Question
•
General Government, Politics & Law
I have so far this election season been leaning towards Senator Obama. But I am concerned that he has of late seemed to be willing to change his position on a number of issues, and this makes me question whether he will do what he promises to do if he is elected. I was just curious how the die hard supporters feel about this one.
[If you want to rant about Obama being a secret muslim, or a closet communist, I can't stop you, but I was hoping to just understand how the Senator's position is viewed by his supporters.]
This is from this weekend's New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?ref...
Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity
By JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.
Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.
In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. That decision, one of a number made by Mr. Obama in recent weeks intended to position him toward the political center as the general election campaign heats up, has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters.
Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Mr. Bush’s surveillance program.
“I don’t think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,” said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama’s new position. “For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.”
Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters frustrated with his new stance.
“The opposition to Obama’s position among his supporters is very widespread,” said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. “His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned.”
One supporter, Robert Arellano, expressed his anger on the Obama site.
“I have watched your campaign with genuine enthusiasm,” Mr. Arellano wrote, “and I have given you money. For the first time in my life, I have sensed the presence of a presidential candidate who might actually bring some meaningful change to the corrupt cesspool of national politics. But your about-face on the FISA bill genuinely angers and alarms me.”
For now, the campaign is trying to put a positive spin on the new FISA fight among its supporters.
“The fact that there is an open forum on BarackObama.com where supporters can say whether they agree or disagree speaks to a strength of our campaign,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.
Several activists and bloggers predicted that Mr. Obama’s move toward the center on some issues could sharply reduce the intensity of support he has enjoyed from liberal activists. Such enthusiasm helped power his effort to secure the Democratic nomination, and it has been one of his campaign’s most important tools for fund-raising and organizing around the country.
Markos Moulitsas, a liberal blogger and founder of the Daily Kos Web site, said he had decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute to the Obama campaign because of the FISA reversal.
“I will continue to support him,” Mr. Moulitsas said in an interview. “But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution.”
Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.
“This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.”
[If you want to rant about Obama being a secret muslim, or a closet communist, I can't stop you, but I was hoping to just understand how the Senator's position is viewed by his supporters.]
This is from this weekend's New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?ref...
Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity
By JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.
Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.
In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. That decision, one of a number made by Mr. Obama in recent weeks intended to position him toward the political center as the general election campaign heats up, has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters.
Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Mr. Bush’s surveillance program.
“I don’t think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,” said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama’s new position. “For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.”
Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters frustrated with his new stance.
“The opposition to Obama’s position among his supporters is very widespread,” said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. “His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned.”
One supporter, Robert Arellano, expressed his anger on the Obama site.
“I have watched your campaign with genuine enthusiasm,” Mr. Arellano wrote, “and I have given you money. For the first time in my life, I have sensed the presence of a presidential candidate who might actually bring some meaningful change to the corrupt cesspool of national politics. But your about-face on the FISA bill genuinely angers and alarms me.”
For now, the campaign is trying to put a positive spin on the new FISA fight among its supporters.
“The fact that there is an open forum on BarackObama.com where supporters can say whether they agree or disagree speaks to a strength of our campaign,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.
Several activists and bloggers predicted that Mr. Obama’s move toward the center on some issues could sharply reduce the intensity of support he has enjoyed from liberal activists. Such enthusiasm helped power his effort to secure the Democratic nomination, and it has been one of his campaign’s most important tools for fund-raising and organizing around the country.
Markos Moulitsas, a liberal blogger and founder of the Daily Kos Web site, said he had decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute to the Obama campaign because of the FISA reversal.
“I will continue to support him,” Mr. Moulitsas said in an interview. “But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution.”
Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.
“This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.”
-
Answered I don't understand it either. Here's what I think....
I'm having a change of heart about supporting him, to be honest. So much for standing up for the Constitution and the American people and not acting in the best interest of special interest and large corporations.
I'm very disappointed. -
Answered I don't understand it either. Here's what I think....
Since most politicians don't stand by what they originally pledge, I don't think he will either. What IS making me nervous about him is that he wants to increase the federal taxes to 51%. This tax, plus the stat taxes we have to pay, will mean that they take over half of every pay check. Thats slavery in my eyes. -
He is going to double the Capital Gains Tax which will create a massive run, from all levels, on the Stock Market this fall even before he takes office. Investors will want to take the gains and split them between 2008 and 2009 tax years before Obama's tax plan can go into effect.
The Market is already fragile....... can you say...."crash"? -
CRASH!
haha, yep.
Two years ago my dad predicted that the market would be how it is today, and that the value of the dollar would become weak. He started investing in Gold and Silver, which so far has only increased in value. Its not too late to start, and you can sell it when ever you need the cash. This is especially useful if your unsure of what will happen to the banks. Not to mention it increases in value every day. I recommend investing in it. -
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
During the campaign for the nomination he was telling people exactly what they wanted to hear. Clinton lost out simply because she was being too realistic. Idealism is what really counts if you want to be nominated. So idealy you go after the telcoms because it's contrary to your core belif system. Realistically we don't know what measures must be taken to insure national security and the government is still learning too. Remember that we interned thousands of Japanese people during WW2 because, at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do. Looking back it was not really neccessary and really sucked for a lot of patriotic Japanese Americans. SO, Obama is just injecting a little more reality into the campaign. I think it will be neccessary because extremes in politics is not what many people want right now. I think whichever candidate can show willingness to address real concerns while not deviating too far from their political platform will be elected.
Now that the nominating process is over, I think we'll see some direction changing from both sides, and a lot of people won't like it. -
Answered I'd tell you, but THEY may be listening ....
I am NOT a BHO supporter NEVER have and NEVER will! If you elect BHO as president we will have an ObamaNation! Not too far from an Abomination !Listen to how they sound..........Hilter was an Abomination! I am "flippin" scared to death and I promise I won't "flop" on that! -
I am a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, I respect her and I am sorry she is not the nominee, she is the most qualified of all three Senators.
I am not bitter when I say this but Obama is the lest qualified of all three and his inexperience is dangerous..... I will be voting for McCain.
She may point the way, but I will not follow. McCain is moderate enough and he is not.... not... Bush. -
If you are a Clinton supporter why are you going to vote for the candidate that has the least in common with her? She is giving her support to Obama because she feels as though he is the better candidate, if you vote for McCain your support of Hillary is mute.
-
I highly doubt that McCain will be better than Obama. Mcain doesn't have the ability to see long term startergy. He's only it it for the short terms gains that a sound bite might get and can't see the real need to be a leader that can affect much needed change instread pandering for for votes.
-
By what measure do you mean socialist. Is supporting giving full benefits to military vets socalist? McCain voted against GI benefits in favor of corporate interests in the bill. Does that make him facist? If you're going to label someone a socialist because you don't agree with his policies at least back it up with a fact. Please show me one.
-
Giving full benefits to vets is not socialistic. They have earned them. Look at Obamas plan. It says it all also look at his voteing record of his 1 1/2 years in the Senate. Taking from producers and giving to non producers is socialism. His health care plan is socialistic. You have to be numb not to see this.
-
experience at being out of touch is not necessarily a good thing. The Chicago Cubs are a very experienced baseball team, but I would not look to them for a guide to winning the World Series. And lack of experience is not necessarily a bad thing. The last President we elected based on "experience" was Richard Nixon, and we all saw how that turned out. After that we had Carter (state governor), Reagan (state governor), Bush I (Reagan), Clinton (state governor), Bush II (village idiot). None of them had "experience" at foreign policy or a national economy.
Wait a minute. You may have a point after all.... apart from President Clinton, these guys all failed miserably .... Hmmmmm...... -
H,
Hillary's support of Obama is twofold, financial (to pay off her campaign debts), and, political (so that she can count on support from the Dem Party in the future). I beg to differ with you on Hillary's view of Obama. Check out the video on the site below, it is the first, of FOUR occasions, that she stated her views on Obama. The other 3 are listed below;
http://www.americablog.com/20...
Here is the first time she endorsed McCain over Obama, and watch her three additional TV appearances below.
2nd time: "[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
3rd time: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
4th time: "Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002." -
In a mere 26 days, Senator Obama, as advertised, is indeed the candidate of change.
1. flip-flopped on Jerusalem (24 hours)
2. flip-flopped on NAFTA
3. flip-flopped on meeting with Iran
4. flip-flopped on campaign finance funding
5. flip-flopped on condoning Countrywide..... good thing he changed his mind after his own relationship with Northern Trust... to say nothing of Dodd and Johnson
6. flip-flopped on the second amendment (DC handgun ban)
7. flip-flopped on Gay Marriage (CA right to gay marriage)
8. flip-flopped on FISA
9. flip-flopped on ........... and the big one..... withdrawing from Iraq.
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
I think (my opinion), that we don't all know EVERYTHING going on in DC. It is called National Security and is on a need to know basis. Since Mr. Obama is now been declared the Dem candidate (whatever happened to the convention and why are they wasting all that money and fuel to have one?) by CNN, he has been briefed and seen that this is a "necessary evil".You are likely to see more of these "changes" in him as time progresses and he is exposed to the reality of the world's problem. Problems we are not privy to.
THIS is why I could never vote for him....lack of EXPERIENCE.