Going Home With the Guy What Brung Me

Being a woman of a certain age (i.e. too old for childbearing, mini-skirts, and believing that any candidate is perfect), I am cognizant of the fact that the only political candidate I will ever perceive as being perfect is myself.

I agree with myself wholeheartedly on every issue, am not likely to take myself to task over anything, and although I can handle criticism, I doubt that I would hurl any in my own general direction.

However, I am also painfully aware of the fact that I am not our Party’s presidential nominee – and fully acknowledge that if I were, I couldn’t get elected to save my life.

That being said, I have had to choose to support a candidate other than ME in every election since I was old enough to vote (which occurred somewhere between the Civil War and the release of the first Indiana Jones movie – and I won’t be getting any more specific than that.)

So the 2008 primaries came around, and there was this guy. He was young and charismatic, well-mannered and well-spoken. He was intelligent, grounded, and at the same time visionary – I liked his style.

The more I listened to what he had to say, the more I appreciated the substance of his words, and the heart behind them.

And then I got lucky. From a field of truly remarkable candidates, the majority of my fellow Democrats saw what I saw, heard what I heard, and chose him as our nominee.

I went into this relationship with my eyes wide open. I knew that there would be times that this man would inspire me, and encourage me to be a participant in my government and my world. I also knew there would be times he would disappoint me, frustrate me, infuriate me.

But I was in it for the long haul, and determined not to be dissuaded from seeing this particular man take the oath of office, from hearing him swear to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America knowing that he would be held accountable for doing just that.

Over the past week, I have read an endless array of posts proffered as constructive criticism of Barack Obama’s stance on FISA, public campaign financing, and the death penalty – and truth be told, some of those posts were indeed an honest critique, and/or an appropriate expression of disagreement with our nominee’s statements and conduct.

However, it seems that the vast majority of these posts, IMHO, while published under the guise of honest dissent, are either (a) a whiny complaint that their individual ideals were not being adhered to, or (b) an opportunity to say I told you so – the inference being that if said poster’s preferred candidate-of-choice had been the nominee, they would have proven themselves to be all things to all people by this point in the game.

My personal favorite comment, when pointing out what are perceived by many to be the miserable failings of our nominee, is, “Well, I have my principles,” a remark meant to imply that the rest of us have none at all.

Well, I, too, have my principles, and Principle Number One is seeing to it that Barack Obama is the next POTUS. And THAT principle, to my way of thinking, trumps all other principles, combined. It’s going to be John McCain (R) or Barack Obama (D) – those are your choices. And your self-touted principles should dictate the obvious choice between the two.

Given some of the comments I have seen here of late, I wonder whether some posters are still unaware of the fact that WE HAVE A NOMINEE – a situation that is not about to change.

Implying that your preferred candidate would seem, in retrospect, to have been the better choice (and that’s the world according to you and not necessarily the rest of us) is not going to change the fact that your candidate is no longer relevant to the task at hand: ensuring that our chosen nominee is sworn-in next January.

In short, if you are looking for a candidate who is going to be in lockstep with every position you take, every opinion you hold, every stance you have decided is the “right stance”, you are bound to be disappointed – and if you honestly believe that your personal disappointment is more important than seeing a Democrat in the Oval Office for the next eight years, you might want to consider the concept that it is not now, nor has it ever been, all about YOU.

I made a commitment years ago – from the minute I saw a pea-brained, war-mongering, torture-loving, easily-led drunk installed in the White House – that whoever the Democratic nominee would be in the wake of eight years of war, famine, pestilence and death, he or she would have my support and my vote. I stand by that commitment.

I realize that because Barack Obama was my personal choice, I am perhaps more enthusiastic about his capabilities, and more prone to defend his positions – even though I may not personally agree with all of them.

But, as I stated at the outset, being a woman of a certain age, who has the maturity and experience that thankfully comes along with my advanced years, I will honor my commitment to stand by my man – who, by the way, is quite a remarkable man – and do everything in my power to ensure his presidency.

Barack Obama brung me to this dance – and I’m going home with him, all the way to the White House. And I’ll be damned if anyone is going to stand in my way – or his.

This election is about taking our country back. It’s about avoiding future disaster, preventing neocons from infiltrating our government, and undoing the incredible damage that’s been done to our nation’s citizens, our fellow world citizens, and our country’s standing in the world.

In light of that, I will not apologize for keeping my eye on the ultimate prize to the exclusion of all else, nor my commitment to the man who is better equipped and more determined to see to it that the aforementioned is accomplished than his opponent in this race.

It’s either Obama or McCain – them’s the choices, folks. Read ‘em and weep – or take heart and rejoice, as you see fit.

But don’t preach to me about your principles if you have to give THAT choice a second thought. Your alleged principles will never be more important than what's at stake in this election, and your egocentric whining about what you want will never be as important as what the country not only wants, but needs.

but I agree with you.

The principle might be: My candidate, right or wrong....or, I'd vote for a yellow dog if it ran as a Democrat.


A principle would be much more general than a specific candidate, as I understand it.

I stand with you..

<snip>
In light of that, I will not apologize for keeping my eye on the ultimate prize to the exclusion of all else, nor my commitment to the man who is better equipped and more determined to see to it that the aforementioned is accomplished than his opponent in this race.
<snip>

:toast:

I'm getting a little sick of that fact that posts pointing out McCain's deficiencies drop quick and Obama 'concern' threads are 10 thick and full of replies and recs.

These will run me off this forum much quicker than the ugly primaries did. This is sickening.

If Molly Ivins wasn't dead, I'd think she posted it.

Here's to you, Molly and Obama. :toast::toast::toast::toast:


(Mrs Phx_Dem)

Perfectly said!

I especially like this:

Barack Obama brung me to this dance – and I’m going home with him, all the way to the White House. And I’ll be damned if anyone is going to stand in my way – or his.

K&R

:patriot:

I'll be here at home, tending to the dogs and crying.
:cry:

Thing of it is I'll be voting for the homewrecker anyway. Damn me.

Off to the Greatest Page with you!

:yourock:

:thumbsup:

Onward to the Inaugural Ball! :toast:

K & R

repeatedly stated that the only "perfect political candidate he knew was himself in his first election" and I find your "stand by your man " reference insulting.

I may have to vote for the Dem candidate for the first time in my life while holding my nose but I will exercise my right to speak out about his "flip flopping " on issues that are important to me such as gun control, FISA , and the Fairness Doctrine and Public Election funding.I do not care for the politics of "expediency". Obama promised us "change" and implicit in that was a promise that it would not be "politics as usual". He does not appear to be living up to that message.

And I will continue to "whine" about the protection of the constitution" as I do believe the oath he wants to take involves "preserving and protecting" that document.

... and a rant I wrote a while back about how I was the only candidate I truly agreed with one hundred percent of the time. (I'm still trying to find it, but can't remember the title - anyway, it's in my journal, if you care to look for it yourself.)

It isn't strictly plagerism but it isn't original either and He has been using that line a long time.It is almost an exact quote too.I watched him deliver it live in 2004 and then inteviwed him about it. He said he has spoken that line for years. it is a standard "one liner" for him.You may have just heard it and it entered your subconcious. I remember thinking it was very clever when I heard it the first time.

use it in her writings.

she used it to refer to the need for politicians to stick with those who elected them. Nance is using it to mean the very opposite, as if voters have some obligation to the politicians.

that out.

That's not an obligation to the politician... that's an obligation to ourselves, our children, and the rest of the world.

sticking with the people to people sticking with the candidate.

I think this is a reflection of our celebrity society. We form allegiances to pop stars and politicians not based on what they do, but just on the fact that they are celebrities and they are our celebrities. Maybe we live vicariously through their success.

Anyway, I like the way Molly meant it better than the OP.

Yes, I will vote for Obama rather than mccain. It would have helped us if we had looked more carefully at his history and seen this "do anything to win" tendency. Perhaps we might have had a chance to select a different candidate. We had some good ones early on. It's just not as inspiring voting for a candidate whose claim to the office is that he's not as bad as the other guy. Now if we can just get to the election before he decides gays and partial birth abortions are bad and that the Irag war is good.

You icon is a man who was the epitome of one who was concerned about the people of this country. I met Bobby Kennedy. I heard him speak. I got an awful lot of my ideals from him.

But if these events don't concern you, just let it go. You will hardly notice the Bill of Rights are gone. Hope you never need them.

the beginnings of civilization

... but that's probably because I have steadfastly avoided TV news for years now - which is where that comment would have gotten the most play.

But it's not a novel concept, the idea that the only candidate we're ever truly going to agree with one hundred percent of the time is - ourselves!

about our candidate unpolluted? This is a rhetorical question because we all know that you can't. seriously, what the hell?

I heard it all the time growing up.

and despite self righteousness on the part of some supporters, they are more than entitled to express their disappointment and/or outrage at what they're seeing, because it wasn't what they were sold.

Personally, I saw through this long ago- and so wasn't fooled- but I DO have sympathy for those who didn't and I'm not going to beat them over their heads and tell them not to vote their consciences and principles so long as they live in a safe Democratic state.

For the simple reason that expressing dissent is about the only way to have any sort of accountability in the current system.

in order to "have any sort of accountability in the current system". That is your plan? When McCain wins, under your "expressing dissent" plan he will appoint the fifth fascist to the Supreme Court and you can kiss accountability good-bye forever. Great plan.

Voting for Republicans is ALWAYS stupid- and always counter productive.

However, those in safe states who, in the event of repeated pandering to the far right and abandoning traditional Democratic values and policies- such as we've begun to see, feel that they want to go 3rd party or simply not vote- I ain't getting on a high horse and telling them that they're wrong to do so out of protest or to keep their principles and consciences clean.

Of course, if the candidate holds true and doesn't keep betraying Democratic values- this wouldn't even be an issue.

That of course, is the bottom line.

And the same holds true for candidates whose claim to fame a "d" behind their names in any race....

Barack is a minority running against the establishment, yet you've decided some states are "safe", and in those states you would encourage people to vote 3rd party? Sorry but I don't see how this helps Barack. You can write to Barack's office and express your displeasure with his position. That is your right. He needs all the votes he can get and I don't thing you're helping anyone by encouraging them to vote against him. THAT is the bottom line.

find yourself being accused of betraying Democratic values.
Gee I guess I can't come to your Party then because I agree with Barack in his comments on the recent Supreme Court decisions, and I agree with his choice to blunt the "soft on terrorism" attacks ( one of the only viable Republican options this year, McCain is leading the polls by double digits <19 pts> on the terrorism issue) and to fight the FISA battle another day (from the White House).

And I haven't seen any repeated pandering to the "far right".
Can you provide some examples ?

Does anyone have the complete list of those things we must say and do to be considered Good Democrats ?
And does anyone have the electoral map that adds up to 270 votes by running on that apparently rigid list ?

If you want to keep your principles or conscience clean- go live in a monastery or resign yourself to accepting what the majority decides for you.
Unless perhaps there is someone out there who wants to claim that they have achieved some sort of measurable social or political good without ever compromising or ever choosing to keep their powder dry and fight another day on better ground.

There are no safe states when elections can't be counted on to be fair.

TOTALLY! :applause:

is that you actually found that perfect candidate, even if you can't get her to run.

That doesn't work for me. I oppose several of the things I stand for, and sometimes I flip-flop something awful. At one point in the height of the primary insanity, I had myself on Ignore for 3 weeks.

I needed a laugh. This thread is getting me down.

I always agree with myself totally - and if I change my mind, I applaud my own ability to think on my feet, and change course based on ground conditions when necessary.

If the presidency depended on three solid votes (assuming I could vote for myself, and my husband and my mother could be counted on to vote for me despite their misgivings about my leadership abilities), I would have been a shoe-in.

Alas, it was not meant to be.

You are an eloquent voice of reason.

Proud to have sent another rec on this

rivetingly what a lot of us have been trying to get across ever since the primaries have been over and Skinner posted the rules for the GE.

Honest critique is always welcome but hypocritical purity posts are dragging our DU GE down.

Obama is our candidate and he will be the next President of the United States of America.

Nance I enjoy reading what you write :thumbsup:

Gods am I getting sick of DU's very own concern trolls.

Hekate

They don't need our help.

Once again. Thanks, Nance, for saying all the things I've wanted to say and doing it so well. :toast:

The guy what brung me? Luckily I gave the rest 106. I haven't visited DU much lately (working my byonce off for Obama and friends) but it's nice to know that the more things change, the more things stay the same.

is that, if Barack Obama is elected president, he remembers who brung him. He should not be allowed to forget for an instant what we are entrusting him with by voting for him, and what we expect from him after he is elected. He must never be allowed to think that he can take his supporters for granted now that he has the nomination, and he should never, ever be allowed to presume that anyone is entitled to a free pass to the White House.

It's only the independents and moderates he should have to court. After the election, sure... put his feet to the flames... but now?

Christ... sometimes I wonder if Dem voters actually like shooting themselves in the foot. It's bad enough for conservative people to vote against their self-interest because they're gullible or whatever...

But us? I thought we knew better than to vote against our own self-interest. I thought we knew which side we stand a better chance with... I thought we were fed up with republican rule... I thought we wanted to try to change things, at least a little.

But you're saying he shouldn't take Democratic voters for granted... in a general election?

I just do not get it.

What recourse does anyone have after the election if a candidate we supported during the primaries starts taking positions and pursuing policies that are not in line with what they promised us? Do we threaten not to vote for them in the next election, even though the same thinking you're applying now would also apply? I'm not even remotely considering not voting for Obama, but I do think that he needs to be constantly reminded of what it means (or should mean) to be a Democrat, and that the self-interest of the people who voted for him in the primaries is not infinitely flexible.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but everything else is exactly it in a nutshell.

Thank you! :patriot:

I will vote for Obama, I will work to get him elected.

But don't expect me to not "whine" about things like giving telecoms immunity re: FISA.

I also will continue to "whine" about the death penalty being uncivilized.

Obama needs to dance with those that brung HIM as well.

one.And if that means smacking the nom in the head till he "gets it" so be it.

We're the lucky ones, because we never saw him with stars in our eyes.

We will vote for the lesser evil. We will vote a Dem Congress. Then we will have TWO YEARS to make CHANGE. Except those two years will be busy with galloping inflation, rampant unemployment, and, hopefully, endless investigation of the crimes of the previous administration.

Either we show action, or the Republicans will regroup and take back the Congress. Two years. That's the pressure on Obama. Two years to act or lose the power and become a one-term president.

Because of the precedent set by refusing to impeach Bush, that's all we have.

And probably all we deserve.

between stating your dissatisfaction and the over-the-top crap we see far too much of around here.

It's one thing to say that you disagree with his comments about the death penalty ruling... I disagree with his comments about the death penalty ruling, too. But to start OPs stating that he's a fraud? OPs that are nothing but "I told you so!" bullshit?

I wouldn't call it whining. I'd call it sheer idiocy. Or simply attempts to disrupt.

It is retro-active immunity from civil suits.
It is not blanket immunity in the present or future.
However, the revised FISA law also pulls Bush up short from continuing his ignoring the FISA court going forward.
It is also sunsetted in 2012 (The last year of Obama's first term).
It also is a law not a Constitutional amendment .... so it can be re-revised or repealed, or gutted or ignored or interpreted and will be by the next President.

That's not to say that in a perfect world we would have it.
It is without a doubt seriously flawed.
But let's start from where we are and look at the circumstances.

Is there a persuasive argument to suggest that drawing a line in the sand over this issue here and now will help the goal of electing Democrats in November ? Not just Obama but swing state Congressional candidates as well.

The one issue that McCain is polling ahead of Obama on (by 19 pts. in recent polls) is in dealing with terrorism.
So picking a fight over this issue leading up to the Fall election doesn't make sense. Hoping that nuanced explanations of how we can protect ourselves from the very real threat of terrorism and also remain true to our American ideals will win out against fear-mongering sound bite attacks is giving the population that voted for Bush twice more credit than they deserve. Not to say that Americans are too dull-witted or callous or xenophobic to understand the larger issues but in the heat of an election campaign they will be more influenced by the small slogan, sound-bite, headline, smear email repetitions especially if an "October Surprise" type event is staged.

Only a fool would hand them the set-up to reinforce the use of this tactic.

That's what you're whining about.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:popcorn:

... thought-provoking response.

:eyes:

There seems to be some kind of insidious competition on who can be the most pure here.

Fortunately Senator Obama has studied carefully and he isn't going to be 'Mondaled', 'Dukakised','Gored' or 'Kerried'.

And it is driving the Republicans crazy (and some very pure Democrats).

I'm voting for him too, even voted for him in the primary. Like another poster above, I knew all along where he was. But many, many did not, including MoveOn members.
He doesn't wear the DLC label but ..... one has to wonder.
Still, he's a dem and I'm one of those yellow dog voters.

how to vote when it counts!

and if he were,
he'd say or do something
the next day after announcing
that you wouldn't like.

Representing a district
instead of an entire nation
makes it much easier to
please your contituents.

Check the math.

300 million people
is a lot of people to please
especially if they expect
to be made happy all of the time.

to display.When has he yet taken a stand that was a "risk" politically? He has never done so as Senator or as the nominee, nor apparently in the Illinois Senate. If not now, when?

when he is up 15 points?

Some times one has to think of the long war instead of one single battle, we can't all be Spartans at Thermopylae, some of us have to be Athenians, retreating and letting them burn the city so our fleet can sink theirs allowing us to eventually push the Persians out of Greece.

(With apologies for the extended historical metaphor)

to be relevant, or not be relevant. A choice between Obama and McCain will be relevant. All alternatives will not be relevant. If not being relevant makes you happy, why not write in George Carlin or Groucho Marx? It is your ballot, if you aren't going to do something meaningful with it, then why not have fun? Perhaps Pat Paulsen would appeal to you.

Of course, it is only your ballot if you show up and claim it, but then there is nothing less relevant than staying home.

get my vote all the way!

Your argument fails to consider the fact that the march to fascism has been going along swimmingly since Reagan. Of course, King George I forged ahead with the corporate world dominance agenda. Followed by our hero Bill Clinton who also danced to the tune of the corporatocracy. (He's still dancing and being paid handsomely for it, I might add) Then the Supremes appointed George II, and he along with his Repig majorities got into full-tilt boogie mode.

Fortunately we voters rallied to the aid of our fallen nation and put the Democrats back in the majority just in time. Just in time to see them act like their Repig brethren who had been feeding at the trough for six years. "Hey!! Wait for us you guys!! We want our share. We can compromise too!!" might as well have been their rallying cry.

So, here we are poised on the brink of putting into office a fresh Democratic President so he too can drive the runaway freight train. Tooot Toooot. Get out of the way or you're gonna get run over 'cause the change of the guard isn't going to stop jack. Why do you think our beloved Democratic Representatives and Senators are acting like yellow-bellied sapsuckers? They are beholden. Just like Obama is going to be beholden. And McAnus is beholden.

I'm not counting on the right kind of Change even if Obama does manage to get into office.


With sincerest apologies to all Representatives and Senators who voted to stop funding the war, who voted against designating the Iranian military as terrorists, and who voted to kill telecom immunity. And especially to the few who voted to censure or impeach the Emperor. You are men and women of courage.

they can always use a few good men and women. :patriot:

And if you don't mind, I'm going to ask him politely to quit stepping on my fucking toes.

WE brung him. Who is "we"? You do realize that some of those "we" are for the death penalty, while others are not. There's no way any candidate can avoid stepping on your toes without stepping on someone else's instead.

This is about US as a collective, not US as individuals.

Personally I didn't really care about his position on the death penalty. The President doesn't deal with a lot of death penalty cases. I also knew his position on gay marriage and a bunch of other things I disagree with. But I still supported him.

What I can't support is the idea of another Democrat who refuses to lead, refuses to stand up for the principles he ran on and then turns around and feeds us some pablum about "only being one Senator", rather than stepping up as the nominee of the party and fighting for OUR civil rights.

Who voted for THAT? Did you?

I understand the Senate hasn't voted yet.

He promises to work on getting rid of telecom immunity, but it was bad enough that he supported the compromise at all.

Can we at least be honest about the failure of leadership that's already occurred? Where was Obama when this bill was being considered? Where was he on the cloture vote that he PROMISED to oppose? Don't you think that the nominee of the party would have any say in whether a bill like this even got a vote?

And Obama has already said he'll vote YES on the bill. Why are we pretending that this is something other than a done deal? If you really think there's a chance he'll change his mind, then I submit that we aren't making nearly ENOUGH noise about it.

Of course, he isn't going to change his mind. He's a smart enough politician to foresee the "flip-flop" accusations that would follow something like that.

But this is somewhat orthogonal to your original response: you were saying that some of us are being presumptive in pushing our individual agenda. Do you feel that there is some group of rank-and-file Dems who are cheering Obama's current stated position on this bill? Is there some previously unknown segment of the party who are against the 4th amendment? Can I end every sentence of this post with a question mark?

I'm with you on some of the complaints, especially with regard to well-known centrist positions that Obama has had all along. But the FISA vote is not centrist, it is not a compromise. And it damn sure isn't something I expected from the candidate I supported in the primaries.

That doesn't change the fact that we have a choice between Obama and McCain come November - and I, for one, am a bit more skeptical about McCain's leadership than I am of Obama's.

All I'm saying is that we can afford to make ourselves heard without somehow jeopardizing the outcome of the election.

C'mon, we've got a brilliant, charismatic candidate who already has a 15-point lead on a creepy, bumbling nutbag from a dying party with his nose 12 inches up the ass of a retarded president with a 19% approval rating.

If we can't speak up now, when can we?

... and making our disagreement known, and undermining our own candidate. I know you recognize the difference - but many here don't seem to.

I have seen dozens of posts over the past week that talk about "I'm having second thoughts about this guy", or, "Maybe we're all realizing he wasn't who we thought he was," or, "I think buyer's remorse is setting in" - all of these statements made as though there is an alternative to still be had between our guy and the GOP's guy.

I have put my trust in this man - and if that trust is proven to have been misplaced in future, I will have to live with the consequences.

But I have high hopes for this presidency, and all the positive things that I believe will come of it. Call me crazy - I'm content with the label.

People on both sides of the debate would do well to understand which is which.

Speaking up, IMHO, is: I disagree strongly with Obama's position on such-and-such, and here's why ...

Undermining our candidate is: Have you heard Obama's position on such-and-such? Maybe we should all rethink our support of someone who holds this position.

It's pretty simple stuff ...

Volunteering, donating, etc. If not, because of the criticism, your contribution is a net negative. And that IS undermining the candidate. You may just be "speaking up" but people read your words and they do sap people's enthusiasm to do the work needed to elect our candidate.

Criticizing our nominee is a *positive* contribution. It's what we're *supposed* to be doing in a democracy.

It's not about just shutting up and smiling and pretending that our candidate is the best thing since sliced bread. For once, we have a candidate who's good enough to get elected without all of that deception (and self-deception).

Sometimes I wonder if 30 years of Repug Lee Atwater/Karl Rove tactics have poisoned our brains. Spin and dishonesty are not what elections are supposed to be about.

And If people need dishonesty to get enthused about Obama, I submit we have deeper problems than my little post.

And for us, that person is Barack Obama.

For me right now, spending my time criticizing him is counterproductive to that goal.

Democracy is not all about critiquing and debating, it's about DOING. I've long wondered why "activists" by and large ceased being "active".

Assuming you do, that is...

If we just shut up, smile and vote without comment, the Democrats continue in their delusion that weakness and capitulation are the ways to win elections. Obama needs to hear from us NOW, else we run the risk of him turning into yet another pandering, center-right wet kleenex.

I sent him an e-mail stating I hope he fights immunity and works to gut FISA as President, as he has promised to do.

But I still recognize that he is clearly superior to McCain and that I will continue to donate and work to get him elected.

Even if no one from the Obama camp has even heard of DU, the point of posting here is to move people to action. You wrote him an email, I wrote him several and I heard from many people who wrote him and called their representatives based on the shitstorm that we kicked up on this board.

That's what this debate is about. DU is not a spin room for the Obama campaign. It's a democratic (small-d) forum that has much more to offer than cheerleading for our favorite candidates.

go to his website or his senate website. he still is a senator for now. i get emails all of the time from his campaign. i am gonna send a donation to him and the dnc today and i am gonna let them know how i feel about the whole situation. my voice shall be heard. the only way mccain can win is if we divide. we can't allow that to happen. people are here feeding off of our frustration and trying to use it to divide us and make us feel like there is no hope. remember that the policy is the problem not the nominee. look at the posts and how they attack obama not just their disagree with a particular policy decision. i read on someone's post that the rnc was coming to our websites and posting. well they are here disrupting. we are allowing them to do it.

The point of a democratic (small d) forum is to show people that they're not alone. If I just quietly sent off a letter to Obama, no one on this board would know that I share their dismay at his cave in. Otherwise, what's the point of even being a DU member?

i also posted my disappointment. but, i posted my support, too. some folks are using our frustration for their won benefit, those who do not support the (d) and want to move disgruntled folks in their candidates direction. dissent and discourse are democratic. bashing the nominee and not the policy(we disagree with) is another story. plus if we can't get it out here, where can we?
love & peace jgraz-remember we're all feeling these stings with you.

It is possible to nitpick someone to death, we should therefore be careful, the perfect does always remain the enemy of the good enough.

:eyes:

Seriously, is this guy so weak that some joker on an internet forum can cost him the election? If so, then boy did we pick the wrong nominee.

Half so much as it is a question of post-primary fatigue. Many here, including yourself, have worked hard and put blood, sweat, tears and bile into defending their candidate, or resigning themselves to the nominee in order to end this ongoing 8-year mess. Some of us are a little tired of having to fend off what we perceive as "attacks" from the left as well as the right and have become understandably defensive. On the other hand, many who supported the candidate are understandably troubled by his stance on FISA, indeed I am too. However, along with the truly concerned and constructively critical, there are a few who see this as an opportunity to rehash the primaries, by crowing over implied "buyer's remorse." I think some of us are just a little tired of condescension and snark, particularly as November is still a ways away.

In the end, it probably is positive that there has been such uproar about FISA, it gives Senator Obama an idea of which cows are sacred, and therefore not to be barbecued in the interest of utility.

One need only look at their effectiveness during the primary to realize that.

...of our leaders. That, indeed, if we don't let them know we don't like what they're doing, we deserve to be sheared like the sheep we are. We deserve, in fact, the very state of affairs we're currently in. Seems to me that if we're going to avoid business as usual for the next four years, we'd better do a whole lot more yelling and a whole lot less capitulating...however much in style it is for Democrats these days.

Thank you for posting your defense of holding our leaders accountable. Which is - and I'm sorry to have to remind so very many of you about this - our fucking JOB as members of a democracy.

but then dismiss them by saying it's either Obama or McCain. This is true, but it doesn't make the issue go away nor is it really that constructive. This man wants to be President, to uphold the law and take a vow to the people that he will be his best, the best option for America, but what about our constitutional rights? Independents see this... a lot of folks believe it or not aren't sure who ether candidate really is... but they will hear about this if they haven't already seen it. My question is this: who the hell advised him to not fillibuster?!

Showing fear by not standing up for our rights is not politically smart nor is it making me any more hopeful.

I understand what you are saying but all too often we hear that we are being "purists" and just upset because the man doesn't match our ideals perfectly! That is a ridiculous conclusion and it's usually made by those who would rather just sweep this all under the rug. But that's right there the biggest problem with this government and it's voters.

I personally am done with giving any one a pass, regardless of the situation and if we Americans, regardless of political ideology want REAL CHANGE, We need to lead by example, because as we already know, politicians do not lead, they follow....

I already gave the man passes for other issues, but this is not something Ican just sweep under the rug, at least right now. The Constitution is not to be used for political posturing... it's where I have to draw the line. We've have all seen enough of this and is why we as a country are so morally and principlally corrupt. We need to CHANGE that and expect and demand more, not less.

... nor advocating sweeping anything under the rug.

This OP was specifically aimed at DU, not the world at large, BTW. And that's because I have been extremely pissed-off by some of the posts here over the past few days. I'm not talking about criticism, or expressing concern - even outrage - where it is warranted.

However, I have seen too many posts advocating (some outright, others with more subtlety) the idea that Obama has now failed the ultimate test, and people might want to "rethink" their support.

In addition, even some of the most positive posts about the Party making inroads in red states and battleground states have been infiltrated by the professional crepe-hangers, who find it necessary to add a hand-wringing, all-is-lost comment to every thread.

Obama's campaign has been almost flawless, and he's proven himself to be a master chess player. I have no reason to believe that he suddenly got stupid, and isn't thinking eight moves ahead at all times. I'm willing to see how things play out before declaring the game anywhere close to over.

And one fact still remains, like it or not: Come November, it's Obama or McCain. There will be no other choices.

I intend to vote for the man, even work for him, BUT if he turns his back on the Constitution for political expediency, I won't vote for either. Every individual has their own threshold of what they will feel comfortable with when making a decision. I can not nor will I support someone who turns their back on the People's Rights for political reasons. That sets precedents on what is ok and what isn't for a President. A bad precedent.

And I know who you were talking about but I too by reading your post could be considered one of them if I do not say I will vote for Obama no matter what.

There are always more choices, depending on who is making those choices. I'll be making that choice and you will be making your own choice. THAT's what makes America also a Free Country. We can choose not to vote. Turning ones back on a Constitutional right to get elected does the opposite.

I actually believe in the end he will do the right thing, but if he doesn't, I will. I have to live with myself and my decisions, no one on DU does.


PS - I love your posts, even if I disagree with you. Please, have patience me.

... or anyone else's. You have expressed yourself exceedingly well.

The point of my OP was twofold - and if it fails to express what I meant, that is the fault of the writer, not the reader. So now I ask for your patience.

Point one is that regardless of whether you or I choose to vote in November, the outcome will be one of two things: An Obama presidency or a McCain presidency. I believe the Constitution will fare far better in the hands of Obama than McCain.

Point two is that the Democrats are well-positioned to win not only the WH, but a much larger majority in the House and Senate. I, for one, would rather be in the position of applying fire to the feet of those who are in a position to do something about it, rather than those who are hamstrung by being in the minority, or having too small a majority to carry out the Democratic agenda.

If Obama's presidency turns out to be a nightmare, believe me, I won't hesitate to speak out. But I have no patience with those who are already declaring it as such, when it hasn't even begun. I also have no patience for those (a small but very vocal group here) who seem to be insistent on sowing the seeds of discontent with the man who IS our nominee - as though enough complaining will somehow cause the Party to replace him with someone they find more to their liking.

This IS the guy - there is no other guy. And I want to see HIM taking the oath of office next January, NOT another BushCo slug.

under the bus.

I'm not going to pretend that being a better choice than McCain for leadership means we aren't headed to or already at fascism though. And after Obama is elected, depending on what transpires, I might have to call for his impeachment.

I was signed up to attend my local Unite for Change meeting prior to this FISA abomination. I still plan to attend and I'm going to circulate a petition asking Obama to change his position on the FISA bill.

I disagree that changing ones position on an issue is the kiss of death. (not your assertion, but I'm jumping into this discussion) I think how and why someone changes position, and the issue involved is far more important politically than the fact of change.

Obama is calling for change. If that precludes changing ones own position, then WTF?

This is a law... FISA law.. not a Constitutional Amendment.
It can be repealed, revised, interpreted, and/ or ignored. By those in power come January.
It will be sunsetted in 2012, the last year of Obama's first term, so even if he didn't work to revise it it will disappear unless he were to work to renew it.

What does more to harm his theme of "new politics" moving to the center and sidestepping land-mines on the campaign path or dragging out a Senate fight to allow what can be portrayed as more of the same partisan revenge politics (digging through the past to unearth Executive malfeasance), the kind of non-productive inside game that the American people became so sick of during the Clinton years ?

Why is choosing to keep the one issue where your opponent is polling way ahead of you (McCain +19 in "dealing with terrorism)
from becoming the main focus of debate leading up to November somehow seen as being against the 4th Amendment ?

I hope we all agree that's exactly what the Republicans would do if Obama were to lead the charge against the law here and now.

Keep your eye on the Prize.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we've lost some critical protections that once were considered sacrosanct.

and previous iterations going back to its inception in 1978 that make it such a watershed event in the erosion of our Constiutional protections.

Go read the bill, or just read the posts in this and other DU threads. Then we'll talk.

Or have you latched onto a few talking points that are being thrown around recklessly here and on other blogs about trashing the 4th Amendment and selling out the Constitution ?

It's a law.....
It can be repealed, revised, gutted, interpreted,and ignored by those in power.
It will also disappear in 2012 (the last year of Obama's first term)
If you think that Obama, as President, will leave it as is, work to renew it and/or use it like the Bush administration has then I understand your anger and concern.

If you think putting the one issue that McCain leads on in the polls (dealing with terrorism.. McCain +19) front and center leading up to November is smart politics and that choosing to retreat and face this battle on better ground (from the White House) is "capitulating", refusing to stand up for principle or feeding us pablum then I can understand your disappointment.

I don't see it that way.
I, myself, am enthusiastically supporting a smart, pragmatic politician who shares most if not all of my values

You see how this would play in the corporate media... No, once Obama said he would vote for this bill, the battle was over.

phase of governance he reminds the country that he said he would scrutinize the program closely and would work on doing something about the immunity clauses which trouble him ? if he then rolled out a detailed discussion of how to protect both the country and constitutional protections and encouraged a vigorous debate from both sides of the aisle on C-Span as he has often said he wants to do for more transparency ?
Yeah the talking heads will do what they always do.... talk about the "Rev. Wright" de jour and Michelle's fashion sense.

Here's the reasoning they'll use:

Right after the election: "Oooh, we just won the White House... we can't give the impression that we couldn't wait to cave in to terrorism".

6 months after the inauguration: "Wow, the honeymoon is over, we can't risk a reversal on FISA now"

1 year after the inauguration: "Oh no, the mid-terms are coming up. Can't do anything controversial now".

Lather, rinse, repeat until people forget about it.

And frankly, Obama hasn't impressed me since he clinched the nomination.

these election campaign tactics.
You must figure the intoxication of power will overwhelm his sense of justice and that his professed vision of a more perfect union is just hollow talk , I don't.

I still have some faith left, fool that I am, still crazy after all these years.

And let me say this, just so we don't misunderstand each other: I may be disappointed in Obama right now, but we are still light years ahead of where we'd be had we committed the electoral atrocity of choosing Hillary Clinton as our nominee.

I complain about Obama because I think he's reachable, that he's not a lost cause. If this were Hillary doing the same thing, I wouldn't even bother.

That means 270 electoral votes.

Bill Clinton's fellating of the right was almost understandable in 1992, as he was in a close 3-way race with barely a plurality of support. Here, we have a brilliant, popular phenom running against a cranky old nutbag with an anger management problem. And THIS is the time to start caving in to Repug demands?

Americans respect strength. Americans respect people who stick to their principles. Americans respect people who don't back down from a fight. Want to get Obama the rest of the way? Tell him to grow a pair and start acting like a fucking American.

and dare him to hit you with it.

The one issue that McCain is leading Obama on is "dealing with terrorism" (by +19).
So look at that debatable 15 pt. lead (it's not 15 in all the polls some have the race much tighter)and think about what it is that will make you "a fucking American" and prove that you "have balls"
Oh Yeah, bring that argument front and center and lead a charge against the law
(a law that can be revised or repealed next year by an Obama administration and a strong majority Democratic Congress)
a stand that will be blasted by McCain as being "naive, soft on terrorism" etc. in easily digestible sound bites tailor-made for the same population that elected Bush twice. Oh Yeah.
And then just wait for the "Son of October Surprise"

Brilliant !
Anything less is selling out.

I know as Democrats, we may not be used to that word "strength", but it's time we revisited it. Wussy, poll-driven, pants-wetting triangulation is what the voters rejected in the primaries.

Obama's poll numbers go UP every time he stands on principle. I'll bet he drops at least five points against McSame once he votes on the FISA bill.

voting against this FISA law shows a lack of strength.
and they will still dance to the "weak on defense Democrats" tune, an oldie but goodie.

Arguing from strength ? The argument is a nuanced one,it isn't something you want to gamble on getting across to voters in sound bites in the middle of a campaign. You can't say there's no need for any FISA law, so you have to get into details, which aspects are important, how to protect individual privacy while still protecting us against legitimately terrorist communications, how to allow for quick response to perceived threats without giving carte blanche to paranoiac law enforcement or totalitarian tendencies, etc. Since all of these issues are covered in some way in the present bill it would become something akin to the health care debate in the primaries- parsing words, arguing shadings and what-ifs.
And the Republican sound bite - Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
Serve up a little red level alert, courtesy of Homeland Security and you've got Obama on defense.

Sidestep this debate for the here and now- vote yes- with the ability to revisit it after January
and keep hitting away at Iraq and energy and the economy, all issues where McCain falters.

That's what playing from a position of strength is.

Remember the Jeremiah Wright controversy? Remember "The Speech"? He can pull that off on *race*, for God's sake, the subject that turns almost every American into an idiot -- but when it comes to the Constitution, Obama suddenly runs and hides under his desk.

Obama knows how take on a tough issue and win. For some reason, he's choosing not to in this case. And this is not that tough of an issue as most people are against the legislation.

Edit: And where do you get that Obama will suddenly have the ability to revisit this after the election? Once he capitulated and agreed to vote for the bill, the battle was lost. We will never hear about FISA again -- warrantless surveillance will just become an accepted part of American life.

in election strategy is choosing to sidestep this battle here and now they obviously don't think its " not that tough of an issue " for the election.
"Dealing with terrorism" is the one issue where McCain is polling higher than Obama (McCain +19).
Why would Obama want to drag it front and center by leading the charge against it at this time ?

I also don't think that most people are against the legislation per se.
Obviously a majority of the House and Senate are for it.
It has been a law in one form or other since 1978.
I myself am not against FISA as a concept, it is meant to be a safeguard of privacy and search and seizure rights while still permitting law enforcement to intercept criminal communication. It's a court with the task of reviewing surveillance warrant requests. It's meant to protect rights not abuse them. The fact that it has flaws and the fact that it has been misused or ignored point more to the need to overhaul it rather than completely scrap it. So I think the argument is more of a nuanced one with lots of detail, too much so for an election time debate.
Warrantless surveillance is not a feature of FISA, there are provisions for conducting surveillance while the request for a warrant is under review, in the new bill the term of that period is 7 days up from 3 in the last version.
I don't think an argument for an absolutist stance in either extreme is being championed by anyone who doesn't wear tin foil hats, there is obvious need for strong (arguably stronger) safeguards just as there are obvious needs for intelligence gathering. So any bill is a compromise between these two issues.

I also don't think that there are all that many correlations between Obama's taking on race in America in his Philadelphia speech and the issues in a national security / personal privacy balancing act like FISA. One was talking about openly and truthfully examining relations between the varied racial, ethnic and religious members of our society with a focus on the case of racial differences not criminal law procedures, the other is a debate about how we best protect our society /nation against those who would damage and/or destroy us without damaging or destroying those rights that make us a free society, i.e. criminal law procedure.


The law is a fluid thing it is not static. Any law can be revisited at any time by the body or bodies that enacted it.
Why do you think that discussion or work on FISA will end now ?
Won't you be still calling for its continued revision once Obama is in the White House ?

Check back later for a post of a video explaining this much better than I can. It will be in Political Videos from The Young Turks, posted either by me or by ihavenobias.

Anyhow, Cenk NAILED the political stupidity of Obama's cave on FISA. Very interesting take.

I'm sure you do to. It was 1972 and George McGovern was perfectly progressive in every possible way. And we all remember how that turned out-38% and a 49 state loss. I'll settle for a flawed Barack Obama any day of the week. He wasn't my first choice, nor my second but he was the choice of the voters of the Democratic party and that 's good enough for me.

Principles are wonderful but appointing the next four supreme court justices is FAR more important.

At a slowly increasing rate, I've seen apocalyptics showing up on DU. They start with the base principle that Things Are Going To Hell. Peak oil, peak food, peak space, peak paper, peak electricity, peak internet, peak Evian.

Faced with these various mixes of apocalypse, there are only four possible solutions:

1) Overthrow democracy and create a True Communist State. Make people get rid of their guns, their cars, their Reeboks. Make everyone dress in State-issued hemp garments and make them live in mud huts they must build themselves.

2) Leave America. Because America is irrevocably corrupt, and so are all Americans who stay there. Go to a wonderful place like France, England, Canada, or that island from the TV show. And overthrow whatever government is there and create a True Communist State. (See above.)

3) Die, and make sure everyone else dies before you do, because we have sinned against Mother Nature and we were too stupid to establish a True Communist State, as God...or Lack-Of-God...demands. Buy guns. Lots of guns. Kill lots of people.

4) Don't say anything. Don't offer any solutions. Just raise up the basic apocalypse that appeals to you, and hope that everyone who reads your inspired post will get as upset, paranoid and embittered as you, and be smart enough to establish a True Communist State.

It's probably pointless to observe that the paranoia in these posts is just the left-side version of what Bush and Company did to this country in the last eight years. Because their version of paranoia is true, right and just.

Think this is too much? Read some of the posts and see if I'm not right.

What would be the motivation for him to listen to us? We'll get shouted down, like now, because re-election or the mid-terms are coming up.

I would love to live in a country where a candidate has to EARN my fucking vote, and not obligated to have it just because the opponent is so much worse. I'm sick of this lesser of two evils shit, it fucking pisses me off!

But you obviously do, and your perception is as valid as anyone else's.

That being said, if you DO see it as a choice between two evils, isn't the LESSER of the two evils an obvious choice?

As for his motivation to listen to us after being elected, it is exactly the same as any elected official. He either will or he won't. I'm betting he will - but again, that's just MHO.

The point is that it's going to be Obama or McCain. Everything else at this point is moot.

Frankly I've been getting sick of it, I have yet to find one fucking politician in local, state, or federal office that even comes close to representing me. Hell, in some cases, I'm actually puzzled as to who the hell is the greater evil, such as my state's Governor race, vote for the homophobic Democrat(supported our anti-gay marriage amendment, only Democratic AG to write a letter to California Supreme court denouncing its decision) or our Homophobic Republican candidate. It sucks when you have two conservative parties running this country, what the fuck is a leftist to do?

I don't vote for the Democrats because I want to, I do it because if I didn't the Republicans will fuck this country up more than the Democrats. Its soul sucking, demoralizing, and frankly I can't take it anymore.

" Ever since I was old enough to vote, I've voted against the greater of two evils..."

Well how old are ya then, 'cause there has NEVER been a perfect candidate in the history of this country. Perfection is only reserved for those who "think" they are, while the rest of us live in reality.

:applause:

the way its set up, the way its practiced. I realized the futility in voting back when I turned 18, in 1996, since then, nothing has really changed. I still vote, but more out of habit than for any hope that things will change, at this point, I'm thinking about staying home, and then building a robot that looks like me that could vote in my stead, I'll just program it to vote for whoever has a (D) after their name, for all the thinking that's involved in that decision.

I'll help hold noses, if I have to, just as long as we all make it to the polls in November and pull the lever for the Democrat - who happens to be Barack Obama.

We can't take four more years of neocon rule. Really.

As horrible as shit is right now, did we really think we could snap our fingers and make it all go away with one little Presidential election? Newsflash - we have a Congress full of so-called Dems that vote like Republicans 75% of the time. We have a Supreme Court that leans right. That's a damn uphill battle right there.

So here's the deal. We have to start sending our troops into battle properly equipped. For starters, that would be electing more progressive representatives and less Blue Dogs/DLCers. I understand that you have to pick your battles and not lose sight of the war. Winning three straight battles and losing the war still makes you a LOSER (that may have won three straight battles).

Losing isn't an option this time. It.Is.Not.An.Option. Mmmkay? Constructive criticism is fine. But those criticizing need to be vested in this fight and not just pointing fingers from the sidelines. Donate. Volunteer. Register some new voters.

Have trouble fitting the old cranium through doors much?

I think I would have made a GREAT nominee.

If it weren't for being married three times, being an admitted (gasp!) smoker of cigarettes and alternate substances, the word fuck being a mainstay of my vocabulary, the fact that my first and foremost campaign promise would have been to send Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et all to Gitmo first and asked questions later, I would have had this whole thing wrapped up the minute I threw my hat in the ring.

I think most people believe they would be the perfect president, and would vote for themselves accordingly.

To be honest, though, I would never have voted for you - because you obviously have a propensity for missing a point by miles, and we've already had almost eight years of that kind of person in office. And that hasn't worked out well, in case you didn't notice.

We have to just push and dominate elections for probably 16 years just to get back to the middle. Slowly but surely moving to the left.

Come on guys I really need this, I'm a self styled centrist forced into the role of left-wing nut job just because the nation's pendulum has swung so far out of whack, speedily declining us into a fascist state.

Seriously people we live in an America that Obama can be considered the most "liberal" Senator. All the neocons I bicker with consider McCain to be a liberal and Bill Clinton was about the last stop on the spectrum before pure Socialist with Karl Marx right around the corner. Everyone has to just accept that a candidate in the mold of an Obama is about as far as we can go without getting sent home with 50 or 100 electoral votes, in the current climate.

We also have to grasp how this wicked ass system works enough to realize that nose holding is required across the board if the majority of us are going to have a moments peace other than the privileged few that fully get their way, such as the neocon railroad that we have been run over by.
Don't doubt that they fully got their way. The few perceived turnings back, like not killing Roe or passing a anti-gay marriage amendments are just distractions and base motivators for them to use to stay in the game.

As for our own fate, I believe one of the most effective ways for the party to maintain overall a governing majority is to take advantage of the Supreme Court's ruling on gun control to take the subject off the table. It's time to give up an emotion driven and losing battle.
There are too many guns in play to even begin to talk about almost even the most meager constraints and a lot of folks (like me, to be honest and fair) that will by no means give them up for as many reasons as you can think of and have heard your whole life. Including to make some attempt to defend myself against a dictator sate, if it ever came to that.
Say whatever you want about the odds, I'm a believer in taking slim over none. Not to mention if we give our soldiers similar or the same weapons then they must be of some use.

Being a little more religion friendly would help too. Just be inclusive and respectful of beliefs without basing policy on them. There shouldn't be an issue with morals and spirituality having an influence as long as reason and reality remain the basis.

I'm telling guys we can do a lot of good things to move this country towards greatness by

1. Simply dropping the gun debate.

2. Letting Jesus be alright while understanding that he can't run for President. Bethlehem just doesn't qualify as US soil (though I think there may be an exception for those born before a certain time). This isn't even a policy shift but one of a taste of tolerance. Not groaning when someone speaks of their spirituality or getting up in arms over a nativity is about all that is required.

3. Smartly pushing for legal unions instead of gay marriage.
Maybe even using rhetoric like, "Marriage is the province of the church, a holy union between God and a man and a woman." "A man made government cannot, should not, and must not even pretend to have authority over divine manners" "However, as a nation of equality, justice, and liberty it is our solemn duty to ensure that EVERY citizen have equal rights and protections under the law.". Every marriage will be a civil union, it will be up to churches if they wish to accept certain or any civil union as a marriage. The "marriage" part of it will have to come on the back end, as it just becomes the terminology over time and seen as commonplace.

4. Seriously consider going up against partial birth abortions.

Just those few adjustments to the platform would allow us a real working majority with less need to run all but in name Republicans. This would have the added plus of taking some wedge issues out of the equation so much further reaching policies could get attention. Some compromise will give us the ability to do many important things.

We have big things that need doing and the neocons have proven they'll work only to undermine the average American and to line their pockets, and the independent type parties just don't have the juice and won't for a long time unless the current incarnation of the Republicans goes deep into the wilderness and a vacuum is created.

We must smartly play the hand dealt to us and gradually work it up. Wanting it all and wanting it now will more likely than anything, leave us with little to nothing. There are just some places from which we can not logically get to in a single bound from where we are at. Too many Democrats cannot accept that to govern lawfully is to compromise. We have just a bit too much of the opposition party mentality.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...

Very well delivered rant! You expressed my own feelings with great precision. Thanks!

"if you honestly believe that your personal disappointment is more important than seeing a Democrat in the Oval Office for the next eight years, you might want to consider the concept that it is not now, nor has it ever been, all about YOU."

The fact that some folks can't see past their own selves and do what is best for this country continues to astound and enrage me. Thank you, Nancy, for another wonder entry.

That was when it was about me and my choice. And you and your choice. There is really no other way for a democracy to work. We have to make our wishes plain. We have to vote, not for the one who appeals to others, we suppose, but the one who appeals to US. I did that. I hope you did. We function by majority rule. We had our chance to choose. NOW it is the party's choice we vote for.

I hope no one here voted in the primaries for a candidate they did not want because of what they supposed others would want.

But the choice was made. If we feel it wasn't a true democratic choice, then we have local issues to work on and hope it isn't too late for the future. But right now, we have a candidate. If we are Democrats, our candidate is Barack Obama.

Frankly, I'm glad to see the messiah mantle drop. Get it straight, ducks. We're voting for a politician, not a god. And now that we know that, we can criticize his policies instead of worship what we imagine they are. I'm relieved.

I however will not give them a free pass and enable them. I think more than anything i am seeing the uber supporters of Obama willing to let him say and do anything to get elected. Hey don't we have a guy like that in office now?

It's about not jumping down his throat and accusing him of selling out the Constitution and the Democratic Party because he won't draw a line in the sand over the FISA law here and now.
which is what a lot of poster here and elsewhere on left-leaning blogs are doing.

It is a law..... that is a revision of an existing law that can again be revised or repealed in the future.
But also an issue that, unless you think Frank Capra and Aaron Sorkin are documentary film makers, isn't something you want to drag front and center into the National debate leading up to an election where the only thing McCain is out-polling Obama on is "dealing with terrorism" (McCain +19).

Enable them ? Do you think that Obama is some sort of secret neo-con power abuser because he moves to the center for the General Election ?


Yeah, I see the similarities with our current President...... ?????

WOW!!

gave my daughter and husband the giggles although I am not sure if it was the words or me sitting there with my mouth open. Although not as pretty, I say the same thing all of the time. When our candidate dropped out and we chose to support Senator Obama we knew there were going to be times we did not agree with him. We didn't always agree with the candidate of our choice either but this election is too important to lose to McCain.

"Barack Obama brung me to this dance – and I’m going home with him, all the way to the White House. And I’ll be damned if anyone is going to stand in my way – or his."

:toast:

Thank-you:D

is that they must have known that Obama was not a Yellow Dog. He was not my first choice. As a proud liberal, Kucinich was. When the primaries came down to two people--Hillary and Obama--the choice for me was clear: I could and would never support the DLC candidate, Hillary Clinton. It was not only her IWR vote; it was her rejected of the Levin-Reed Amendment; her votes for the Patriot Act and the bankruptcy bill; Kyl-LIEberman; and the fact that she never even read the NIE but wanted us to believe that she was "ready on Day 1" and had "better judgement." If she were the candidate, do we really believe that Senator Clinton would have voted differently from Obama, especially if she has positioned herself as "tough on terror," prepared to "obliterate" Iran.

The way I see it, we have TWO choices: McSame or the Pragmatic Centrist Barack Obama. Obama was NEVER liberal. He has always been a Centrist. Don't know why Democrats continue to buy into Right Wing lies.

Every day, with every issue and event, we decide whether we're going to applaud or criticize the actions of our politicians. When Obama does something good (e.g. his speech on race) I'm all over the place praising him. When he does something boneheaded, he's also going to hear from me.

Voting is the most coarse-grained, unintelligible action that one can take to register your feelings about a politician. I'm going to vote for Obama no matter what, but I damn sure want him to get the message that my vote is IN SPITE OF his reversal on protecting the 4th Amendment.

:kick:

"Well, I, too, have my principles, and Principle Number One is seeing to it that Barack Obama is the next POTUS." is a goal, not a principle. We, as a nation, have seen the too much of what happens when one suborns their principles to their goals.

:thumbsup:

well said....I am with you 100 percent....

that (someone's) individual ideals were not being adhered to"?????

:wtf:

Did you really think no one would notice how you slipped that in there?

And frankly I'm pretty confident you knew that isn't what she was talking about. The same way you knew it wasn't what I was talking about when you posted this bit of drivel in my thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6414174&mesg_id=6418276

What IS whiny complaining is, to quote myself, the people engaging in this idiocy:



THOSE people go well beyond "whiny complaints" to put it bluntly. Just like you did when you posted a clear insinuation that our nominee was selling the constitution down the river and acting in a treasonous manner. I refrained from reporting that, but get a goddamn grip on yourself.

Nance was indeed referencing those of us who advocate upholding the law and the Constitution when she called us "whiney" (because we advocate principle over political expediency). She lumped all of us who have criticized this outrageous FISA bill (and those who have expressed support for any part of it) in with those who she imagines are nothing more than selfish, whiney babies. It marks a low point in her writing career here.

And you have the unmitigated gall to refer to us as "stupid" and "whiney", and to totally distort the meaning of my post in your thread - I said NOTHING about "our nominee" "acting in a treasonous manner". I was referencing *your* triangulation argument, the same one that's lost us all those elections, the argument that puts deluded notions of political expediency above the rule of law and the Constitution. THAT is the position I was calling treasonous. Aside from you, the only people I referenced were Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid, people who play the same triangulation sell-out game you were advocating in your thread.

Next I suppose you're going to call this guy "stupid" and "whiney": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3520174&mesg_id=3520174

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4476

Shame on you.

I generally try not to offend, and most certainly I do no mean to offend you Nance, as I hope I never have; here is my take on the "principles" of some of out more vociferous members; but the bottom line is...those who espouse "principles" over substance can essentially go away. We all have "principles". Charlie Manson has principles, Hilter and Nazi's had principles, al-Qaeda have principles. "Principles can be as evil as they can be noble."

So, for the sake of argument, here are some of my principles:

1. Every human being should be treated as equal until the point comes where they prove themselves "evil"

2. Justice prevails over vengeance.

3. Women, children, gays, honest workers all have the same basic rights to live a life they find acceptable and amenable.

4. Every man, woman, child have the same opportunity to pursue a higher education if they so desire, and are capable of doing so intellectually.

5. Soldiers should be treated with dignity and particularly if they are wounded of killed in the line of battle.

6. Every human being has the right to eat, receive medical attention and a chance to improve themselves to the best of their ability.

7. If a man chooses to use a shovel over a backhoe, they have that right.

8. A man or a woman has the Inherent Right to speak up without fear of reprisal.

9. A man or a woman has the Right to take to task what the perceive as injustice, whether in a Court of law, or on the street.

10. The Right of the People to assemble Peacefully and demand redress of their government is written in stone.

11. No man has the right or the obligation to take away the protections of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; that smacks of treason and should be treated as such.

OK...I've had my say, and I could say plenty more, but I shall spare you.

Principles are rights that have been fought for over many years starting w/the Magna Carta, and ending only when all of us can be a free and equal people, throughout the world, regardless of color religion, place of national origin. You want Principles, fight for them, but understand this, it always takes time and the honor and dignity to stand up for them regardless of the cost.

I'd really like to see more concern about John McCain on here. No candidate would be perfect, INCLUDING the candidate that most of the "concerned" people supported.

We cannot afford another Repuke in the White House.

I have faith in Obama - he's not President YET, although many here act as though he is.

Not supporting and upholding the Constitution
goes waayyy beyond personal preference or an
I told you so mentality.

Continuing the absorbed powers of the unitary
executive dictatorship beholden to corporate
fascist interests goes waaayy beyond the dance
with the one what brung you philosophy. It's
at the core of what's wrong with America now.

Yes, Obama will be better than Bush and McCain.
He can honestly say that he probably won't
abuse the power of the presidency the way Bush
did and McCain would just because he's a better,
more highminded, better educated and classier
kind of guy.

However, the way that power works is at stake,
not whether we might happen to get a guy who
won't abuse it. The Constitution and the balance
of power is at stake.

Nobody should have unitary powers. All three
branches of government should share power and
contain each other. That's how it's supposed
to work.

Sue

good one. I just posted my response to this same issue in another thread.
We are both women of a certain age who understand that perfection is not going to happen unless LOL we perfect older ladies hold the reins of power.
Thanks for being a clear voice in a sea of mind games.:9 :toast:

I am voting for Barack Obama.

Obama will be elected by the people. The people will bring him to "dance" in the People's House.

Principles are what founded this country, i.e., "a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption"...alleged or not, they should never be silenced.

saddlesore

edited for clarity

I also think Obama must be made aware that most of those same DUers do not agree with his position on FISA. I realize that was the thrust of your post; that nothing will stand in the way of you and most of us making sure Obama is elected president. But threats so severe to the constitution are far beyond that. The fact that the GOP has become the devil incarnate will bring us all to the polls for Obama. However he MUST be made aware how most democrats and most Americans for that matter disagree with him on this very important issue; One that is based on the very foundations of this country.

... of what concerns us, and at every step of the process.

What is bugging me, however, are some of the posts I've seen, e.g.:

"Hillary was right - this guy is nothing more than a speech after all."

"His position on FISA is proof that Obama is as corrupt as any Republican."

"I KNEW this guy had everyone fooled - except me. I knew he was no good all along."

THAT, IMHO, is not honest or constructive criticism; it is an attempt to sow seeds of dissent, and should have no place here.

immaterial. That is all.

As I have reiterated over and over again, we are electing a President in November, not a Messiah. As such we need a man who has principles and ideals, but who is able to play the game and do what is necessary. FISA sickens me, but far less than four years of McCain would do.

"alleged principles"?

"rejoice"? You betcha


:party: :hi: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

I can see my died-in-the-wool conservative old mom losing interest in Obama, but having to verbalize why supporting the Democratic nominee is important -- and having to explain it to DU -- is bizarre.

And then there are people arguing against the point.

Insane.

:o

at about the same time as you were, Nance, I whole-heartedly agree with you. Mr Obama, the most POSITIVE candidate since JFK, will make a marvelous President. I heartily Kick and Recommend this excellent post!!!

:toast: :beer: :kick:

Thanks Nance!

exist only in historical hindsight, when the past has long ago obscured all the warts and rendered irrelevant those who could never see past them.

And even then, historians (speaking as one) have never declared a politician or president to be perfect.

Democracy thrives on contestation -- between parties and within them. DU is part of that contest and as such I value those who express here their dissent. But there is a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. The latter is practiced between political parties, to cast doubt and conflate complicated issues into false dichotomies, to inflate gaffes and missteps into fatal character flaws, all in the goal -- tacit or overt -- of undermining and rendering unelectable the opposing candidate. As such, it should have no place in DU.

In contrast, constructive criticism within a party exhorts their candidate to reach his or her full potential as the future president of the United States. Constructive criticism is hence grounded upon genuine support and commitment to our candidate. If Obama did not have more potential to change fundamentally the direction of U.S. (and global) politics than any other American politician in the past half-century, his every position and perceived policy shift would not now be the subject of such scrutiny & critique. It is because he has galvanized the progressive left that we now measure his actions against our principles and cry foul when we fear that the twain may not meet. And we not only have the right but the responsibility to do so -- if only to counter constructively opposing voices who are ceaselessly nudging Obama to adopt pragmatic, centrist positions which may appear to be electorally "low-risk," but which threaten to undermine the platform of genuine change that the vast majority of Americans are clamoring for.


*Edited for typo

I chuckled at the "only perfect candidate is myself" line. That is too true!

I was originally a Hillary supporter, and still swoon when I hear her speak (like at the Unity rally today). But now I'm an enthusiastic, take no prisoners supporter of Obama.

You are so right - there's really only one choice to be made this November - McCain or Obama. We know its going to be one of them, and I sure as heck hope there are none on DU who honestly want it to be McCain.

:boring:

... from someone who doesn't know me from Adam.

:rofl:

:rofl:

Perhaps some confuse idealism with principles.

and you know what..I just plain old like Obama.. .. and anyone that does not like that can stick it in their pipe and smoke it!! :toast:

blame and acuse each other afterward.

I don't belong to any organized political party - I'm a Democrat.

mark

but MOST of the Democrats we elected are now voting like Republicans.

They've had the tools to derail Bush's policies since the '06 elections, but would not use them. I had to laugh at John Conyers trying to get David Addington and Professor Yoo or Who to answer his questions yesterday. It was beyond surreal. The Democrats are fucking LOST CHICKENSHITS with the exception of a few die-hards like Feingold and Kucinich. The Repigs know that the Dems have no cajones and are not going to grow any, so they treat them like children. Disgusting.

Can you imagine what the Repigs would be doing to a Democratic President if the roles were reversed. It'd be one procedural road block after the next until they frickin won.



Sorry folks, it is now genetically-embedded in the Democratic DNA to roll over whenever constitutional principles are at stake or the people need to be represented. And Obama has just shown that he is equally infected.

Mind you, he's charismatic, charming, a nice guy, and he'll say lots of nice things when he's elected. But he's going corporate. Count on it.

And although I think most can admit that even Obama is not the perfect candidate, I hope that people can see he stands closer to the Dem ideals than anyone else running... That's a part of compromise and in a democratic society, some compromise has to happen...

and...

I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with myself on that...


:P

Well, Shame on you.

Sorry, but first and foremost, This country NEEDS the Constitution.

The Constitution means nothing to me. How astute of you to have figured that out.

:sarcasm:

... whatever you say.

First you brush off real concerns many people on this board are having and then when I question you, you blow me off.

The least you could do is give a reply that is worthy of your writing ability.

Frankly, I should be the one saying "whatever" because I at least tried to get you to understand that you can't sweep the Constitution under the carpet with the empty hype of "hope and change".

The Constitution is far too important to be disrespected in this way.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A candidate who does what every successful candidate for the Presidency since ....gee....I'm in my fifties also and it's way before my time.... has done, move to the center for the general election, and he is all of a sudden a former drug abusing, drug pushing slacker and manipulator who you'll stop just short of calling evil.
But you'll vote for him.

Gee thanks.
Then he probably has a shot with that 10% of the population who thinks he's a secret Muslim and Manchurian candidate.
And the other untabulated bit of the citizenry who think he's a radical weatherman and Nation of Islam influenced angry black man waiting to exact revenge for his race's historical mistreatment.

Sorry we, the Democratic electorate or the Republican or Third or Fourth Party either for that matter, can't provide you with a candidate you can feel good about. I think Nance did get one thing dead on- YOU are probably your only perfect candidate, but unlike most of us your high standards obviously keep you from fully embracing anything inferior.

Best of luck in the Republic of Fieldonia.
Hail Fieldonia!!!

for just being a concerned American. Make that one very pissed off American, who sees through the bullshit of just another yokel running for office chanting "CHANGE, CHANGE." The only thing that changes is the candidate's position and pay grade.

Evidently, there is a growing problem with the percentage of people on DU that exhibit reading comprehension deficiencies. If YOU had carefully read what I wrote, instead of cherry picked, you would then have known that I am not looking for a perfect candidate, either. But feel free to continue your love affair with Obama. I just won't be interested in hearing your buyer's remorse a couple of years from now.

It's one thing to know that you can't afford a trustworthy car, but are forced to buy one anyway, due to your financial situation. It's a whole other ball game to allow yourself to be hoodwinked by some slick car salesman into buying a lemon, when you thought you got the deal of a lifetime.

These ad naseum "gee isn't our guy GREAT" posts are tiresome at best, and smack of the very character flaws that most here are quick to ascribe to the other side but unwilling to admit to when the mirror turns inward.

Nobody wants to read the fine print - his views on Iran, his incessant proving of his "Christianity", his willingness to waddle in the filth of money politics while pretending to play with clean hands - the examples are a hundred fold if one is open-minded enough to look.

Here's the sad thing, though - nobody will even begin to 'fess up to buyers remorse down the road - instead, everyone will look for the NEXT charlatan who'll make them believe that he/she will be the REAL TRUE THING.

Party whoredom has no place in progressive politics, but I guess if one pretends hard enough than one can rationalize anyone as being good enough. Let's admit it - no one here votes FOR anyone - they vote AGAINST Republicans. Clinton, Obama, Biden, Winnie The Pooh - doesn't matter.

They DO love to be pretend progressives, though - especially when they trash the real ones for having the unmitigated gall to run for office against those dreamy Dems!!

Oh yeah - watch your feet. :)

P.S. Ain't it funny when folks accuse others of wanting "perfect" candidate? I always thought the idea was to vote for the best you could find. I must have failed Civics 101 or something - it seems as if the mantra here is vote for one of two - "bestness" be damned.

Interesting concept - faux democracy. Must be one of those "progressive" ideals I just can't grasp. :)

...

at the risk of outting myself to venom I've already seen here which is very odd to me - of a certain age too, in the middle of the Boomers. (Although frankly, I think designating those born in 1960 as Boomers is wrongheaded - for me, the criteria is those who were teenagers on that day in November 1963.)

Anyhow... I completely agree with you. Very well-said. I don't understand why so many voters can't comprehend such a basic point about how voting works.

In fact, Hillary Clinton lost my support in putting herself ahead of those she claims to care about, by doing McCain's work for him in tearing down another Dem (Obama) during the primary. She knows better than that, but did it anyway. I want a President who actually thinks of the good of our people as a whole first, ahead of him/herself (and that's to be expected from those who are supposed to have enough maturity to be voters too). And her "non-concession" on a historic night for minorities was a major and obvious lapse of judgment. Again, she should know better, being a minority herself. From the way she conducted her campaign, in my opinion, the best candidate won. But for the reasons you stated, I'd vote for her or any Dem who might've won. Thinking like that of her recalcitrant women supporters is why we end up with Presidents like Bush. They enable their own destruction. (And I'll out myself as a woman too, to have the place to criticize them for it.) Independents do the same thing, as you pointed out. We aren't so perfect either, some of us voters, are we?

No one with any integrity and common sense can justify voting for McCain for any reason, much less such a silly one as that. We may as well go ahead and elect Phil Gramm and be out-front about it, without the pretense of McCain being his "face". And not voting, or voting 3rd party is voting for McCain. I don't call that very principled - in any way.

Oh and the "plagiarism" point? Please. Let's patent ideas now.

But, Sen Clinton voted the same.

I was 18 in 1972 when I voted for the first time-for McGovern.
Of course, living in Alabama, it didn't help much!

I agree, my VOTE goes to my PARTY regardless of the nominee.

I supported Barak in the Primaries, but is the outcome had been
different, my avatar would say "Hillary".

I still say Clarence Thomas should administer Barak's oath of office!

:evilgrin:

A friend of mine referred to Obama as 'the candidate of projection', so that might explain it. People attached ideas to him that he doesn't support. He was not my first or second choice, but I support him now, because Nance is correct- the alternative to Obama is our complete and utter ruin as a country.

A few ideas I'd like to throw into this discussion:

1) "Those who most want power are least fit to have it." (I first saw that idea in Douglas Adam's Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.) I don't know who first said it, but the truth of it still holds - ANYONE who wants to be President of the U.S.A. has...issues. Our job, as citizens, is to select the least-squirrelly of the lot. It will always be a lesser-evil choice, because perfect candidates appeal to tiny segments of the population, depending on their vastly different definitions of 'perfect', and are therefore unelectable.

2) Obama's centrism is both a weakness and a strength. One way to look at him is too say 'he's too willing to compromise and sell out'. Another way is to recognize that someone with a gift for creating coalitions, inspiring people with differing views to work together toward a goal that benefits all, is EXACTLY what we need right now. Cleaning up the filth BushCo will leave behind will be a Herculean task, needing an army of willing laborers. IF Obama can use his talent for inspiring people to accomplish that, THEN he will have returned dividends on our investment in him most generously.

3) Obama's ability to inspire people to get involved in the political process could very well turn out to be a two-edged sword. He is entirely capable of awakening the sleeping giant that is the American public. If he does so, then the corporate interests that run this country have something to fear, for the people will be angry at how we've been screwed over by the powers that be. If Obama stands with the corporations and not the people, then he will be finished. I think he knows this, for he is indeed intelligent and calculating, and aware of the inherent dangers of his gift. He will have to respond to the public's outrage to maintain his hold on power.

as much as people will object, there will be only one choice. Either Barack Obama or John McCain will be 44. To me the choice is simple, obvious, and clear.