Some Evidence FISA Hurt Obama

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 19:41


Obama has dropped in the latest Newsweek poll.  He's gone from 51-36 over McCain to 44-41.  The most striking piece of data though is that 53% of registered voters think that he has changed his position on key policy issues to try to gain political advantage since becoming the nominee.

That is stunning.  Over half of the public, though perhaps has not heard of the FISA fight specifically, believes he shifts positions for political advantage.  And why shouldn't they?  He did.  The drop was substantially concentrated among younger voters between the ages of 18-39 and independents.  Democrats and Hillary Clinton supporters maintained the same level of support for Obama.

Republicans gained a few points of strength overall, but Obama lost far more than the Democratic brand in the last month.  It is only one poll, but honestly I did not expect to see evidence that the FISA shift hurt him among anyone except hard core activists.  It turns out hard core activists still support Obama (though they perhaps aren't giving anymore), it's the independents that don't.  I thought and still largely think this election is in the bag, though it doesn't really matter what I think, I'm not making decisions for the Obama campaign and his people don't like us hippie bloggers.

Still, I will say that Obama better win this election or else he'll be the most hated Democrat ever.

... Man the comments section is nasty.  A couple of points.  

One, Obama asked for the responsibility to win the election and defunded the outside groups.  He wants to run this his way and he's going to run it his way.  That means he gets the credit and the blame, and in this environment it is simply a Democratic year that he should take advantage of.  If he doesn't he doesn't, but progressives should get none of the blame for it.  We sure aren't going to get any credit.  That's what responsibility means, when you have authority you take responsibility when you don't you don't pretend that you do.  

Two, Obama switched his position on several high profile issues, including abortion (sort of), NAFTA, FISA, and guns.  The netroots are angry with him, but the story of him changing his position would be out there regardless.  These are his choices, not ours, and they point to a deep lack of principle in his choices.  He gets the credit and the blame.

Three, the election environment is still very favorable to Obama.  He can lose, which I didn't think was possible until the last few weeks, but people hate Republicans and McCain is a Republican.  And this poll is probably an outlier, so there's no point in panicking.  And frankly, unless you're sitting in Obama's campaign office near the campaign manager, there's very little reason to worry, since nothing you do matters.

Four, stop blaming critics for Obama's fuck-ups.  Lots of people got excited about a new kind of politics, and then stopped giving when it became obvious Obama offers more of the same tired Democratic bullshit.  Is that their fault?  Maybe.  But Obama should have known that this would happen.  Plenty of people told the campaign to improve their outreach to liberals so he would understand the problems and be able to make better political decisions.  He chose not to do that.  Fine.  But then the millions of liberals out there who believe in liberal stuff aren't going to support him.  Obama gets that; he even said that if the FISA issue is a dealbreaker, "that's ok".  

It's not a deal-breaker for voters, but it ratchets down donors to simple supporters and it clearly annoys a good number of independents.

Five, Obama can clearly recover and recover quite easily.  He can come back from his trip to Iraq with Chuck Hagel and announce some progressive blah blah on gas prices and Iraq, and he'll easily be the belle of the ball again.  Progressives, as the primary showed, are cheap dates, though we're getting more expensive as we keep getting lied to.

Matt Stoller :: Some Evidence FISA Hurt Obama

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
true (0.00 / 0)
I was highly disappointed in Dukakis frittering away a big lead (okay, maybe not big but a lead) but I would be appalled if Obama lost and it had anything to do with being too much of an "old school" politician.

Obama is exactly where he has been since Hillary Dropped Out! (4.00 / 4)
His lead is around +4 points in national polling: See Pollster.com. http://www.pollster.com/08-US-...

The Newsweek poll was always an outlier. The Wall-Street Journal/LAT poll that found him at +12 was similarly flawed. Both oversampled Democrats.

For analysis: see statistician Nate Silver at: FiveThirtyEight.com

Obama's lead has held at between 4 and 5 points for over a month now. Anybody who believed that Obama had a 15 point lead was ignoring the Gallup and Rassmussen daily polls that have it consistently at +3, +2, +1, +4, +5, +6. NEVER more than +6 and NEVER McCain leading.

That's the state of the race. It's close and will get closer before November.


[ Parent ]
For the record (0.00 / 0)
I don't think its that big.  A 5 point lead would require a 7.5% shift from 2004, and I don't see a shift that large in the recent state polling absent the upper midwest.  

My guess is that it's between 1 and 3.    


[ Parent ]
I agree with you about the poll (4.00 / 2)
but disagree about it getting closer.

Once Obama stops pissing off his base on a weekly basis AND once everyone that's not a political junkie (y'know, the other 95% of the country) starts seeing Obama and McCain compared, face to face, in debates, this thing is going to be over in a big way.

McCain is a ticking time bomb waiting to self destruct behind unpopular policies and in front of a tanking economy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't work hard, etc., etc., but I do believe we're at McCain's high point.  


[ Parent ]
No optimism in this thread! (4.00 / 6)
Look, if you're going to post in this thread, you have to say how the election has been decided this week, that Obama has sold out humanity, and how his followers have been duped, and that we erred by not nominating a perfect human.  Where is your invective?

You cannot recklessly display such optimism and a long view perspective.

You need to work on your posting style.  Far too sensitive.  


[ Parent ]
Thanks Crab (0.00 / 0)
An actual LOLz from me.  

[ Parent ]
From the resident optimist (4.00 / 1)
I think it is clear that the earlier Newsweek poll was an outlier.  McCain has not taken a lead and he seems to have a ceiling.  His campaign was in disarray all week and we had the "Social Security is a disaster" and Phil Gramm quotes.  Obama did highlight several progressive issues like pay equity, protecting reproductive rights and gains by women, bankruptcy reform, energy sustainability etc but FISA overshadowed them all for the Left, allowing the narrative for the week to be how wonderful McCain is and how much Obama sucks.

Yes, the FISA vote was a terrible, terrible thing.  But ask yourself who is more likely to begin to dismantle the security state and who is likely to end our policy of torture?  Not John McCain.  And ask yourself who will suffer most if McCain does win, and what it will be like for all of us.

Too many people here seem to have unreasonable expectations for politics as a process, a hobby and a profession, and for their own place in it.  There are always disappointments, and the more progressive you are, the more disappointments there are.  It is easy to cry in your beer and refuse to take part or to take responsibility, but may I say it one more time--it is just childish, and you are likely to burn out quickly if you don't get some perspective.  Politics is a long, slow boring of hard boards, as Max Weber said in Politics as a Vocation a time that was much harder than this.

Obama may not be your ideal candidate, and my bet is you will never see that person in your lifetime, and if you do, you are settling for too little.  But he is a very gifted politician, very pragmatic and smart, certainly on the left side of center, and probably close to what we need after the pitched battles and lack of progress of the last 16 or even 28 years.  

I think Obama will pull it out, but he is much more likely to do so, and he will be more likely to move in a progressive direction after the election IF PROGRESSIVES SUPPORT HIM.  If they don't, why should he listen?

More than any time in recent history there are lots of progressive groups organizing on many issues.  Get involved somehow.  Support Obama in some way, get involved in the congressional races.  Get involved in some issue group like ACLU or the groups organizing around health care, or technology freedom or whatever interests you.  Be part of the change you seek.  The problems are just too serious for large numbers of people who think of themselves as progressive to go into a huff and just complain all the time.  Plus, it is really a downer for the rest of us.


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Yes, perfect, keep posting this (0.00 / 0)
Paragraphs 3 and 4 are essential truths about life and politics that so many here don't understand.

Please keep posting this message.  People need to understand what is realistic and what isn't, and that progress is incremental.  

And, horrors, there may be bumps in the road.

People seem to think that we should torch the earth until we get that FDR/Bobby Kennedy/Kareem Abdul Jabbar/Eleanor Roosevelt/Mother Theresa candidate.  


[ Parent ]
PLEASE (4.00 / 2)
ARE YOU GUYS INSANE??? NOT ONLY DID YOU CHERRY PICK A POLL, YOU PICKED THE ONE THAT WAS AN OBVIOUS OUTLIER WHEN IT CAME BACK THE LAST TIME.  COME ON MATT, YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS... THIS WASN'T WORTH THE TIME TO WRITE.  

[ Parent ]
BUT I WANT TO PANIC & ISSUE BLAME! (4.00 / 2)
This is the poll that portends the future!  Because it fits in with all my beliefs about Obama.   We are doomed, I tell you, doomed!  The guy is a phony!

I can't wait until we someday nominate a perfectly true honest enlightened being who will score perfectly on all Progressive scales and never waver.   That day is coming soon!


[ Parent ]
um (0.00 / 0)
Here's the part of the post you seem to have missed: "I thought and still largely think this election is in the bag."

I have consistently argued that this stuff won't hurt Obama electorally.


[ Parent ]
Which is exactly the reason he did it. Such a damn shame, I wish there was more I could do to punish him for FISA. n/t (4.00 / 1)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
I have always believed (4.00 / 3)
that this will be a very close race until the last week, when we will see if the 80 analogy holds and there is a late break to Obama.

There is fundamentally way too much optimism among Democratic bloggers.  The Newsweek lead of 3 is close to the current Rasmussen poll, and consistent with what I am seeing in state polling.  There are reasons to be optimistic particularly given the right track/wrong direction numbers.

But fundamentally the race looks like it will turn on energy in general, and gas prices in particular.  In turn I think two competing narratives will develop:
*The GOP narrative: high gas prices are the result of the environmentalists and government limiting access to productive American oil fields.  We don't need to trade in our SUV's, or change the way we are living, we just need to start drilling where the environmentalists won't let us and we will have all the oil we need.

*The Democratic Narrative: We are near peak oil, and we have to focus on the development of new technologies to enable us to use less oil.  Oil prices are never going back down - even if we drill offshore and in ANWAR there will be no impact to oil prices because the market for oil is global, and the amounts in these places is not material.  

I think the GOP narrative is nonsense, but I wouldn't bet one way or another as to which narrative the country chooses.  And make no mistake: the narrative they chose will determine this election.


[ Parent ]
except the shift in numbers didn't happen until the recent flaps (4.00 / 5)
which aren't a production of blogger imagination, but Obama's own campaign choices.

[ Parent ]
I started to see the shift (0.00 / 0)
in Mid-June.  It showed up in the SurveyUSA state polling.  

I don't think Obama has ever been up more than about 6 - and that was in the week after the Clinton endorsement.  


[ Parent ]
Good? (0.00 / 0)
I sure hope Obama has learned something from this.  And I hope conventional wisdom adjusts a bit as well.

It is good (0.00 / 0)
Obama doesn't do well with high expectations of victory.  Its better for them to be realistic.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


[ Parent ]
The ron paulites stopped supporting him (0.00 / 0)
That being said he didn't shift on Fisa for political advantage as this poll obviously shows.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


Obama has been a huge disappointment (4.00 / 6)
since the primary. And if this is how he's going to run his general election campaign, it makes me wonder just what the hell we were fighting about in the primary.

It looks like we're going to get the same weak-ass DLC-style campaign we always get, only this time with better GOTV. And with the Republican brand in the shape it's in, that might be enough to win this time, but still, I am damned disappointed. If I'd wanted this kind of campaign, I would have voted for Hillary.

I was hoping for something better - a transformative election - but Obama doesn't seem interested in that. Pity.


You were figting about personaly and identity differences (4.00 / 2)
Not substance.

[ Parent ]
There was virtually no difference (0.00 / 0)
between them on the issues.  As a result, the choice was more personal, and the divide therefore harder to bridge.  

[ Parent ]
Except there was quite a bit of projection involved (4.00 / 2)
and circling of the wagons anytime someone mentioned the reality.

[ Parent ]
Exactly. If you they were true issue voters you would vote for Kucinich or Dodd or someone. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
As an Edwards supporter, I'm too mature to say I told you so... (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Cause and effect and other issues... (4.00 / 2)
Well, as you said, it's hard to tell from one poll, but the supposed 53% of voters who thinks he "flip flops" (and I think the perception of them is honestly greater than the reality, except for FISA, which he legitimately switched on) could be simply a factor that they simply polled less people that supported him (thus the end result), and also therefore more people more likely to pick up on the "flip flop" charge that the GOP/McCain have been pushing.

Other recent polls haven't shown nearly this much volatility, leading me to believe that Newsweek's polls may not be very good.  I know they don't do any weighting by party, which probably over-exaggerated his lead last month, and maybe accurately or under-exaggerates his lead this month.

That's not to say that FISA or other perceived "moves to the center" haven't hurt him, but I'm just not sure that this is a definite conclusion we can reach, particularly when it appears his overall numbers have actually been going up over the past month (see 538).  Maybe it's just getting caught up to him now, though, and his numbers will start to go down, and this is just the start.  

In any case, this 3 point lead is far more in line with what all the other polls have been showing, if not a little on the low side.  


Right (4.00 / 1)
Beware of over-interpreting any one poll.  Not that I think his FISA vote was anything but a bad move, both substantively and politically.

I think there was another poll around the time of the previous Newsweek one that also showed Obama with a national lead in double digits, but nothing else since then has shown him with that big a lead.  I'd wait for a lot more data before concluding that he's taking a noticeable hit in the polling over FISA.  


[ Parent ]
Bit surprised at the disappoinment (4.00 / 1)
I always thought Obama was pretty much a centrist, so it was not a big let own or shocker to me.

Obama set such high expectations during the primary, that when he could not deliver the tremendous peak that his original supporters were expecting, the honeymoon ended.

But since the alternative is so horrific, I don't see this FISA mistake as causing any significant permanent damage to Obama.


Independents value integrity (4.00 / 14)
That was Obama's appeal.  The FISA mistake knocks the legs out of that support.  It's a big deal.

He's going to be lucky to squeak out victory in what should be a landslide year.  And it really does come down to giving your word on a core issue and then doing the opposite.

For a large part of America, this is a huge issue.  Much more so than FISA.  If he had supported it from the beginning or not stated bluntly that he would filibuster, it would be a activist only issue.

But going back on your word is much bigger than the base.


[ Parent ]
That is a good point (4.00 / 1)
His turn on FISA does show a lack of consistency which of course as you noted, reads as a lack of integrity to many voters.


[ Parent ]
for the independents this is THE reason (4.00 / 6)
It's ironic....because that is exctly what they do...They vote the person, not the principles....BUT they want that person to have integrity, to have principles. It doesn't matter what they are as long as they stick to them.

What Obama has done is trash himself and their esteem for him has turned into smoke drifting away.  The irony is that he made these smart or foolish decisions (depending on where you stand) he did it for them. Instead of going after the Democratic base...he decided to go after Indies and Republicans....and may have lost them....they have no [arty loyalty to make them come back.  

Their attraction to him is that he was differnt...a Democrat who had principles, did the right thing because while it may not be politically expedient it was the right thing to do.

He hurt himself...

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Yep. IIRC, the big draw to Chimpy for independents (0.00 / 0)
was that he was a "straight shooter"; you knew where he stood, even if you didn't like it. Look at Ron Paul and Bob Barr, tilting at windmills, running because they believe in their principles! Hell, they're still running! We've got 'em on our side, too, we have Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, maybe Richardson...

But, it's the money, honey, and Obama's the Chosen One, and we have to make the best of it. And if you want to hear the True Believers cheer, there's always the Big Orange.


[ Parent ]
That's what I was hearing.... (4.00 / 4)
....from some young first-time voters who liked Obama because "unlike other politicians, he believes what he says."

Now, I guess, not so much.

For a smart guy, it was pretty stupid to trash his own brand.  

Then to cap it off by lecturing people that he did it on principle....


[ Parent ]
That's my take, also (0.00 / 0)
"For a smart guy, it was pretty stupid to trash his own brand.  "

My take,exactly. No matter what he may have been thinking about FISA, why did he not forsee that a key element, if not THE key element, of his appeal in this campaign would be damaged?

If I was a running the campaign for the Republicans, I would put about half of my money just running ads reminding people about how Obama took a dive on FISA. Once people believe that Obama is about "Change that only a fool can believe in", will they believe anything he has to say about any other issue?

If I was Obama, I wouldn't flip flop on anything else - whether or not "anything else" moves him to the center, or away from it. Americans are sick of liars in government.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
funny, I hear the opposite (0.00 / 0)
I hear people saying that they think he's great, even post FISA. Why? Because 99% of the population is not thinking of the campaign or politics in this obsessive, close-reading manner.

You are parsing micro-events and generalizing outward.  

And YOU think he's lecturing.  All candidates come off now and then as condescending, that's because they're all egomaniacs. Even the good ones like Obama.  Even FDR was an egomaniac. You don't go into this business without an ego. But I digress.

So do you really think Obama is so stupid about managing his brand?  And that he won't make mistakes, and that this one mistake means he's phony or finished?  I think that's crazy. He's done a pretty great job so far.  

And Tylenol repaired it's brand after much greater damage.  I think Obama can "recover" from this toe-stub.  


[ Parent ]
But...but.... (4.00 / 4)

  ....moving to the center was a political necessity for Obama! That's what the beltway mediots say! And they're never wrong!

  How about some accountability here? This is, what, the 435th time a Democrat (a) moves to the right, and (b) sees no electoral benefit from doing so? When, exactly, does somebody -- ANYBODY -- in the Democratic Party wake up and realize that this crap never works?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
There are other benefits (0.00 / 0)
I'm in general agreement, but don't underestimate the small-scale social pressure here. The Village consensus is tepid on FISA, but it's an important test of process: there's a way that things should get done (unless you're a War President, of course) and if you filibuster over something as laaame and obscure as the 4th Amendment (who really uses that old thing anyway?), you're signaling that you're just another Dirty Fucking Hippy.

Obama want's to be president of the class. He doesn't intend to remake the whole order.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


[ Parent ]
I always knew Obama was a centrist (4.00 / 3)
and I'm still disappointed, and mad that the whole primary fight happened. Obama is running the exact same campaign that Hillary would have, so why did we bother with the long, protracted, bloody primary battle that left us with a ton of party disunity? Since the end result is the same, why did we bother going through all that? It was tremendously stupid of us.

At this point, I don't see any difference between Obama's GE campaign, and the GE campaign Hillary would have run, so what was I fighting for?


[ Parent ]
Understand but... (0.00 / 0)
I don't think having Obama is the same a having Hillary. Obama is far more electable than Obama, for starters.  

[ Parent ]
Far more electable than Hillary (4.00 / 1)
sorry about that typo.

[ Parent ]
I used to think so (4.00 / 6)
When I voted for Obama in the primary, I was fully convinced that he was more electable than Hillary.

But now, looking at his campaign, I don't think so anymore. In fact, if we're going to run a DLC-style, centrist, "triangulation" campaign anyway, I'd rather we have a candidate who's an expert at it. Because the problem isn't just that Obama is triangulating, it's that he's doing it badly. He's getting all the negatives of such a strategy (pissing off your base) with none of the benefits (he's not winning over independents and moderates, as this poll shows).

What really worries me is that I'm a die-hard Democrat, and even I'm feeling disheartened. If I'm feeling like this, what about the younger voters who gave Obama his primary win? If Obama continues down this path, there's a good chance that youth turnout won't be any higher this year than it has been in previous years, and if that happens, Obama will probably lose. So much for electability.


[ Parent ]
Chances are... (0.00 / 0)
You pay much closer attention than the majority of younger voters and swing voters for that matter. IOW, I just don't think that those who are not political junkies (most people) are terribly pised off or disappointed.

[ Parent ]
They may not be pissed about FISA itself (4.00 / 3)
But they are definitely going to notice that all Obama has been giving them lately is politics as usual. And that's not going to motivate a big youth turnout in November.

I hope I'm wrong, or that Obama changes course, but lately he's not been very inspiring. IMO, of course.


[ Parent ]
My fist impression--the circular firing squad is working. (4.00 / 4)
My second impression--DLC politicians like Harold Ford nauseate me and Obama is starting to remind me of Ford. I can hardly bear the thought.

My third impression--four more years of republicanism will literally destroy our country.

My fourth impression--wtf?


[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 7)

 With his FISA betrayal, Obama lost (a) seven points in the polls, (b) the respect of a large chunk of the base that propelled him to the nomination, (c) many of their financial contributions, and (d) much of his branding as a "different" kind of leader.

 And Obama gained...  

  Dumbest. Political. Stratagem. Ever.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
That old saying 'you never get a second chance to make a first impression'? (4.00 / 2)
Here's a twist: yyou can sure ruin a first impression,the more chances you get

Obama and his advisors have managed to do that

Books have been written telling Democrats exactly why and how Republicans win:by George Lakoff and Drew Westen to name the 2 most famous and it all boils done to have integrity and stand strongly for progressive values so that the public(mushy middle) is forced to choose - you give the mushy middle a watered down version of Republicanism and we lose.......economic conditions have never been quite so bad as this since this advice was offered initially so he might manage to pull it off... but if this were 2000? Forget close. Landslide Republicans


[ Parent ]
You took the words out of my mouth.. (0.00 / 0)
...literally!

In fact, I'm suing for copyright infringement... just teasing! ;-)

At this point, I have buyers remorse, too...  Although, I do feel that if Hillary had won in Feb 5, as she predicted, she'd be losing right now.  The primary fight rejuvenated her image with voters in a way that wouldn't have happened if she won without a fight...

Also, she would never have made the changes necessary for her campaign to flourish.  She'd still be having Mark Penn run that shipwreck...  I doubt she could have won.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
I don't know (4.00 / 3)
Nobody does triangulation like the Clintons. Maybe they could pull it off this year.

I don't think Obama can. If he doesn't get back to the kind of campaign that won him the primaries, and soon, I think he's going to lose.


[ Parent ]
Libertairan Conservatives will probably shift (4.00 / 2)
Any issue involving the constitution and a lack of privacy is going to be a top issue for them.

They tend to be angry young relatively wealthy white men.  They hate government and love gold.

Unfortunately I don't think that Obama was ever going to get the misanthrope vote in the end.  He basically says he wants the middle and not the misanthropes on the left or the right.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


[ Parent ]
So Misanthropes (4.00 / 1)
hate authoritarian government spying while people like Obama think its a fine thing. It's amazing to hear the Obama dead-enders throw around epithets they don't even understand. Do you see no irony at all in saying Obama will be OK because most people don't care about the Constitution or freedom from uncontrolled domestic spying? Maybe it should come as no surprise how quickly Obama fanboys have turned Republican.

[ Parent ]
Couldn't this be (4.00 / 2)
Iraq?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

Hard to say (4.00 / 2)
as all that matters is perception.  But Obama hasn't changed at all on Iraq.

[ Parent ]
Not my point (4.00 / 3)
I'm saying that the FISA flap and the kerfluffle over Obama supposedly changing his position on Iraq (not bringing the troops home, blah blah) happened at about the same time. I'm simply asking if there's any way to really separate the two issues here. FISA could have had virtually nothing to do with the perception shift.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
not true (4.00 / 1)
she was more electable than him...with her...what you saw and heard was what you got...for real....you didn't have to impute meaning only to be disappointed later.

And there would have been lots of Republican women who voted for her...at the end she had as many indies and Republicans as he did.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Yup. We have the proof. (4.00 / 1)
Except there was that little problem of her blowing the nomination.

Other than that, she would have won.  And other than her war vote, and her hiring an atrocious senior staff, she would have made great decisions.  


[ Parent ]
not the best argument (0.00 / 0)
she was more electable than him...with her...what you saw and heard was what you got...for real....you didn't have to impute meaning only to be disappointed later.

Soo...you're trying to argue that we should have voted for the person who was clearly disappointing, in order to avoid the possibility of being let down later by someone who appeared to be 100x better?


[ Parent ]
He only appeared better (0.00 / 0)
to HALF the party. The rest of us knew better. But give us credit, we are voting for him anyway, because that's what partisans do ...

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Again, not really what I'm after here (0.00 / 0)
I'm simply saying that there were two "flip flop" issues that hit during the same time period. Granted, one was legit and the other was made up, but given that both got play in various ways, you can't pick just one out of hand of the two and say that's the one that moved people.

You or whomever are certainly welcome to parse what could have been with a different nominee I suppose, but that's a separate issue from this. I'm only interested here in the attempt to assign meaning or responsibility in what seems like an intellectually reckless manner.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.


[ Parent ]
I think its energy (0.00 / 0)
and the fact that neither party has a real identity on the issue yet.  

[ Parent ]
it's a loss of brand (4.00 / 5)
the narrative story telling has been hurt because the lead character has changed the traits of his character that his audience enjoyed watching.

think of this like watching a movie- if all the things you liked about a character start to change- how do you react to it? certainly differently even if it's a net possitive. Here, my guess is people are starting to stop projecting onto Obama, and seeing him for being a cautious guy. That's not exactly an pause pounding reason to support the hero of the story. Here's are suppose to show courage, and face down the lions, not throw up their hands and tell us that they were never going to fight them anyhow.


[ Parent ]
Tylenol recovered from much worse re: brand (0.00 / 0)
I work in this field. I could cite many more examples of brand damage and recovery.

Obama seemed to recover pretty well from the "damage" done by Wright.  

You are drastically overestimating the damage done here, and are overestimating the importance of micro-issues like FISA.  Yes, it's a micro issue.

Just look at the issue priorities voters cite in polls. Tell me, where is FISA on that list?  You are expecting too much.

Read Mimikatz' post above.


[ Parent ]
Maybe this is part of your problem. (4.00 / 1)
You think politicians are "brands," i.e., interchangable commodities made distinctive only by the markings on the box. With enough money to pour into marketing, any "brand" can sell.

And maybe Obama is exactly that kind of politician after all, but what I'm telling you is, the American people are hungry for something more, for a real person who takes their problems seriously and tells the truth.

Now that they've opened the Obama box to find yet another empty suit inside, I really don't think that any new jingle or logo is going to fix that.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
If we lose, heaven help us.... (4.00 / 1)
...We'll be purged out of existence by the revenge of the DLC...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


Whatever... (4.00 / 4)
but honestly I did not expect to see evidence that the FISA shift hurt him among anyone except hard core activists

Oh, give me a break!  Netroots has been bitchin to high heaven for the past three weeks about Obama's flip-flops, and MSM has been more than willing to cover any negative talk about Obama (why else would the Jesse Jackson gaffe get three whole days of coverage and Phil Gramm's gaffe none?).  Imagine how it looks to independent voters when a candidate's own base is dissatisfied with him?  I would certainly have a low opinion of him.

You guys got what you wanted--Obama caved so "let's bust his balls 24/7 about FISA and stop giving him money."  When he loses in November, netroots will have lots to bitch about because we'll be at war with Iran and soon there after paying $7/gallon for gas.  Mission accomplished!


Amen, Bother! (0.00 / 0)
You nailed it on the head. I have been a huge fan of many netroots bloggers, but I've become completely disillusioned.
My favorite blogs have become obsessed with attacking Obama for his stand on FISA without any regard for the impact of these attacks on our hopes of regaining the White House in November.

[ Parent ]
you miss the point (4.00 / 2)
Still, I will say that Obama better win this election or else he'll be the most hated Democrat ever.

no no no - if he wins, it will be entirely due to Obama, but if he loses, it will be ALL YOUR FAULT. you nasty dirty hippie you. (see some of the prior comments for evidence)

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


Signify all you want... (0.00 / 0)
I assume this is directed at me.  That's fine.  I'm just stating a fact.  It has nothing to do with being a "nasty dirty hippie."  It's about winning, and right now Obama isn't winning.  

We know that past polls have him overperforming.  So even though Newsweek is an outlier, it concerns me, that he's not polling very high.  Ask yourself: do you want a democrat or a republican in the Whitehouse?  If you say there's no difference, then Obama losing isn't a concern for you.  If you're like me and can't stomach another eight years of republican policy, you should be worried right now.  And you should ask yourself what are you doing to make sure Obama wins.


[ Parent ]
He's losing (0.00 / 0)
The polls have spoken!! He's in free fall!!

YEAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure if that's snark from you... (0.00 / 0)
If you think it's great that McCain wins, then I have nothing more to say to you.  I don't because I'm concerned about getting some form of healthcare (universal  or single payer, whatever, I don't care, just some sort of coverage).  And the fact that McCain doesn't seem to give a rats ass about women's health scares the hell out of me.  

Mock me all you like, but I think you should take these polls seriously--and they all seem to have Obama within the margin of error of winning or losing.  Obama is not the shoe-in some people (like Matt) think.  Have you even considered the possibility that Obama could lose?  How will you feel if McCain wins (and god forbid Bobby "the Exorcist" Jindal is his running mate)?  Does that sound like fun for you?


[ Parent ]
satire, snark, (0.00 / 0)
It's snark.  You are jumping the gun. You are expecting too much from early polls. McCain has many terrible internals in his polling. And the external economic trends are all positive for a change in the WH.

I can only guess you haven't watched many Prez elections.  This is one poll.  Obama is new to the scene, he has yet to fully define himself with most regular voters, he is a black man, he has some minuses.  He also has some tremendous pluses.

He will never be as good as you want him to.  Nobody will ever vote the way you want every time.  There will never be a "true" perfect progressive.  Obama is Obama. He has a great interest in building a Democratic majority. He ran an outstanding primary against long odds.  He has a superb campaign team.  He proves his appeal with his fundraising.  

Go ahead and criticize, that's great, hold his feet to the fire.  But this thread is just comical in its extreme fear and pessimism.


[ Parent ]
What crap! (4.00 / 2)
Take some responsibility, Matt. If Obama loses, the blame should squarely rest on the shoulders of idiots like yourself who attack the democratic candidate iunstead of McCain.

Carrying on the circular firing-squad traditions of the Democratic Party, the doyens of the blogosphere have united in an effort to tear down their own candidate! Truly a remarkably stupid performance. I'm glad to hear that you think it will be Obama's fault if he loses as a result of his failure to take the right position on every one of your pet issues.

Our Democratic Party has become the 1962 NY Mets, whose performance prompted Casey Stegel's immortal query, "Can't anyone around here play this game?"


Democrats were losing for precisely the same (4.00 / 8)
pandering to the right that Obama has engaged  long before Matt Stoller or the blogs were in existence. Your post is therefore illogical, if for no other reason, that cause and effect.

[ Parent ]
Brilliant analysis! (0.00 / 0)
The only two Democrats to win the Presidency in the past forty-four years, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, won by moving to the center. Gore and Kerry made half-hearted attempts at taking the center, but they were both flawed candidates who were ultimately marginalized as scary leftists by the Republicans and their friends in the media.

I would go easy on the logic stuff. Your argument leaves something to be desired.


[ Parent ]
This is exhausting because you are just making it up (4.00 / 4)
a) Bill Clinton won in 1992 with a strong third party candidate. In 1996, he ran against a weak milk toast Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

As it was, Clinton was labeled as a slick willy. It had to address the character issue, and this was during a pretty bad recession as I recall. This branding became a general Democratic character issue brand that the GOP has consistently used since.

b) Carter won in 1976 (barely) after Watergate with a guy who was extremely weak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...

c) Gore ran more liberal than when he ran in 1988 (but that's not saying much considering where he was in 1988 when he first ran), but actually what lost his the race were a) his on campaigns attempt to decrease the contrasts with Bush toward the end and b) Gore's failure to address the character issues (the same issue to which I think Obama is making himself vulnerable). The character issue was already present from the Clinton Years:

"Soon after the convention, with running mate Joe Lieberman, Gore hit the campaign trail. He and Bush were deadlocked in the polls. [27] During his first presidential run in 1988, Gore ran his campaign as "a Southern centrist, [who] opposed federal funding for abortion. He favored a moment of silence for prayer in the schools and voted against banning the interstate sale of handguns."[28]Gore's policies changed substantially during the 2000 campaign, reflecting his eight years as Vice President."

However, there is this:

"Potentially even more consequential were the scandal's indirect effects. Gore never felt comfortable running on the Clinton-Gore record. His obsession with separating himself from Clinton and running on the future, not the past, kept him from sharply framing the election as a referendum on good times. And Clinton himself, one of the most effective politicians in U.S. history, was perforce relegated to fundraising and selective forays into Democratic strongholds. The evidence was overwhelming that he would have done more harm than good with swing voters in battleground states. Imagine how different the Democratic campaign would have been had the words "Monica Lewinsky" never entered the political lexicon.

Another fallout from the Clinton scandal was the mobilization of social conservatives and the accentuation of the cultural divide in American politics. The evidence is to be found in Gore's poor showing in states like West Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas, as well as in the striking differences in candidate support between urban dwellers and those who live in small towns and rural areas. Peace, prosperity, and the Democratic agenda on debt repayment, Social Security, and health care might well have trumped traditional values had the Clinton-Lewinsky affair not offended those who were torn between economic and cultural considerations. Progress made by the Democrats earlier in winning back social traditionalists was aborted."

d) Kerry ran a milktoast campaign in which he refused to even answer people who was disparaging his own military record. He refused to mention Bush's name during the convention. His limiting his strategy to so-called swing states, the changing nature of his campaign strategies, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...

There are of course a lot more links I can provide, but the real problem is your own belief system that's nothing more than CW.

Once more the GOP used the flip-flopper, fibber, slick character trade as the tool to derail the candidate on character issues.  The same that they will do with Obama. He can over come it. He likely will win. But he won't do so by feeding this narative. It's one they will use anyway, but its one that he shoulnd't feed.

In other words, it's not about the issues. If it were, the swiftboating of Kerry would have never worked. This is the straegic failure of some of Obama's recent choices.


[ Parent ]
Mmmmm...milk toast...heavy 7-grain bread, well toasted (0.00 / 1)
in a toaster oven, so that you can butter it heavily, then pop it back into the toaster oven set to 'broil', so that the butter is sizzling when you drop it onto a soup bowl of hot, hot whole organic milk...(G-d save the heathens who pour milk over the toast...)

Sorry, what were you saying?


[ Parent ]
Apologies for the TR (0.00 / 0)
I thought you were doing that thing people do -- posting recipes in response to trolls. I thought you were calling bruhrabbit a troll.

Reading more of your comments, further down, made me realize that was not where you are coming from.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Excellent analysis but far too few pay attention (4.00 / 1)
especialy 'political consultants' and those that ignore recent political history

[ Parent ]
At this point I 've pretty much given up on the idea (4.00 / 2)
that the party will win because of any reason other than bad economies, failed Republican administrations, etc. Everyone likes to taut Obama's abilities, but in the back of mind (and I am sure theirs if they were able to be honest with themselves) the question has to be asked- what would his chances have been if the economy were in good condition and McCain weren't following Bush? If we are winning, it's because the GOP brand is in greater tatters than ours. I mean- look at the Congressional ratings  versus the President ratings.  

[ Parent ]
So what if you're right? (0.00 / 0)
What do you want, and what is a plausible way to get there?  A mystical perfect candidate? Who never wavers from your beliefs?  Where is this person?

External conditions are always factors in politics. If there were no cold war, Republicans wouldn't have been able to win so many elections by demagoguing on the commie scare.  Without R's screwing up the 20s, there would have been no FDR.

Politics is not what you think it is.  The forces of progress and change usually win slowly and in the end, but it is always uphill, because fear is potent.   The right uses fear well.  Fear=racism=the other=the loss of your status/money

BTW, it's milquetoast.


[ Parent ]
I know what I want for this election cycle: (4.00 / 2)
I want Obama to recognize the current economic conditions for what they are and use FDR as a model, not Reagan, I would have liked to have seen him call out McSame and the Republicans and some scared DLC centered Democrats on this FISA bill for what it is: an abdication of one of this country's core founding priniciples, I want him to stand strongly for values that are progressive and that tap deeply into the progressive strain that exists in this country....

I want all this not just because I am a progressive Democrat but because this is the moment that people are looking for REAL CHANGE FROM CONSERVATISM, not tweaking, not adjusting, real change

Make them choose between conservatism in all it's forms which boils down to fear and progressive beliefs and economic populism .....

I think we'd win in a landslide


[ Parent ]
To be clear (4.00 / 3)
the strategic failure is that he's feeding a narrative that's been running since the early 1990s about Democrats. That our character flaw as a party is that we are fibbers, slick, or flip floppers. That, in other words, we can't be trusted. Ultimately, it's not about being centrist,  liberal or conservative. It's about people trusting you. Obama built up a brand that said during the long primary - this guy can be trusted. He's now, as was discussed over at the HuffingtonPost by Arriana Huffington fucking with that brand. This is why your post is silly becuase youdon't get this history and what it means and why we failed. It has been the character issue since 1992.

[ Parent ]
final point (4.00 / 2)
I am not even getting into how you misread the times. We are in a period where conservatism is on the decline, and progressism is on the rise. Even if one ignores the character issue I am raising, the logic of your statement fails with regard to reading the times we are in. Look at where Obama is being hurt right now.

[ Parent ]
Obama vs standing Dem leadership (4.00 / 5)
We are not supposed to fold up and die if Obama defaults on an important issue.
It is our responsibility to make the parameters of the progressive message clear enough so Washington will begin to see that we are real, and strong, and we do represent mainstream public opinion when we do.
We want them to hear us more clearly and not to morph into nothingness, which we understand, and keep telling them, leads to defeat.
I posted earlier that I think Obama's political calculation in the FISA matter had to be a calculation toward the Washington Democratic power structure that was
supporting FISA no matter what we did to fight it.
The Dem FISA supporters, Steny Hoyer et al.,  pushed it through now instead of waiting until after the election.
They forced Obama to choose, what might have been the filibuster position -- in which he, not-yet-the-nominee, would be fighting the existing power structure.
It is an untenable position to have put him in.  It would not have been feasible for Obama-- pre-Convention-- to fight with the majority Dems and the so-called "leadership" and their tone-deafness.
Obama needs the party support everywhere.  He can't lead a revolution against the Party for us at this time (even if he might want to on this issue).
He needs the Party, and the way it went down, through Steny Hoyer's 24-hour bait and switch dance, the Party was calling the shots.
So what do you think of that idea?

I think you have a point, in that Obama 'can't lead a revolution (4.00 / 1)
against the Party now'.

I don't think Hoyer is smart enough or Machiavellian enough to be as big a factor in this as you think. (Not that I don't think Hoyer, and the other GOP enablers shouldn't be the first against the wall when the Revolution comes, they are more guilty than the true believers in the GOP: they know better. [Yeah, yeah, Robespierre, revolutionaries become what they despise...look if McCain wins, all bets are off. You opened the door to revolution.]) FISA was going to come up before the DNC convention no matter what Hoyer did.

That being convolutedly said, let me say again, he's the candidate, it's our job to get him elected, and after he's in office, it's our job to make him miserable if he's not the candidate we should have picked (Edwards). So the question is, what can we do to make this shameful capitulation acceptable to voters by November? Suggestions?

Buehler? Buehler?...


[ Parent ]
This is a sensible post. (0.00 / 0)
For the record I'll state that I DO consider this an important issue and will up my donations to the ACLU and other organizations fighting this crap, some of which funds would have gone to Obama.

But, if we are going to continually navel-gaze this issue throughout the campaign, then at least we should attempt to war-game the road not taken.  

OK, suppose Obama decided to keep his promise and join or better yet lead the filibuster.

One of two things happens:

1) The filibuster succeeds - Democrats are afraid to buck the nominee - and block any bill Bush tries to pass on this issue.  Republicans have some kind of issue to use against Obama as soft on terrorism, but I tend to agree with Obama's critics that this would not have been a very effective line of attack for the GOP.

2) The filibuster fails - Democrats are in this way too deep to give in to the nominee - and would rather buck the nominee.  Obama gets some street cred for standing up to the powers that be, but ig rifts in the Democratic party are opened damaging the campaign.  An ugly convention erupts, with superdelegates reneging, etc.  An extreme scenario?  Perhaps.  

But the facts of life are that none of us know what the hell is going on in the "inside" campaign.  We don't know whether scenario 1 or 2 would have occurred.  Nor do we know in reality how damaging either of these scenarios would have been. Obama MAY (or may not) know better how this would have gone down, but I see no shame in announcing that I, sTiVo, don't know the answer.

So, bottom line.  I'm not happy about this, but I'm not ready to bolt from Obama support over this.  We need to elect this man.  There is no other choice.  I still think he is strong enough to deal with (and perhaps effectively use) criticism from the left to achieve some good things.

I am therefore ready to chalk FISA up as a defeat, work to get it reversed and move on to other things.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
Forgot to add (4.00 / 1)
Remember all those superdelegates flocking to Obama a few each day, back in April, May, and June?

How do we know there wasn't a quid pro quo involving this issue?  For some reason many Congressional Dems are deeply afraid of this issue.  Perhaps they are compromised in some way.  I think it's bullshit but they have the power.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
Most Hated Democrat (4.00 / 4)
Wow!

Still, I will say that Obama better win this election or else he'll be the most hated Democrat ever.

I'll certainly never look at progressive blogs the same if Obama loses but I won't hate Obama.

Obama has generally run a good campaign, is on the right side of many issues, and is a vastly superior choice to anyone else still running for President this year. To see him torn down so bitterly, so righteously as I have seen on the blogs shocks me.

It's foolish, self-defeating behavior in my view. Bitterness over FISA, bitterness over Clinton, bitterness over abortion comments, bitterness over faith-based programs has sent doctrinaires in each faction into short-sighted madness.

I implore the lot of you to get over it. You can't win them all. If you have leverage, if you have cards, if you have pull, then maybe you can stomp about in a prima donna act and walk away from the scene. But if you don't have that power then you've got to swallow your pride and rationally re-evaluate where you stand.

Where in the hell are any of us without an Obama victory? Put McCain in the White House and all that down-ticket work will be diluted by the power of the Presidency. This is the United States as it exists today. The Presidency is the jewel, it is the power center, it is the prime mover. Lose it and you set yourself back years.

Right now the left-wing blogs are amplifying McCain's message on Obama. I'm astounded that progressives can't wait five months to badger a President Obama to pay service to their cause.

Whining that "He made us do it" may feel good after you've called Obama a liar and a flip-flopper and just a politician but unless it somehow leads to Obama in the Presidency and your causes advanced then it's just selfish, stupid, prideful, FOOLISH action.

I've got alot of respect for you Matt, and Chris, and other writers here at Open Left. But frankly, I think you and other progressives need to think long and hard about your tactics and your strategy when you thrash the Democratic Presidential Candidate five months before a critical election. It's a four year cycle. Is this the best time to be pushing these buttons?

Pressure on President Obama will be the best way to achieve progressive goals and to reach that point the focus has got to be to get Obama elected.


We all want Obama to win (4.00 / 2)

 The criticism of Obama on the blogs for his tacks to the "center" (actually the right) isn't borne out of concerns out of ideological purity -- we knew all along he wasn't exactly Paul Wellstone on the issues -- but out of concerns that it's a destructive POLITICAL strategy.

 Obama's moved to the right, and he's dropped in the polls. Yes, it's only one poll, but the drop was VERY precipitious, well outside the margin of error. If Obama's triangulation efforts had been successful, even the lowest-prestige poll should at least pick up on the trendline, if not the actual numbers. And the trendlines for Obama are moving in the  opposite direction from what his triangulation intended.

 This kind of strategy was a bad idea in 2002 and 2004, as we saw in the respective fall election results. But in 2008, when the Republican brand is in tatters and when the voting public has all but completely rejected the GOP to the point where Republicans are publicly running away from their party identity, having the Democratic candidate tack to the right isn't just annoying, it's SUICIDAL. And this poll offers the first piece of hard evidence.

 And the frustration around here comes from the idea that we all thought Obama, if not ideologically a pure liberal, was at least strategically a welcome change from the Bob Shrum culture that has doomed Democrats to defeat after defeat. But it's turned out that he's not even THAT. And thus the anger.

 Like another poster said above, if I'd wanted a milquetoast, self-hating, run-away-from-being-a-Democrat campaign, I would have supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. At least she's better at that kind of thing.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Strategy (4.00 / 1)
Obama's decision is done. What I'm criticizing is what progressives are doing now. It's certainly arguable whether he made the electorally correct decision but it can't be changed. What do we do now? My argument is that the current tactics of the progressive blogs are unproductive.

[ Parent ]
expectations are too high (0.00 / 0)
He has moved "to the right" on this one issue. He will move "left" on other issues.  This is about calculations made in the heat of battle to sway a range of constituencies. What's that you say?  You mean Obama isn't different as you hoped?

Of course. That's true. He's definitely a bit different, though.  Yes, he's not Ghandi and King and the Buddha rolled into one.  I wish he was.  But he isn't.

You are far, far too alarmed.  

Read Mimikatz's brilliant post above about expectations.  


[ Parent ]
How much of the Constitution are you willing to give up? (4.00 / 2)
> I implore the lot of you to get over
> it. You can't win them all.

How much of the Constitution are you willing to give up?  Apparently the 4th Amendment is now gone, and I doubt very much we will ever get it back.  Are you willing to buy into the "Unitary Executive"?  Turn back the clock on equal rights for women and all humans?  Where do we stop?

And of course the $64,000,000,000 question:  when Democrats capitulate to the Radical Right does it make independents and Liebercrats like them more... or despise them more?

sPh


[ Parent ]
well, you know (0.00 / 0)
the repeal of Prohibition is still there.

[ Parent ]
1862 (0.00 / 0)
that should just about cover everything.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
High Horses (0.00 / 0)
How much of the Constitution am I willing to give up? None. But that isn't the question. The question is what I can do about it and what will be effective in defending it.

Where are we today? Not where do we wish we were today .. but where are we today?

Here's some facts.

Bush signed the FISA bill. It's law.

There's an election in 5 months in which either Barack Obama or John McCain will be President. Neither of these men prevented the FISA bill from becoming law yet one of them will be President in January of 2009.

Obama has a lead in the polls but Republicans are trying to undermine him by branding him as just another backstabbing, bullshit talking, flip-flopping liberal. I agree that by voting for the FISA bill, Obama has given an opening to the Republicans to reinforce that message. But should progressives help the Republicans drive a truck through the opening Obama's FISA mistake created? Should we drive the truck for them?

Again. Bush signed the FISA bill. There's an election in 5 months. Obama or McCain will become President. Whether Obama "deserves" reduced support and angry denuciations or not it's still a binary choice. You get him or you get McCain.

Clearly, to me, Obama as President is going to do many more things I approve of and many less that I disapprove of than will McCain. There's just no way around it ... there are only two choices. Progressives can gnash their teeth over FISA all they want but they are helping the Republicans when they continue piling on Obama as flip-flopper, as a liar, and as just another back-stabbing politician.

That's foolish. That's the reason I felt moved to comment about complacent bloggers who are acting on their belief that:

I thought and still largely think this election is in the bag

It's not in the bag. Republican's still have the TV, Radio, and Newspapers largely on their side. Obama can still be redefined.  I'd hope that regardless of what Obama does or does not do that progressives would be strategically wise enough not to aid the Republicans in their work.


[ Parent ]
The election isn't over (0.00 / 0)
The election isn't over
The election isn't over
The election isn't over
The election isn't over

People here need to get on meds for their pessimism, depression, and general lofty expectation.  

Go ahead, find that dream candidate on that dream planet and live happily ever after.  This is Earth.  This is reality.

Wake up folks.  It's up to us to make our nominee better.  And it would have been necessary regardless of the nominee.


FISA is only an issue because you made it an issue (4.00 / 1)
Ask any person on the street -- ask those 53% that think he's changed positions -- what the issue with FISA is.  I can virtually guarantee that they won't know what the issues with it are.  In fact, I bet if you told them the issues, they really wouldn't care.

What they DO know, however, is that the netroots is furious at Obama, and have wholeheartedly help paint our candidate as a flip-flopper.

And really, anyone who thinks he's tacking significantly to center has had their head in the sand.  He's been a centrist on a number of issues ALL ALONG.  Where you listening to what he was saying or what you wanted to hear?  It boggles my mind that so many educated people buy into something that just isn't significantly true.

Ultimately, we should be able to criticize Obama, but we need to do it constructively, and only to a point.  Otherwise we're just cutting off our nose to spite our face.


He was a centrist non-flip-flopper on FISA? (4.00 / 5)
Hmm, news to me.

And most progressives don't decide which issues to support based on a DLCesque finger in the wind determination of what the American Idol-watching clueless public cares about this week. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't know or care about what the constitution is about, you're just not part of the conversation, and I give two shits about what you have to say.

FISA isn't a corn vs. switchgrass or steroids in baseball sort of secondary issue. Nor is it an issue du jour like high gas prices or rotten tomatoes. It's a core issue, like the war, like our massive level of debt, like global warming. It is an issue that, if you don't understand or care about it, you understand nothing. So if the majority of Americans don't care about FISA (and I agree that they almost certainly don't), who gives a fuck?

Americans are the most clueless and self-absorbed voters in the democratic world, taking their rights and liberties and good fortune for granted so long as they have cheap gas and moron TV and backyard BBQs and endless celebrity nonsense, to the point where around half of them could actually vote for a POS like Bush (and half of the other half voted for Gore or Kerry because they were a D, not because they actually knew much about their policies).

Of all the reasons to ratchet down the anger about how Obama voted on FISA, what the average Joe thinks about FISA is about the last one that I would view as being worth considering. But while most Americans might not care about FISA, they are, I believe, starting to view him as just another calculating politician, which his FF on FISA made obvious. And in this sense, his FF on FISA does matter to voters.

Our pointing out that he flippedis not the source of the damage. His having flipped is. Don't blame the critic. Blame the flipper. And while the "criticism of the criticism" will doubtlessly go on in its inherent silliness, the criticism itself will continue--so long as Obama give his critics a reason to criticize him. If he wants to end the criticism, then he needs to stop doing things worth criticizing. If he wants to not be called a flip-flopper, then he needs to stop flip-flopping--or to say and do things that appear to be flip-flops, even if they're not.

Hell, even his bizarre decision to no longer let his daughters be interviewed strikes me as flip-flopping, albeit in a very minor way. He's coming across as unsure of himself, or possessing a false and excessive self-assurance that is being revealed to be shallow and flimsy in the face of adversity. It's time for Obama the too-confident charmer to transform into Obama the man of strength, character and principle. THAT is what voters are looking for.

This feels like a New Hampshire moment, when the high-riding Obama who was expected to sail smoothly to quick victory on "Hope" hit a brick wall, and had to dig in for the long haul and tough it out state by state. Well, it's happened again, and his cocky "I can do whatever the fuck I want to do, including sticking it to my base to suck up to the center" attitude has hit a brick wall again, and he's going to have to do some serious reassessment of his centrist strategy (in terms of tone, not substance, which is all that these voters care about) real quick, and stop doing the DC two-step to the center.

He's got to dance with them what brung him. Or he's going to be in trouble.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Obama wasn't centrist ALL ALONG. (4.00 / 1)
Actually, back in Feb, he claimed he would support the filibuster of any FISA legislation that granted retroactive immunity.

And I do recall a number of commentors here writing about how progressive Obama and his campaign were (and how practically GOP-lite the Clinton campaign was). So, nice job there trying to re-spin history, which is a very right-wing tactic, BTW. But then I've been noticing a lot of that sort of thing (adoption of right wing tactics by prog bloggers) since this primary began...


[ Parent ]
Triangulating liberals (4.00 / 8)
Triangulating liberals are even more despised by republicans and conservative independents than us hard-core lefties. What they hate is the willingness to compromise on matters of principle. In my experience, even when folks disagree with some of the principles, they have much more respect for a politician that will take an undiluted principled stand, which Obama did not.

Thank You! No, really, you're great. (4.00 / 1)
Triangulating liberals are despised by everybody! I was never that crazy about Bill. I want Representatives/Senators/Presidents who will work on moving the Overton window.  

[ Parent ]
Obama - FISA (4.00 / 4)
I've given strong support to Obama, and will continue to do so-- but I'm disappointed in his FISA vote.  I think Obama underestimated just how much the voters really, really want him to stand up and be the guy he promised us he would be during the primaries, and not just another politician with a forked tongue.  He told us in no uncertain terms that he would not support this FISA bill if it contained retroactive immunity for the telecoms.   He has now opened the crack of doubt, and the next time he makes a pledge I'll be skeptical.  The new FISA legislation isn't going to impact the life of the average citizen very much, but it was a terrific opportunity for Obama to defend the rule of law and the Constitution, and draw a line in the sand between himself and the Bush administration, the GOP Senators, and the most regressive Democrats in Congress. Obama could have used this moment to reinforce his brand as a man of integrity, and there was little political downside for him in doing the right thing.  McCain is going to hammer Obama on national security issues anyway, and this vote isn't going to insulate Obama from those charges.  It's not a deal-breaker for me, but I'm very frustrated that Obama and his staff didn't get this one right, and I hope that his FISA vote isn't an indicator of how he intends to proceed as a candidate and a President.

For some perspective... (4.00 / 2)
The RCP average for today, including this poll, is Obama 47.0 - 42.2 McCain.  On June 20, when the last Newsweek poll was released, the RCP average was 47.5 - 42.0.  In other words, the RCP average has shifted a whole .7 points in McCain's direction since Newsweek's last poll.

Is this something to worry about?  I suppose, if the trend continues.  But honestly, looking at the change in 1 poll and inferring that it must be related to a specific issue is just silly.

Again, I'm not saying that it's impossible that these "shifts" are not responsible for this whopping .7 point decline, and perhaps it will get even worse (hell, enough media coverage that makes these kinds of inferences will basically advertise that "Obama's shifts are making him more unpopular to everyone" to, well, even more people).  But I do think that we will have to wait and see if this is indeed the case.

And let's not forget that things will probably change dramatically around the conventions and debates, for better or worse...  Right now these polls are more like seeing who has the slight advantage going into the rest of the race, rather than giving us any clue of what the rest of the race will look like.


This doesn't wash (4.00 / 1)
One, Obama asked for the responsibility to win the election and defunded the outside groups.  He wants to run this his way and he's going to run it his way.  That means he gets the credit and the blame, and in this environment it is simply a Democratic year that he should take advantage of.  If he doesn't he doesn't, but progressives should get none of the blame for it.  We sure aren't going to get any credit.  That's what responsibility means, when you have authority you take responsibility when you don't you don't pretend that you do.

Baloney. A number of progressive bloggers (this site included) took a big risk and pushed hard for Obama and against Clinton in the primary instead of wisely staying neutral. If Obama blows this, these same progressive bloggers will join Obama as "the most hated Democrats ever."

You made your own beds, now sleep in 'em.  


I think Digby (0.00 / 0)
was the only one who stayed neutral, but then Digby is a freaking sage and it's not really fair comparing normal people to her.

I hope we get it right next time.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Atrios also stayed neutral. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Perception is reality (0.00 / 0)
In reality he hasn't flipped on anything but FISA which nobody in the real world gives a shit about. 53% think he has changed position because the media says he has. Oh, and this poll is real, the last Newsweek was crap and so was the LA Times. I perceive that in reality Obama leads by 3-6 points.  

You are so full of shit (4.00 / 3)
In fact, public opinion polls consistently show the FISA bill in general and telecomm immunity in particular are very unpopular in the "real world." Glenn Greenwald has a nice summary of the FISA polling here.

Here's the ACLU poll taken back in January.



[ Parent ]
this issue is NOT a priority (0.00 / 0)
People are worried about health care, jobs, paying the rent.  FISA is very very minor.  

Important, yes, but it doesn't hit the wallet.  THAT is what elections are about.  THIS is the perspective the above poster and I are coming from.   We don't disagree on importance....just strategy and tactics.  


[ Parent ]
Sorry, but I'll believe the opinion polls, (4.00 / 2)
not some random person on a comments board who claims to "what this election is about" and what average voters are "worried about." Christ, blogs have become so full of it.

[ Parent ]
You should believe the opinion polls (0.00 / 0)
Poll after poll after poll has shown that the economy is issue number one by a distance, followed by Iraq then Health Care. Those ARE the issues this election is about because they are the issues people say they care most about. Yes, many say they don't like telecomm immunity but they are not in a tizzy about it. Obama screwed up on FISA. We can all agree on that. But everyone has to stop acting like it means the end of the world. I agree with you that blogs have become so full of it just for the opposite reason.  

[ Parent ]
Good (4.00 / 1)
I hope there are other polls to back this up. Maybe then he'll learn a little lesson about double talk.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

matt (0.00 / 0)
This poll shift is directly attributable to a massive sampling bias.  It's irresponsible to cherry-pick polls to satisfy your own pre-ordained narratives.  The race is where it's always been, between 3-6 points.



Insert shameless blog promotion here.


no (0.00 / 0)
1) I didn't cherry-pick this poll, I said it could be an outlier.  The main piece of evidence that is new and interesting and not an outlier is that 53% of the public thinks he changes his position for political advantage.

2) This is not a sampling problem.  Independents are the group that shifted in this poll.


[ Parent ]
Not a sampling problem? (0.00 / 0)
The previous poll had way more Democrats than Republicans while the latest is more even between each party.  

[ Parent ]





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search