Far Left? NYT Goes Looking in Portland

Jeff Alworth

In tomorrow's New York Times, William Yardley writes about the disaffection on the left with Obama's perceived two-step to the political center.  Naturally, he came to Portland.  I was scanning a bunch of headlines and clicked through, and the photo at the top of the article caught my eye.  13liberals600_2 See if you notice the specifically Oregonian detail (given that I've included giant arrows, the task is made easier).  That's Mollie Ruskin, a fellow with Politicorps, the Bus Project's "political bootcamp" to train young activists.

Intrigued, I read further.  It's a pretty standard story about how lefites are reacting to recent events like Obama's FISA stance.  And then I got to this:

“I think it’s accentuated by the fact that Obama’s appeal is an appeal to idealism,” said Kari Chisholm, who runs a blog, blueoregon.com, and does Internet strategy for Democratic candidates. “They believe their ideology is the only idealism and Obama’s is very mainstream. I’m not surprised they’re getting a little cranky. They’ve always been kind of cranky. A mainstream Democrat has always been too mainstream for them.”

Maybe it was the 75,000 who showed up to see Obama earlier this year.  Or our huge protests against the Iraq war.  Or Ralph Nader's strong showing here in 2000.  Whatever it is, the word's out.  You want "far left?" Head to Portland.  In addition to BlueOregon and the Bus Project, Our Oregon also gets a mention. 

“I don’t think the test on him is in an explicitly narrow set of check boxes that have to get filled,” said Kevin Looper, executive director of Our Oregon, a liberal advocacy group. “I think it’s about do his campaign and his message embody serious changes for the direction of the country?”

Mr. Looper and many other supporters said Mr. Obama was solid on core Democratic concerns like the environment, social and economic justice and how to balance taxes among economic groups. Of course, his stands on more specific issues appeal to many supporters, too.

The article, driving home the point, ends on this note:

[Martha] Shade, the Green-turned-Democrat-returned-Green voter, spoke about Mr. Obama while leaning out her second-floor apartment window, where she has placed homemade signs urging the impeachment of President Bush. Others say “Free Gaza” and “Occupation is Terrorism.” She said twice that the American political system was “rotten.”

“You realize,” Ms. Shade said, her voice fading with resignation, “that you’re talking to somebody who’s pretty far out of the mainstream.”

Little Beirut, your reputation's safe.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Excusing the wholesale rerouting of all telecom traffic, less than a month into Bush's presidency, to "secret rooms" where any or all of it can be monitored, is not "mainstream." It's more like the Soviet Union. I can easily handle mainstream Obama stances I don't agree with, such as that the country isn't ready for marriage equality, or stances that come from a personal moral conviction. This wasn't one of them. Yes, I'm voting for him, I just wish he wouldn't take that for granted. Perhaps his lackluster June fundraising (clickthrough here for full story and see the third and fourth grafs) could motivate Obama to be more representative of, and responsive to, voters.

  • (Show?)

    Hmmm... It's always interesting when you talk to a reporter for a half-hour, and 58 words make it into print.

    My point, which I think Yardley mostly conveyed, is that Obama has managed to win the support of a big chunk of the Nader/Kucinich wing of the party -- despite the fact that his policy positions are not in sync with their's.

    Part of it is because of his appeal to idealism, part of it is the excitement about voting for the first African-American president.

    But as Obama said recently (paraphrasing), just because he disagrees with you on a particular issue does not mean that he's "being political" or "playing to the middle"; it's entirely likely that he just plain disagrees with you.

    And that's OK. I think most folks understand that. But there's a small slice of the electorate that's getting very cranky. He's idealistic; they're idealistic. They assume that his idealism leads to the same policy choices as their idealism does. When it doesn't, it can come as a surprise.

    Barack Obama is not from the Nader/Kucinich slice of the electorate; and he's never pretended to be. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that those folks are so surprised by that.

    Other than the FISA thing (which is fairly inexplicable), I haven't seen him change his position on anything so far. It's just that people haven't been listening very well; or only hearing the stuff that fits their own preconceived notion of what the perfect candidate is.

    Until you run for office yourself, you'll never find a candidate that agrees with you 100% on every issue.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with that, Kari, that most of what's being packaged by others as a series of flip-flops or reaches for the center aren't actually changes in his position. That narrative is just a convenient storyline for late June/early July when there aren't many other storylines handy. But Obama didn't do himself any favors by pledging to filibuster warrantless wiretapping immunity, then pledging to vote for the FISA bill with or without immunity (and without filibustering). That was clearly a flip-flop, and his polling numbers certainly haven't gone up as a result (not that the reason they've gone down can be pinpointed to anything specific). FiveThirtyEight.com shows his average lead making a quick drop from 6 to 4, Pollster.com shows about the same, and RCP shows a drop from 8 to 4. Maybe Obama needs to recapture his ability to inspire voters.

  • (Show?)

    I think that sometimes people find themselves ticked off at a candidate like Obama because he isn't far enough to the left. But what we forget is that no matter how much we want it to be so, this country is not far to the left, nor are the majority of voters. We can pull the thinking in this country a little more left in steps, but there's no way we're going to get a far left person elected to something like the presidency - not in one step.

    It's a big problem that I've had with democrats.com over the past year - they go after Democrats who aren't left enough for them. It doesn't matter if the electorate they're representing is moderate or even conservative - if the person isn't far enough left, then they need to go.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    IMHO, the beauty of Obama, if you are a true progressive, is not that he was the most progressive of the Presidential candidates. It's that he's the one who was best equipped to build a consensus to produce changes that progressives strongly support.

    I think he wants to make access to health care much more universal, fight global warming, and bring diplomacy rather than war to the Middle East. He also wants to make our tax system more equitable. I like my chances of seeing these reforms come to fruition more with an incredibly talented politician like him in the White House than with a guy like Kucinich ... or, for that matter, Edwards (I'm one of the few around here who backed Obama from the beginning).

    Heck, I'm more progressive than Barack ... but trust me, you wouldn't want to elect me. And that applies to millions of other progressive just like me.

  • (Show?)

    Excellent thoughts, everyone.

    More thoughts from me, along the same lines (mostly cribbed from an email exchange with a friend.)

    I'm pretty cranky about FISA too.

    I do think that Obama is basically right that he hasn't changed his positions in recent weeks (except on FISA) and that people who think he has may not have been paying close enough attention.

    I think we've got an interesting thing going on here. Obama has a strong appeal to idealism. And it's easy to get caught up in that. It's easy for folks who are substantially further to the left of him to think that because they like him so much personally that he must agree with them on every issue.

    It's kind of like the pro-choice Republicans who love John McCain because they think he's a maverick - and he must therefore be pro-choice like them. Except he's not. And when they find out, it's devastating for him. See Peter Hart's poll last month (PDF).

    In some ways, Obama appeared on the national scene so fast and so strong that he became an empty vessel for the hopes and dreams of many, many people. And, inevitably, because they assigned positions to him that weren't accurate.

    For example, a big chunk of the anti-war left loves Obama. But he's always been very clear that he's not anti-war. In that famous 2002 speech, he said as much -- not anti-war, but anti this war, anti "dumb wars". I hope it never comes to this, but I won't be surprised if years from now, President Obama has to send troops or planes or missiles to some part of the world we're not thinking about right now. And the anti-war left will go nuts, because they thought he was anti-war like them. But he's not. And never was.

  • (Show?)

    Kari,

    The little box you've invented "Nader/Kucinich wing of the party" isn't doing anyone any favors.

    And the idea that anyone sort of at that end of things is "surprised" is ludicrous. I get angry at George Bush when he does things he shouldn't that don't surprise me. I get angry and disappointed and frustrated by missed political opportunities, IMO, by Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, but not surprised. Now, same for Barack Obama. Actually, consistently for Obama going back to when Edwards was still in the race.

    I'm not surprised. I am disappointed, because he had choices, chose wrongly on a number of things, and IMO missed some political opportunities that would help him in the election as well as helping the country and the party. Obviously his judgment in light of whatever his advice he's getting was different.

    The closest thing to "surprised" for me was his backtracking on NAFTA and his reversal on FISA. I had hopes that his talk of "change" meant something about trying to hold himself to a higher standard of personal honesty than do many politicians. I wasn't certain, I was waiting to see. Now I've seen and know that I can't trust what he says. This doesn't surprise me, because I didn't have an actual belief that he was more honest than that, just his claim. It does disappoint me, and it tells me that he will be conducting more politics as usual.

    The (few) actual current Naderites who comment on BlueOregon have been consistently disdainful of Obama since before his recent moves. They're either not Democrats at all, or determined to vote for Nader once Kucinich was out. They are not surprised, but they, like you, mistakenly think that others whose policy views may not be so different from theirs, but have been determined to vote D, are surprised. Hence the variations on "told you so" or "aren't you going to change your mind now." But they, like you, are mistaking disappointment for surprise.

    In fact most of the commenters here whom you might call left-liberal, left-progressive or social democratic, have been raising questions and doubts about Obama (and Hillary Clinton, and even John Edwards) right the way along. And also saying they intend to vote for "the eventual nominee"/Obama, depending on date. And still are saying that.

    It's not a question of surprise, it's a question of resolution of certain uncertainties and hopes held open for the sake of not prejudging, that now are more or less foreclosed. If they'd been resolved the other way, it wouldn't have put Obama much further left than he currently is, that wasn't the question or the expectation. But it would have left more confidence about core values, and a better feeling about character.

    So I'll be motivating myself much more by deep opposition to McCain and antipathy toward what he stands for and would do, than by enthusiasm for Obama. That's more or less what I expected, just wasn't absolutely sure.

    But please also note that some of us who regard ourselves as social democrats or left-progressives or something of that sort never have supported Nader in this cycle or the previous (in my case, also not in 2000), and some, though fewer, never have been particularly engaged by Kucinich either. To me, one of the problems, which I recognize as a measure of the marginality of my views, about which I don't have illusions, is that there is little in the way of effective leadership for them, no one with whom to identify the way some people apparently do with Kucinich.

    In any case, of the 75,000 who turned out for Obama, few were so far left, and to my mind, the real question is not what we who have been skeptical all along think of the recent moves, but how those moves will affect the enthusiasm that produced that crowd among loosely progressive but basically less political folks he inspired at that point. They're the ones who matter for the election.

  • backbeat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Regardless, I wish the NYT would quit doing stories on Portland. Please visit, now go home. /Tom McCall

  • backbeat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Most people are lefties if they are given straight talk.

    I wish the NYT would quit writing stories about Portland. IT RAINS ALL THE TIME HERE!!! /Tom McCall

  • (Show?)

    Chris -- Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I didn't mean to imply that all the people that are upset with Obama right now are just Naderites.

    And if your concerns are entirely about FISA, well, then I think your concerns are legitimate.

    My comments (both here and to the NYT reporter) are directed more at the people who think Obama is backsliding on bringing the troops home. Maybe I watch too much cable-news, but that's all they've been talking about for the last two weeks.

    During the primary season, Obama basically said that he'd start bringing the troops home right away (and it would take 16 months to do it.)

    Now, he's saying that he'll finish bringing the troops home in roughly 16 months (though he'll start right away.)

    The same thing, though with reversed emphasis.

    Anybody who thinks he's changed his position on bringing the troops home hasn't been paying attention (or, like the mainstream media, is deliberately crafting a convenient storyline.)

  • Alex (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I want to know what sort of "ideals" are leading Barack to these decisions. I don't mind that he's a little bit more conservative than myself or my previous candidate Kucinich, but what's up with these incongruous stances. Obama voted against a majority of Senate Democrats on FISA. He chose to side with the conservative minority on death penalty for child rape and the conservative majority on gun control. Is he really going to be to the right of Justice Kennedy? What other votes and decisions are going to surprise us? And none of these stances were compromise positions. Just compromised values.

    Are state rights really that important to Obama? I think Bob Barr will have this area covered. Positions like these are going to lead to more hot-mic "n--s."

    I'm not interested in another Bill Clinton presidency. I'll vote for a Clintonesque president, but I'm not going to volunteer and donate money to one. I thought Obama's health care plan was less ambitious than Hillary's, but I liked that he was already planning a compromise position. I also appreciated his recent and more nuanced approach to an Iraq withdrawal. But people should be upset about those other decisions. Supporters should be able to know where a candidate stands and should be upset when his decisions seem to be at odds with where they thought a candidate stood. Obama needs to realize that the middle is a lonely place. Just ask Gore and Kerry.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There are those who delight in putting everything somewhere on a liberal-conservative spectrum, and those who want problem solved and think "Not left, not right, but forward" makes more sense.

    I liked the Gail Collins column recently in the Oregonian--"When Obama said he was going to bring people together, did you think he meant in left field?".

    Under Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to get anything done, no matter who is president. And logistics knows no ideology. I'd rather have all the mechanized equipment brought out of Iraq, not just the troops. That's a lot of machinery, and unless there is a port other than Kuwait to do that, there is a limit to how fast the machinery can be brought out (even working 3 eight hour shifts to do the loading process, there's only a certain number of machines they can do in an 8 hour period--or doesn't that matter?). I'd rather it be done intelligently than done in 15 months and 20 days even if that means leaving some things behind.

    Put another way, I'd like to see the kind of quality control removing US forces that wasn't there when they went in.

    Moreover, my first presidential vote was 1968, when young people sounded like some bloggers here, "not much difference between Humphrey and Nixon". Same with McCain and Obama--anyone who doesn't see the differences isn't looking.

    I doubt he would be another Bill Clinton--first of all, look at the Obama small donor fundraising and the decentralized campaign. Not the sort of thing Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe would design.

    Secondly, the Sen. from Illinois is to some extent an old line Chicago pol--politics is the art of the possible. He has the rhetorical skills of Bobby Kennedy, but those who lived back then know RFK was a brass knuckle hard charging pol long before he was an inspirational thinker.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    But as Obama said recently (paraphrasing), just because he disagrees with you on a particular issue does not mean that he's "being political" or "playing to the middle"; it's entirely likely that he just plain disagrees with you.

    "It's okay" if everything is on the up and up. When a politician lies to your face, as Obama did on FISA, we know that he is nothing more than a snake in the grass. Obama has demonstrated that he is a follower, not a leader. And he follows the wrong piper (Bush) on this major Constitutional issue. (One wonders HOW exactly he attained professorship!?)

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    FISA and Obama's sell out of the 4th amendment is NOT a "left-field" issue. Regardless, even if you weirdly think it is, Obama LIED about his stance on it. Why do we want yet ANOTHER liar-in-chief?

    Here's the rub: the Republicans have nominated someone who is the most liberal candidate since Nixon, if not TR. An Obama presidency would embolden far-right thinking in those wilderness years; while a McCain presidency really WOULD shift that party leftwards.

    So... who to pick? A snake-in-the-grass like Obama who has no real convictions besides whatever it takes to get elected; or a liberal Republican who will shift his entire party apparatus leftward?

    The House and Senate will remain firmly in Dem hands. But why NOT a liberal GOPer for president? Wouldn't that be long term advantageous?

  • Alecki (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The reason Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama is because they are embarrassed of him, his life, his unfair tactics and his beliefs. And they still don't know all about him.

    1. They don't want a candidate that has been in a twenty year relationship with Reverend Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ.

    2. They don’t’ want a candidate that has a twenty year relationship with Father Pflaeger as his compass in life

    3. They don’t want a candidate that went to a church that supports Louis Farrakhan, an anti Semitic racist.

    4. They don't want to defend Black Liberation theology.

    5. They don’t want a candidate that lies about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the Syrian Criminal that sold his property to Obama and supported his campaign.

    6. They don't want a candidate that could work with a domestic terrorist, William Ayers.

    7. They don’t want a candidate that Hamas supports.

    8. They don’t want a candidate that Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam support

    9. They don’t want a candidate that has a wife that has just now realized she was proud of our country.

    10. They don’t want a candidate that denies Florida and Michigan their voices

    11. They don’t want a candidate that mentions 57 states in his speeches. 50 states in the USA and 57 states in the Nation of Islam (IOC website)

    12. They don’t want a candidate that fights unfair and steals Michigan delegate votes from his opponent.

    13. They don’t want a candidate that feels sorry to leave a church that is anti American and that preaches hatred and racial views that are cruel and nasty.

    14. They don't want a candidate that is inexperienced.

    15. They don’t want a candidate that considers it a loss to not to be able to attend his anti American, racist Church.

    16. They don’t want a candidate that has a “non practicing” Muslim father, but avoids the entire discussion of his father.

    17. They don’t’ want a candidate that won’t debate

    18. They don’t’ want a candidate that misleads the youth with an ‘Obama girl and her behind in their face”

    19. They don’t want a candidate that says he’s an African American and missed the MLK Remembrance Day and the Louisiana Black Caucus meeting

    20. They don’t want a candidate that enjoys laughing at sexism as an issues

    21. They don't want a candidate that switches his position on gun control, FISA, the war in Iraq, religion and government....

    22. They don't want a candidate that showcases his daughters on sleezy TV shows.

    23. They don’t’ want a candidate that has poor judgment.

    24. They don’t' want a candidate named; Barack Hussein Obama

    25. He scares them to death.

    26. He is embarrassing.

    27. He is unelectable.

  • portlander (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama's oath was to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    Telecoms violated the constitution.

    For Obama to vote to grant immunity to those who violated the constitution is a blatant violation of his oath of office.

    The constitution is not some quaint set of principles that can simply be disregarded whenever it's politically convenient to do so. For Obama to have done precisely that makes him complicit in covering up the crimes of the Bush administration, and casts a long shadow of doubt across his character and integrity.

    Anybody who thinks this is a "left or right" issue should consider that ALL americans are supposed to be bound by the laws set out in the constitution. FISA shows that the law may be disregarded with impunity by the powerful, while the wider citizenry is held firmly to its standard.

  • portlander (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One more thing, and this is in response to Kari Chrisholm:

    I resent your classification of those of us who respect the Constitution as "cranky."

    We "assume that his idealism leads to the same policy choices as [our] idealism does" because that is simply the ONLY acceptable position for a candidate to have with regards to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is not a "policy choice" that Obama is free to "disagree" with, it is a GUARANTEED right belonging to a sovereign people. Our "policy choices" must necessarily agree as a pre-requisite for him being granted legitimate authority under social contract theory.

    We're not here making some kind of subjective interpretation of the document, we are being told by our lawmakers that guaranteed rights have been violated and the congress is intervening in a co-equal branch of government to let the perpetrators off the hook-- and the people are powerless to stop it.

    It is absolutely unacceptable that any voter would believe that our core principles are violable without amendment or consequence.

  • tas (unverified)
    (Show?)

    10. They don’t want a candidate that denies Florida and Michigan their voices

    So Hillary not wanting to give Obama voters of both states any voice is OK?

    13. They don’t want a candidate that feels sorry to leave a church that is anti American and that preaches hatred and racial views that are cruel and nasty.

    When was his church racist? I never heard them discuss talking down all them "crackers" and "honkies".

    16. They don’t want a candidate that has a “non practicing” Muslim father, but avoids the entire discussion of his father.

    Sounds like you're hinting at something...

    24. They don’t' want a candidate named; Barack Hussein Obama

    ...well whattya know?! You're hinting at racist notions!

    17. They don’t’ want a candidate that won’t debate

    Didn't Obama and Hillary participate in like 30 zillion debates together?

    20. They don’t want a candidate that enjoys laughing at sexism as an issues

    When the definition of sexism is reduced to calls for Hillary to concede being "sexist", then it's hard not to laugh.

    23. They don’t’ want a candidate that has poor judgment.

    For an example of this, see exhibit A: Hillary's 2002 vote to goto war with Iraq.

    26. He is embarrassing.

    And you're an asshole.

  • BOHICA (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Little Beirut"

    More like "Little House on the Prairie." There are some hard core lefties and anti-war types here but mainly PDX has devolved into an apathetic bunch.

    50,000 turned out in March of 2003 before the invasion. Where are they now?

    Thursday I had an opportunity to to meet with a group of teachers here for seminar. They were mainly history and social studies teachers and I was there to talk to them about my experiences in the Vietnam war (what they were studying) and answer any questions they might have. Towards the end of the session, I was asked; "Do you have any faith in the (US) Government?" My reply, "Absolutely none." And that "my friends" (TM McSame) is the problem.

    Most people have been so turned off by the actions of the "government" that they have no reason to get off their collective butts and demand real change or to believe that the next President will be the Savior of the country. He is not Obama Wan Kenobi. Until the people actually stand up to the corporatists that run this country and the politicians and media whores that enable them, nothing will change.

    Something I wrote a while back:

    When murderers, banks robbers, sexual predators, and con artist who prey on seniors are on the loose in Portland, there is a call to action to hunt them down. We unleash our outrage and demand justice. Stories are written in the press about the efforts of law enforcement agencies to bring these criminals to justice. Stories of tenacious detectives running down leads in search of missing children. Stories of the ongoing fight against meth labs and street gangs by special taskforces. We have “Amber alerts”. We have “Crime Stopper” public service announcements. This is good. We should be outraged and demand our system bring these criminals to justice.

    It is time we do the same with the criminals of the Bush administration. For that is what they are, criminals. They are international outlaws. They have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. So what are you going to do about it? How about stopping the obscenity of violence perpetrated by this administration against the people Iraq?

    ...

    We must drowns out the echo chamber of the radical elements of our government and their minions of hypocrisy who repeat the same lies over and over again on talk radio and in their rarefied position as “pundits”. To drown out the misinformation put out by “think tanks”, corporate propaganda organs and Madison Avenue ad agencies whose sole purpose is to steer you away from the truth and lead you through the looking glass into a wonderland, where if you drink the right beer you get the girl of your dreams. A wonderland where a pill solves every problem or a new car puts you on the road of happiness. A wonderland of facades and shallowness built on the premise that money can buy you love. That is their promise. It is a false one.

    It is as false as the glorious worship of war that permeates our society. War is a false god worshipped by warmongers and poll watchers; a false god worshipped by the media whores who wish to be bathed in its reflected glow; a false god worshipped by those who have never seen, heard, smelled or touched the obscenity of the violence they glorify. War is the promise breaker. As James Madison wrote in 1795, "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [Branch of Government] is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

    No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Something worth repeating. It cannot sustain an economy either. $515 billions in the 2009 defense budget which does not include the appropriations for the global war on an abstract concept and the wars/occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. All on borrowed money.

    Cranky over FISA? Just business as usual. The only reason to vote for democrats and Obama is the idea of nine Scalias on the Supreme Court should scare the hell of you.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Label and dismiss, as Kari did in the NYT article, is a common way for lowgrade minds to debate.

    Don't like what someone has to say, Label them and dismiss their opinion.

    I've never voted for Nader, I supported Kerry long before his "comeback" in Iowa, and I think Kucinich is a funny, little gnome that is becoming a joke, yet I still support the Fourth Amendment. Does that make me a radical lefty?

    Hardly, but Democratic Party establishment apologists would like the story spun (labeled and dismissed) that way.

  • (Show?)

    I resent your classification of those of us who respect the Constitution as "cranky."

    Fair enough. Just note that I also described myself as "cranky" regarding the FISA vote. How about "pissed off"? Or maybe "righteously furious"? We can play thesaurus games all day long, I suppose...

    Hardly, but Democratic Party establishment apologists would like the story spun (labeled and dismissed) that way.

    Pat, you're free to label and dismiss me as a "Democratic Party establishment apologist" if you'd like -- but please note that I didn't attempt to spin or dismiss the FISA vote. As I've said all along here, I think that's a legitimate concern.

  • (Show?)

    Kari Chisholm: Fair enough.

    Not really, Kari. Don't you see the calculated umbrage game Mr. Malach is playing?

    Look at his statement: 'I resent your classification of those of us who respect the Constitution as "cranky."' The clear implication is that his view is the only one that "respects the Constitution", and that everyone else doesn't.

    You've got to admit, it's pretty hypocritical to be playing the "oh my, you have deliberately offended my fragile ego by calling me cranky" - in the same post where you're insulting a vast swathe of the American public.

    All that said, I also wish the FISA vote had gone the other way, even as I am perfectly aware that the ACLU has a real uphill battle ahead in trying to persuade any Court that preventing private lawsuits in particular areas of law is something Congress can't do.

  • (Show?)
    The (few) actual current Naderites who comment on BlueOregon have been consistently disdainful of Obama since before his recent moves. They're either not Democrats at all, or determined to vote for Nader once Kucinich was out.

    While I normally more or less agree with Chris when he posts here, I have to ask: How do you define a "Naderite"? And who exactly are the "Naderites" who post here? How can you be sure that they've determined to vote for Nader now that Kucinich is out? This sounds like the same sort of vague generalization and marginalization Kari expressed in the portion of his interview that was quoted.

    This election may be a lot closer than a lot of people realize. Can Obama and the Democratic party really afford to continually piss on the "left" and expect to gain a clear majority (or a majority at all)? Particularly on issues like telecom immunity where nearly 60% of voters were against it?

    Me, I'm just waiting for Obama to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate in an attempt to "reach out" to the center of wherever he is and bring him back into the Democratic fold. Not really sure that's a fold of the big tent we'd want to live in, though.

  • Chris #12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari wrote "Other than the FISA thing (which is fairly inexplicable), I haven't seen him change his position on anything so far."

    As Chris Lowe pointed out above, Obama has done a pretty thorough about-face on NAFTA.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    O Ye of Little Faith!

    Tossing around terms like Naderite, saying Obama may pick Lieberman, it makes it sound like people upset not everyone sees things their way.

    This is 2008, folks, the year when lots of people who don't generally follow politics are enthusiastically involved in a national election. Do all of them share the views of those here on FISA, the Iraq War, and so many other issues?

    Or have they had time in their busy lives to even give those issues much thought?

    This year is a unique opportunity to talk with folks you know or folks you meet while campaigning, and LISTEN to their concerns. We might just have some major upsets if we actually listen to the folks who are not political junkies and debate the issues they care about.

    Or people can be true believers and if they lose some political battles either take sarcastic pot shots or just drop out of politics.

    In a book he wrote awhile back, Howard Dean said "If you want leadership, look in the mirror".

    Go out there door to door for candidates and see what ordinary folks are concerned about. And if they are more concerned about family, work, the cost of food and gas, or even veterans issues or the Medicare bill (which Ted Kennedy returned to the US Senate for a short while in order to cast the deciding vote) than they are about the details of the FISA bill, what will you do? Will you take those concerns into account, or will you be angry that they don't see things your way?

    Do you actually an elected official doesn't vote the way you want them to vote 100% of the time? I have argued legislation with very close friends who were in public office, but in 2008 we should expect 100% agreement?

    Sorry, that's not the politics I have been involved in these last 3 decades. I'll take a person whose heart is in the right place but whose individual votes I question, than I will someone who just talks generalities and never gives any indication of caring about people like me.

  • (Show?)

    LT, as I remember it, someone picked Lieberman as the Democratic VP candidate just eight years ago. The New Republic -- that venerable organ of centrist Democratic politics -- touted him as their choice for President in the 2004 primaries even after his whole-hearted embrace of Bush's war and national security policies. And any number of Democratic politicians -- including Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer -- supported him in the 2006 primary race against Ned Lamont. He still chairs the Homeland Security committee.

    If Al Gore had served two terms in the White House, Joe Lieberman would have been the leading candidate for president this year in the Democratic primaries. Contrary to what a lot of his former advocates claim, there's no real difference -- other than eight years of age -- between the Lieberman of 2000 and the Lieberman of 2008.

  • (Show?)

    So... who to pick? A snake-in-the-grass like Obama who has no real convictions besides whatever it takes to get elected; or a liberal Republican who will shift his entire party apparatus leftward?

    Peter, this seems unbalanced to me. I have had my own criticisms of Obama, but we do ourselves a disservice when we apply binary slots for candidates:good or bad. Politicians are a mixture in all things, as Kari has noted. I've never encountered a politician who stands for my varied views on the issues, and I never expect to find one.

    But there's even more nuance than that. We can't know a politician's motivation, and in your commentary, I hear a very strong judgment on that score. When does a politician make a stand based on principle, and when does he do it for political expediency? When is it for a mixture of reasons? Or when does he do something for political reasons that may not be manifest until later--as when politicians back legislation they oppose on principle because they've done some backroom dealing for GOP support on an issue down the road.

    I always find it tiring and dispiriting to hear people render moral, personal judgments about candidates. Obama may turn out to be a "snake in the grass," but there's really nowhere near enough evidence to render that judgment now. So what's the point of doing so?

  • (Show?)

    Darrel, fair comment. Harry Kershner is the only one who comes to mind regularly advocating a Nader vote. I thought Bill Bodden did too but he recently wrote that it was more likely than not he would end up voting for Obama, I inferred barring something even more dramatic by Obama. If we went back through we'd find a few anonymous comments against any DP presidential vote. But most pro-Nader comments have either been against scapegoating him &/or defending past votes, or defending in principle the choices of others. So you're right, I went along too much with the framing.

    The main point is that it is simply an error, and a false accusation of naiveté to say that those who have been critical or skeptical of Obama are surprised by his recent actions. Which is why the Gail Collins column point is dumb.

  • (Show?)
    I always find it tiring and dispiriting to hear people render moral, personal judgments about candidates.

    What about when people render moral, personal judgments about potential voters?

    I’m not surprised they’re getting a little cranky. They’ve always been kind of cranky.

    I sympathize with Kari's lament in his first comment to a certain extent. My first interview (and last) with a national magazine just about got me fired from my job at the time (probably not a surprise to anyone here).

    Despite the fact that I haven't missed even special elections (that I'm aware of) for nearly 30 years, I've never voted for a candidate who was in lock-step with my positions on every issue. Even my wife and I disagree on stuff. The idea that those of us who know we stand firmly to the left of the mainstream on most issues won't vote for people who don't share all of our positions is just so amazingly bogus that I can't believe it's still uttered. We've never had anything else to vote for. So those of us who do vote regularly are far more aware of the necessities of buckling down and voting for someone despite their shortcomings than the middle-of-the-road Democrat who has to make finesse their decision between people like, say, Edwards, Dodd, or Biden.

    The other option, of course, is to simply not vote at all.

    Which is why it continually astounds me is that anyone expects people on the left to just suck up and take the actions and comments from people like Obama over and over. Voting over and over for bad bills. Dismissing the concerns of opponents of telecom immunity as overblown. It is enough to make one cranky and -- I dare say -- "bitter." Because that kind of offhand disregard certainly makes it appear as if you really don't care about what those people think. And why should they vote for someone who doesn't care what they think? Why should they vote for someone whose supporters don't care what they think?

    Let the accusations of "purity trolling" begin!

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Pat Malach | Jul 13, 2008 8:42:14 AM Label and dismiss, as Kari did in the NYT article, is a common way for lowgrade minds to debate.

    LOL - this from the same lowgrade mind who thought it funny to softpeddle a racist quip by facetiously expressing the hope that my German father and Jewish mother hadn't give me a middle name beginning with the same "K" which my first and last names begins with.

    This, of course, is just one small example of how some of the cranky whack-jobs on the far Left delight in dishing it out and then whine to high heaven if they percieve one iota of it being sent back their way.

    F-ing hypocrits...

  • (Show?)

    Kari,

    You are right that Obama has not changed his position on the occupation of Iraq, or indeed his general military posture (expand the military, intensify war in Afghanistan, be willing to attack into Pakistan without permission). These have all been clearly understood by the anti-war movement.

    Two things have changed slightly. One is that he has amplified and detailed certain things. During the primary, Clinton was clear that she expected the "residual" troop presence to be on the order of 60,000 to 70.000 troops and to maintain the bloated "embassy" (read occupation headquarters city) of 5,000, protection of which is one source of high troop numbers. Obama was vaguer on both of those points, but has now confirmed that his "residual" number is comparable to Clintons (which most on the left & in the anti-war movement believed) and that he too intends to maintain an imperial proconsular city in the heart of Baghdad.

    Secondly, he has been putting increasingly frequent emphasis on the "I will follow the advice of the commanders in the field" line, and downplayed his portrayal of himself as an anti-war candidate. These are rhetorical shifts, but it puts his rhetoric in line with George Bush's.

    Again, if anyone might be surprised by this, it will be the folks LT likes to cite who don't or can't pay too much detailed attention and have heard the anti-war rhetorical tone and may now find it changing. Again, if that tone and the anti-war impression it may have created was a reason why some of the not-usually-so-political Obama enthusiasts liked, they may be disappointed and might be less active. The "center" of U.S. public opinion on Iraq is anti-war, except among hard-core Republicans. Obama is well to the right of the majority of Democratic and Independent opinion. I interpret him as shoring up his media position -- showing the foreign affairs pundits and the policy think-tanks on which they depend and with whom they form the echo chamber that let Bush lie us into war that he is "reliable."

    Whether that will hurt him with the anti-war but not activist grassroots I don't know, but think is something he and his campaign and anyone who wants McCain defeated ought to worry about.

  • (Show?)
    The main point is that it is simply an error, and a false accusation of naiveté to say that those who have been critical or skeptical of Obama are surprised by his recent actions.

    I agree with you on that point.

    Anyone who was paying attention knew the DLC was eager to claim him as one of their own when he ran for office, until he had his name stricken from their directory of New Democrats.

    This is from Obama's letter to the Black Commentator, in 2003, when they asked him about his inclusion in the directory:

    As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention. ... But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better.

    Personally, I'm still waiting for a little of that persuading.

  • (Show?)

    Peter Bray, the idea that John McCain is a "liberal" Republican simply is delusional. The reputation always was exaggerated, and his moves to the right on those relatively few areas where he did stick out are much more extreme than any changes in Barack Obama's positions. He couldn't move the Rs to the left if he tried, but he's not even going to try.

    LT, it is not really true that it requires 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. The Republicans quite regularly used to force things through with smaller majorities. What it takes is a willingness to choose fights over which you will make a decision to try to stop something with the filibuster rules so painful for the other side in other terms, blocking things that matter to them, that they don't fight to that point. The Rs regularly used to do that. The D leadership should do more of that even now, but doesn't.

    However, it should be said that at present the 60 vote excuse has a little more to it, insofar as forcing things through in the way mentioned would then come up against a veto in most instances. IMO the D leadership still ought to do that on some occasions and make the Rs pay the price of their positions on some things. I think they've missed some chances.

    If Barack Obama gets elected president, the veto back-up behind the filibuster threats won't be there in the same way, and the ability of the Ds to make obstructionist Rs really pay for obstruction will be greater. Will they use those tools? Don't know, but am not optimistic, both because of the general timidity of the D leadership, and because it may be that Obama's "bipartisanship" will amount to a promise to fight with one hand tied behind his back. It may not -- that depends on the Rs. Right now I'd be more impressed if those who like his "stop the partisan bickering" approach would identify who his negotiating partners would or will be on the other side, and say what reason we should have to think that the R lockstep imposition of voting discipline on their more moderate members will change.

  • portlander (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari,

    I didn't see the part where you referred to yourself as "cranky" only the part where you differentiated yourself from "them."

    Full quote:

    “They believe their ideology is the only idealism and Obama’s is very mainstream. I’m not surprised they’re getting a little cranky. They’ve always been kind of cranky. A mainstream Democrat has always been too mainstream for them.”

    Am I missing something?

    With all due respect, nobody's playing a "thesaurus game." I feel your statements are dismissive and counter productive.

    While I'm voting for Obama, I don't appreciate the efforts of some supporters to paper over his shortcomings or belittle those who have legitimate gripes with the candidate.

    FISA is not a left or right issue, it is a Constitutional issue.

  • (Show?)
    LT, it is not really true that it requires 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

    Not only that, but with the Dodd amendment FISA bill, it would only have taken a majority vote. Instead, eighteen Democratic senators (only four of whom are up for re-election this year) voted to kill it. Then it would have been incumbent on the president to either accept it without telecom immunity or veto it.

    I just think that there's a significant portion of the Democratic congressional delegation who are more or less in agreement with the Republicans on whether Americans need to be spied on. Some of them may just have to cover their tracks with meaningless votes on amendments they know are doomed to get elected. That's at least as reasonable an explanation as the idea that someone would change their vote on an important issue to gain important "centrist" cred.

    There's no real reason this had to be passed at this particular time. It could easily have waited until after the election. It's hardly as if unconstitutional spying on Americans wasn't going to happen without it.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes, I'm glad that Wyden (on the Intelligence Comm., he actually knew what the bill said!) voted against the FISA bill. I understand the point of view of those who view DLC as evil, and if only THEY were in leadership, by golly they would be as confrontational as they talk about being here. Are you willing to get involved in a debate about who should be Majority Leader in either chamber if Democrats keep the majority? (For that matter, same question about Oregon legislative leadership.)

    I get all that. I also know many people who don't see the world that way. They have other things going on in their lives and don't follow politics as closely.

    Just stumbled across something about Bush finally realizing that with a Democratic majority he can bluster all he wants to, but not everything he wants is going to happen.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201616.html?hpid=topnews

    The decider has become the compromiser.

    President Bush has racked up a series of significant political victories in recent weeks, on surveillance reform, war funding and an international agreement on global warming, but only after engaging in the kind of conciliation with opponents that his administration has often avoided.

    With less than seven months left in office, Bush is embracing such compromises in part because he has to. Faced with persistently low public approval ratings, a Democratic Congress and wavering support among Republicans, he and his aides have given ground on key issues to accomplish broader legislative and diplomatic goals, according to administration officials, legislative aides and political experts. <<<<

    Now for those of you who think I should say that with Lieberman and Sanders (independents) Kennedy and Tim Johnson (health problems) making up the 51 majority, the Democrats should act as if they have a 55 majority, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    But then, with everything else going on in my life in July 2008, I just don't have the energy to get that angry at some of the things that anger other Blue Oregonians.

  • Steve Snyder (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Am I the only one that was appalled at the headline calling the people interviewed the "far left"? Give me a break. From what I could tell, these were not folks from the far left but rather people holding moderately progressive views. Shows you how far the official lines of political demarcation have moved since...let's say the era of Nixon.

    Hey, now revolutionary socialists or anarchists or at least those with an explicit anti-capitalist ideology could rightfully be called the far left but not these folks.

  • (Show?)
    I understand the point of view of those who view DLC as evil, and if only THEY were in leadership, by golly they would be as confrontational as they talk about being here.

    You reminded me that I forgot to mention Joe Lieberman was the head of the DLC for the years leading up to 2000.

    I didn't mention the DLC to claim that it was evil, just to say that I wasn't surprised by Obama's current positions, because five years ago the DLC was trying to sidle up to him because they thought he shared their views.

    I'm glad for you that you've accepted Bush into your life, LT, although I'd have to say that it's always easy to "compromise" when you propose incredibly slanted legislation over and over, then give up a few small things in order to get the things you really want.

  • (Show?)

    Personally, I found Matt Bai's "Promises to Keep" piece in the NYT Magazine this morning much more insightful. To quote selectively:

    Both men criticize a lack of responsiveness of government to its people, caused primarily by the influence of “special interests.”

    ….Obama, on the other hand, casts reform as something that primarily congeals outside Washington, which is why he started to sound a little like the Doobie Brothers during the primaries, invoking a movement that was taking it to the streets....

    Reform, expressed in dueling visions, is the ideal that delivered both McCain and Obama to this shared summit in their political lives. They abandon it at their own peril, and at ours.

    The Obama campaign's stock in trade was idealism, coupled with the savvy to cash that in for votes and legwork in addition to money. I think, Kari, that you miss the point when you say that "it's easy to get caught up in that." This wasn't something that naive souls got "caught up in" - it was the essence of the campaign itself. By suggesting that people shouldn't have been so naive as to actually believe that shit, you're undermining the strongest basis Obama's initial appeal to new voters, replacing it with the more standard fare cynicism of political insiders/hacks - like the majority of folks who write and read blogs like Blue Oregon.

    Surely you see the problem here: one of the most hopeful features of the primary campaign was the mass registration and mobilization of new unlikely voters. While McCain's strength is with likely (especially older) voters, Obama needs to keep those new voters motivated and excited. While the punditry and seasoned political operatives will explain recent moves with their usual cynical savvy, that's hardly the spirit we need to keep up and build on the energy of the armies of volunteers who are now spreading out across the country.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks Dan, very well put.

    LT, the supposed "compromise" on FISA wasn't a compromise at all, it was a cave-in.

    The "compromise" on the supplemental appropriation for the occupation of Iraq was not a compromise at all on its central provisions, to do with Iraq. It was a "compromise" of choosing not to veto add-ons for veterans and some other domestic spending. And even at that, the overall cost of the bill didn't rise above the threshold Bush said he would veto.

    Bush hasn't really been conciliatory in any substantial way.

    What both the D leadership and the Rs agreed on was taking "war funding" so-called "off the table" until well into then next president's term. This was a missed opportunity by the Ds, I believe.

    You haven't really addressed the point that Dan had now made better than I did before, which is exactly about people who aren't deeply engaged with politics, who may have responded to one kind of impression about Obama, and who may be getting another message now, and what they may think about all of that.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Re: “You realize,” Ms. Shade said, her voice fading with resignation, “that you’re talking to somebody who’s pretty far out of the mainstream.”

    Ms. Shade's resignation is due to her lack of understanding that her positions are mainstream, even if they are far to the left of the duopoly's leadership. It is this false sense of being "far left" that is keeping us from coalescing with the real center.

    Kari: You must stop this propaganda: "During the primary season, Obama basically said that he'd start bringing the troops home right away (and it would take 16 months to do it.) Now, he's saying that he'll finish bringing the troops home in roughly 16 months (though he'll start right away.)"

    Chris did a good job calling you on this, but I want to call attention to the fact that "troops" is one of those weasel words that cloud minds. Obama, as you know, wants the mercenaries (150,000?) and a "residual force" of 60,000 or so regulars to remain. Not only is he, as you admit, not "anti-war", but he is also not "anti-dumb-wars", since his positions on Iran and on continuing the occupations are dumb as hell.

    You need to at least read what his supporters say:

    "But that pledge [to end "the war"] also has been laced with loopholes all along, caveats that the mainstream media and his opponents (excepting Bill Richardson) have ignored or avoided until now...Finally, it has taken the pressure of the general election to raise questions about whether his parsed and lawyerly language is empty of credible meaning. Consider carefully his July 4 statements:

    The first one, promising a "thorough reassessment" of his Iraq position later this summer:

    "I've always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability" — two conditions that could justify leaving American troops in combat indefinitely. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies" — another loophole which could allow the war to drag on.

    Then there came the later "clarification":

    "Let me be as clear as I can be" [not, "let me be absolutely clear"].

    "I intend to end this war." [intention only].

    "And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one or two brigades a month..." [but what if the military commanders on the ground assert that it is too dangerous to pull out those troops?]

    Obama's position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now plants a seed of doubt, justifiably, among the peace bloc of American voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals..." (Tom Hayden, No Retreat: If you Want to Win, Stop the War! Barack at Risk)

    darrelplant said, "I just think that there's a significant portion of the Democratic congressional delegation who are more or less in agreement with the Republicans on whether Americans need to be spied on."

    YES! And this is only the tip of the complicity iceberg.

    "...such is the pathetic state of the Democratic Party: so desperate to avoid admitting its own mistakes that it would prefer to attack a large segment of its progressive base, chastising them like misbehaving children, as if somehow that will bring them back to the fold. Not likely. And not a very smart move." (Tim Wise, Fall Guy)

  • Israel Bayer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Kari hit the hammer on the head. I consider myself further to the left than the Dems, and I'm hell of cranky (about policies, current affairs, etc.)

    I don't think Kari is doing anyone a disservice by saying that people like me are cranky. Of course, it can be used as a force against, but considering individuals like myself don't have much power to begin with, hence, the crankiness, than I don't see why calling a spade a spade is a bad thing.

  • (Show?)
    I don't think Kari is doing anyone a disservice by saying that people like me are cranky.

    It's the lack of acknowledgment that there are reasons people are cranky. Kari says he's cranky about FISA, too, but in the next paragraph he's burbling about how it's just a bunch of "idealists" and that everyone unhappy with Obama just misunderestimated him.

    And the anti-war left will go nuts, because they thought he was anti-war like them. But he's not. And never was.

    Pretending that the people who opposed the Iraq war were isolationists and pacifists a la Peter Beinart in The New Republic back in 2002 is cant that was old long, long ago. Just a bunch of un-American DFHs.

    I admit, I had the audacity to hope because I thought Obama meant it when I heard about his remark that he wouldn't support "stupid wars". Hey, so am I! But that pretty much ended when candidate Obama started talking about expanding the military budget and chatting over foreign policy with Colin Powell. Didn't that guy get us into a "stupid war"?

  • Jim Et Al (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I want to associate myself with portlander's remarks. He (she?) seems closest to my own position, and a fair reading of his post should leave no doubt as to how deeply felt by many is Obama's complete betrayal of the Constitution and the citizenry...

    Let me add that the betrayal cuts even deeper if one considers that Mr. Obama is a Constitutional scholar of the first water, and for a man who is so obviously intelligent, well spoken, highly educated, and charismatic, the fact that he voted AGAINST the Constitutional comes as more than surprise. No, a knife in the back would be a surprise, Mr. Obama's betrayal of his senatorial oath to defend the Constitution is much worse. I am at a loss for the words required to really explain how his vote has affected me. I CAN say however, as it stands now, that I will NOT vote for Mr. Obama...

  • Tyrannocaster (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let the rationalizing begin:

    "Other than the FISA thing (which is fairly inexplicable)"

    Yeah, no wonder some of us are...cranky. Some of us who never voted for Nader, I have to add. Sounds like somebody is in full Obama-can-do-no-wrong mode; see Greenwald's recent comments on this for a much better excoriation of that mentality than I could do.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I'm glad for you that you've accepted Bush into your life, LT"

    Way to win friends and influence people! Either we should be angry with anyone who didn't vote with Wyden on FISA or we are Bushies. No room for freedom of action by elected officials or candidates--by golly they should be listening to us as no one else matters!

    Do I wish some votes had come out differently? Of course!

    Do I think if everyone on BO said "Obama should be ashamed of himself for his vote on FISA" that would change anything? No. But then I don't expect to be thrilled by every single word and action of anyone I support.

    As is often true, the Beatles put it very well 40 years ago. You may not like their approach, but I can tell you right now anyone who calls me a Bush supporter is a person I will not believe in the future about anything without 3 confirming sources! You want to see anger? Telling me I have no right to think for myself will get me angry!

    I'd rather hear people say that what they are going to do about something is.... rather than telling us we should all agree that theirs is the only valid point of view. That has been my attitude for 40 years, and no blogger is going to change it.

    http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/beatles-lyrics/revolution-1-lyrics.html

    You say you want a revolution Well you know we all want to change the world..........

    You say you got a real solution Well you know we'd all love to see the plan You ask me for a contribution Well you know We're all doing what we can.....

    You say you'll change the constitution Well you know we'd all love to change your head You tell me it's the institution Well you know You better free your mind instead..........

  • Israel Bayer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "It's the lack of acknowledgment that there are reasons people are cranky."

    If you don't like the slant of the story that's one thing, but one individual (Kari) who has a pulse on things made an observation - and he was right.

    In the context of acknowledging that there's reason people are cranky falls w/the reporter and/or editor.

    It was one quote. It's not the end of the world.

    In the context of the big picture, and Obama moving away from the left. That's the game. Pure and simple. And no amount of critical analysis from lefties from Oregon or anywhere else changes that.

    Am I happy about it? Actually, I'm kind of cranky.

    But it's also important to remember that the hope Obama inspires only goes as far as we're willing to take it. We've had it all along. He only reminds us of it...

  • (Show?)
    Way to win friends and influence people!

    LT, aside from the fact that it was you who were claiming that Bush was "compromising" when he got everything he really wanted, it's not my job to win friends or influence people. You never seem to get that.

    I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to come across to my point of view, because I've got nothing to sell. From where I stand, it looks like a bunch of Democrats -- including the current presidential nominee -- have abandoned what few protections laws passed back in the 1970s guaranteed American citizens -- i.e. the right not to be spied on by their own government (not that it ever really stopped, of course) -- because they were either too stupid to make the case to the people that it was a bad idea or they supported said spying.

    I'm not pushing a presidential candidate. No, at this point, it's up to the Obama supporters to make the case that he really deserves the support of the people who are unhappy about the relentless rightward creep of the Democratic party since, oh, the late 1940s.

    And that's why it's amusing -- if a little sad -- to see people in the center of the Democratic party demonizing the left while still trying to wrap themselves in a progressive flag. Theoretically, the left has nowhere to go, but if you spent enough time making sure that they know you despise them and everything they stand for, and caricaturing them the same way Republicans do, you just add another brick to the campaign foundation of the next third-party politician who comes along and tells them that the two parties are essentially the same.

    That 2000 vote was sooo close. But like I said, I'm not the one selling anything.

  • (Show?)

    Maybe we should get T-shirts that say simply "Cranky" on them. The truth is, after 8 years of evil and corruption and 28 years of GOP dominance, we damn well should be cranky.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gee, I link to a story and that means I am a Bushie?

    Is the FISA bill everyone is so angry about word for word verbatim of the old one? Or are there some new things in it? That would seem to be a question of fact (like today's temperature or the score of a ball game).

    "This bill stinks and so does Obama's vote on this bill" would seem to be opinion.

    Bad people gain power when activists want a whole loaf or none at all. For instance, there are lots of people who don't like everything Jim Webb believes, has said, stands for, and that was a close election in 2006.

    But I'll bet there are lots of veterans who have new GI Bill benefits, and lots of folks who now have extended unemployment benefits, who are grateful to Webb (if they are even aware of the battle to get that bill passed).

    What I was trying to point out is that a president my age is finally learning what we all need to learn at some point---the wisdom of that old Rolling Stones rock classic, YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT

    http://lyricwiki.org/The_Rolling_Stones:You_Can%27t_Always_Get_What_You_Want

  • (Show?)

    Portlander... I didn't see the part where you referred to yourself as "cranky" only the part where you differentiated yourself from "them."... Am I missing something?

    Yes.

    At 9:39 p.m., above:

    I'm pretty cranky about FISA too.

    In general, I suggest that folks read the comments before commenting yourself. Often, the clarification or answer you're looking for is already there.

  • (Show?)

    Thank you, Israel, for understanding that I'm not responsible for the entire article - nor the context that my quote was placed in.

    As I mentioned up top, it's always interesting to see what comments get pulled from a long interview and dropped into a story. I think Yardley did a decent job with my quote; the words are basically what I said, and I don't expect him to simply produce a transcript of our entire conversation.

    That said, it's particularly tough for a blogger - when you're used to putting your own words into the context that you'd like to put them in...

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Is the FISA bill everyone is so angry about word for word verbatim of the old one? Or are there some new things in it? That would seem to be a question of fact (like today's temperature or the score of a ball game).

    There are two issues with Obama's stance on the recent FISA bill:

    1. He votes to gut the 4th Amendment;

    2. He lies to our faces about his stance on FISA for political expediency and assumes we will understand the implicit hackneyed argument that he MUST vote for it to deflect future attacks.

    Barack Obama. Traitor. Liar. McSame.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And the NY Times article is over-the-top in suggesting that it is only far left "loons" that are anti-Obama this point. Hell, even Kos from DailyKos.com is not donating money to Obama for precisely this reason.

  • Jack Sullivan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Liberal Bloggers Accuse Obama of Trying to Win Election

    The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) is trying to win the 2008 presidential election.

    Suspicions about Sen. Obama's true motives have been building over the past few weeks, but not until today have the bloggers called him out for betraying the Democratic Party's losing tradition.

    "Barack Obama seems to be making a very calculated attempt to win over 270 electoral votes," wrote liberal blogger Carol Foyler at LibDemWatch.com, a blog read by a half-dozen other liberal bloggers. "He must be stopped."

    But those comments were not nearly as strident as those of Tracy Klugian, whose blog LoseOn.org has backed unsuccessful Democratic candidates since 2000.

    "Increasingly, Barack Obama's message is becoming more accessible, appealing, and yes, potentially successful," he wrote. "Any Democrat who voted for Dukakis, Mondale or Kerry should regard this as a betrayal."

    Liberal bloggers said that they would be watching Sen. Obama's vice-presidential selection process "very closely" for signs that he is plotting to win the election.

    "Barack Obama still has a chance to pick someone disastrous as a sign that he wants to lose this thing," Ms. Foyler wrote. "If not, he should brace himself for some really mean blog posts."

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am a Kucinich Democrat. I supported and contributed to his two presidential campaigns and agree with almost all his political positions. When almost every member of Congress seems to suffer from either psychosis or denial, he has been willing to read reality into the record. I am also one of the 675 people who pledged a contribution to democrats.com's escrow fund to encourage firm commitment to progressive values from Mr. Obama.

    Like many other progressives, I have never found Obama an ideal candidate, but I admire his ability to raise money from the grassroots, to bring many young people into the process, to inspire through eloquent speech, and to articulate some - but not many - progressive viewpoints on important issues.

    He has, since earning enough delegates to lock up the Democratic nomination, slid away from more than one of those progressive viewpoints, such as:

    • an evidence based understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that recognizes the equal humanity of Palestinians.

    • respect for the Constitution and recognition that the Shrubbery has trampled all over it. Moving from a promise to filibuster telecom immunity to voting in favor of it was, indeed, a cave-in.

    Neither of these are leftist issues. They both deal with recognition of verifiable facts. The first also concerns basic human rights, the second an understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that is well established.

    Kari is taking part in the effort to dismiss disappointment with Obama as the crankiness of a few far-leftists. That is quite easy to recognize. It is the sort of spin to be expected under the circumstances. We will find out between now and November whether that spin reflects reality. Perhaps it does, and Obama's abandonment of progressive positions will win him lots of undecided voters and cost him little. On the other hand, perhaps practicing conventional politics will lead to a collapse of the enthusiasm the Obama campaign has generated among the young and previously disengaged and disappointed. Perhaps a politician who appeals to the Democratic base in the primaries and moves right for the general election does not engender the audacity of hope American voters crave. Perhaps a politician who appeals to the Democratic base in the primaries and moves right for the general election does not suggest a challenge to the status quo, but just more business as usual.

    Time will tell.

  • (Show?)

    Obama's abandonment of progressive positions...

    Would someone please care to itemize the positions (plural) that he has "abandoned"?

    I'll start:

    • FISA

    Now, your turn...

    (It's my belief, fairly well-researched I think, that that's the whole list. On NAFTA, he merely went from "unilaterally renegotiate" to "opening up a dialogue." And besides, how the hell do you unilaterally renegotiate something anyway? You can't negotiate with yourself...)

  • (Show?)

    Tom Civiletti: Neither of these are leftist issues.

    Well then, Mr. Civiletti, if they truly are bipartisan issues, then there should be prominent conservatives and center-right independents who hold those views as true as well. Who can you point to, what conservative organization, espouses them?

    I do agree that your first statement, which assumes as its premise a falsity - that Palestinian humanity is not being recognized - is indeed truly "not a leftist issue". But only because the vast majority of leftists, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, reject it outright.

    The real "verifiable facts" are that the Israelis have treated the Palestinians better than any other two conflicting groups in the middle east have ever done. In fact, the reason why Palestinians engage in suicide bombing against Jewish children is because, unlike any other country they'd try it against, they feel safe in the knowledge that Israel will always be proportional in its response. That's a rare trait, one not shared by nearly every other country, including all its neighbors, and all the world powers.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well then, Mr. Civiletti, if they truly are bipartisan issues, then there should be prominent conservatives and center-right independents who hold those views as true as well. Who can you point to, what conservative organization, espouses them?

    Bob Barr.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    they feel safe in the knowledge that Israel will always be proportional in its response

    Hahahahahaha.

  • (Show?)
    Well then, Mr. Civiletti, if they truly are bipartisan issues, then there should be prominent conservatives and center-right independents who hold those views as true as well. Who can you point to, what conservative organization, espouses them?

    How about the Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr?

    Ron Paul's netroots raisers are working with the ACLU on it as well.

    There are in fact true conservatives who are just as outraged. On the Constitution, they are as protective as progressives concerning privacy.

    The apologia for Israeli crimes and brutality that follows is sickening.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    From Maureen Dowd:

    Barack Obama may make it to the Rose Garden, but he’ll still be an orchid. For all his attempts to act like a sturdy American perennial, he’s a genuine hothouse flower, and everything he is and does is cultivated.

    Obama is a PHONY.

  • (Show?)

    Well, this thread seems to have degenerated into anti-Obama vitriol from folks who had never supported him in the first place. That's quite a different place from where Jeff started out. So back to the issue of "disaffection" - which assumes there was some affection there in the first place.

    TPM reports this morning that additional national polling shows the race tightening, and now virtually even. This suggests that those who are expressing their disaffection apparently aren't alone, and that there's just something off about Obama's stances these past weeks. Let's hope the campaign hears that message.

  • DanK (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I fear saying this: Deep inside, I believe Obama's revised FISA stance is reasonable. It would be tainted justice to penalize people for doing what they were told they must. (I know many will disagree).

    What BOTHERS me is why he reversed course. It seems to signal Obama has limited interest in digging into abuses by the Bush admin.

    That SADDENS me. I believed Obama had a passion for seeking inconvenient truth. It was his best trump card over Hillary.

    It's not a play to the middle. It's something less noble.

    It doesn't leave me feeling very good.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Given the "cranky" factor in this discussion thread, my first interpretation of Bray's commentary is that he's still cranky about no longer being able to promote Hillary Clinton while simultaneously savaging Barack Obama. I suppose Bray's next move, after setting up the Fair-Play-for-Chinese-Occupation-of-Tibet Committee, will be to organize the Draft-Hillary-Clinton Committee.

    Yes, I'm disappointed in stuff Obama has said recently. Thus he joins a very long list of candidates in whom I have been disappointed.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, here's an excerpt from Obama's op-ed item in the New York Times on Monday:

    "[O]n my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

    "As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

    "In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees...."

    Waffling or thoughtful? Your choice. As far as I'm concerned, it beats 100 More Years of War. Hey, I'd like to see our troops leave Irag on January 21, 2009. I'd also like to see the suicide bombers change tactics and start handing out flowers. More disappointment for me, I guess.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, here's an excerpt from Obama's op-ed item in the New York Times on Monday:

    "[O]n my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

    "As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

    "In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees...."

    Waffling or thoughtful? Your choice. As far as I'm concerned, it beats 100 More Years of War. Hey, I'd like to see our troops leave Irag on January 21, 2009. I'd also like to see the suicide bombers change tactics and start handing out flowers. More disappointment for me, I guess.

  • (Show?)

    <

    Is the FISA bill everyone is so angry about word for word verbatim of the old one? Or are there some new things in it?

    Can it really be that you've been arguing about how this is no big deal and you have no idea what's contained in the FISA bill last week? It's no wonder you don't understand why people who actually know what they're talking about are unhappy with the capitulation of the Democrats on this issue.

    Apart from the retroactive telecom immunity -- which is an entirely new provision of this bill that grants absolution for breaking the old FISA law -- the new version of FISA does things that the old version did not, including allowing warrantless wiretapping of a communication if either party (is presumed to be) a foreign national. In the past, you were at least supposed to get a warrant if either end of the conversation included an American citizen. But the Democrats -- including Obama -- just blew off thirty years of established law by passing this revision.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Jack Sullivan | Jul 13, 2008 11:04:58 PM---Thanks, loved that! My impression also.

    Unlike Darrell, I am a believer in winning friends and influencing people. But then, I was a 1984 Democratic National Convention delegate and have been a supporter of the Democratic nominees ever since. Have I agreed with them on everything? Of course not! But the winner gets to appoint lots of people (incl. the next AG who could start proceedings against things that happened during the Bush years, not to mention judges), issue executive orders, sign/veto legislation.

    I'm like Jeff A. talking about candidates over the years.

    Yes, 2000 was close. How many people here were active on that campaign? Was Gore as inspiring as Obama?

    joel dan walls, I loved your comments.

    BTW, I like the column Gail Collins wrote.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Can it really be that you've been arguing about how this is no big deal and you have no idea what's contained in the FISA bill last week"

    Darrell, are you saying that the entire legislation is online and you have read every word of it?

    Or are you saying that people like me who have only read articles about it (not the entire bill) should be agreeing with you and not asking any questions?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I understand people who are angry at telecom immunity. That should not have happened.

    But in the FISA bill was this nugget:

    Inspector General Review. The Act directs the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the DNI, the National Security Agency, and the Department of Defense to complete a comprehensive review, within the oversight authority of each IG, of the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program. In no later than a year, the Inspectors General shall submit a report to Congress; the report shall be unclassified but may include a classified annex. .............

    If Obama is elected President, he will be naming a new Sec. of Defense and other cabinet and agency officials. Maybe those angry about the FISA bill think the IG Review will be a whitewash. That might happen if McCain is elected, but do you really believe it will happen if Obama is elected? Could it possibly be a ticking time bomb for those who did things illegally?

    Or is that too pragmatic a question?

  • (Show?)

    Draft-Hillary-Clinton Committee

    Sorry, Peter would be too late with that one. The Denver Group, led by the redoubtable professor Heidi Li Feldman, is already running ads trashing Dean, Obama, and anyone not on borad the mission to steal (or perhaps reposition 170 delegates from Obama to Clinton at the convention.

    The thinking is to never give up. If they fail with the convention putsch, they will work to undermine Obama all the way through the fall campaign, because if Obama loses, Clinton can start running for the 2012 election on the day of the McCain victory rather than having to wait eight years when she will be in her '70s........

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    torridjoe wrote:

    How about the Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr? Ron Paul's netroots raisers are working with the ACLU on it as well.

    There are in fact true conservatives who are just as outraged. On the Constitution, they are as protective as progressives concerning privacy.

    Add Kevin Phillips and Bruce Fein.

  • (Show?)

    I'm still waiting for someone to add to my itemized list of actual Obama flip-flops and abandoned positions.

    Can anybody identify a single one, other than the FISA thing?

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steven Maurer wrote:

    The real "verifiable facts" are that the Israelis have treated the Palestinians better than any other two conflicting groups in the middle east have ever done. In fact, the reason why Palestinians engage in suicide bombing against Jewish children is because, unlike any other country they'd try it against, they feel safe in the knowledge that Israel will always be proportional in its response. That's a rare trait, one not shared by nearly every other country, including all its neighbors, and all the world powers.

    I will resist commenting on the general quality of your remarks, and instead offer you a reading list. When you finish these, I will gladly suggest more.

    Gaza: Israel’s Energy Cuts Violate Laws of War

    The Strangulation of Gaza

    Israel Bars UN Human Rights Watchdog From Occupied Territories

    Human Rights Violations In Israel And Palestine

    U.S. Asserts Israel Violates Palestinians' Rights; State Dept. Report Faults Tactics Used in Dealing With Uprising in West Bank, Gaza Strip

    Israel’s Illegal Assault On The Gaza ‘Prison’

    Palestinian Homes Demolished Without Warning

    Israel Confiscates Thousands of Acres of Palestinian Land to Build Settlement Wall

    Expanding Settlements Invade Palestinian Lands

    The Pope's Emphasis on Palestinian Rights

    Israeli Army Destroying Palestinian Homes

    Israelis Torturing Palestinian Children

    Growing Chorus Against Israeli Attacks on Palestinian Camps

    Israel Must Observe Basic Human Rights of Palestinians in Occupied Territories, Insists Amnesty International

    UN Report Slams Israeli Wall as Illegal Annexation of Palestinian Land

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari,

    Please get my reply to Steven Maurer past the spam filter , and I will work on your request.

  • Chris #12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For the itemized list of flip-flops:

    NAFTA

    Perhaps not the explicit flip-flop that FISA was, but he has defnitely changed the rhetoric. Before he was the nominee, he said that NAFTA was "a big mistake." After the camapaign, he said "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." Before, he was talking about renegotiating NAFTA, or opting out. Now, his rhetoric has definitely changed.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    GEORGE Romney went to Vietnam in 1967/68, came back and, by way of criticizing the US war, said he had been "brainwashed". This quip was considered to have killed his chances of gaining the GOP presidential nomination in 1968. Why? Because he was implicitly admitting that he had misunderstood what the US was up to in Vietnam? Because he was admitting to the shocking human frailty of not being omniscient? Because he was flip-flopping?

    Why exactly is it that firmly adhering to bad policy, commonly based on faulty data--or no data at all--is considered to be a sign of strength, but changing one's mind is considered a sign of weakness? Can anyone here think of a White House occupant who nevers admits error and has led this nation into dire straits both at home and abroad?

    As I've already written, I have been disappointed with some things Obama has said recently. However, attacking him with the "flip-flop" accusation is simply stupid. If you want a politician who'll never change his mind, write in George W. Bush for a third term.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari Chisholm wrote:

    I'm still waiting for someone to add to my itemized list of actual Obama flip-flops and abandoned positions.

    Can anybody identify a single one, other than the FISA thing?

    Campaign Finance:

    Mr. Obama's Flip-Flop

    Trade:

    Obama Goes Soft on Free Trade

    Corporate Taxes:

    The Wall Street Journal Reported That Barack Obama Would Consider Lowering Corporate Taxes. "Sen. Obama's nod to lowering corporate taxes comes as Republicans have been attacking him for proposals that would raise the cost of doing business, such as his pledge to raise the tax rate on capital gains, and his vow to increase the top income-tax rates, which are often used by small, unincorporated enterprises. He didn't say how deeply he would cut the rate, but said it could be trimmed in return for reducing corporate tax breaks, simplifying the tax system." (Bob Davis and Amy Chozick, "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut In Business Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 6/17/08) Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax

    Just Last Month, Barack Obama Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America." OBAMA: "And his proposals, which are essentially $300 billion worth of corporate tax cuts ... I think is the exact wrong prescription for America." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/4/08) 'Meet the Press' transcript for May 4, 2008

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joel: Obama said, as you accurately quoted him, "We CAN safely REDEPLOY our COMBAT BRIGADES at a pace that WOULD remove them in 16 months."

    Don't you get it yet?

    Tom Hayden (No Retreat: If you Want to Win, Stop the War! Barack at Risk), who SUPPORTS Obama, gets it. Read what he says about Obama's triangulation: "But that pledge [to end 'the war'] also has been laced with loopholes all along...", so you and Kari and the rest of the amorality trolls are either mistaken or lying when you claim that Obama is committed to "ending the war".

    Your assertion that he has not really "changed" in his position may win you a small debating point, but it loses you the raison d'être of the Obama campaign:

    "Obama...is running as a symbol of a new politics, a politics somehow less disgusting and full of shit than the old politics. But if it were to get out that he's not that —that all he is is the same old deal dressed up in black skin and a natty suit —then he quickly morphs into a different kind of symbol, a symbol of how an essentially bankrupt political system can seamlessly repackage itself to a fed-up marketplace by making cosmetic changes, without altering its basic nature." (Matt Taibbi, Symbolic change)

  • (Show?)
    Darrell, are you saying that the entire legislation is online and you have read every word of it?

    The entire legislation is online. All you have to know is how to use the intertubes.

    And no, I haven't read every word of it, but I read enough of it and enough about it to know better than to ask whether the new legislation on FISA is "word for word verbatim of the old one". The second word in the title -- "FISA Amendments Act of 2008" -- should have clued you in to the fact that it wasn't the same as the old FISA act.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/07/_writing_in_the_wall.html

    is along the same lines as Posted by: joel dan walls | Jul 14, 2008 11:39:15 AM

    And, there has been some commentary that people who have studied Obama's total voting record were less surprised by the FISA vote and some of his moderate rhetoric because over the course of his political career he was more centrist than "some people who only followed his presidential campaign" would be inclined to believe.

    Listening to one of his audiobooks, I am not as surprised by some of Obama's rhetoric and voting record as some here.

    The blog is about how the Bush/Rove allergy to compromise was bad.

  • (Show?)

    LT, it appears to be you who are telling other people that they have no right to think for themselves if they don't agree with you.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama's flip flops:

    -- Obama pole-axed friend Samantha Power after she called Clinton a "monster".

    -- And his 20+ year Pastor was thrown under the bus when his sermons became known.

    -- And General Clark was ravaged when he attacked McCain.

    -- And Obama stood with Scalia on recent supreme court positions.

    -- And NAFTA got mixed messages.

    -- And MoveOn.org got the flip flop love.

    -- And the whole Iraq withdraw-or-not movement was winded.

    -- And Obama now co-opts the faith-based initiative crap.

    -- Oh and most recently he puts his kids on TV, and then the next day regrets it.

    The FISA mess was an out-and-out flip flop. He lied about it and totally changed his opinion on it.

    But flip-flopping is more than just that. It is also Obama's ease with which he can so radically change his persona and circle of friends. Even Maureen Dowd wonders whats going on with Obama's "situationalism".

    Obama won (well, not yet) the nomination by pandering to the Left and pretending to be progressive. He did this in big explicit ways (withdraw the troops, no on FISA, no on NAFTA), and small tacit nods and winks. But with the nomination, all of that changes. Friends and allies are pole-axed, positions transmogrify.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, here's an excerpt from Obama's op-ed item in the New York Times on Monday:

    "[O]n my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war. "

    You do realize that the ONLY reason that this editorial was written was to rebuff the flip-flop meme after Obama recently said he would "refine" his position on withdrawing troops. To Obama watchers, such "refinement" often means an out and out reversal of position, a la FISA.

    (Incidentally, there are worlds of differences between a mission of "ending this war" versus "withdrawing our troops".)

  • (Show?)

    Kari,

    Obama's gratuitous comments about Jerusalem are new, stupid and obstructive to Middle East peace prospects. Although today's Iraq piece tries to unring the bell of suggestions about just how big the "residual" force in Iraq will be, it lacks persuasiveness. The NAFTA reversal is bigger and more substantial than you say. I wasn't aware of Tom's info on corporate taxes.

    But the overall point is about tone, which has been central to how he has run all along. As Dan Petegorsky suggests, he may be doing real damage to himself. If I'm cranky, it's as much because having accepted that in many areas his policies aren't my preferences, he's now IMO going out and shooting himself in the foot.

    Your downplaying of the significance of Obama's shift on NAFTA is emblematic of the general problem with your approach.

    Obama was voicing very strong rhetoric about NAFTA that was getting him support. Now he says he didn't really mean it.

    This raises a question about what else he says that he doesn't really mean.

    What will such shifts mean to people who weren't following the policy specifics so closely, who were engaged and mobilized and motivated by the tone of the rhetoric, the general attitude it seemed to express?

    The "candidates always move to the center" meme doesn't actually fit Obama's situation very well, because he was to a great extent running a "general" campaign in the primary. Apparently his political advisors feeding him the conventional wisdom aren't paying enough attention to that.

    He was emphasizing reaching out all along. He did not run a very "left" primary campaign, and he ran an anti-partisan campaign. He was not only registering new voters but also getting independents to re-register to vote for him -- the same independents who generally are reckoned the focus and reason for the "move to the center" kind of politics in the general.

    He got enough of those and enough D base voters to squeak out the nomination, with Hillary running more to the base promising a more partisan kind of fight with the Rs.

    So he had a winning approach for general election purposes already. His shifts seem like poor politics to me, being almost entirely gratuitous. They only serve to undermine perceptions of him as consistent.

    They convey the wrong message. NAFTA in particular is bad, because his prior rhetoric on it said "this approach means I will be standing up for you," meaning the working class people who have been hurt by so-called free trade. Now he is saying "oops, I didn't really mean it."

    To some that will convey the message that he's just another politician who will tailor what he says for short term advantage. It undermines his message that he represents change.

    But perhaps more damaging is that it conveys the message that what he didn't really mean was that he will stand up for the interests of working people.

    Some may see this in this combination a blunter message, that he's just another liar who will sell us out like the rest.

    What Obama has been doing has not really been "moving to the center." It has been reassuring elites. With NAFTA, it's reassuring financial and corporate elites. With FISA and the military emphases, it's been reassuring the securocrats, their intellectual allies in the policy apparatus, and their propagandists in the media -- you know, collectively the folks who brought us the war and think civil rights and liberties are anachronistic and unrealistic.

    Apart from its substantive faults, FISA was a missed opportunity to show leadership demonstrating that he really does represent change. Consistency on NAFTA would have exemplified change -- saying one thing to working class audiences and another to the financial press & their business audience is just politics as usual.

    You're the guy whose big on branding & political marketing. Obama is hurting his brand. He's undermining the key image: "change you can believe in", by showing that where he sounded like change, or openness to it, he doesn't really stand for change, and by raising doubts about just what we can believe, when he says something.

    <hr/>

    There is one other aspect which is rather different, which has to do with his choice to triangulate against MoveOn.org, taking a page from Hillary Clinton's book. Now, MoveOn.org endorsed him as soon as Edwards was out, pretty much, and did not ask him for any commitments (an approach of which I was critical, as a member & local activist). They/we have put efforts into getting members to make phone calls for him, to raise money for him, to publicize McCain positions and show how they continue Bush.

    The Clintonesque triangulation strategy makes me think he is going to be the wrong kind of compromiser. You can compromise without telling people who support you that you disdain them. He's chosen not to do that.

    Again, this was perfectly gratuitous. He can portray his genuine centrism within the DP spectrum without attacking his own supporters. Why he doesn't choose that smarter route I don't know. Maybe it is personal arrogance on his part, maybe he is listening to the same Democratic strategists who have been so wrong so often before. But it bothers me.

    As I wrote in response to a fundraising appeal from the Obama campaign, based on McCain's big fundraising surge:

    "If Senator Obama wants to distance himself from me by triangulating against me, it cuts both ways. I don't have a lot of money. Giving it to someone who shows me contempt in return for my support is not high on my list of priorities for it. I will be donating the money I might have given to Obama to defeat Senator Smith here in Oregon instead."

    Senator Obama has been sending me the message that he doesn't need me, and even sees me as a liability. Why shouldn't I take him at his word?

  • (Show?)

    Shorter version: Why has Barack Obama abandoned a winning strategy and why is he gratuitously dividing his supporters?

  • (Show?)

    Please get my reply to Steven Maurer past the spam filter, and I will work on your request.

    done.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Uh, Mr. Kershner, if seeing shades of gray instead of black and white makes me an "amorality troll," so be it. As for Obama, he was not my first choice and became my preference only when the choice became one between him and HRC. And by the way it's not my job to defend Obama. I don't work for him, I have plenty of disagreements with him, and he's perfectly capable of taking care of himself.

    Mr. Bray needs to migrate over to PUMA land, whether the Democrats for McCain crowd or the rejectionists of this stripe.

  • (Show?)

    LT: Your question about the FISA review is not too "pragmatic" a question, simply an unanswerable one.

    If McCain is elected, it will certainly be a whitewash.

    But NPR was reporting this morning or last night that Obama may ask Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense. Speculation? Yes, just like the FISA review question.

    The record, from say matters like the Iran-Contra investigation, or Democratic controlled Senate oversight committees more recently, is not terribly promising.

    Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. But taking it not only on faith, but as a matter of faith, isn't pragmatic.

  • (Show?)

    First, we'll talk about Tom Civiletti's list.

    • Public campaign finance. OK, I'll accept that one. I think it's pretty loose to call it a flip-flop, but OK. (After all, the whole point of public campaign finance is to get the big special-interest money out of politics, and Obama's done that by other means. But whatever.)

    • Free trade. Again, I'll disagree. He hasn't changed his position - merely shifted from "unilaterally renegotiate" to "open a dialogue." He's always described himself as a free-trader, but one that wants to make sure that we negotiate a good deal for Americans. And besides, how the hell does someone unilaterally renegotiate in the first place? Negotiation, by definition, requires two parties.

    • Corporate taxes. Don't be silly. He said he opposed McCain's gigantic tax break plan. That doesn't rule all other smaller tax break plans that he might have himself.

    Now, we can talk about Peter Bray's list.

    • Ditching supporters who do bad or dumb things isn't a "flip flop".

    • Obama "standing with Scalia". I presume you're talking about the 2nd Amendment. Not a flip flop. He's always supported the individual right view of the 2nd Amendment. (Which I disagree with, but that's not a flip flop.)

    • Iraq. As I noted in an earlier comment, he hasn't changed his position, just the emphasis.

    • Faith-based. Not a flip flop. Read his damn book.

    • FISA. Agreed. Flip-flop.

  • (Show?)

    Chris's comments are generally good ones. I agree that there's been a shift in tone... but that's different than a shift in the policy positions.

    People who are seeing a shift in positions, and are merely reacting to the tone, just weren't paying attention before.

    When Obama says, "I'm a free trader" but people hear "I'm against free trade", well, is that his fault?

    When Obama writes in his book that he supports faith-based programs, as long as they don't violate church/state separation, is it his fault if people don't read his book?

    When Obama says that he'll start pulling the troops out on Day One, but that it'll take 16 months to get it done -- is it his fault if some people ignored the second half of that statement and assumed that he could somehow magically pull them all out on the first week in office?

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Lowe's approach is entirely reasonable: donate to whomever you feel best about. Although I have to say that I don't see much evidence that Obama is dissing his supporters, I do think he's been distinctly clumsy in whatever campaigning he's done in recent weeks, and I agree he runs a distinct risk of destroying the enthusiasm of some of his ardent supporters outside the Democratic Party apparatus.

    NPR and Gates: speculation. Is it really necessary to get worked up about every bit of speculation? Hey, let's speculate that Obama wants to ask DUBYA to be his Secretary of Defense, and then get our knickers in a knot about that, too....

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Lowe's approach is entirely reasonable: donate to whomever you feel best about. Although I have to say that I don't see much evidence that Obama is dissing his supporters, I do think he's been distinctly clumsy in whatever campaigning he's done in recent weeks, and I agree he runs a distinct risk of destroying the enthusiasm of some of his ardent supporters outside the Democratic Party apparatus.

    NPR and Gates: speculation. Is it really necessary to get worked up about every bit of speculation? Hey, let's speculate that Obama wants to ask DUBYA to be his Secretary of Defense, and then get our knickers in a knot about that, too....

  • (Show?)

    "When Obama says, "I'm a free trader" but people hear "I'm against free trade", well, is that his fault?"

    Yes, given his skill as a communicator. He deliberately tried to convey something much closer to the latter message for most of the primary after February.

    "merely shifted from 'unilaterally renegotiate' to 'open a dialogue.' ... how the hell does someone unilaterally renegotiate in the first place? Negotiation, by definition, requires two parties."

    Nothing "mere" about it. This is a substantive change.

    What the U.S. could do unilaterally would be a) unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA, and renegotiate from square one, or b) say we want to renegotiate, and that if there isn't subtantial movement in those negotiations within a year, or 16 months, (to pick a number), we will unilaterally withdraw then.

    Either of these positions would mean taking up a tough bargaining posture aimed at more than small changes at the margins. By evoking the word "unilaterally," that is exactly what Obama was conveying to his working class audiences. Given his facility and felicity with the language, it undoubtedly is what he intended to convey.

    My interpretation was, I believe, also shared by big business and by the press who write for them and ask their questions of candidates. among other roles. They asked him. He backed off the word unilateral.

    That is, he backed off the part of his position that gave his projected bargaining position real clout and promised the possibility of substantial change, and substituted a position that promised to a different constituency limited, marginal change.

    This is not just a change in tone or emphasis, as with his military positions, which have been consistent except with degree of specificity about "residual forces," which in any case he has been explicitly and consistently situational.

    On NAFTA, he has changed the substance of his position, promised one thing to working class people who are hurt by NAFTA, and promised something different to business interests that profit from it.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks, Kari.

    Chris, pragmatic is solving problems rather than just talking ideology, theory, soundbites, etc.

    This debate reminds me of the time, years ago, when a friend who'd been a legislator and was running for higher office got some flak from people who didn't know him very well but had expected he would share his views on guns.

    Except he'd grown up in a small E. Oregon town. Anyone who had ever talked with him knew he spoke of going out hunting as a teenager just like every other red blooded local boy. But at a house party gathering for another candidate, some of these people jumped all over the legislator for his view on guns.

    Until someone said "Have you ever spoken to him and asked him his view on guns? He's very open telling people he talks with about hunting as a teenager". Turned out these people had talked with him, but never about guns, they just assumed he agreed with him. Whose fault is that?

    Gates has been a lot better Defense Secretary than Rumsfeld. I wouldn't mind consideration of Hagel or Nunn or even Gary Hart for that job, but wouldn't regard keeping Gates as a betrayal of all that progressives believe in--under a different president he would get different orders. He might have a good sense of the logistics of getting troops and equipment out smoothly.

    About Iran-Contra, what did you expect to happen after Daddy Bush pardoned the major players?

    Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. No one is required to take any politician (or activist, or consultant, or anyone else) on faith.

  • (Show?)

    Kari,

    I don't expect you to agree with what I just wrote.

    But I would be genuinely interested in what you think about the possibility that he is damaging his own "brand" because he already was effectively running a campaign aimed at the range he'd want to reach in the general. And/or Dan Petegorsky's formulation of a related perception.

  • (Show?)

    LT,

    The point isn't what I thought would happen with Iran-Contra, the question is whether there's much reason to think the item in the FISA bill you cited will go much differently. Your citing it is just a speculative sound-bite, and is not pragmatic by your definition.

    The only point about Gates is that you said there would be a new Secretary of Defense. There may not be.

    Your E. Oregon example is not relevant in my case, nor that of many others of my acquaintance, nor is Gail Collins' column, which I think is dumb and mischaracterizes what is happening. I've known all along what Obama's positions were, as have many others, who as you like to point out, correctly, are atypical in their/our degree of engagement in politics.

    The real criticism isn't that he "took us by surprise" because we "weren't paying attention" and "assumed he agreed with us." It is that the things he is doing are gratuitous, given that he already has been running a campaign oriented to appealing broadly. They are unnecessary.

    Worst is, they make him look as if he is changing more than he really is, i.e. more like the typical politician, undermining the basis of his appeal to that broad range of more typical, less political people. They hurt, not help his electoral chances.

    Not so great is that they gratuitously divide his supporters. He had broad, non-partisan message anyway, which "the left" of the party mostly had accepted as the basis on which we would support him.

  • (Show?)

    LT,

    The investigation mooted in the FISA bill is theoretical at this point, and is a soundbite by you. I.e. not pragmatic. The only point about Gates is that we might not have a new Sec of Def, as you said we would.

    At the time of Iran-Contra, I pretty much thought what happened is what would happen, partly because the problem started before the pardons, with the Dem. Congress erring in how it granted immunity to Oliver North. Your imputation that I'm naive has no basis. On the contrary, the question remains, why do you think the suggested investigation will be different? Do you think Junior Bush is going to be any less free with the pardons than his pa?

  • (Show?)

    LT, sorry, didn't mean a double hit, it appeared that the first one hadn't posted.

  • (Show?)

    I think I've left out an important part of my argument -- that I thought was obvious, but perhaps shouldn't be left unsaid.

    Q: If Obama's positions are largely the same as they've always been, then why do some people perceive a shift?

    A: Because the media is desperate for a mid-summer storyline, and it fits their preconceived ideas for "good strategy".

    It's the 2008 equivalent of Shark Week. And, in fact, I suspect that all we need is some rough equivalent to pull this crap from the airwaves. Are Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan available to pull another idiotic stunt?

  • (Show?)
    Gates has been a lot better Defense Secretary than Rumsfeld.

    So was Dick Cheney, ostensibly, but I wouldn't want him as SoD under Obama, either.

    Why would Obama want Gates, a man so closely connected to the Iran-contra scandal, in his cabinet? And not just someone closely connected but someone who just barely escaped indictment and stonewalled those investigating the matter?

    From the Walsh Iran/Contra Report (Walsh was the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters):

    Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, Charles E. Allen, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the contras. Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October.

    Does that formulation sound kind of familiar? The witness denies knowing about something, then documentation subsequently proves that he should have known about something, then he gets off because you can't prove he actually read the report he signed off on? Remember, we're not talking about whether he could come up with what he had for lunch some day, it's a matter of whether he -- as CIA deputy director of central intelligence -- knew about money from arms sales to Iran going to support the contras; two things about which the CIA should have known if they were doing their jobs at all.

    The evidence established that Gates was exposed to information about North's connections to the private resupply operation that would have raised concern in the minds of most reasonable persons about the propriety of a Government officer having such an operational role. Fiers and Cannistraro believed that Gates was aware of North's operational role. The question was whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates deliberately lied in denying knowledge of North's operational activities. A case would have depended on the testimony of Poindexter. Fiers would not testify that he supplied Gates with the details of North's activities. In the end, Independent Counsel concluded that the question was too close to justify the commitment of resources. There were stronger, equally important cases to be tried.

    Gates skates once again, because the IC would have needed testimony from someone who received a pardon from George H.W. Bush.

    Conclusion Independent Counsel found insufficient evidence to warrant charging Robert Gates with a crime for his role in the Iran/contra affair. Like those of many other Iran/contra figures, the statements of Gates often seemed scripted and less than candid. Nevertheless, given the complex nature of the activities and Gates's apparent lack of direct participation, a jury could find the evidence left a reasonable doubt that Gates either obstructed official inquiries or that his two demonstrably incorrect statements were deliberate lies.

    Basically, you've got a guy who's second in charge of the organization that's supposed to know what's going on in the world, who not only claims that he didn't know what was going on in two of the hottest spots in the world at the time, but was "less than candid" during the investigation according to the Independent Counsel's report. It's almost as believable as a former head of the CIA operating in the White House not knowing that there were covert operations going on to subvert laws passed by Congress.

    I'd say that if Gates becomes a serious contended for SoD, that's another flip-flop, because it's certainly not going to engender feeling of change or hope. More like a revival of the Reagan era.

  • (Show?)
    Q: If Obama's positions are largely the same as they've always been, then why do some people perceive a shift?

    Because of his continual attacks on the left. And those of his supporters. It's never directed the other way.

    But mostly it's the FISA bill. It was a big vote. One that he could have taken a stand on without losing any ground with the electorate, most of whom were against telecom immunity.

    It's the wire(tap) that broke the camel's back, if you will. It's not going to affect the people who bought thousands of dollars worth of hand-pulled lithos of Obama that a friend of mine sold in San Francisco last weekend, but the people who were already feeling a little meh about Obama? The ones some people like to denigrate as purity trolls or wacko leftists or socialists who were going to cross their fingers and hope for someone who was actually going to do more than talk about fixing the problems (as they see them) of this country? Why the hell would they donate to or vote for people who dismiss their concerns over and over again?

    The FISA vote actually showed what could be a very serious problem for even an Obama presidency. If the Democrats can't manage to keep the Blue Dog coalition from banding together with the Republicans, the GOP is still going to be able to press through their own versions of legislation like they did on FISA. Even if Obama was inclined to veto such legislation, it passed with a large enough majority to overrule any veto. It would take some serious leadership to push back against that, and so far I'm just not seeing it.

  • (Show?)

    Kari Chisholm: Q: If Obama's positions are largely the same as they've always been, then why do some people perceive a shift?

    I answer that question much differently than you do, Kari. Taking clues from TPM about how the McCain campaign is trying to sell this "flip-flop" charge, it's clear that our GOP aligned media is trying to tarnish Obama's halo any way they can - including, of course, lying about his previous positions and lying about them now.

    This is also helped by the fact that Barack was perceived as far more leftist when he was struggling to win the nomination against one of the chairs of the DLC - Hillary Clinton. Mind you, I'm not one of the frothing at the mouth the-DLC-are-worse-than-Hitler kooks, but clearly running against a DLCer is going to anyone look quite leftist by contrast, whether they are or not.

    My argument to Barack Obama is that while he may not have been a perfect progressive, people perceived him as such, and they liked him that way. So if he is open to shifting positions, he should consider shifting in the progressive direction. People of this country are really really looking for an anti-Bush this time around.

  • (Show?)

    105 comments and counting. Chalupas for everyone!

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    darrelplant: Thanks for the Gates lesson. It should be required reading.

    Chris L: I appreciated your synopsis, especially the demonstration that Obama has been "reassuring the elites". I would add the AIPAC pandering to that category: he was not hoping to gain more votes or donations; he was reassuring the policy elites who see Israel as an asset in the attempt to control Middle East resources.

    I went to an ACLU Oregon picnic yesterday, and I spoke with a young man who was working on the Obama campaign. He was an intelligent person, but he knew little about the issues that have been discussed here, e.g., he thought Obama was "anti-war" and that he was opposed to NAFTA. He is one of many who will eventually understand that they have been betrayed. What will that make of your "brand", Kari? Keep whistling past the graveyard.

  • (Show?)
    darrelplant: Thanks for the Gates lesson. It should be required reading.

    Actually, I should have added that Rumsfeld (1975-1977) was probably a better Defense Secretary than Rumsfeld (2001-2006).

  • (Show?)

    Harry Kershner: What will that make of your "brand", Kari? Keep whistling past the graveyard.

    Honestly, it worried me for many months how happy the kooks were with Barack Obama. It really makes me nervous when the Che Guevara crowd latches onto any Democrat - it's more a sure kiss of death for a candidate than being locked up in one of Che's prisons.

    Thanks, one and all, for assuring me that my fears were unfounded.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari Chisholm wrote:

    He hasn't changed his position - merely shifted from "unilaterally renegotiate" to "open a dialogue." He's always described himself as a free-trader, but one that wants to make sure that we negotiate a good deal for Americans.

    With all due respect, this is utter bullshit, Kari. Free trade is an abstraction, the antithesis of protectionism in the way that capitaslism is the antithesis of socialism. No policy of a modern developed nation is all one or the other. It is the balance between the poles that is crucial. It is the details that count.

    Obama from Debate transcript - Wednesday, February 27, 2008:

    I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.

    That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA.

    To say that in a primary debate and now dismiss it as overheated and amplified rhetoric on his part is a stick to the eye of US workers and labor unions. It is not an invention of the news media or Republicans. It is wholly an invention of the Obama campaign.

    Kari Chisholm wrote:

    how the hell does someone unilaterally renegotiate in the first place?

    So, are you arguing that because Obama was saying silly things about trade in the primaries, his present position on NAFTA is not erosion of a progressive position? If so, you do him no favor. Now, none of this is unusual. It is politics as usual, which is what Obama keeps claiming he rejects.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve Maurer wrote:

    Honestly, it worried me for many months how happy the kooks were with Barack Obama. It really makes me nervous when the Che Guevara crowd latches onto any Democrat - it's more a sure kiss of death for a candidate than being locked up in one of Che's prisons.

    You make comments like this quite frequently. Why is that? Was your mother frightened by a socialist while you were in utero? Just which kooks were happy with Obama? Can you name them? You seem to have burning contempt for anyone to the political left of yourself. You appear to be a pup tent Democrat.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is a comment on the Times article in question by Truthout Executive Director Marc Ash: Dear Senator Obama

  • Sr. Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think we should dispense with all this ugly dissent: it's giving progressives a bad name.

    We need a George Bush/Global Warming thread to get everybody smiling again.

    Thanks in advance.

  • (Show?)

    No, Tom, I just get tired of the incessant bashing and hate, and am not shy in calling such people out. And also, I'm being completely honest. Seeing a politician loved by people who are too radical fringe to realize that they're radical fringe is not reassuring for me. I think the reason should be obvious, but if it isn't to you, it's not worth it to me to spell it out.

    But since you were decent enough to at least attempt a fact based argument, I'll even look past the fact that they're based on commondreams.org opinion pieces, and try to respond with some basic reasoning of my own.

    Let's start with little homework for you. Add all the Palestinians that the Israelis have killed, ever, since the foundation of the state of Israel. Now compare this to the daily death rate in Iraq.

    Or if that doesn't work for you, because the US is involved, compare it to the daily death rate in Darfur, created by the anti-US (and therefore saintly) Muslim government of Sudan. Or what happened in Syria in the Hama massacre. Or Iraq under Saddam. Or Iran. Or France in Algiers. Or Russia. Or Great Britain. Or China. Or India in Nepal. Or Pakistan in Nepal. (The Nepalese get it coming and going.) Or America vs Germany or Japan, or Americans in the civil war. Or Japan vs China. Or Vietnam. Or Cambodia. Or Serbia. Or Kosovars, now. Or Palestinians, who brutally murder each other in power struggles and rioting.

    The point is not that Israelis are angels. But clearly they're too good for their own good, because if the Palestinians pulled the same kind of provocative crap against just about anyone else on the entire planet, there would quickly be peace: the peace of the dead. They know it too, which is why they feel safe doing it.

    I still believe the Palestinians could have a just peace if they truly wanted it. A true peace movement by the Palestinians in the tradition of Gandhi, would have great sway in Israel. But by all the political polling that's ever been done (and there's been a lot), when you talk to the man on the street in Gaza, a majority don't want a just peace with Israel. They want Israel gone and the Jews gone with them. This is reflected in the basic political platform of Hamas.

    It's all very self satisfying to write scolding one sided diatribes on a website, while you are safe in your own country, and don't have to worry about people murdering you. It quite different dealing with the pan-Arab and Pan-Islamist ideologues, who I assure you, are every bit as charming as the neocons are here, or less so.

  • (Show?)

    Steve,

    You are wrong about Palestinian polling being consistent. In fact it has varied a good deal over the nearly 20 years now since the Madrid meetings that set up the Oslo conference. I don't have the info to hand right now but I will try to get a decent link.

    Who on earth are you accusing of defending the Sudanese government?

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve,

    I have heard such excuse making for Israeli behavior before and find it quite shocking and disappointing. Most abusers try to blame their victims. You take part is that here.

    "We don't kill near as many as we might" is not much of a defense. Add to that the houses bulldozed, the olive trees destroyed, the land confiscated, the water stolen, the travel constricted, and the aid denied; all of which leads to ruined and sometimes shortened lives.

    Here is the recent death toll from conflict in the region compiled by an Israeli group and reported by BBC [no CommonDreams involvement whatsoever]: Intifada toll 2000-2005

    The four years of the Palestinian intifada have cost more than 4,000 lives. B'tselem, an Israeli human rights group, has been tracking casualty figures on both sides. Most of the statistics cover the period from 29 September 2000 to 15 January 2005.

    PALESTINIANS KILLED BY ISRAELIS*

    3,135 killed by security forces in the West Bank and Gaza including 627 aged under 18, 181 killed in extrajudicial executions and 288 (including at least 29 aged under 18) killed in the course of these assassinations.

    54 killed by security forces in Israel including one aged under 18

    34 killed by Israeli citizens in the West Bank and Gaza including three aged under 18

    *There are no figures to show the proportion of Palestinians who were combatants and those who were civilians.

    ISRAELIS KILLED BY PALESTINIANS

    431 civilians killed in Israel including 78 aged under 18

    218 civilians killed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip including 34 aged under 18

    18 Israeli security forces killed in West Bank and Gaza

    83 Israeli security forces killed in Israel

    PALESTINIANS KILLED BY PALESTINIANS

    101 killed by Palestinian civilians on suspicion of collaborating

    29 killed by members of the Palestinian security forces (for September 2000 to Septemebr 2004)

    3 Palestinians killed by gunfire from Palestinians shooting at Israeli civilians (for September 2000 to Septemebr 2004)

    2 Palestinian security forces killed by Palestinians attacking Israeli soldiers (for September 2000 to Septemebr 2004)

    Yes, more have died in Iraq and in Darfur. What does that mean?

    By the way, although the list of writings about Israeli conduct I provided includes opinion pieces from commondreams.org, most are western newspaper and broadcast reports - many based on reports by the UN and western human rights groups. You attempt to dismiss with an offhand remark the overwhelming consensus of reporting about the conflict.

  • (Show?)
    No, Tom, I just get tired of the incessant bashing and hate,

    Kind of makes me wonder why you keep indulging in it.

    Seeing a politician loved by people who are too radical fringe to realize that they're radical fringe is not reassuring for me.

    That's kind of funny, because the NYT article ended with an interviewee admitting that the reporter was talking to “somebody who’s pretty far out of the mainstream.” And frankly, I don't think the "radical fringe" "loved" Obama. The love's coming from a much more mainstream crowd, if the people I saw in line at the Portland rally were any indication.

    The "fringe" was willing to support Obama, despite some misgivings that he might not be all he cracked himself up to be. But they might not be very enthusiastic in coming months.

    Not that that should worry anyone. After all, how many of them can there be? The number of votes they represent probably won't make a whit of difference. Obama's going to win in an electoral landslide, isn't he?

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steven Maurer said, "The point is not that Israelis are angels. But clearly they're too good for their own good"

    Now I understand why you have those paranoid delusions about me.

  • Old Man (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What about the hundreds of innocent bystanders blown up by car bombs every month in Iraq? Where's the outrage when the bad guys are killing people?

    To read the pages of Blue Oregon, you would think the United States invaded Iraq just to stir things up and kill people. Or that Israeli Soldiers are trying to kill children for throwing rocks.

    War doesn't exist in a vacuum. Peace doesn't exist simply because we decide the costs of fighting back are too high.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Old man asked, "Where's the outrage when the bad guys are killing people?"

    That IS what I'm outraged about. The bad guys ARE killing people. We have met the enemy and they are US. WE have violated the international standards of decency documented in the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Tribunal.

    Furthermore, the U.S. War Crimes Act (1996) defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment...willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health." It requires the death penalty for perpetrators if the breach resulted in the death of one or more victims.

    Re: "...you would think the United States invaded Iraq just to stir things up and kill people."

    You might think that, but I don't. I think U.S. policy-makers invaded Iraq in order to control the last of the great oil wealth of the Middle East, and killing those people means little more to them than stepping on ants.

    I think U.S.-Israel is killing children in order to expand its hegemony to include the parts of Palestine that it has not expropriated already. Many others agree with me, including Jewish intellectuals like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Norman Finkelstein. It's time for you to start reading something to the left of Joe Lieberman (Obama's mentor).

  • (Show?)
    To read the pages of Blue Oregon, you would think the United States invaded Iraq just to stir things up and kill people.

    Considering the fact that the purported reasons the US went to war against Iraq didn't exist (WMD, link to al Qaeda) and that the occupation quickly devolved into a bloodletting of sectarian violence and the displacement of millions of refugees -- which was predicted by many of the people who opposed the invasion in the first place -- stirring things up and getting people killed is pretty much the de facto accomplishment of the invasion.

  • Anti-Civeletti or just Misunderstood? (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We also deposed the most violent dictator in the Middle East (google "Rape of Kuwait" for an introduction), who had used chemical weapons on multiple occasions, including:

    Location.....Weapon Used.....Date.....Casualties Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish Panjwin Mustard October-November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish Majnoon Island Mustard February-March 1984 2,500 Iranians al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians an-Najaf - Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Shi’a casualties not known

    Saddam had also plotted to murder former President Bush. Saddam Hussein was a butcher who threatened the stability of the entire region. The world is a much better place without him. I regret the loss of innocent lives, and I regret the loss of life and limb to American soldiers and contractors. But that does NOT mean the war didn't accomplish anything. But I know that I won't convince any B/O regulars, so I won't even try.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is a FAIR media advisory on the flip flop issue.

    Progressives who are disappointed with Obama's general election move to the right on certain issues should realize that there is a concerted effort by McCain supporters to use the flip flop issue in the same way it was used against Kerry.

    Obama faithful should realize that progressives concerned about recent Obama statements and actions on issues such as FISA, NAFTA, and Israel/Palestine are not part of the pro-McCain effort.

    My criticism of Obama here does not mean I am not supporting him. There are, however, limits to how far right he can go and keep that support. I believe many progressives feel the same. As Steve Maurer wrote above, US voters are looking for something other than Bush. Moving too far right in order to court middle of the road independents might lose Obama more than the votes of politically attuned leftists. It may alienate millions of voters who are convinced that much of what the Shrubbery has done has been bad for the country.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One more time: FAIR media advisory

  • (Show?)
    Saddam had also plotted to murder former President Bush.

    Actually, that charge was bogus as well. There was never any good evidence pointing to Iraq's part in a plot to assassinate George H.W. Bush (sort of like how there was never any evidence of WMD after 1993) but intelligence analysts went along with Bill Clinton when he wanted to bomb Iraq to show how tough he was. After the 2001 invasion, the Pentagon reviewed 600,000 captured documents covering covert Iraqi activities. This is what Michael Isikoff of Newsweek wrote about that investigation:

    [C]uriously little has been heard about the allegedly foiled assassination plot in the five years since the U.S. military invaded Iraq. A just-released Pentagon study on the Iraqi regime's ties to terrorism only adds to the mystery. The review, conducted for the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, combed through 600,000 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents seized after the fall of Baghdad, as well as thousands of hours of audio- and videotapes of Saddam's conversations with his ministers and top aides. The study found that the IIS kept remarkably detailed records of virtually every operation it planned, including plots to assassinate Iraqi exiles and to supply explosives and booby-trapped suitcases to Iraqi embassies. But the Pentagon researchers found no documents that referred to a plan to kill Bush. The absence was conspicuous because researchers, aware of its potential significance, were looking for such evidence. "It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]."

    So I'm afraid that little story doesn't hold water, either.

    Saddam Hussein was a butcher who threatened the stability of the entire region.

    Saddam Hussein had no way to threaten the stability of the region. He didn't control his own airspace. He couldn't openly buy arms to stage any kind of invasion. He didn't have WMDs or any way to build them. Nearly all of the incidents you list were from before the Gulf War, when he was an American ally against the Iranians (who we were also selling arms to).

    More people have died in Iraq as a result of the US invasion in five years than in twenty-odd years of Saddam's reign. Saddam was a butcher, but the US has engaged in a fair amount of butchery -- and the enabling of butchery -- itself. Additionally, we've destroyed an already crumbling infrastructure providing power, water and sewage services to millions of people and forced three to four million people into refugee status, with a couple of million of those going to Syria, Jordan and other countries.

    Syria's absorbed one-and-a-half million Iraqis. It has a population of about 20 million. Here in the US, we're complaining about an illegal immigrant population that's about 4% of the size of the country's total population. Well, because of the war we started in Iraq, Syria's got an Iraqi refugee problem about twice that size, all in just a few years. Jordan has a similar problem. That's destabilizing.

    I regret the loss of innocent lives

    I don't really believe you.

  • (Show?)

    During the time Hussein was developing his chemical weapons program and using them on sections of his own population as well as in the war with Iran, the U.S. was backing him in the same war and facilitated his development of those weapons. The Republican administration of the day did not oppose what he was doing, but supported him. Part of the reason Hussein thought he could get away with conquering Kuwait was because of this history and because an incompetent Republican envoy, April Glaspie, informed of the possibility of the upcoming attack, responded with indifference, leading Hussein to think he had a green light.

    Darrell, I am not sure about the overall death toll but part of the reason it might be more complicated than you say is because of the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions regime in the 1990s, which the U.S. prevented from being ended by the U.N. once its failure and civilian consequences were clear.

  • (Show?)
    Darrell, I am not sure about the overall death toll but part of the reason it might be more complicated than you say is because of the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions regime in the 1990s, which the U.S. prevented from being ended by the U.N. once its failure and civilian consequences were clear.

    That would kind of depend on where you placed the blame for those deaths. Do they go on Saddam's plate for not acceding to the demands of the US, to the US for pushing the sanctions to the breaking edge, or do we split the difference?

    President Bush, in his 2004 State of the Union speech, made this claim:

    The killing fields of Iraq -- where hundreds of thousands of men and women and children vanished into the sands -- would still be known only to the killers.

    Estimates of the dead from the Iran-Iraq war are about 1.5 million, but a lot of those are Iranians, and I limited my statement to Iraq.

    Toss in a couple hundred thousand for the Gulf War, just to be on the high side. Most of which we killed, but Saddam did start the thing. (I have wondered whether the "mass graves" that undoubtedly had to be dug for dead Iraqis in that war have been recycled as "finds" since the invasion).

    Of course it's "more complicated" -- for one thing, nobody's keeping track of how many people have been killed even in this highly-efficient, super-technological version of war. The Pentagon doesn't do body counts (sort of hard when you neither control the territory nor want to know how many civilians were killed along with your suspected targets). I think you can look to the scale of the refugee situation as an indicator that the violence unleashed by the invasion outstripped what it was under Saddam. Sort of a frying pan into the fire kind of thing.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    About 100 UN weapons inspection sites were looted following the invasion of Iraq, U.S. policy makers having chosen not to guard them. Powerful explosives that could be "...used to detonate a nuclear bomb..." were part of the missing material. So there were WMD's, but no serious person believes that Iraq was an imminent threat (the only legal justificaton for pre-emptive war) to the greatest military power in the history of the world.

    UN nuclear official cites security lapse

  • (Show?)
    ...so there were WMD's...

    Actaully, no, there weren't. There were high-quality plastic explosives that could be used in the triggering mechanism of a nuclear bomb but which had non-WMD and even civilian purposes.

    Further along in that same article:

    But the disappearance of the HMX, or ''High-Melting Point Explosive," caused particular alarm because the lightweight substance is twice as powerful as an ordinary plastic explosive and is not easily set off by an accident as other substances are. That makes it the perfect detonator for a nuclear device, or in attacks on large buildings or planes, although the substance is not considered a weapon of mass destruction...
  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's recall, darrel, that the criterion for "WMD" is what might be available in any Middle School science lab, much less explosives powerful enough to detonate a nuclear bomb. The "militias" that are running around the heartland no doubt have WMD's, by the same standards.

    This is one reason why I believe that the "WMD argument" is a loser for us, regardless of whether or not the Iraqis actually had sophisticated systems in place.

    More importantly, debating that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because they didn't actually have WMD implies that it would have been okay to do it if they had had them. It also implies that Al Qaeda was right to attack us, since we have very sophisticated systems in place and we frequently threaten others with their use.

  • (Show?)

    Harry, once again, I didn't even bring up the WMD argument. I cited it as a "purported" reason the US went to war with Iraq, in an exchange with someone who was claiming that he thought BO readers thought "the United States invaded Iraq just to stir things up and kill people." Which is essentially what we did and was apparently the plan even if we had found WMDs.

    Then you claimed that there were WMDs when the report you linked to clearly says that what the IAEA was monitoring was not considered WMD. I don't believe in giving the crazies even a glimmer of hope by letting them believe there was the slightest justification for the war.

  • Sam Geggy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Civiletti comments earlier upon the ability of Mr. Obama to rally youth, disenfranchised et.al. He is possibly most in touch with thinking youth and savvy disenfrachised and so rightly diagnoses that, should Mr. Obama abandon coherence in his approach, the maintenance of continuity in speech, speech, more speech and then action, there will certainly be a backlash on the part of these passionate believers. However, I have been in direct contact with a lamentable other aspect to those who are turning out in record numbers to rallies and house meetings: the youth, the disenfranchised, the pissed off. But these are the ones whose eyes flashed rage and hatred at a mere mention of Hillary's name, folks who are quoting scripture to say that he is indeed sent to bring relief to the people of colour and other downtrodden. Those who evince visceral rage and overwhelming desire NOT to hear anything but the siron song of this most elegant man. These ones are ready for any manipulation offered. I fear for 'em.

    Now, I'm happy to know we might have Mr. Obama as our next President. It is so much better than the alternative. But I am observing the dynamic of the crowds and finding a disturbing dichotomy. The masses are possibly going to put a hurt on someone if they catch on to the depth of manipulation they are now subject to - even if Mr. Obama does not completely devolve to politics as per usu., still, he can't escape how politics are done.

    A youth of my acquaintance has observed that as soon as he saw conservatives abandoning ship and endorsing Obama, he immediately back up from the magical presence that is Obama. He now waits wisely to find out what those people want from Obama in exchange for the support. And he began to appreciate Hillary much more intensely, for clearly these same rats did NOT want her for some reason, a reason he would like to know more about.

    Perhaps simplistic reasoning, perhaps not 100% on. But, thank god, the youth may be willing to question the emotional appeals now pouring down upon a thoroughly fed up population tired of the burdens of disenfranchisement and the hollowing disappointments of years of popular voting being overturned.

    <h2>To access an entertaining little bit about the way things are done, try reading "The Dirty Trickster", the New Yorker, June 2, 2008. I wonder who's got Stone working on it this time?</h2>

connect with blueoregon