When Obama said he wanted to bridge the divide between blue and red, some of us may have thought that he would be reaching out with his left-leaning hand to the middle and middle-right and pulling them closer to the left.
He never said that.
Perhaps we thought that we would emerge from such a bridging with all of our hopes and issues intact.
I don't believe Obama ever thought that.
Turns out it hurts to walk half way across that bridge. It hurts both sides. That this is the legacy of Republican politics is beside the point. Change means change for us, too. What is now being called the "Netroots," which yesterday was called the "Liberal Blogosphere," is all upset about some of Obama's policies. It has always been upset over his healthcare plan, and even though there are many pluses in the FISA bill, and a giant loophole which allows an Obama Justice Department to investigate and prosecute the Telecoms, the blogs are screaming bloody murder over Obama's support for it.
I don't like that he supported it either. I'd like to see the CEO's in the same Federal Prison with many of the Bush administration.
I'd like to see Obama elected president first.
One of Obama's strengths is that he allows us to write our own beliefs on to his bandwagon. It's one of the things that make him such an attractive candidate. Blacks write their history on him, whites understand that he was raised by white folks. And on and on.
It's hard to compromise when you've spent your whole life being uncompromising, but what's the alternative? John McCain? Moving to a self-sustaining farm?
Listen to Huffingtonposters D'Antoni & Levine ...that's Tom and Art... Thursdays at 5:30pm ET 2:30pm PT and archived thereafter.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, the supposed "loophole" is that it leaves the telecoms exposed to *criminal* prosecution (which they are currently still exposed to, so how that's an improvement is your guess).
And all Bush has to do to crush this "loophole" is... pardon them. Case closed, no double jeopardy, you lose.
There IS no loophole. The FISA bill is an utter capitulation by the Democrats, not a "compromise." Please stop spinning it.
Someone please explain what this means. Especially in light of this cardinal sin that your candidate is making against the constitution. Did not enough of you write on his bandwagon that the constitution is the most important thing in this country? Now you are willing to trust that he will fix everything when he becomes president. Along with the 30 million other huge problems we have? And not to mention the utterly unthinkable, What if he doesn't become president?
The consensus in Washington is: we will invade whoever we want on whatever pretext we desire and no one will will challenge it. We will commit war crimes and no one will be impeached. We will cross every line of decency and the other party will turn its head the other way.
Sorry Tom. This ain't about Obama, it is about how Washington works; how it has always worked, how it will continue to work until it is changed.
And, it includes both parties.
"Change" starts, when someone ignores the consensus and does what is right.
Until then, it is just campaign slogans, and a bunch of people so desperate to be in power they will say and/or tolerate anything.
The evil racist Hillary had to be stopped because she was not liberal and progressive enough; the sainted Obama must move to the center, shake hands with the devil and not be so liberal or so progressive as to offend.
And you wonder why so many women are so angry....the nasty demeaning attacks from the left by democrats are to be forgiven now so we can compromise with the right. Give me a break.
Carol
Slowly the Messiah from Illinois is no longer working miracles for his leftwing fans. You all knew this was bound to happen. How would you expect Obama to win over the mainstream Democrats - let's call them red meat Democrats, I like that - without talking turkey and becoming practical? "Change, change, change" doesn't cut it.
I take this development as a good sign. Obama will begin to gravitate closer to Hillary's position, and the young guy just might win in November. If he remained loyal to these "Netroots" he would evetually suffer an electoral defeat. Good for him! There's still hope.
That is what this bill will do. It gives up the right to privacy guaranteed in the fourth amendment. Basically the bill makes legal what we are complaining that george did. Under this bill the only people to check on whether a demand for records is for national security is the people making the demands. Under this bill, the request is no longer a request; it is a demand. No preconditons, no oversight.
The neocons are using the immunity stuff to distract us from the real problems. And it is working. All we hear is talk about immunity. They don't care about the telecoms. If this bill passes, we lose a part of the Bill of Rights. And when it is no longer illegal, then bush and his friends didn't commit a crime. That's the part they care about.
Compromise? Sure. I'm willing to let the CEO's go free. (No way any one of them is ever serving a day in jail anyway.) What I don't think Obama should compromise with is the Bill of Rights and bush's accountability.