Update: Sending Your Obama Money to Feingold

Last night I posted a blog suggesting that Obama supporters who are angry about his about-face on the upcoming FISA legislation should take the money they would have given Obama this month and give it instead to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who is carrying on the fight that Obama walked away from. Apparently the idea struck a chord. The Feingold campaign told me at midday that money was pouring in. Campaign manager George Aldrich was reluctant to give out precise numbers, but reported that the morning's donations were "not a little blip but a massive spike" up from the norm.

That's a big chunk of change that should have gone to Obama. Predictably, this infuriated many Obama supporters, but those of us who redirected our donations to Fiengold are Obama supporters too. My interest is not to derail Obama's campaign from within, but to keep a place at the table for his activist base now that the chairs are being reshuffled to accommodate the heavy hitters of national American politics. This is the point in presidential campaigns where activists usually get sent to the kitchen to eat with the staff. But maybe with this new tool we have in the Internet, we can hold on to our seat in the dining room.

Sending money to Feingold instead of Obama the week of the FISA vote is a reasonable and powerful step to take. Remember the election is in November and this is only July. We have months in which to give Obama more money. We are not so tightly boxed in that we cannot make this statement on behalf of the Constitution now. Most important of all, I think Obama's chances are better if he sticks to the principles that got him this far. As far as I am concerned, I am still working on his campaign right now.

*

However, figuring out how to use the Internet in an honest and effective is a tricky business, as other recent events highlighted. For example, membership in the protest group on MyBo jumped several thousand and is now at about 22,500. Many opposed to the protest suggest these numbers are artificially inflated by Republican "trolls." But you can check the profile of each member of the protest group, and see when they joined MyBo, what activities they have done for the campaign, and what comments and blogs they have written. The more than 18,000 who joined before today appeared to be for the most part exactly who they claim to be: the activist core of the Obama campaign. But the overwhelming proportion of today's joiners are new MyBo and have not made any profile. These might be Obama supporters who joined MyBo to voice their protest over the FISA cave-in, or they might be a Karl Rove operation. There really isn't any way to know.

Meanwhile a statement from a group called PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) appeared, purporting to use the principled stands which Obama supporter-critics are taking to launch an effort to revive the Clinton campaign. Everything about this group, their rhetoric, and their Web site suggests that this may indeed be a Republican troll operation. At any rate, their statements are so outrageous as to discredit them, no matter who they are or what motivations they have.

(For example, one Web site associated with PUMA is No Quarter. The site, which rabidly attacks Obama and promotes Clinton with articles such as "White Like Us?", identifies its contact person as Larry C. Johnson, who "works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering."

Some commenters have even suggested that I myself am not a real person but a nefarious Republican trick. Well folks, I live and breathe. If you want to know me better, check out my most recent book, People's Movements, People's Press: The Journalism of Social Justice Movements, or my Web site.

Others suggested that I was never an Obama supporter to begin with, and demanded links to document the contrary. No problem. * Super Tuesday Leaves New Political Map (my first "Why I Support Obama" post) * Think Big: Democrats and (Young) Evangelicals (I actually support Obama's outreach to young evangelicals) * Obama in Florida: Hooray for Substance! (I liked his outreach to Cuban Americans just as much.)

*

Some commenters complained that donating to Senator Feingold's campaign was a bad idea since he is not up for reelection this year. I thought that was a good thing, since the relatively inactive campaign would be able to easily distinguish whatever protest money arrived this week from its typical income stream which is probably close to nothing. However, if you want to give your July Obama money to a more urgent Feingold project, you can donate to his PAC, the Progressive Patriots Fund, which is raising money now to train organizers who will fan out across the country to work on key races this fall.

*

In a clear indication that our protests are reaching their intended destination, Senator Obama himself addressed his critics today at a campaign event in Georgia.

At a town-hall style event, Senator Obama said his protesting supporters "haven't apparently been listening" to him... "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

It is nice to seem him respond, but sadly, like his response of a couple of days ago, his reply helps nothing. We have been listening.

December 17, 2007: "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications... Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same."

Just before Super Tuesday: 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.

I am not sure which part of these statements Senator Obama thought we misunderstood.

I don't expect to agree with Obama on every issue and I don't. I also believe that politicians should be allowed to change their minds. In fact, as they learn more and hear from more people, it is a problem if their views don't change and grow. But the only significant change regarding the FISA vote is this: during the Wisconsin primary it was politically convenient for Obama to support the filibuster, and it is less convenient now. That is not the sort of change I can believe in.

Comments

[texanna]

People that want to ensure a more progressive Legislative Branch can also go to Firedoglake where Christie Harden-Smith has a link to a website that showcases truly progressive candidates all across the country that could use the money right now!

[Michale32086]

@tommybones

}}}}Congress has a 9% approval rating for a reason.
}}}}They have sold out their responsibility to the
}}}}Constitution and their constituency for corporate
}}}}pay-outs (kind of like you, Michale).

This is why it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a "real debate" with you.

Because you turn everything into a personal attack.

I tried to reason with you.

Yer talking to yourself now..

Michale....

[tommybones]

Good Lord... you ignored my cogent points for a week now, and have the audacity to claim you were trying to "reason with me"???? lmao. The moment you actually answer one of my rebuttal points, then we can start talking about how reasonable you are. Are you kidding?

[woodsywizz]

I'm glad you're on fire about this issue. I've sworn to "defend and uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I have three points:

1) Against the total corruption of Republican and Corporate Fascism, we need every penny to elect a non-Fascist President.

2) The telecoms are not the problem. The entire top tier of current government and corporate leadership is the problem.

3) The vast sums being donated by the telecoms to Democrats may actually allow enough leverage to turn the Helm of the Ship of State.

I'm all in favor of principled struggle. I also hope to outlive the battle. Unless we elect Obama, and every other Democrat running, the USA will descend further into a racist, nationalist police state from which there may be no recovery for at least a generation.

Remember the great compromises of principle which allowed the winning of the Second World War - now, today, we have time to be indignant. At the time the desperation of our leaders was concealed from the public, for good reason. Don't we have as terrible a threat to face?

I don't propose interning Muslim immigrants, nor nuking Teheran. I'm proposing distasteful compromise in order to win the war, to take back our Nation, to return (if need be indirectly) to Constitutional principles and democratic governance - where every vote counts, and is counted.

[Michale32086]

@AbbieXHoffman

}}}}}
You are looking in the wrong place for the unconstitutionality of this bill. It's not overtly in this amendment it's in the original which allows for warrantless wiretapping in the first place.
}}}}}

Ahhhhh OK..

So, we are agree that HR6304 is NOT unconstitutional.

Your beef is with the alleged unconstitutionality of previous measures.

OK... Kewl.. Glad we got that settled..

Michale.....

[tommybones]

Another response that won't be acknowledged by our resident coward, Michale, but here goes:

Numerous Constitutional experts have publicly condemned this bill as being unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. They cannot definitively prove this because that is not an option. In this country, a Judge decides if a law is Constitutional, after a court hearing. So Michale, in true Rovian style, asserts that the lack of definitive proof (an impossibility) somehow proves “without a doubt” that the law conforms to the Constitution. This obviously defies common sense and happens to be the crux of his argument (no doubt given to him by his AT&T overlords).

[AbbieXHoffman]

You conveniently miss the fact that HR6304 extends the unconstitutionality of the original bill so IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Kewl. Glad we got that settled.

[Michale32086]

@tommybones

}}}}I already changed my service to CREDO Mobile.

So? Credo Mobile is owned by Working Assets Phone Service.

Working Assets Phone Service leases their lines from Sprint.

And Sprint was involved in the TelComs spying that you decry so much.

So you are supporting the very TelComs you castigate.

That is a very hypocritical position to take, don't you think??

If you are serious in your condemnation, you would get rid of all your telecommunications uses.

Michale.....

[tommybones]

Idiotic and argumentative statement which ignores (shocking, I know) the points about WHY the civil suits were necessary as well as WHY the criminal cases will never go forward. Both arguments eviscerate two of your favorite talking points.

Now, we can keep playing these parlour games, or you can decide to have a real debate, without obfuscation and deception.

The idea that a citizen must lose all forms of communication in order to avoid hypocrisy is IDIOTIC. We fight to change a rigged system as much as we can, as often as we can. What good is a citizen who is out of the loop, unable to keep up with the events of the day and engage in political discourse with his fellow citizens?

Your clearly argumentative point is the same as saying, "Love it or leave it." Word games, in lieu of honest debate. It's cowardly.

[AbbieXHoffman]

What a knucklead. You have crystalized the reason the telecoms shoudn't be above the law. Because the people can't take them to task in court and they can't take them to task by changing carriers.

The whole point is that any time you take a right away to sue you take away the unveiling of truth. The due process of law is inherenlty perfect. If there was no harm found to citizens who try to sue, there will be no award.

Furthermore, there is already a safeguard in the law to avoid frivolous lawsuits. The companies can file something called a "motion for summary judgement". That means the claimaint (the people) have to present all the facts of the case supporting their claim and the judge reviews them PRIOR to trial. If the judge finds the facts are bogus, there is no damage, etc the case gets thrown out of court.

You see you don't need to provide immunity because both the due process of law and the judges can handle this.

Don't take away a right to sue because it sets a dangerous precident and it masks the unveiling of truth. Besides it should go down in history that anyone that breaks the law, even at the bequest of the president, will face possible prosecution.

[Michale32086]

@Thad

}}}}}I really don't understand how capitulating to a
}}}}}President who has an approval rating in the
}}}}}mid-20's is going to help him with independents
}}}}}or fence-sitters.

Forget Obama for a second. Why did the majority of the Democrats in the House & Senate support the measure? They surely have no fear of a president with an approval rating in the mid 20s??

Once again, if you are going to be rational and logical about things, you MUST consider the possibility that this had nothing to do with politics. You MUST consider the possibility that it was the right thing to do for the country.

Michale.....

[tommybones]

Congress has a 9% approval rating for a reason. They have sold out their responsibility to the Constitution and their constituency for corporate pay-outs (kind of like you, Michale).

One needn't invoke the theory of Occum's Razor to know that Congress voted for this bill PURELY for Politics and profit. Only an ignorant fool would think otherwise.

[racom]

I watched the interview of Russ Feingold on 'count down', he was very disappointed but not surprised by the outcome. We all knew it would have to be a filibuster to put things on hold, didn't happen. That hope Obama voted against also. I do have to say Russ did seem to take it pretty well, he seemed to think there will be more to come on this issue.
Obama likely has helped himself with the independents and fence sitters while hurting his image with the progressives. I still like the program here by Bob, it will send a message to the campaign headquarters counting the money.
Chin up everyone, we live to fight another day. Just more of an up hill battle.
PS. For those as disgusted as I am with the comment section being dominated by the monopolizers, best to not reply or answer them. To ignore is a way to slight them!

[Thad]

I really don't understand how capitulating to a President who has an approval rating in the mid-20's is going to help him with independents or fence-sitters.

I think the truth is that most of the country doesn't know about the issue and doesn't care.

The problem is that demoralizing his base has a ripple effect -- yeah, we'll all still go out and vote for him, and may even still donate to his campaign. But his most enthusiastic supporters, the volunteers out there ringing doorbells and shaking hands and getting people out to vote -- well, this is going to hurt their morale.

[tommybones]

Hit Michale with a rebuttal that eviscerates his argument?

*cricket city*

(He probably had no idea how ironic it was when he used that term)

[Michale32086]

I got it!!!

The PERFECT SOLUTION!!!

The vast majority of ya'all are pissed at the Telecoms. Right??

Well, why bother to wait for any civil lawsuits!!??

PUNISH THE TELCOMS RIGHT NOW!!!

All of you run out and cancel ALL of your telecommunications services... Get rid of your cell phones, your home phones, your Internet services... Chuck it all!

You don't want to support the TelComs, right!?? Get rid of it all!!!

So, who is going to take this step of punishing the TelComs for breaking the law!???

{{{chirp}}} {{{chirp}}} {{{chirp}}}

That's what I thought.

Cricket city...

Hypocrites...

Michale.....

[tommybones]

I already changed my service to CREDO Mobile.

Meanwhile, your asinine comment erroneously assumes that the primary reason for the lawsuits is monetary damages. It isn't. Because our gutless democratically led Congress decided to abdicate their responsibility to the Constitution by taking impeachment "off the table," these suits stand as the only remaining opportunity to compel the release of information pertaining to the illegal spying program. In order to understand this egregious program and, more importantly, prevent it from happening again in the future, we must a) know precisely what happened and by whom and b) punish the lawbreakers to the fullest extent of the law. It's very simple. You want the law respected? You must ENFORCE IT.

Additionally, you keep hanging your hat on the idea that criminal prosecutions are still on the table. This ignores the fact that Bush can (and no doubt will) grant a blanket criminal immunity to the phone companies (and therefore himself) prior to leaving office. Why wouldn't he?

Don't bother responding, coward....

[bgregs]

"The vast majority of ya'all are pissed at the Telecoms. Right??

Well, why bother to wait for any civil lawsuits!!?? "

And then there's those of us who are not only pissed about the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the law, but recognize the immunity for what it really is. bush doesn't want anybody to know just how badly he screwed the Constitution. Therefore he can pardon everybody involved, INCLUDING the telecoms, so that NO organization in the US will be allowed to look into it. However, he can't do that with civil lawsuits. The proof of this is shown in his assertion that he would veto ANY bill regarding FISA if it did NOT have immunity! Therefore BUSH cared more about immunity than about "national security"!

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}
For anyone who would vote for Obama now, you might want to chew on the last lines of the
old song about the woman rescued a snake, who then repaid her kindness by inflicting a
poisonous bite. The snake's purported reply:

"Ah shut up, silly woman, said the reptile with a grin.
Now you knew darn well I was a snake before you brought me in."
}}}}}}}

And I get accused of slander for calling people Anti-Obama...

Go figger...

Michale.....

[tommybones]

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl: "Even though Congress has failed to protect the privacy of Americans and uphold the rule of law, we will not abandon our defense of liberty. We will fight this unconstitutional grant of immunity in the courtroom and in the Congress, requesting repeal of the immunity in the next session, while seeking justice from the Judiciary. Nor can the lawless officials who approved this massive violation of Americans' rights rest easy, for we will file a new suit against the government and challenge warrantless wiretapping, past, present and future."

[Michale32086]

@orouborus

}}}}This may actually be the first time I've agreed with you, but: I agree with you.

Scary, ain't it?? :D

Yea, I have a feeling that Clinton has set up a PUMA rebellion with her NO vote on HR6304..

All these Anti-Obama types that have been posting are going to try and squeeze the Superdelegates to replace Obama with Clinton...

If that happen, the Denver Convention will make 1968 look like family picnic by comparison...

Michale.....

[ProudLiberalDan]

Don't worry. The Superdelegates don't have the courage to stand up to Bush with a 19% approval rating. They aren't going to replace one DLC-in-spirit triangulator with another.

My fantasy would be the Superdelgates voting for a "straw" candidate on the first ballot so no candidate gets a majority, then throwing the convention wide open to draft someone like Al Gore.

It won't happen, of course. That has about as much likelihood of happening as Obama's "new politics" actually creating a post-partisan American that means anything else other than conservatives eating him alive and liberals acting like doormats again.

[Michale32086]

How did Bush enter the picture??

And why would the Superdelegates have to stand up to Bush to nominate Clinton over Obama???

I should also point out that approval of Congress is in the single digits...

Not that polls mean anything at all.....

But it makes Bush's ratings downright rosy, eh??

Al Gore!?? I would LOVE to see him as the Dem candidate!

It would guarantee a McCain presidency, but at least Gore would be FORCED to debate the joke/con that is Human Caused Global Warming and have it exposed for the fraud that it is.. That would be one (of two) events that I want to see before I die...

Michale.....

[bamiman]

You are a liberal? Really? One of thosewho like to lose with clean hands and a pure soul... Just a disguised republican or (which is the same) the republican's liberal best friend whose extreme avatar are the fools in PUMA.

[tommybones]

The ACLU announced today that it will challenge this bill in court as soon as it is passed on the ground that its warrantless eavesdropping provisions violate the Fourth Amendment:
In advance of the president's signature, the ACLU announced its plan to challenge the new law in court.

"This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans' international telephone and email communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment."

EFF, the other non-profit organization behind the telecom lawsuits, announced the same, emphasizing the unconstitutionality of the grant of immunity, likely on the ground that by resolving these pending lawsuits in favor of the telecoms, Congress as usurped the judicial function with the Constitutional, in Article III, assigns to the courts, not to Congress or the President.

Hopefully, this abomination will be overturned.

[tommybones]

I don't have the heart to break it to them that Michale has already determined, "without a doubt," that the new FISA law conforms to the Constitution.

[Michale32086]

You probably should tell them..

Same them a whole bunch of money and ya'all a whole lotta time...

If they need any references, ask them to speak to Senator Obama.. He's the Constitutional scholar that is running for President.

Michale....

[Thad]

Yeah, but we've already seen this one debated in different forms. The lower courts throw it out because they can't get access to classified information, and the SCOTUS isn't interested in taking it.

[Michale32086]

@Lemeritus

}}}}}}Either stop your slander, Michale, or flags will fly. No kidding this time. If you continue to call those who disagree with you "anti-Obama" (or any of the other disparaging adjectives you keep at the ready), I will personally petition the site administrators to have you removed. {{{{{{

Oh Wow!!! You can't beat me with logic and you can't beat me with hysterics.. So NOW you are going to try threats!!??

Petition all you want, son.. I call 'em as I see 'em... Many of you ARE Anti-Obama. That's a fact...

I won't even BOTHER to remind you of all the slander, lies and BS accusations that *I* have had to endure...

}}}} And, I believe, you've been impersonating an officer of the law which may just be a felony.{{{{

Now THAT is funny! :D

But so typical of you. No facts at all...

}}}}I suggest to all that Michale's 1st Amendment rights be respected in direct proportion to his respect for our 4th Amendment concerns.{{{{{

*I* suggest that it's not your call to make, son...

You lost, son.. Be a gracious loser... And, don't threaten me...

Michale.....

[bgregs]

We have asked nicely, and we have asked harshly. You CONTINUE to lie about us, and in my own humble opinion, slander us. I STRONGLY support Senator Obama, although I disagree with him on this issue. I've NEVER been anti-Obama, and while I won't say that I will never be anti-Obama, it's gonna take a lot more than this for me to do so. So you can continue to think that this bill is legal, and you can continue to spout off lies, but the fact of the matter is that you have been THOROUGHLY discredited by REFUSING to consider what other people are saying.

[Michale32086]

No..

I only refuse to respond to childish and immature name-calling...

Talk to me like an adult, I'll respond in kind...

Talk to me like an immature adolescent throwing a hissy-fit, you'll get that back.. And then you'll get ignored..

Grow up and then we can can talk...

Finally, if you support Obama, then you should trust his judgment. If you don't trust his judgment, then you are Anti-Obama...

It's THAT simple...

Michale.....

[Lemeritus]

I would like to thank you, indeed, for pulling this to the front. I knew you would; you cannot bear not to have the last word. You, my dear Michale, are a spammer, who belittles people to feel better, who always has the last word in the belief that THAT wins the argument. You have hi-jacked each thread on which you've participated and driven those of us who have been here since the Huffington Post's inception to frustration.

So! Thank you indeed for bringing this forward!

And, again, to all who have endured bright light of Michale's "rightness", I repeat: we should all repect Michale's 1st Amendment rights in direct proportion to his respect for our 4th Amendment concerns and treat him with the regard he has treated us.

[Lemeritus]

Btw, I don't make idle threats. And as an American who lost a crucial chunk of Constitutional protection today, I hardly think I should be called upon to be gracious. Like I said -- see ya' in court.

[Michale32086]

My pleasure..

And, just remember.. I have treated you and your ilk in the exact manner consistent with how you treated me...

So, if you don't like the way you have been treated, I suggest you look in a mirror..

Just a final piece of advice..

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight..

You'll lose EVERY time..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

HOWEVER....

However, if you people really REALLY want to use Section 702 as your argument, let's try it...

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

Subsection (a), Subsection (5)

``(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Boom..

Every argument you can possibly make has just been rendered moot...

But, it's all moot anyways..

It's law now...

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Section 702, subsection c(4) reads:

"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."

BOOM!

every argument that YOU'VE ever made or can make is now rendered moot. Don't worry though, I don't think that bush will imprison you for looking at this site!

Course, it's not moot yet, since the law still has to be challenged!