Obama: Bridging the Gap is Not as Easy as We Thought
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.
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
Can we quit with the "giant loophole" crap?
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 "compromis
Elect a Democrat because the Republicans are just that much worse? Neither party represents the people of the country; the same applies to their respective candidates. Maybe the election of a third-party or independent candidate will help, or maybe nothing short of a revolution will change things. Either way, the left has compromised its beliefs long enough.
I think we should demand that the Democratic candidate take the positions of the people who he or she claims to represent -- to bring about a lasting peace and to negotiate with countries so that war is no longer neccessary; to reduce the amount of influence the corporations have on the government as much as possible; to protect the enviroment by both investing in green technologies and by halting the destruction of habitat and the dire effects hunting has on animal species; to improve the quality of life of the millions who struggle in this country by providing healthcare, education, and other such services, as well provide help to those nations that suffer from the same problems; to pass measures and do whatever else possible to end discrimination against race, gender, religion, etc.; and to work in every way possible for the good of the people of this country and the world. If the candidate will not do so, vote for someone else. While this is virtually asking for perfection, there are people out there who will stand for these things who would have a much better chance of being elected to any position or gaining any sort of influence with the government if we support them rather than simply going for "close enough." Now THAT is change.
"One of Obama's strengths is that he allows us to write our own beliefs on to his bandwagon.
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 violate any law, and undermine the constitutional rights of Americans; and, when we get caught, we will pass a law exempting our behavior from prosecution.
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.
YEP!
Thank you. I think the most important point to take from this article is that compromise and bridging divides takes sacrifice from BOTH sides. There's no perfect world and the answer to more unity doesn't come without some sacrifice, but it has to be worth it, because it's better than what we have now.
So let's trample on the constitution now. What else has to be compromised? What else is left?
WOW....the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude of the primary was nothing more than the hypocrisy we all knew it was. The evil Hillary "pandered" while the saintly Obama reaches out and compromise to get elected. The evil witch Hillary LIED while the saintly Obama is now pragmatic.
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....t
Its going to be a struggle and I just remind myself about three things he said. One we are not always going to agree but he will always listen and Two he has the capacity to make strong decisions even when its unpopular. Someone then asked if he was going to ignore public opnion and do what he wants. He points out that you never ignore public opinion you shape it and you do so by giving them facts and telling the the truth. He did explain why he is going to vote for the bill. Johnathan alter on Countdown also pointed out how much of a marked improvement the new fisa bill was its not perfect but it protects civil liberties of the American people. You are NOT going to get perfection and if that is what the folks on the left are looking for they will never find a winning candidate. Its moreso problematic with Obama if you are running on a unity platform sooner or later you are bound to upset certain demographics because people have narrow ideological parochial interest. I believe that Obama is fair the closest thing you can get to objectivity and I believe that because of the way he has conducted himself and this camapign. I believe that he will be honest and I believe that he will make his decisions based on reasoning and facts.
Carol
Wow. He set up caveats that you will all use as mantras. See this is where the word "cult" fits to describe this movement. This is exactly what cult leaders say. No matter what he does you can't blame him and you won't stop him. Wow, talk about "narrow idealogical parochial interest".
There are no pluses in the FISA bill. The Senate should kill it. If there IS a real need for FISA reform, it can wait until the next Congress, and be REAL reform that doesn't abrogate the Bill of Rights.
I haven't been able to do enough research on this bill, but I can see both sides of the argument. If the telecoms were violating our constitutional rights for the past 6 years, and the bill only requires them to say the government made us do it to get a get out of jail free card, what's the point in the fourth amendment? These telecoms, I'm sure, had lawyers that could have done research on this issue, and turned down the government's request, like quest, but were probably afraid of the repercussions. Obama's position on this issue is disappointing because it is a complete reversal on his stance in the past regarding immunity, and people expect a lot from him. I have said from the beginning that I like the guy, even though I don't agree with all of his positions, but this may be a bitter pill to swallow for many.
It may take a gallon of Kool-Aid to swallow this pill.
And now it starts...
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.
I'm a conservative democrat and this is a weighty issue for me. Anything that deals with the constitution is. I will happily vote for McCain in the fall. At least with him, I know what I'm getting.
The immunity and CEO's in prison are just distractions that the right has thrown in to distract us from the real problems with this bill. I'm prepared to make some compromises, but giving dick cheney the power to tap the phones are Greenpeace is not one. Nor do I think that letting the president tap into Obama's email is a good thing.
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.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
