come on, read your own posts (2.67 / 9)

I think you'd better stop, breath deeply, and think about you are saying.

Since you said Obama will be hated if he loses, I wonder why you think you'd be held to a different standard.  

By the way, I get lots of calls from (seemingly) African Americans for DCCC fundraising, and made calls side by side with African American volunteers throuhout the primary season.  Why do you think it is unusual to talk to a African American working for Obama?  It's not all about you.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:32:16 AM CDT

If they "call you" (4.00 / 1)

then how do you and Matt know they are African American???

---

by: majorityretort2 @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

please (4.00 / 2)

Since you said Obama will be hated if he loses, I wonder why you think you'd be held to a different standard.

I find this confusing.  Am I running for President or something?

Why do you think it is unusual to talk to a African American working for Obama?

Did I write that it was unusual or something?

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:40:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you said (4.00 / 1)

His identity was an attempt to communicate with liberals. I think that's unlikely.  


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:56:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I apologize Matt (4.00 / 2)

On further reflection and looking at the community's views, I have obviously misunderstood you and attacked you unfairly.

I sincerely apologize.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well said, Matt. (0.00 / 0)

I used to fight with you over Edwards, but you have been dead on lately.

In solidarity.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:28:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a great comment (4.00 / 1)

But not a troll, either; even if Matt marked it as a troll.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Minor Dip?! (0.00 / 0)

Anyone remember a candidate that everyone found fault with and almost no one spoke on his behalf - AL GORE!

---

by: steve katz @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:55:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's a Fundamental Failure of Progressives to UNDERSTAND Politics! (4.00 / 2)

I don't like being lectured by Ivy League wankers who tell me it's my fault when Obama lies to me.  That'll have to blow over.

Politicians lie. All of them. Expecting anything different is like hoping and praying for Santa to bring you a pony. Then when the pony doesn't show up on Christmas, sulking and complaining about it.

Here's the reality of politics The presidency is the LAST step, not the first.

Before Progressives can claim the mantle of having "our" President, we not only have to organize at the local level, but also at the state level. We have to be able to change the media to reflect our views. We have to mobilize vast constituency groups not around simple campaigns but everyday politics.

It took the right-wing fundies and neo-cons over 30 years after 1964 before Republicans started taking them really seriously. They first had to build a permanent movement that held politicians feet to the fire on a host of issues.

I think they finally arrived by 2005, when (R) Sen. Arlen Specter had to publicly humiliate himself after making a mild comment that was interpreted as opposing the Bush plan to pack the court with right-wing ideologues.

But, notice that they made their attacks on Specter, and threats of removing him from his committees, only AFTER the 2004 election, NOT during it!

The failure of the left has been to regard ELECTIONS as the time to try and move politics. That's like trying to improve your math score while report cards are coming down the aisle!

Elections reflect the existing balance of power. When one group has achieved enough organization and influence that it can discipline wayward politicians then they start to pay attention, not before.

And the President is the LAST person to pay attention, not the first.

This election is about stopping the rot. That's all. If that's not inspiring enough for you people and you want to immediately jump to magic pony land, too bad.

Once the election is over, we get the chance to actually organize at the state level and put pressure on President Obama to move in our direction.

But, only if he wins first.  

---

by: Cugel @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:05:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you're supposed to like the abuse (4.00 / 3)

Don't you know that?

Did the caller really say that FISA expired in August?  Wow!

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:43:37 AM CDT

I agree with your point about FISA, but find the race element unnecessary (4.00 / 5)

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:45:43 AM CDT

Yup, I know, the alternative is so attractive, (4.00 / 2)

why should we give to Obama?  You of course, supported him from the beginning, you had maxed out for Obama pre-FISA, so there is no question of giving, right?

Oh wait, she could ask you for more now, only because you hadn't maxed out.

So what does that make your loud claim of Markosian "I am not giving in the wake of FISA" mean?  Exactly nothing:  the netroots' frontpagers' hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Do not be under any illusions:  you all did not support him in the primary or afterwards, tried to get on the bandwagon when you thought he was doing well, are now back to beating up on him along with the rest of the baying corporate media hounds.  The fact that you all supported Edwards over Obama is an eternal shame and no amount spiteful carping now can make up for it.  If anyone is fooled by your and Markos and others' FISA snit, they haven't been paying attention.

I do not agree with Obama's vote on FISA either.  But I am not stupid enough to withhold my support for him (I have only in-kind support available, I am afraid).  The time to have had all these tantrums were during the primaries.  If you are a true progressive (that is, one that cares about the 200+ million people whose lives depend on electing a Democrat this time around), you would make a one-time criticism on FISA, and then work to get him elected.  But this self-indulgent orgy of carping and withholding support from the Democratic nominee, who is still the most progressive we have had in decades, points to only one thing: utter, deluded, exaggerated, uncaring, self-preening.

I used to be frustrated by the eco-goons that championed Nader over Gore and never really could understand the suicidal pact of the left.  This cycle, I am beginning to:  you all can afford it.  

---

by: Obamamama @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:49:17 AM CDT

A couple of things (4.00 / 4)

1) This blog did support Obama in the primaries.

2) I am certain there would have been tantrums during the primaries if bloggers had any idea that Obama would completely reverse himself on FISA, as he did as nominee-to-be post-primaries?

Now a couple of questions. How else should Democrats who oppose his FISA flip-flop show displeasure? What alternatives do you propose in lieu of withholding small donations?

And why on earth was supporting Edwards over Obama an "eternal shame?"

---

by: JohnS @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:15:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Answers. (3.20 / 5)

How else should Democrats who oppose his FISA flip-flop show displeasure? What alternatives do you propose in lieu of withholding small donations?

Before the vote happened:
1. Starting that group on myBarackObama: terrific, empowering, intelligent and productive way to voice dissent, discontent and possible threats.
2. Doing that petition drive (which I too signed, by the way): good democratic, healthy, productive dissent.  

Once the vote is over, however, in a democracy, we move on to the next fight, with the possible exception of pausing to do a "lessons learned" type of exercise.  You don't threaten to withhold support from a candidate, after the vote has happened, except for spiteful reasons.  Before, intelligent. After, self-indulgence.  (This paragraph applies more to the pre-election combustible environment, not all times.)

And why on earth was supporting Edwards over Obama an "eternal shame?"

Because of his war vote* (he was one of 16 original co-sponsors) and his Senate votes in general.  How he was different from Mitt Romney, I do not understand.  (People in Iowa, who came to know him over four solid years of near-full-time campaigning there, rejected him pretty convincingly, over a neophyte they also came to know well: think about that.)  Now, withholding support from Edwards in the primaries, that would have been the truly punishing thing to do to a politician: holding them accountable during a primary for past behavior.

Permanently carping at the Democratic nominee, threatening support, and generally making him the bad story of the day, when a disastrous McCain, lurching from idiocy to lunacy, is looming out there: not so intelligent or compassionate (clue: we are not the party of the rich).

Obama said it best to his staff, after winning the nomination: we just have to win now, there is no alternative.  This is not to excuse Obama for his vote, but there is no productive solution to that now, right before the election: the alternative is not acceptable.  Under these circumstances, we have to make the rational choice.  

* In my books, war votes are the only legitimate single-issue deal-breakers.

---

by: Obamamama @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:50:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

FISA over War votes, that is a matter of opinion... (0.00 / 0)

You say War votes are the only ones that have an impact, or excuse me, should have an impact.

Sorry, but Obama was against FISA during the primary, in fact, said great things about the "Rule of Law" that I liked, (and even though I was not a supporter early, in fact gave the Open Left guys a hard time over endorsing either candidate at the time), and it was why I was lining myself up to work hard for our candidate.

Then, when he not only did not lead on the FISA issue, but gave an obviously mealy mouthed pathetic excuse which was so Lame, I ended up feeling about his vote the same way you obviously felt about Hillary's vote for the war.

For some of us, the Constitution of the United States is an extremely important issue. It is a core "democratic issue". If we follow the "Rule of Law" which dates back to the Magna Carta, we do not have a war of choice anyway, so I think you and Obama seem to have your priorities confused.

In my book, Constitutional issues are the deal breakers!

---

by: KC Bill 13 @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 00:29:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Read Theda Skocpol Carefully (4.00 / 9)

Absolutely right.  

What Theda Skocpol is saying is that identifying with your own issue to the exclusion of everything and everyone else and trying to "punish" Obama by withholding love or money is childish and it is the kind of attitude that has crippled progressives for the last 40 plus years.  Moreover, she is saying, like Obamamama and I, that we, particularly those of us who have financial resources, have to think of the people who will really be hurt by 4 or worse, 8 more years of GOP rule.  

She uses her talk with a Hillary supporter as her example, not a lefty progressive who is disillusioned over FISA:

About ten days ago, I was finishing breakfast at my favorite diner, when I was joined by a well-known 60s-something feminist friend. I won't name her, but people would recognize and respect her if I did. We got to talking about the election, and she left me utterly depressed some 45 minutes later (during which I kept my patience and my cool while arguing, but felt devastated). She probably won't vote for Obama, she says, because she has to "punish" the Democratic party for its sexist treatment of Clinton. "We cannot wait" any longer for a woman president, she says, and she won't accept an "unqualified" man who "cannot win." She barely listened when I told her I could hardly believe what she was saying, that women above all suffer from the terrible economic policies that have been followed the past two decades. It makes a big difference for most working women, most families, who wins this fall -- because, as the research of Larry Bartels and others shows, Democrats follow very different social and tax policies. This is not just about abortion law. It is about the wellbeing of the middle and working strata in this country, and when they suffer, women and children suffer the most.

My friend was so tied up in her identity-politics bitterness she could not see the larger issues. Generations of women in American public life would be aghast at the navel-gazing nature of this sort of feminism, I realized. The women I wrote about in PROTECTING SOLDIERS AND MOTHERS, who always thought about the more vulnerable and families, would never understand an early-twenty-first-century kind of feminism that privileges bitterness and revenge about Hillary Clinton (who entered public life as a political spouse) over the wellbeing of the working nation's families. Jane Addams would not believe this.

But the same is true on the Left, and someone who also  sat through a lifetime's worth of meetings haggling over fine points of doctrine and watched every chance for real progress founder on the cries for purity and for never compromising on this issue or that while the GOP built its juggernaut and rolled over everyone, I really think she is right.  

It isn't that people shouldn't be idealistic or care about issues.  In fact I think it's ironic that Obama is criticized (sometimes by the same people) for both empty, naive idealism and crafty calculation.  Rather, it's that politics is the art of building enough consensus that we can make progress on an agenda, and for progressives the agenda is expanding opportunity, spreading prosperity, allieviating suffering and uniting for the common good rather than the betterment of the wealthy few.  Of course demand policies that make progress on these fronts and safeguard liberty as well.  But the foot-stamping won't convince anyone that Lefties are worth listening to and it will not help those who will suffer the most if the GOP wins again.

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

One thing I often wonder when (4.00 / 2)

I see statements like this:

... trying to "punish" Obama by withholding love or money is childish and it is the kind of attitude that has crippled progressives for the last 40 plus years.

Isn't that precisely the same thing that empowered the conservative movement for the same 40 years? The Norquist pledges, Club for Growth, the litmus-tests-even-when-our-position-is-a-tiny-minority sorta thing?

Isn't that how the right fringe managed to take over the Republican party, by withholding love and money--and redirecting it elsewhere? By not just hewing to single issues, but by demanding that their politicians did likewise: and never being afraid to cut off their nose to spite their face?

Am I reading this lesson of the right incorrectly? If not ... how come the left fringe can't use the same techniques to take over the Democratic Party?

(And I'm trying to ask this without reference to Obama; I really am interested in this as a larger question. Though I'll admit that I haven't gone back to phonebanking since the FISA vote. Not really out of an intentional desire to punish; I just don't have the energy, and if I'm feeling dispirited ...)

---

by: Joel @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, that's how they did it (0.00 / 0)

---

by: jello5929 @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:54:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not exactly (0.00 / 0)

There are different factions in the GOP.  It is above all the money party, of which the Club for Growth is one faction.  The hard right ideologues are one faction.  Sometimes they drove the party right in this way, sometimes the party machinery opposed this. But they did not get their candidate for Pres until Reagan in 1980, and then he had a wider appeal than just the Norquists and the social conservative purists, whom he played like a fiddle.  He's in some ways the exception that proves the rule.  The GOP cemented a majority by melding the money people, the economic purists and the social conservatives.  Without the latter, they couldn't have done it.  They also in the mid '60s on had a core of money people and PR people who would come together and run the campaign for whoever won the nomination.  They have mostly retired or are not helping McCain at this point.

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:03:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But if the money faction (4.00 / 1)

rules, how did the other, less powerful factions, develop such leverage? Republicans must be anti-choice, even though that polls poorly, because of the demands of a less-powerful faction, right?

So how did they do that? That's all I'm really asking. Well, that and 'how do we do the same?'

---

by: Joel @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:24:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

for articulating better than I could the political situation.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 14:26:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really winning me over, here (4.00 / 2)

I believe, though I could be mistaken, that the campaign would now be raising funds for the general election. There are separate maximum caps for each.

In re whether people can 'afford' things or not, especially writers at this blog, you're making a lot of assumptions. Though it's true that single people can generally live more comfortably on wages that it would be hard to raise a family on. The front pagers here give to candidates they support, work for them when they can, and have been very consistent in picking candidates who fight for broader interests than their own - in fact, the very same sort of interests you're suggesting they don't pay attention to. They aren't living lavishly and they devote the lion's share of their waking hours to progressive politics.

And as to Obama's progressivism, while it may be your opinion that he's the most progressive nominee we've had in a while, that's your opinion. I don't necessarily find him more progressive than Kerry or Gore, nor did I consider him to be the most progressive of the primary candidates. That's my opinion. We could have a throwdown about that, but all I'm trying to say with that is that your view of him, just like mine, is far from being any kind of objectively verifiable or obvious conclusion.

Thing is, you don't directly speak for any 200 million+ Americans, yourself. Maybe some of them, even if they don't personally have the time or money to campaign for it, would also like for the people who are working to get them economic assistance to act to preserve their constitutional rights and liberties. Perhaps some of them find it distasteful that people in their communities often wind up in jail for even petty infractions, while fabulously wealthy telco executives can break the biggest laws on the books and then get Congress to step in and make a new law that keeps them from even having to go to court over it.

You speak for yourself. Just like I speak for myself. Not being wholly unique, both of us probably share opinions with a lot of other people who resemble us. But speak with clear certainty about the wishes of hundreds of millions over a complex political matter? Please.

You aren't doing your candidate any favors among the unconvinced and unenthusiastic.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:15:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is research on the economic effects of different Administrations (4.00 / 3)

And it unequivocally shows that the lower 80% do better under Democrats.  This is because of tax policies, government programs, expanding opportunity, and (in the last 28 years) more fiscal sanity.  

The stock market actually does better under the Dems too.  

And, of course, historically minorities make more progress under Dem presidents.

   

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

??? (4.00 / 2)

You speak for yourself. Just like I speak for myself. Not being wholly unique, both of us probably share opinions with a lot of other people who resemble us. But speak with clear certainty about the wishes of hundreds of millions over a complex political matter? Please.

Where am I presuming to talk for the 200+ million?  

I am not saying that if the 200+ million could all talk to be heard, they'd agree with me, am I?  All I am saying is that, given the two candidates with decent chances of winning in November, whose election would benefit the bottom 200+ million folks?

If our answer is Sen. Obama, then shouldn't we be strengthening his hand, rather than weakening it?

The gist of my objection is this: dissent and discontent are great, but cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is quite another.  The FISA orgy on the left is worse: we are (trying our darndest to) cutting off somebody else's nose for our satisfaction of taking a stand.

Read my other comment too: I loved the petition and the myBarackObama group, before the vote.  Unless we have a death wish that could jeopardize too many other people's lives, we should get a move on now.  Not that I have too much hope, mind you, not after the Gore sabotage from the left. It is just that with Obama, I was beginning to get a glimmer of a hope that the left might actually try to win one for their alleged constituency...

---

by: Obamamama @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:37:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sabotage from the left (0.00 / 0)

you mean Ralph Nader? I don't recall all the other "sabotage" you refer to.

---

by: tremayne @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:47:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so much Nader (0.00 / 0)

as the lefties that voted for him in lieu of Gore...

---

by: Obamamama @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:34:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The guy has been running on "hope" (4.00 / 1)

When, before he even gets elected, he trashes "hope" (and is condescending and lies to us), you have to expect folks to get pissy. That's how the world works.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:01:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

tried to get on the bandwagon when you thought he was doing well, (4.00 / 1)

Are you kidding?  Many in the netroots thought Edwards was better for the country and the better candidate.  Some of us never got on Obama's "bandwagon" but did pick him when it came down to him or Hillary.  

Obama has done little to nothing to win that support, and I am wondering if I will even bother to vote for the first time in many, many years.  While I'm far from perfect, I figure I can fix my attitude after Obama takes office.  Hey. If this song and dance works for Obama, it ought to work for me.  

Last and not least, demands, dire warnings, and lectures from Obama supporters to do one's duty don't help a bit.  It only brings up that goose and gander thing.  


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:11:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps this should be remembered then... (4.00 / 2)

Keeping in mind that Obama was the 2nd or even 3rd choice of many progressives, the important question is - why'd you bother with a 2nd or 3rd choice?  Obviously - you felt it in your strategic interests to back him - but you knew going in that he wasn't the candidate you wanted.

Why is it that so many who come to the Obama "bandwagon" this way are carrying on as if its a shock that he isn't all they wanted? Apparently - he never was.  It is STILL in the strategic interests of everyone to pull in the same direction.

The best way of influencing a presidential candidate who is less than you hope for but all that you've got - is to take the fight to the periphery - to the influencers.  The "Better Democrats" movement is one such positive effort.  The attempt to influence the candidate's base in the realm of ideas is another.  But any efforts taken must be within the context of getting the candidate elected... because the alternative starts out as so much of a worse place and would require so much more effort to influence in any positive way.

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 16:31:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Eco-goons?" (0.00 / 0)

What garbage.

You have convinced me.  No $$ this month for Obama.  I'll think about it next month.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:30:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not the immunity (4.00 / 6)

It's the freakin' Bill of Rights!

Via the ACLU:

On July 10, 2008, President Bush signed the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), supposedly aimed at "updating" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Unfortunately, the law meant to "update" FISA instead gutted the original law by eviscerating the role of the judicial oversight in government surveillance. The law also gave sweeping immunity to the telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration's unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program by handing over access to our communications without a warrant. On the same day the FAA was signed into law, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

Now, I don't know about you, but this "judicial oversight" thing, to me, is anything but a minor point. This bill lets the administration do whateverthe hell it wants when it comes to surveillance. In other words, it institutionalizes -- or at least makes impossible to prosecute -- the crimes committed during Watergate. If you think a Department of Justice turned into a political-dirty-tricks operation was bad, try the NSA on for size.

Now why would the current White House want to protect itself from this? I can't think of a reason, myself.

Anyway, I'm tired of fake liberals telling me why I'm upset about the sniveling, spineless capitulation of the idiot Democrats on Capital Hill. And I'll only vote for Obama (here in NY State) if the race is close. Otherwise, McKinney gets my vote.

It's the Constitution, stupid!  

---

by: urizon @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM CDT

Yes, that is the rational course. (3.00 / 4)

And I'll only vote for Obama (here in NY State) if the race is close. Otherwise, McKinney gets my vote.

It's the Constitution, stupid!  

Vote McKinney (I wonder why not Nader?)!  Trumpet this from the rooftops, get more ill-informed, one-issue axe grinders recruited to your cause.

Meanwhile, McCain will get elected, and those of us who can afford the luxury, can continue to carp at the losing Democrats -- all the while, those who cannot afford another Rethug Presidency, can continue on their path to living hell.

Truly progressive indeed.

---

by: Obamamama @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:02:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

um, there is such a thing as the Electoral College (4.00 / 3)

If the NYS vote is overwhelming for Obama, as it looks like it will be, it will make zero difference is urizon votes for Obama, McKinney, Nader or Peter Rabbit.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:04:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry I have to spell this out to you (4.00 / 3)

Because you can't read, apparently.

Let's try this again: If the race is close here in NY State, I will vote for Obama; if it isn't, i.e., Obama has a commanding lead in NY State (which is likely) then I will vote for Cynthia McKinney, a woman who has never wavered on progressive issues.

And I voted for Obama in the primary over my home-state senator (though I preferred Edwards because of his unwavering support of labor unions).

And I spent years knocking on doors for progressive causes, only to watch as corporate Democrats sold out on virtually all the issues I hold dear.

If you spent less time on ad hominem attacks, and more time actually reading what people write, we would have fewer problems of communication.

---

by: urizon @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:10:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hypothetically speaking (3.00 / 4)

... how precisely are you supposed to know if the race is close?  Polls?  And - how many other principled progressives think like you?  

Regarding polls - here's something to consider:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:30:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama currently leads in NY (0.00 / 0)

by anywhere from ten to nineteen points, depending on the poll.

If it's under, say, ten points, I'll hold my nose an vote for Obama, despite his destruction of the fourth amendment.

If those polls narrow, however, it'll be Obama's fault, not mine.  

---

by: urizon @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 14:30:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, there's a first (4.00 / 2)

I've never been considered a troll on any board I've ever been on.  Whoever voted me thusly - I'd love to know why.

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 14:44:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh it's the immunity too. (4.00 / 2)

As Jack Belkin notes:

[retroactive] immunity and, more importantly, Congress's failure to provide any mechanisma for government accountability, or even for disclosure of the Administration's wrongdoing, virtually ensures that the Bush Administration will "get away with" its illegal monitoring.

---

by: JohnS @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:24:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't mean to play down the immunity provision (4.00 / 1)

But this is a one-time deal. The unchecked surveillance powers will continue indefinitely.

---

by: urizon @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's the immunity (4.00 / 1)

Obama's promise was on immunity, not the rest.  That is why it is the immunity.

Also, the non-immunity stuff can be changed but immunity cannot -- but that is secondary to the promise.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:38:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly - a man is only as good as his word (4.00 / 2)

I was raised in a conservative mid-west family.  Some values change, but others are permanent.

A man who goes back on his word is lower than low.

There is more honor standing on the corner begging for $20 than to borrow that $20 and never pay it back.

---

by: jello5929 @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:36:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Draw a line in the sand (4.00 / 4)

Not sure what you expect to gain but go ahead and do it. Draw a line in the sand.

I would rather come together as a party and figure this out. It is clear that he is going to need everyone's support in order to win. And I mean everyone.

This seems to me like a once in a life time opportunity. And in order to see it through we are all going to have to come together and find some common ground.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:01:21 AM CDT

Common ground is the key (4.00 / 3)

Ask yourself which candidate is most likely, as President, to begin to dial back the national security state, to end torture as US policy, and to try to put curbs on the military, the CIA and reorient the DOJ to be a Department of Justice once again.  Really.

Politics, at least progressive politics, is about coming together for the common good not for the advancement of a privileged few.  One party and one candidate has a track record of championing policies that bring more prosperity and opportunity to a broader group, even if they do not usher in the golden age.  When the GOP is in power, wealth gravitates to the few, opportunity shrinks and business ultimately contracts, causing immense pain. On top of that we are in a devastating war and face global cimate collapse.  Do you really want to trust your future to a 72-year-old who is just beginning to learn how to use a computer or someone who cares about the future because he is going to share it with you?

And I absolutely agree that it is going to take all of us to elect Obama and a more progressive Congress.  The pushback against him is subtle, but it is real, coming from all sides and having an effect.

So let's cut him a little slack at least until he rolls out his Iraq policy.

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Beside the point (4.00 / 2)

I think it's very unlikely that too many of the progressives angry about this really see it as a choice between Obama and McCain.

Someday, though, Democrats are going to have to do a lot better at answering for themselves than saying, "Look! Over there! A scary Republican!"

If McCain screwed his base over on an issue that was this important to them, they'd be in an uproar. Someone should perhaps explore the correlation between rank-and-file Republicans toeing the line in general elections and the rigid correctness with which their candidates pay deference to consensus party opinion and curry favor with nearly all bastions of their popular support. Democratic candidates, as many have noted, seem to go out of their way to kick the party base repeatedly in the behind.

Support goes both ways. Or it should.  

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:23:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

McCain screws his base all the time (4.00 / 6)

Look at his equivocations over immigration.  

And to the extent that his base is among the elderly, "Social Security is a disaster!" didn;t help either.

He has talked out of several sides of his mouth on the religious right, and social issues.  Is he a libertarianb maverick or is he a social conservative (on abortion, gays, guns etc).

The only issue he's been consistent on is Iraq--we need to stay as long as it takes to win, and once it's safe we can stay forever.

I apologize if my tone comes off as patronizing.  I have just lived through too much of these kinds of discussions, and it never ends well.  The only time the Left makes any progress is when a large group of people hang together.

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that deserves repeating: (4.00 / 3)

"The only time the Left makes any progress is when a large group of people hang together."

It's so true.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:38:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Straw man argument. (4.00 / 2)

Someday, though, Democrats are going to have to do a lot better at answering for themselves than saying, "Look! Over there! A scary Republican!"

How long does this gripe go on? What forms does it take? Is there any thought given to the productiveness of the endeavor?

From my other comment:

Before the vote happened:
1. Starting that group on myBarackObama: terrific, empowering, intelligent and productive way to voice dissent, discontent and possible threats.
2. Doing that petition drive (which I too signed, by the way): good democratic, healthy, productive dissent.  

McCain would be a "scary Republican" argument, if I used it to squelch any dissent, back when it mattered (clue: before the vote). This constant focus on FISA after the fact, accompanied by prominent frontpage threats to withhold money and worse, is nothing short of attempts to throw yet another election -- because there is only a choice between two candidates before us now.  You sabotage one, you are throwing your support to the other -- you can call it what you will, but there is a rational course and then there is the other one.  There are only two choices now, if you are undermining one, you are boosting the other: no hiding from that, and it does not matter whether I say it or not.

---

by: Obamamama @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:51:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but but but (4.00 / 1)

Obama said, "And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok."

Should we take Obama at his word on this? Or is he wrong?

---

by: T Maysle @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:58:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Republican Uproar (0.00 / 0)

Modern day republicans don't do uproar, unless of course it has something to do with democrats.  

For many years the Republican Party held the majority.  In that time, Republicans failed to hold hearings, failed to question the president and his policies, and failed in its oversight responsibilities.  Republicans and their supporters all too often looked the other way during Republican scandals, taking a total of 12 hours of sworn testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib, yet logging 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential democratic donors.

The Bush administration and Republicans were able to conduct business in this way, not because democrats didn't protest, but rather because supporters of Republicans didn't raise their voices.  Republicans casually explained away the unexplainable, and often defended the indefensible.  Yet put a 'D' beside the name of Bush, and you can be sure there would have been a republican uproar.  The difference is that there would have been an uproar from the left whether there was a 'D' or an 'R'.

 

---

by: Kane @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:16:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

McCain (4.00 / 1)

has been screwing with the base the entire primary cycle.  

Limbaugh in particular attacked McCain daily.

And now they have circled the wagons.  You don't hear him attacking McCain now - his fire is directed at Obama.  

It is increasingly obvious that many on the left are incapable of similar behavior.  

---

by: fladem @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 14:31:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're repeating yourself (4.00 / 2)

In the past three days you've written Obama's Fundraising Problems: Turning to Rich People & Some Evidence FISA Hurt Obama and today's A Minor Dip in Enthusiasm for Obama: Blame It On Progressives along with a couple of other posts.  The titles differ, but the general theme remains.

We get it already.  It's time to move on.  You aren't the only one who has been disappointed by a politician in the recent past.  But you can play victim from now until November or work to change things.  In the end, this isn't about you or me or even Obama, it's about taking back our country.  Let's move on!  Respectfully~

     

---

by: Kane @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:04:04 AM CDT

Taking Back? (3.00 / 4)

You are one of the glassy eyed cheerleaders that allowed Obama to make this horrendous mistake.  

If YOU had pressured him as much as we (25000 members of the anti FISA online group) he may not have voted for it.

Instead you called us trolls as we made post after post after post BEGGING Obama not to vote for FISA.

And who are you going to "take our country back from".  The money interests that control our congress?  Obama is fitting in well with them and has since he started in the Senate.

His vote on FISA makes him untrustable, I have heard the same talking points from his people.  They are right out of the Republican play book of spin and highly accelerated BULLSHIT!!!

Send your money to actblue.com

Unseat the Congressmen and Senators that voted for the bill.

Help finance better Democrats.

Finally, they post about Obama over and over because this site is about elections, progressives, and electing progressives.  It's like telling a cooking site to not post about food.  

---

by: marko7 @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:18:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mellow drama, not melodrama (4.00 / 4)

I'm not a cheerleader.  I put my pom-poms away years ago.

I too signed the anti-FISA online petition, as well as expressed my opinion to Sen Obama in writing.

Never have I called anyone a troll for expressing their differences on any issue with Sen Obama.  That would include FISA.

I would like to begin taking the country back from the Republicans.

Untrustable?  Is that even a word?  I suppose you could list all the candidates who ran in the primaries, and there would be votes from each that I strongly disagree with.  But I'm a democrat to the marrow of my bones, so I do what I can to express my displeasure, work for change, and support our candidates.

I proudly support ActBlue and several of the candidates.

We all have our priorities.  If you feel strongly about unseating those Congressmen and Senators who supported the bill, more power to you.  

Yes, better Democrats.

No problem with numerous posts on Obama.  He is after all the Democratic nominee.  But to continually beat on him over the same issue seems rather pointless.  Even cooking shows provide some variety now and then, and they don't continually mock beef for being a cow.  

 

---

by: Kane @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

residual forces and permanent bases (0.00 / 0)

Anyway, there's plenty to look at in Obama's NYT Op-Ed on Iraq.

It is both against permanent bases and for residual forces, so I would think it would be of great interest.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:10:03 AM CDT

no (4.00 / 3)

The plan includes residual forces.  Here's the passage in his Op-Ed.

After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't this better (4.00 / 3)

Than 100 years of war?  Isn't this how it has to start?   No one can come into office and beam 160,000 troops out of Iraq. We have to start withdrawing carefully.  Then withdraw more.  No bases really limits the numbers in the "residual force."  Given the strength of the war hawks and their pawns in the media, if he says out now he will sink like George Romney in 1968 saying we were being brainwashed on Vietnam.  Poeple support withdrawal, but nbot precipitate withdrawal.

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:01:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think (4.00 / 1)

"true liberals" can make that kind of judgement, your are either 100 percent with them, or you are a lying flip flopper, who stands for nothing, and who no intellenget would ever get excited to vote for.

---

by: Jgarza @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fortunately (4.00 / 1)

the Iraqis will have something to say about the viability of Obama's residual forces. After they kill enough of them, they'll evacuate.

I don't want to see any more U.S. soldiers killed in this way. I don't want any more Iraqis killed in this way. (I'll be less sympathetic when the U.S. tries to carry on strictly with mercenaries.) But the U.S. will leave Iraq. We lost -- the occupied won. Our Presidential vote is about who gets to manage reality which has bitten the fantasists who rule us very hard indeed.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:15:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's sort of sad (4.00 / 7)

to see Obama's centrism and pandering pulling down previously good (albeit academic) liberals like Lessig and Skopcol.

They're the new DLCers, chiding "the left" for failing to understand that we should focus on "important" issues that people care about, not boutique issues like the constitution and holding Bush accountable.

It's no news, of course, that there's a bipartisan-centrist hostility for the Bill of Rights. But it's surprising to see liberals, in their zeal to defend Obama, join it, like a thousand New Liberals before them.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:10:37 AM CDT

It's got nothing to do with the DLC (4.00 / 2)

Theda Skocpol is an old progressive who concentrates on economic issues and has spent decades watching opportunities for progressive change founder because of people insisting on their pet issue above all, demanding everything and getting next to nothing (or rather, the people who really need it getting almast nothing).  Think 1968, the Carter Presidency, 1980, 1993, 2000.

Lessig is a guy who focuses on technology issues,  He isn't remotely "DLC."  We need a wider frame of reference here.  

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know perfectly (4.00 / 3)

well who Lessig and Skepcol are; careful with the condescension.

My point is that they're acting exactly like New Liberals is their willingness to surrender on civil liberties and national security for the alleged purpose of winning on bread and butter issues, cause now that we've take FISA off the taken off the table, everyone will receive free quality health care.

New Liberals, and now Obama and his apologists, offer us nothing but false choices.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What, then, is the real choice? (4.00 / 2)

I'm about Theda Skocpol's age, with some of the same experiences.  Like her, I'm getting a little nervous about this election.  Some older women saw it as their last chance to have a woman President in their lifetimes.  I think that may be pessimistic, but for me it feels like perhaps the last chance for a moderately progressive administration.  

So what, then, is the real choice?

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:38:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The choice is Obama's (4.00 / 2)

Either he runs a cautious, centrist, scared campaign and loses or he runs a progressive, combative, proud campaign and wins.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:05:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is the speculative assumption that underlies (4.00 / 3)

matt, chris and your line of argument.  it may be true, and it is nice that you have spelled it out explicitly.  however, it also is speculative and not self-evident, and that should be noted explicitly as well.

moreover, it isn't really testable or evaluable, even after the election happens, because there is no way to replay history another way.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:25:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the reverse is the speculative assumption (4.00 / 2)

No Democratic presidential candidate has won by running a cautious centrist campaign since maybe Truman. And ... most Democratic presidential candidates have lost by running caution centrist campaigns, like Carter 1980, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.

I mean centrist by todays standards ... which is like moderate Republicanism of the past.

OTOH Chris is showing polls that say the country has never been in a more liberal mood, there is no great support for moderates, etc etc

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

---

by: T Maysle @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 16:18:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Like Edwards? (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Obamamama @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:32:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (4.00 / 2)

I'm not expecting him to be as progressive, combative, or bold as Edwards would've been. Obama just has to not-suck and he'll win.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:50:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards was a chameleon (4.00 / 1)

I know his recent version of himself was especially appealing to many on the left but I remember the other Senator Edwards who played it safe and voted over and over against progressive positions in the U.S. Senate.

Progressive purity ain't easy to come by.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:00:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (4.00 / 2)

He was a pol who found his voice and discovered the moral and practical problem inherent to New Liberalism. I hope Obama does too.  

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:11:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

revisionist history (0.00 / 0)

and a pretty good one at that.  

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:55:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How Clintonian (0.00 / 0)

He found his voice?  You can't be serious.  Every presidential election when the losers begin to see the writing on the wall, they magically discover the light and message of the core activists.  It happens on both the left and right, and it why both Edwards and Romney exited as sudden darlings of their parties.

In a span of four years, John Edwards went from arguing for the invasion of Iraq, to defending his vote for the war, to claiming the war in Iraq was a mistake.  Is that the Edwards' voice that you're talking about?  Or maybe you're talking about the dramatic change of going from a favored son of the DLC to a supposed populist in the course of one election cycle?

Or perhaps you're talking about the change that Edwards made when he actually helped write the legislation for the Patriot Act and who voted for wire-tapping of cell phones and voted for restricting rules on personal bankruptcy? Or maybe it's the change that Edwards made when he scored a shameful 60% by the ACLU on civil rights issues and scored a hawkish 40% by SANE on peace issues and scored a paltry 37% by the League of Conservation.

In the 9 minute and 30 second announcement of his candidacy for president, Edwards failed to mention what would later become his staples.  Not once did he mention  the words "lobbyist", "corporate greed", and "special
interests".  However, for old times sake he did throw in a "two Americas".

How is it that you can casually forgive Edwards and his record, yet you are unable to offer Obama the same courtesy?  

---

by: Kane @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 16:32:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absolutely (4.00 / 1)

It's about candidates winning the old fashioned way: earning (not owning) citizens' votes.

---

by: fafnir @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 17:35:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So go vote for Nader (0.00 / 0)

If it that important to you.  You have a choice.

Take it.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 14:33:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What're you talking about? (4.00 / 1)

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 14:39:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Academics (0.00 / 0)

I'm a little more reluctant to assume that a Stanford Law professor has no appreciation for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but it is strange the lengths that some have gone to apologize for/justify Obama's FISA actions.  Is Obama and his advocates DLC over a single vote?  Over a few weeks of centrist movement?  I'm not sure, personally the lie during the primary season is the most disturbing thing and sign as politics as usual.

I've come to suspect that academics are more inclined towards compromise with the right than other liberals, whereas grassroots, on-the-street progressives might tend to expect more of their demands to be met.  This is just utter speculation, however, and I've got nothing empirical to support it with.

Regarding Matt's post, I think it's awesome that people are withholding money over the issue.  Why give to a lying Democrat when there are better Democrats out there?  And now, maybe (and just maybe) the campaign will think twice before the FISA vote.

---

by: sdchilders @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:35:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry sdchilders, but the vote is over, Bush already signed it into law... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: KC Bill 13 @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 00:47:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Has anyone considered timing, and the economy? (4.00 / 6)

I burned myself and my free money out giving money during the primary season, which, if anyone remembers, was hellishly long.

Right now, I'll bet an awful lot of people like me are (a) taking a bit of a breather, and (b) right now are having a hard enough time just paying bills, much less straining to give money to a candidate right now.

It doesn't help that, yeah, a lot of supposedly smart insiders think it's a great thing to do to give me a big middle finger for being a liberal / progressive / supporter of non-dumbass policies here recently.

But that's not the main thing for me.

Not to mention, a lot of people are probably thinking of this period as summer, when any last chance they have of a family vacation, however modest, comes up until Thanksgiving.

---

by: El Cid @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM CDT

Good point (nt) (4.00 / 1)

---

by: urizon @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:16:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you matter or don't you? (4.00 / 2)

I am getting mixed messages from the leading voices in the progressive blogosphere.

Do you guys matter or do you not?

Apparently, from what I've seen over the last month, you, Kos, and Chris Bowers, among others, don't think you matter at all to the Presidential race. You can blast Obama and if his poll numbers drop it's got nothing to do with anything you say.

Or is it that you actually do matter but you just have no control over your reactions to Obama actions of which you disapprove?

Personally, I think what is said on the blogs does matter and that you need to show more and more editorial control over your Obama bashing as we move closer to the election. Why? Because opinion leaders such as yourself, and Kos, and Chris are being heard. You guys are leaders.

You can try to preemptively declare that if Obama loses that it will all be the fault of the candidate and his campaign. But that won't wash. We'll all share in the defeat. We know McCain will be an awful President and we know he'll be much worse for progressive goals than will Obama. Being aware of the consequences of defeat means that we can't just opt out of responsibility because we are cynical about Obama's worth as a progressive. We know the alternative is worse and we know it's important that Obama win. Knowing that how can any of us in good conscience throw all the responsibility on Obama? Our actions matter too.

---

by: Curt Matlock @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM CDT

That's right, censor your writers Open Left. (0.00 / 0)

Now if only we progressives can do something about the NY Times et al when they allow opinions critical of Our Dear Nominee's positions...

---

by: JohnS @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:29:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Censor? Strategy? (4.00 / 2)

Ok. I'm "censoring" OpenLeft by telling them to think strategy before posting the first bitter thing that comes into their heads. It's censorship to think of your own goals before shooting off your mouth about an ally?

If the blogging A-List is actually pursuing a well thought out strategy with regards to Obama then fine. Perhaps Matt and Kos have coordinated their message about how progressives should feel fine not donating to Obama because of his FISA vote. Perhaps they are planning on waiting until the next big progressive action by Obama before dramatically returning to the fold. If so, I withdraw my objections because at least they are pursuing a plan they think will elect Obama. Is that what's going on?

---

by: Curt Matlock @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:13:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have to admit that it is beginning to grate that (4.00 / 6)

after Obama issues a statement which states boldly that his new position/vote on FISA may be a dealbreaker  for some voters, and by the tone of the statement that seems a-okay with him, to later be continually lectured by avid supporters of his because of support drop off which I think was perfectly predictable, and because a recognition by enough of those polled shows that his recent moves constituted a calculated political positioning which tarnished his image as a person who represents 'new kind of politics'.... and because there may be a donation drop off....and that somehow this is all the fault of those who don't like his stance rather than the ultimate responsibility of the person who is running for President is remarkable.

I resent this because there seems to be a distinction between pledging to vote for him and 'support'... you phrased it well: we, those willing to express disappointment over his recent statements,  aren't clapping loudly enough any more

My enlargement on that sentiment would be :give me something to clap about....until then, he can count on my vote in Nov. I realize that to his avid supporters that doesn't seem like enough, but I'd also like to point out that I speak badly of McSame when I discuss politics with friends and neighbors and on-line.

I find that as far as I can go for now

---

by: Susan H @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM CDT

Not Fair (4.00 / 4)

I was on board with this comment until I clicked through to Skocpol's piece. I don't see almost any of what you're talking about.

She's not blaming progressives for being mad about FISA; she's blaming a variety of groups (from disaffected Clinton supporters to Jesse Jackson) for not focusing on what she believes are the important issues, namely economics. If you think that FISA is something of a sideshow, which I don't think is true for anyone on this blog but is not an illegitimate opinion (particularly for someone like Skocpol whose professional work shows how economic equality and a functioning democracy are intertwined), then the article makes sense.

If Obama ran to the center on the Bush tax cuts instead of on FISA, Skocpol would sound exactly like Matt. It's a difference of priorities, which just can't be conflated with being a wanker.

Plus, what does Ivy League have to do with it? You sound like Rush Limbaugh!

---

by: CT Student @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:47:01 AM CDT

seriously; lay off on the anti-intellectual bit. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:29:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Personal attacks (4.00 / 3)

should stop, but since Fisa has little sway over the electorate, bloggers like yourself have resorted to personal attacks.  Acusing Obama of a radical shift to the right, flip flopping, of being a liar, of abandoning his brand (odd since you argued that he was a centrist during the primary)  Guess what, when liberals pick up and echo republican personal attacks they stick.

So now what? we could loose the election, but what do you care, you punished Obama for not being with you 100 percent.  Who cares if the actual result was a republican president.  

It will be great, all you white liberals can talk about how you sunk the first african american presidential candidate with charecter attacks over Fisa.  It will be the most noble battle in history.

---

by: Jgarza @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:51:24 AM CDT

"FISA has little sway over the electorate" (4.00 / 1)

Okay then, tell me who is FOR warrantless wiretapping and covering up for criminals?

Then why did Obama vote for it? Exactly how many votes of regular Americans do you think he won by that decision?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 18:11:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ugly Truth (4.00 / 2)

You have now discovered the ugly truth, there is only one political party in the US, it just has two arms.

It is the establishment, big money, party. It is dedicated to preserving the wealth of those who have it, hence the bail outs of Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fanny, etc.

The reason there is only one party, is because only those with lots of money can influence elections and those with lots of money are capitalists.

That's not to say that there aren't some differences between the two arms, the GOP favors giving more money to the rich, while the Dems are willing to throw a few crumbs to the poor. Obama has already stated that he wants to expand military spending (again). This despite the fact that it now consumes 54% of the federal discretionary budget (up from 50% when Bush took office).

How could it be otherwise when the biggest campaign contributors all have strong ties to militarism?

What the New Deal was, was a realization by FDR that he had to throw some bigger than usual scraps to the masses to avoid civil unrest. In other words some token socialism to save capitalism. We aren't seeing any signs of civil unrest this time, so the scraps remain minimal.

Progressives never get their ideas through because of their efforts, it is fear of something worse happening that makes the establishment yield a little. Get used to it.

Policies not Politics

---

by: robertdfeinman @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:52:31 AM CDT

Leadership, Skocpol, and Shailagh Murray (4.00 / 2)

Thanks to Matt for defending progressives from the hand-wringing that's coming in light of weakened fund raising and lower poll numbers.  

Obama has de-energized his most enthusiastic supporters since he wrapped up the nomination.  That's the fund-raising side of the problem.  The polling problem reflects the weakness of the triangulation strategy.  Obama's support among Democrats remains high.  He dipped with independents.  The dip may be a result of blurring the differences with the Republicans, maybe not.  No matter what the cause, I'm tired of liberals taking the blame when things go wrong and getting ignored when they succeed, so thanks again Matt.

Skocpol's right that Obama has to win, but she's wrong in leaving the problem of unity solely at the feet of the liberal rank-and-file.  Yes, we get caught up in particular issues and can get played by media narratives, but it's the job of the campaign and its candidate to send the message. Get out and attack McCain relentlessly and we'll follow.  Obama's back-and-forth over Clark's comments a couple weeks ago, like the FISA policy, tells Democrats that Republicans have good ideas and need to be listened to.  To make the election about McCain, Obama needs to take the lead.

Finally, beware of Shailagh Murray, Atrios' bete noir. She wrote the story Matt linked to about Obama's wealthy friends in Chicago. The piece reads like FoxNEWS boilerplate on liberal elitists.  Murray doesn't come up with evidence proving that these wealthy Chicagoans control Obama's campaign as much as she shows that Obama has wealthy friends.  

---

by: ft @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:21:57 PM CDT

good point about the devil (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:40:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The race is tightening not because of progressives. (0.00 / 0)

We all knew that Obama would lose some public interest over time. It was a long primary and its a long time to the general.

Clinton in '08. Or give Carter a 2nd term. Vote for Obama!

---

by: Joliepoint @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM CDT

More complex (0.00 / 0)

The race is tightening not because of progressives.

Certainly, almost any progressive currently complaining about Obama would also choose Obama in a telephone survey, so as a first level effect, I agree.

But all the problems Obama is having with the base right now changes the caricature of Obama in a way that influences those  who's votes are still up for grabs.  A more enthusiastic base simply leads to more enthusiasm.  Sure, you get the occasional cool-aid complaint, but that's better than the alternative.

In reality, McCain has had a far worse month than Obama by any reasonable assessment, but Obama's mistakes are protecting hiding that.

And it really does all come down to FISA.  Every other problem this past month is the kind of noise we always see in campaigns, something Obama is actually pretty good about avoiding compared to most.  But FISA gave all the other stuff a validity it otherwise would have lacked.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 14:03:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Damned straight! (4.00 / 1)

I needed to read that!  Agreed 100 %!  

---

by: pbriggsiam @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:00:23 PM CDT

Matt, you lost your chance! (4.00 / 1)

You told US that

"I don't like being lectured by Ivy League wankers who tell me it's my fault when Obama lies to me."

I don't think, though, that you told the Obama representative! (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Looking back, I thinks it's too bad that progressives were as polite as they were. I think they should have warned Obama, as publicly as possible, that while they're going to support him over McCain, no matter what, a candidate who LIES about filibustering a bad FISA bill is not going to be supported with the same level of enthusiasm as otherwise.

I still say that Obama should be slapped down (verbally), while still making it clear that Obama is infinitely better than McCain. Those people making noises about purity trolls should be quite happy that purity in not criticizing Obama WHEN HE DESERVES IT, is not required, either. Hypocrisy is unbecoming in both candidates and rank-and-file.

Likewise, the spinelessness for which the Democrats in Congress are justly infamous should not be replicated by rank-and-file. One way to try and get spineless politicians to grow a backbone is to politely ask them, "pretty please" 's and all. A far better way is to show them, even brusquely. At least that has a chance of working!

So, good for you, Matt, in not being a lemming. Just don't let things get you down, OK?

Finally, here's a prospective title for the sort of verbal slap-down I'm looking for:

"Dear Senator Obama: How you stupidly shot yourself in the foot and misled your supporters, while disrespecting the Constitution. And why I still greatly prefer you over the complete disaster that a John McCain presidency represents"

Such a title would never be used by a politician. However, I believe you have a higher calling. :-)

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

---

by: metamars @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 18:07:17 PM CDT

They said he had "the most diverse campaign in history?" (4.00 / 1)

Give me a break. He didn't hire any women in top spots till what, two weeks ago?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 18:15:21 PM CDT