of Obama's supporters are missing the real problem, I think. A blogger, NCrissieB, at another site stated this about the current FISA imbroglio:
"Folks, if you think FISA is the last bastion of the Fourth Amendment, I have bad news for you. If FISA is indeed the last bastion, the Fourth Amendment is already gone. The current bill will not fix the problem, no matter whether telecoms are given the affirmative defense of acting under color of law. The problem exists in the USA PATRIOT Act, not in FISA."
One can read more of his commentary http://www
I find it remarkably brave of Obama to have his website set up as it is. Really, WOW.
I don't particularly agree with Obama's point of view on this FISA issue, but then I don't know what he knows. Not only do I not know Constitutional law as he does, but I do not know what else is going on behind the scenes, so to speak, that might be driving his current point of view. However, I suspect that to his way of thinking, this particular bill is not the big brouhaha that the rest of us are making it out to be. I suspect Mr. NCrissieB over at Daily Kos may have the right of it.
Surely this discussion should have taken place before he voted not afterwards.
he hasn.t voted
Mr. Greenwald DOES know Constitutional law so his argument should be given the same weight as Obama.
Also, your claim they "you don't know what he knows" is a fallacy of thinking. It provides an out for you no matter what the issue is, and it gives Obama and any other politician free reign to do whatever they want. bush lies, suspends HC, orders torture, etc. but it is okay because we don't know what he knows. Why have a voice at all?
"Mr. Greenwald DOES know Constitutional law so his argument should be given the same weight as Obama."
Yet, not even Mr Greenwald can point to ANYTHING in HR 6304, that violates the US Constituti
Why is that??
Michale...
but I do not know what else is going on behind the scenes, so to speak, that might be driving his current point of view.
And that's what scares me. Not knowing if he may have made a 'deal w/ the devil' to change his vote.
Barack Obama said the "deal breaker" line because he wanted to remind people that this election shouldn't be about one issue.
I find it extremely unfortunate that there are so many people in this country who still believe that the only way to move forward is to be divided. The Republicans did this too, and ended a six year reign of national destruction.
The next president is going to have the nearly impossible task of bringing this country together, fixing Iraq, solving the gas crisis, and start repaying the mountain of debt this country owes because of President Bush's tax-less war.
While the telecoms should be made to answer for following illegal orders from the Bush Administration, people need to start waking up and realizing that illegal wiretapping is, astonishingly, the LEAST of this countries problems.
Thank YOU! A voice of REASON in the sea of zombie-like mutterings. Sen. Obama said it best when he said that the majority of Americans don't stay awake at night worrying about the FISA bill. This is ESPECIALLY true this summer where gas and food prices are spiralling out of control, where the infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes, where College Graduates are barely able to put together a coherent paragraph, let alone make decisions that affect MILLIONS of people. I didn't see or hear ANYTHING in ANY of Obama's campaign speeches during the primaries that led me to believe that HE was THE answer to ALL of our problems. So FAR, he HAS promised to THOROGHLY VET every single one of the Bush Administration's policies having anything to do with National Security. However, in order to do that HE HAS TO BE ELECTED!!
Obama's sprint to the center is proving him to be a "weaksauce", Republican-Lite candidate who stands for nothing; unworthy of the effort of voting. It's lookin' like another "none of the above" year.
Sounds like a roaring success to me. Obama acts, people ask, and he answers. Whether you like the result or not, it is a breakthrough in accountability. When is the last time you got a reasoned response from your senator instead of a menu of platitudes? So far so good Obama. Of course it depends on your definition of paltitude.
Surely the sequence should be people ask, Obama acts, people respond .And not the other way around.
Depends on whether you prefer a leader or a clerk.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
