Why Criticize Obama

It seems to me that there is a feeling among many well meaning people these days that criticizing Barack Obama for moving rightwards towards the center is a bad idea. Various arguments for that line of thought go something like this:

 It is imperative that Obama be elected because he is infinitely better than McCain
 He can’t be elected unless he moves right, towards the center
 The new FISA amendment (HR 6304) isn’t so bad
 Obama’s stance on the FISA amendment isn’t so bad
 Criticizing Obama will hurt him and increase the chances of electing McCain

I have very ambivalent feelings about this whole issue, which is one reason that I haven’t said much about it so far. However, I do feel that the above arguments have some important holes in them, and that it is unhealthy to our political process to go off too far in that direction. So, I’d like to address some of these issues in this post.


“It is imperative that Obama be elected”

I mostly agree that it is imperative that Obama be elected, mainly because he is so much better than McCain on every issue that is of importance to our country. I discuss those various issues in this post. In summary:

Torture:
Obama has been consistently and strongly against torture, whereas McCain almost always votes with Bush on supporting his torture plans – notwithstanding his frequent rhetoric to the contrary.

The Environment:
Obama emphasizes the need to combat global warming and has a lifetime voting record on that issue of 86%, as determined by the League of Conservation Voters, compared to a 24% lifetime score for McCain and a 0% score for McCain for 2007 – notwithstanding his rhetoric to the contrary.

The Economy and taxes:
McCain’s idea of an economic stimulus plan is to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, and his ideas for tax cuts include lowering taxes on capital gains and dividends and preserving the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama’s tax plan is in many ways the opposite of McCain’s. It would reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich, while reducing taxes and simplifying filing for working and middle class Americans.

Civil rights:
McCain’s voting ratings on Civil Rights are: ACLU – 0%; NAACP – 7%; Human Rights Campaign for gay rights – 33%. Obama’s ratings on Civil Rights are: NAACP – 100%; Human Rights Campaign for gay rights – 89%; No rating from ACLU.

Health care:
Obama offers a national health care plan to all Americans to buy affordable (through government subsidies) health care coverage that is “similar to the plan available to members of Congress.” Unlike the McCain plan, this plan would make healthcare coverage affordable for everyone, prohibit discrimination based on preexisting illness or health status, and substantially change our current private for-profit insurance company domination of the market by making available to everyone a Medicare-like, government sponsored program as an alternative.

War:
McCain is a war monger, as is evident when he proclaimed that “No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.”; when he acknowledges that he believes that gaining control over another country’s oil is a legitimate reason for war; when he says that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years; when he makes jokes by singing about bombing Iran; and when he tries to set the stage for a war against Iran by lying about Iran harboring al Qaeda, despite being corrected about that lie several times. In marked contrast, Obama plans to withdraw from Iraq, while being committed to meeting our humanitarian responsibilities there, as he has stated on his website.

Judicial appointees:
Specific changes that would be highly likely to occur with a McCain Presidency and appointment of just one more radical right wing Supreme Court Justice include (as explained by Constitutional lawyer Cass Sunstein)

 The overturning of Roe v. Wade
 The total extinction of affirmative action
 The enabling of our states to overturn (page 68) our entire Bill of Rights without federal interference
 Radical curtailing of civil rights for women, homosexuals, and minority racial groups
 The declaring of environmental protection laws to be unconstitutional
 The widespread disappearance of habeas corpus
 The virtual creation of Christianity as a national religion
 The Dismantling of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

There’s more, but that’s enough.

Nevertheless, though I agree that it is extremely important that Obama be elected President over McCain, it is not the only thing that is extremely important. Depending on how far Obama moves towards the center, some of us may feel that such things as electing liberal/progressive Democrats to Congress or specific progressive issues deserve as much or more time, attention and money than does the Obama campaign.

In other words, it is not only a question of whether or not we liberals support Obama, but with how much enthusiasm we support him. It’s important for him and his campaign to understand that enthusiasm for his campaign among liberals and progressives will wane depending on how much he moves rightwards.


“Obama can’t be elected unless he moves rightwards towards the center”

I don’t agree with that statement at all. Obama has been doing consistently well in polling against John McCain, in general elections polls, in almost all the perennial swing states’, and even in new swing states formerly safely in the Republican column. He’s done that without moving way to the center, and he has plenty of money to keep going. So I don’t see why he can’t continue to do well without moving rightwards.

A more moderate version of the above statement would be that moving right is likely to increase Obama’s likelihood of winning the general election. It’s possible that that is true, but I would not have thought so.

The great strength of Obama as a Presidential candidate was that he attracted so much enthusiastic support and money from his base because they see him as an untypical politician with an unusual degree of integrity. Moving right may diminish that strength, thereby substantially reducing the enthusiasm of his base.

Furthermore, most Americans hold views that are substantially to the left (See section on “Tell me if you think the rich, people with middle incomes, and the poor are paying their fair share of taxes”) of what most politicians seem to consider the center. In other words, Obama’s views were pretty much mainstream as they were. Why should it be necessary to move right? I will concede that his advisors should have a better handle on the politics of this than I do. But I just don’t get it.


“The FISA bill (HR 6304) isn’t so bad”

I recognize that there is a good deal of controversy over how bad the new FISA bill actually is. I am not a legal expert, so it is possible I might be off base on this. However, it seems to me that most who are in a position to understand the pertinent issues are adamantly opposed to it. The ACLU is adamantly against it, and has made the following points, among others, about what this bill allows:

 Mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the U.S., without any individualized review
 Permits only minimal court oversight… The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped
 Even if the application is denied by the court, the govt. has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process
 Ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies … over the last 7 years

I don’t understand the precise meaning of all the points that the ACLU makes, but the distinct impression that I get from their assessment and others gets to the heart of the two things that matter most to me about this bill: 1) It appears that oversight of the government by the courts (or anyone else) is so minimal that they can carry on pretty much whatever surveillance they want, regardless of whether it has anything to do with terrorism; and 2) The telecoms pretty much get the immunity that they want.

What bothers me so much about this is not just that the bill appears to wipe out our Fourth Amendment. It seems to me that the Bush administration’s principle reason for pushing this bill stems from its desire to continue spying on the American people with impunity. Does anyone really believe that the Bush administration’s purpose in doing this is to prevent terrorism? It had all the surveillance tools it needed from the first day it took office, from the FISA bill of 1978. Yet that was never enough for them. And we know that the reason that that wasn’t enough for them had nothing to do with terrorism.

Telecom immunity is not bad only because it sends the message that our laws and our Constitution don’t apply to the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected. Giving immunity to the telecoms will cut off investigation and subpoenas that probably would provide us with answers as to what the Bush administration used their unlawfully obtained information for. Those answers are essential to understanding the extent of damage done to our country by George Bush’s warrantless spying program.

God knows what kind of information they’ve picked up from this program! I’ve often considered the possibility – or likelihood – that some of that information is intimately related to why we haven’t seen any impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney. Who knows what they’re yet going to use it for. It seems to me that the most likely bet is that they’ll use it to buy Congressional acquiescence for a war with Iran.


Why Obama’s stance on the FISA bill bothers me so much

Of all the recent perceived Obama moves rightwards, his attitude towards the FISA bill is what bothers me the most. The rest I can live with, for various reasons. With regard to his “reprimand” of Wesley Clark for his comments about McCain’s war time service, I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on that. Basically, he repudiated Clark’s remarks but not Clark himself. That’s just like saying that he wouldn’t have made those remarks himself. I’m fine with that. If he actually repudiated Clark himself for his honest and obviously valid statement to the effect that McCain’s getting shot out of a plane doesn’t qualify him for the presidency, that would upset me pretty bad. But Obama hasn’t done that, and I assume he won’t.

But with regard to the FISA bill, where exactly is the center? I don’t see how giving up our Fourth Amendment, and at the same time giving unprecedented dictatorial powers to George Bush and Dick Cheney, is a centrist policy. Nor do I see what is centrist about giving immunity to powerful corporations who broke our laws and violated our Constitution. Furthermore, polls show that most Americans are strongly against both warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity for those who violate our rights.

It is claimed by the Bush administration that it needs the amended bill in order to pursue terrorists. How can that be? The current bill gives them the right to spy on anyone they suspect of terrorism prior to obtaining a warrant, and gives them three days to retroactively seek a warrant. No court in our country would turn down a request for such a warrant if there was any reason to suspect that the requested information would provide the government with information on terrorism. What could Bush and Cheney possibly need this new law for, other than to obtain non-terrorism related information on innocent American citizens, for nefarious purposes?

The Obama campaign promised late last year that Obama would support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Yet on June 20th he made a speech in support of the so-called “compromise”, indicating his belief that the bill is not anywhere near as bad as many legal experts claim it to be, and that he believes the bill is necessary to protect us against terrorism. Subsequently, MoveOn.org, which strongly supports Obama for President, has urged its members to hold him accountable to his promise.

There are those who tell us not to worry about this too much because it’s being done for tactical political purposes. But when a candidate moves to the right during the general election it can be very difficult to reverse course after being elected. And there is no guarantee that that will happen. In any event, the passage of this FISA bill will set a terrible precedent, just as the failure to impeach Bush and Cheney is setting a terrible precedent.


“Criticizing Obama will help elect McCain” – Why I believe that well directed criticism of Obama can be a good thing

While it is certainly true that some kinds of criticism of Obama would help McCain win the election, that doesn’t apply to all criticism. Any criticism of Obama – or even some defenses of him – that uses right wing talking points would be likely to help McCain, because such criticisms (or defenses) help to frame the issues in the absurd world views of the Republican Party. But those aren’t the kind of criticisms I’m talking about. Here are some of the reasons why I believe that criticisms of Obama’s rightward leanings can be helpful to our country and to the Obama campaign as well:

Criticism from the left helps to put the lie to Republican talking points
One of the biggest talking points of Republicans this year, as in 2004, is that the Democratic nominee is the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate. When Obama receives a barrage of criticism from the left for not being liberal or progressive enough, that makes it pretty hard for Republicans to maintain the fantasy that he’s way to the left of the American public.

Criticism helps the Obama campaign understand where their base stands on the issues that are important to them
It is not a bad thing for a candidate to know when he is alienating a certain segment of the electorate, whether that segment of the electorate be from the left, the middle or the right. George Bush and Karl Rove have shown that appealing to one’s base can be as important in a political campaign as appealing to the center. It is better that Obama’s base let him know when he does something that makes them feel nervous about him than that they simply be quiet about the alienation that they feel. If Obama’s campaign doesn’t feel it’s a big deal that his base is alienated, then so be it. But they certainly won’t do anything about it if they don’t know that the alienation exists.

Criticism of rightward movement serves to check excesses in that direction and ensure a more successful presidency
This is related to the above point, but it’s a little different. Criticism from the left has the potential to bring a candidate back to their point of view. It may not work, but at least it has the potential to work.

If a candidate goes too far rightward for the purpose of winning an election, there is a good chance that the candidate will stay there when he becomes President. I believe that it is wonderful that an African-American has a very good chance of becoming President next year. If he does that, and if he has a successful Presidency, that should do a lot to reduce racism in our country forever. But I also believe that if his presidency is not successful, his presidency won’t help much in that regard. And I don’t believe that Obama’s presidency has much chance of being successful if he adopts too many Republican points of view. Our country is in a very precarious situation right now, and I think that we desperately need a leader along the lines of FDR. Yes, I know it’s been said that FDR moved to the right to win his first presidential election. I don’t know enough about that campaign to comment on it. But FDR certainly did not move to the right for his next three elections, all which he won by landslides.

Failure to criticize when appropriate sets a dangerous precedent
When a candidate’s base fails to criticize the candidate when appropriate, that is not good for democracy in my opinion. I can’t explain why I feel that way any better than Bill Burton does, so I’ll end this post with a quote from him on this subject. Burton made this comment in the context of Obama’s support for Bush’s FISA bill. But these words apply to any candidate, any time, any where:


Yes, I’m well aware that Barack Obama is no George Bush. And perhaps Burton’s statement doesn’t take that fact sufficiently into account. Nevertheless, I agree with his basic point.

that he's going to keep his word, rather than his positions on the issues.

Some people worry he will flip flop to do what is politically advantageous.

I've already said I'm voting for him -- which I know isn't enough for some hard core Obama fans.

But I'm just pointing out how some people worry about being fooled.

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

Part of the problem with posts like yours is that most DUers are still fighting the primaries. You put up a thoughtful, intelligent analysis and you're suddenly assailed by the buzzing flies who still feed on the corpse of GD:Primaries. "I never trusted him!" "Don't criticized our messiah!"

Both sides make me want to hurl. The guy is a politician (mostly, a brilliant one) who cannot govern without first winning the fucking DEBATE. He's going to win the election, of that I have no doubt. But Bill Clinton won two elections while ceding every point in the debate about where to take this country. We can't let that happen again.

you're not still fighting the primaries?

It's only the other people.

Gotcha.

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

Let. It. Go.

Exactly

Obama has not "moved to the center". He always was there. How people got the idea he was some leftist pinko commie liberal is something I cannot understand, unless everyone watches Fox all the time.

I have often wondered how much his turn to the center reflected his real views, vs. the triangulation strategy of trying to get re-elected.

His decision not to pursue investigation of the crimes of the Reagan/Bush administration may have been his first really big mistake. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 turned out to be a disaster that prevented his VP from succeeding him. And certainly more effort could have gone into enforcing labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA.

... in Dem circles that Obama is inevitable, and rather than an ongoing discussion of issues, and who he really is, and what his true intentions are, I feel that We, the Long Suffering Electorate, are so hungry for change (real change, BTW) that too few questions are being asked. I hear comments that make it seem that Obama is the Second Coming of JFK, or that he is called to some high purpose impossible for the little people to understand, and therefore should not be criticized. And I'm not talking about radical Christians. This adulation for Obama is coming from a variety of quarters.

Of major concern to me is Obama's sudden overt association with the Religious Right. When I read his book, Audacity of Hope, I was greatly concerned over his comments about religion in the public square, in contravention of separation of church and state. You can't really claim to support that concept, and then go directly to Colorado Springs and announce plans for appearances at a dozen Christian rock concerts, without there being a disconnect somewhere. Colorado Springs is the Mecca of fundamentalist Christian actvity in the country.

I have a vision of Obama with, like John Conyers, the Constitution in one hand, and a calculator in the other. Will he be able to attract enough far right voters to counterbalance the number he might lose among progressives? And as others have said, is he just assuming that progressives have no other choice but to vote for him, so he's unleashed from loyalty to us, and can pursue another agenda?

Obama is genuinely charismatic, intelligent, a powerful speaker. But underneath the gloss, what is he?

I will vote for him because not to do so would feed into hopelessness which my beloved daughter is trying to fend off. I want to stay as close to hope as I can. But I am very uncomfortable with the direction Obama is taking. I would like to know to what extent he is associated with the Fellowship, the National Prayer Breakfast, as outlined in Harper's, not too long ago. Others have written about that sub rosa organization and its intentions for the country, intentions being shaped and promulgated while America is distracted by trivialities like food, shelter, health insurance, and rising gas prices.

Unfortunately, to insist on talking about religious plotting to take over the country puts one, in many eyes, in the category of a too-intense conspiracy theorist.

Thanks for the article. As always, your writing helps me to see current events in an organized fashion.

To late to ask that question.

And it's not too late to put pressure on Obama to stick with us. We should be demanding loyalty of him, not the other way around. WE worked on his campaign, WE donated to him.

Of course he is better than the alternative - that is a given. But with the big money out there vying for his attention, I think we must be vigilant as well and remind him that any moves to the right are going to be questioned.

If we wanted to be republicans we would be hanging out in Freeperville. I don't think it's too much to ask to require liberal/progressive policies from our democratic nominee. Obama's voting record so far is pretty good, and keeping him there should be our goal.

Obama and the party ---

That continues to be true and I think it's a big hole in any discussions of politics and

outcomes here ---

Despite the fact that Obama raised most of his early money from average people -- evidently

giving their hearts out --- those contributions don't represent a hold on him.

In fact, "Democracy.com" came in with e-mails immediately after his FISA position which

suggest that any new money they raise for Obama should be HELD until he is more in agreement

with liberal/progressives positions.

For the future, voters/contributors might think about a different way of handing over their

money to candidates.

Re the thread we're commenting on --- I agree with it ---

and think any move to the "center" is BS and a mistake ---

One of the thrilling things about the primaries is how many NEW VOTERS IT BROUGHT OUT TO

REGISTER -- how many young liberal/progresives.

And there are still another 83 million eligible voters who Democrats don't seem at all

interested in rousing to come out and vote.

think that nothing they say/do is going to matter. Every time Obama caves it reinforces that notion. I am still hopeful that he is "going along to get along" but it has been hard to watch. I know I hate McCain, so that part is easy, but it is hard to be as enthusiastic as I initially was about Obama when he comes out with repeated "nuances" that have swerved to the right. I'm confused and I have been paying attention for months. Think about how people who aren't so invested must feel.

I think I am a bit more optimistic about this than you are.

The religious stuff doesn't bother me all that much. I am hoping (perhaps naively) that most of his overtures to religious organizations are symbolic, and that he has no intention of dissolving the separation of church and state. I need to remember that, as a black man, and one who is widely accused of being a Muslim at that, he needs to make sure that the American people realize he is a Christian (not that it matters to me, but it certainly does to a lot of other people.) In my view he has talked about the importance of religion in his personal life, but I don't see where he has actually indicated an intent to dissove the separation of church and state. But if you're aware that he has, please tell me about it.

I'm much more concerned about his stance on FISA.

My stance is: Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst and try to prevent it from happening. I actually believe that Obama could turn out to be an excellent president. But at the same time we should watch him closely and criticize him when appropriate.

... the separation of church and state. Nor have I suggested that he would blatantly stand on the steps of the Capitol building and make such an announcement. "The religious stuff" has been happening, and continues, in a more subtle, "frog in a pot" manner.

Bill Moyers talked about all this 20 years ago, warning against the slow incursion of the religious right into government at all levels. Faith-based initiatives are a sterling example of that.

We have watched George Bush closely, and critized him when appropriate (constantly), but we've had little impact on how things have gone for the country. Obama's sudden swing away from progressivism (or our own assumption that he was a progressive) is something we are all watching and criticizing, but I am frankly worried about whether we can have any real impact at this point.

You may be right about the "forg in a pot" analogy. I just don't know.

I guess we won't truly know what who Obama is until he begins his administration.

My concern, though it may make me look like someone too intensely focused on right-wing religious questions, is that *underlying* the FISA scenario right now is the fact that the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, Pepperdine College, The Fellowship/National Prayer Breakfast -- all strong right-wing Christian supporters -- have inserted themselves into our government and set the scene for FISA, and many other outrages, to come into being.

Rational people don't like to get down in the mud and wrestle with the kind of thing that so occupies radical Christians. Any thinking person can look at the quixotic beliefs of these people who want to take over the country and assume that it's just a deviation from the norm, and the country will soon right itself. But it doesn't take towering intelligence to topple a country. History can speak to that assertion.

After writing my first response today, I took a break and saw a piece about Obama and his family on television. He is charmingly disarming; Michelle Obama is the consummate loving mother; the little girls are really sweet. I want this all to work out for the good of the country. I just can't turn off what I know about the religious right and its assumption that power is their divine right, and America is ripe for the plucking at this point in time.

Many well-informed people are sounding the alarm on this issue. But it's just too arcane to take seriously, isn't it? I've had personal experience with these fanatical Christians, and I find myself feeling that maybe I'm being too much of an alarmist -- and an annoyance to those who know me -- even though I *know* how they think.

I find it disturbing that we've come to a place of not knowing what our candidate is really going to stand for until it's too late to do anything but wait it out for another election, and another round of dashed hopes -- harkening back to 2006!

Thanks for your writing. And thanks for writing to me.

As in this post: "Yes it Can Happen Here"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=67175&mesg_id=67175

And this: "The Role of Racism on our Road to Tyranny":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2269258

And many others that I'm sure you've read.

I try to be objective as I can, and yet I must recognize that some of my views are formed by experiences that might have biased me somewhat. I wrote an article over a year ago called "The 5 Pillars of the Republican Party", where the 5 pillars I described were the "Economic Royalists", "Militarists", "Crooks", "Propagandists", and the "Gullible". Obviously, there is quite a bit of overlap in the first 4 categories.

I tend to think of the religious right as mostly belonging to the 5th category, "The Gullible". But if one talks about the gullible, then there has to be someone pulling their strings. That would be the people from the first 4 categories, many who put on airs of being religious, so that they can pull the strings of and have the support of the gullible. In other words, I tend to think of the "Religious Right" as being a diverse group of leaders and followers. The really dangerous ones I see as the leaders. But I don't see the leaders as really sincere in their religious beliefs, but rather that they're merely pretending so that they can pull the strings of the followers.

But I certainly acknowledge that there may be equally, or even more truth in your view -- that those leading the movement really are sincere about the beliefs they hold. In other words, that the religious right really is a dangerous force in and of itself, not just followers of the crooks who are pulling the strings.

There is so much I don't know.

... that a lot of members of radical Christian groups, particularly the leaders, adopt religious airs because they want to belong to something, and have been brainwashed since childhood not to stray from the church (their particular brand), and because it's easy to shape, lead, manipulate those too ignorant or intellectually incurious to resist.

Whether there is any questioning in the minds of these people we won't know because they move of one accord, with few exceptions, toward what they believe in the religious right's stated goals, or are willing to acquiesce in the acting out of those goals because there's something to be gained personally. Whatever the level of *true* belief, there's a high level of wanting to take over, and using the Rapture Index is a way to nudge The Gullible (perfect description)into submission.

Sitting in church as a five-year-old, I used to wonder if all those people around me were pretending. I couldn't believe that anyone *really* believed the stuff I was hearing. Again, it almost doesn't matter whether there's real belief. The important thing is the willingness to go along with the group.


Yes, I have read most of your articles and find them extremely valuable. And you are right that the FISA situation is so important right now that nothing else even comes close. Getting away with this, we are all just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

I would add one more point, not directly related to Obama. I think it's vital for this election to also show the members of Congress that they do not need to drift to the right in order to get re-elected, and that if they do, it will cost them more votes than they will gain. I want an Obama presidency to be supported by a strongly Democratic Congress, with the political courage to pursue a progressive agenda, without feeling the need to worship at the altar of "bipartisanship". Seeing that Obama himself cannot lean towards the center with impunity will advance that goal.

I posted about that recently, making the main point that the American electorate is way to the left of Congress as a whole:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6446995

Puebloknot, you are also right on target.

Obama is not "inevitable". If he proves to be the flopmeister there's no reason for a lot of independent voters to vote for him instead of McAnus. The "jump to the right" is a big, big mistake for Our Candidate.

I talk about that in this post that describes a good number of issues on which the American people are well to the left of Congress:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6446995

If people do not criticize, things that need to be changed -- for example, his stated opinions on the FISA bill, equal marriage and the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan -- will never be changed.

Criticism of Obama does not mean support for McCain, no matter what some of the ideological extremists here at DU keep insisting.

The equating of criticism of Obama being equal to support for McCain meme is worthy of the most rabid RW NutJob and I for one am really sick of it... especially when so many feel the need to qualify their critiques by saying they will vote for Obama come hell or high water. Too many go right for the jugular on such posts and it's getting more than a little annoying.

I will vote for Obama; But because of his acquiescence to FISA the enthusiasm is gone. This is the most important election or our time but dismantling the fourth is far bigger. I will be sending my small donations to progressives. Obama's position on this is a debilitating blunder that will haunt his presidency and legacy throughout history and unfortunately for the less thoughtful will be a deal breaker.

Thank you for researching and putting all of that together. Your post is thoughtful, thought-provoking, well organized and very well articulated. :thumbsup:

I was thinking about these issues as I watched countdown tonight -- Johnathon Turley talking about how our Senate is all set to destroy our 4th Amendment tomorrow. This is so sad :(

"I will concede that his advisors should have a better handle on the politics of this than I do." Not necessarily true. You actually appear to have a much better grasp of political realities than many advisors.

If Obama doesn't come through on the FISA Amendment tomorrow, I'm going to change avatars and adopt yours.

To be honest...

at this point I'd rather criticize the Democrats who nominated him. He hasn't changed, as far as I can see.

For the record, I resent the hell out of those who created the situation we find ourselves in now by nominating a republican-friendly centrist, and I'm not in a forgiving mood.

The only thing to be done at this point is to push HARD, now, for a progressive platform. To elect a centrist on a centrist platform gives him a mandate, and takes the teeth out of anything we might do after the election.

I've been a persistent, vocal critic of Obama since he announced his primary campaign. Now that the primaries are over, I'm still criticizing. There is the convention and the platform ahead. I'd like to serve notice, though, that every time I criticize Obama, it reflects on the majority of voters. I don't dislike Obama as a man. I don't blame him for being who he is.

if we accept your characterization. Although, the picture we got of Obama was not of a centrist but a documented liberal-voting Democrat who would be willing to LISTEN to the other side.

Now, regarding the OTHER centrist candidate. Oh well, it's over. I'm not going there again.

We did have 2 republican-friendly centrist to pick from. My definition of a liberal-voting Democrat is somewhat different from that of conventional wisdom.

A liberal-voting democrat, for example, should not have been voting to fund the Iraq war. The "dumb" war that he "was against from the beginning."

I've never accepted his liberal credentials, and time is proving me correct.

Late last year he said he would fillibuster any FISA bill that included telecon immunity. Now he appears to be doing a 180 on that. We'll see tomorrow.

There are a number of things, such as those I included in my OP, on which Obama is considerably left of center, at least compared to the U.S. Congress, if not the American people. We'll see where he ends up on those issues if he's elected.

See how much easier that is than thinking?

Sheep get the shepherd they deserve. Your post will be lost on them

:kick:

How many?

Two?

Nice to see the same hate for his supporters in here as always.

Fuck this place.

"... to impeach Bush and Cheney is setting a terrible precedent."

Indeed.

Recommended.

:hi:

knocked me off my chair --- !!!

When we let lawlessness like this go on we will simply get more of it --

I am finding myself more and more mystified by candidates who can't even offer LIP service to denouncing Bush. Quite frankly I don't care if it turns off the remaining 20% of potential republican converts who aren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

Obama needs to learn to speak to the people in front of him if he wants the strongest base.

It really upset me when I heard Obama speak against impeachment, as if that was some sort of radical idea. Perhaps he felt he had to do that for political reasons, but still it made me ill to hear it from him.

:hi:

During the weekend we visited like minded Democratic friends and we discussed Obama's move to the center, including the recent New York Times editorial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html?_r=1&scp=26&sq=obama&st=cse&oref=slogin

I commented then, that my line in the sand will be switching his stand on abortion and, sadly, it appears that he is moving to the "center" on this issue too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3381031

This, of course, after earlier in his campaign he suggested that women should choose abortion "prayerfully."

So... will wait and see.

hadn't heard before that he made such an arrogant comment --- !!!

...and I was just reading that he's doing something with Christian rallies . . .
some one upthread seemed to be saying something like that?


EDITED TO INCLUDE THE INFO FROM POST #37 ABOVE. . . PUEBLOKNOT


Of major concern to me is Obama's sudden overt association with the Religious Right. When I read his book, Audacity of Hope, I was greatly concerned over his comments about religion in the public square, in contravention of separation of church and state. You can't really claim to support that concept, and then go directly to Colorado Springs and announce plans for appearances at a dozen Christian rock concerts, without there being a disconnect somewhere. Colorado Springs is the Mecca of fundamentalist Christian actvity in the country.

I have a vision of Obama with, like John Conyers, the Constitution in one hand, and a calculator in the other. Will he be able to attract enough far right voters to counterbalance the number he might lose among progressives? And as others have said, is he just assuming that progressives have no other choice but to vote for him, so he's unleashed from loyalty to us, and can pursue another agenda?

Obama is genuinely charismatic, intelligent, a powerful speaker. But underneath the gloss, what is he?


Plans for appearances at a dozen Christian Rock Concerts .... Colorado Springs????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3755544

"The reason that I have make a decision to support the choice position, is not because I dont think its a moral issue, but because I trust women to make a prayerful decision about this issue."

Rightward, however, is away from the center, as Obama is a conservative.

Don't buy into the MSM's framing of the center aisle in Congress as the center of the political spectrum. Our nation is profoundly conservative, and we should resist, as you say, any moves by our candidate toward the far right.

edit: sorry; should have said that our government is profoundly conservative.

On FISA, he previously promised that he would fillibuster any bill that contained retroactive immunity for telecons. I think his change on that is a move towards the center, or more accurately to the right of center. But his previous position was to the left of center.

Also, the issues that I talk about in the first part of my OP are all to the left of center. So deviation from them would constitute a move towards the center.

Mustering the courage to say, "We shouldn't grant the corporations complete immunity right now" is still a conservative, corporatist framing. There's never been a bill, for example, to immunize ordinary citizens against civil or criminal liability for the same behavior.

Obama's a conservative, as are most of his Democratic colleagues. I'm just betting that he has the wisdom to grow beyond the straitjacket Big Money has forced on them.

Some idiotic asshole whose name probably rhymes with Rahm Emmanuel whispered in his ear that tacking toward the center (read: extreme anti-democratic right-wing) on the FISA bill would bring independents into his camp while he retained us brainlessly loyal lefties.

Instead, he pissed off large swathes of his base while opening himself up to the attack that he flip-flops on the issues in order to get votes - exactly the kind of criticism that sticks with fence-sitters. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

inside money men ... i.e., Clinton/HRC money men ---

and outside MONEY MEN --- billionaires/millionaires --- in secret meetings --

How can that be so unmentioned --- so undiscussed at DU?

defeating liberals on the left?

... when they say that criticizing Bush is the same as loving terrorists. I never thought I'd be considered self-defeating for believing that I have the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure.

.

It is imperative that Someone other than a Republican should be in office.

I worry about how much Honest Senator Obama is. His voting for the Fisa Bill and a few other moves to the Right are seriously effecting a sense of loyalty from me. I also know that no one is perfect, and on the whole, I like Sen. Obama. I think that the level of Honesty, and Diligence, unlike Bush, that our President needs is more than Most People could attain. Sen. Obama is not perfect, but I feel that with the right staff, and Democratic Congress Partnership, he will help us in a terrible financial crisis. It is hell out here, and it looks like it is getting worse.

I wish for there to be a better governemnt. I just listended to the Obama speech on the economy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x155525. I thought he did an excellent job. He will beat McCain based on that. He will be better than McCain.

I also have concern about him being a demagogue. In that Video above, I think that he was quite humble. Humility is important quality to have in Oneself, as well as in our President. There are talks of Sen. Obama being an empty suit because he has never stuck with any one job for too long. There is an argument here. There are also missed votes. I have watched several of Sen. Obama's Speeches. I think he is growing in his ability.

Questioning Sen. Obama is essential. No One is Perfect. None. Everyone should be able to handle some level of criticism. Should not People be held accountable for who they are? I do not want a Police State. I would like more People to be politically active. If we had better people in Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive Branches, we would not be in an economic crisis right now.

We have liers, thieves, and murderers running our nation. It can be truly said that Sen. Obama never murdered anyone. It can be said that though imperfect, he is offering some ideas that will truly help the vast majority of Americans. Thank goodness. Sen. Obama will be several times better than Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain is the McSame. He will not help the suffering of the Majority. Republicanism expects you to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. Check out what I heard a Republican Boss say to me, "Shut up, and get Back to Work." Joke.

It's true, we need to hold our Democrats accountable, just as Republicans need to be held accountable to the people.

Don't you know that Obama is a centrist flip flopper?

:sarcasm:

Here is an article that argues that the FISA Amendment that our Senate is set to cave on tomorrow will enable the Republicans to steal the election:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/2008/07/fisa_amendment_just_time_steal_election

As with everything else Bush touches, I keep thinking FISA can't get any worse. Then it DOES.

Your post gives me much to think about, including rethinking some of my feelings about Obama and FISA.

I figure on an internet board, where almost no one ever changes their minds, that's the biggest compliment I can pay.

K&R

And it says a lot about you that you are willing to consider changing your mind. That is something we should all be open to doing, but too few actually are.

It's been voted on. Please take up any arguments on the primary election with your local representatives.

You complete your obligation and have paid everything in full and then the mortgage company comes back idea that they need more money so they extend your payments an extra ten years. Would you pay that extra amount because they asked you nicely or would you seek another recourse?

Yea, easy for Obama to say he will take a hit for this compromise. The math is quite simple if one capitulates to the rhetoric. He assumes that for him, his payoff for breaking his already stated principle could be a much more lucrative than the peoples rights he might be helping to gut x(

K & R