Barack Obama

Not that it makes me feel any better, but I'm watching CNN and all of the snap news coverage of the FISA vote is about how Barack Obama flip-flopped by voting in favor of retroactive immunity (on cloture and final passage) of the FISA legislation.

Contrary what Obama's inner circle undoubtedly convinced him would happen, the coverage is not about how strong and tough he is. Nor is it about how he just neutralized national security and terrorism as issues for Republicans to attack this year.

Instead the media is focusing on the fact that in the past Obama had said he'd support a filibuster of any legislation with retroactive immunity and now, not only did he not support such a filibuster, but he voted for retroactive immunity. The press and the McCain campaign have noted that this is a flip-flop of epic proportions.

Whatever Obama thought he'd get by supporting the Bond-Rockefeller re-writing of the law and protection of the Bush administration, he has not gotten it. Not only is he being attacked by the GOP and not only is the press duly noting that Obama's position has changed, but he's alienated some of the strongest supporters he has by betraying them.

This isn't a post about a failure of leadership or how the Senate today voted to make illegal wiretapping legal, but about the complete wrongheadedness of the political advice Obama received and responded to on this FISA legislation. He thought he would look tough and he came out looking like the sort of politician America has rejected the last two presidential elections.

The people who advised Obama that this was the best course should all be fired immediately and blacklisted from ever working in Democratic electoral politics. They're not Democrats and they're not smart enough to work for Democrats ever again.

Almost 17,000 of his supporters asking him to be where he was less than six months ago and the best he can do is spin out some Republican Party/Blue Dog talking points on how spying on Americans with no meaningful oversight is necessary to stop teh terrorists.

But hey, at least he responded. It's just that he only flip-flops at the behest of the architects of Conventional Wisdom who have kept Democrats out of the White House in all but 3 elections the last 40 years.

First, Team Obama apparently hasn't seen the news about the Al Haramain decision, where a federal court judge ruled that FISA already was the exclusive authority for electronic surveillance. This has a huge impact on the FISA debate, and Obama isn't even up to snuff.

The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.

If you're going to respond, at least stop trying to spin us with talking points that are transparently wrong. It's phenomenally insulting and insulting 17,000 supporters who are already pissed off doesn't strike me as wise. Sadly, the crap doesn't stop there.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Yep, we'll just trust you. Because you've done so much to earn good will the last month, what with the complete rush to the center with no regard to promises you'd previously made to us.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere.

Being a masochist on this isn't going to make us stop, Barack. You will take your lumps, but your willingness comes not from any genuine desire to dialog with the progressive base, but a cold, calculated assessment that our protestations only serve to help you triangulate against us. Because we care about the Constitution and the rule of law, you're able to Sister Souljah us without the messy business of the Sister Souljah moment.

For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

Um, yeah, no thanks to you. And it's great that you've decided to hear "our passion" and continue to let us down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue.

No shit, Sherlock. All we're asking - in addition to you upholding the Constitution - is that you agree with yourself on every issue. Stop fucking flip-flopping.

Obama finishes strong with an appeal that he is, in fact, the lesser of two evils:

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change.

Honestly, I don't know that there's ever been a more dramatic regression in campaign rhetoric from "Change You Can Believe In" to "I'm Not As Bad As The Other Guy."

Seriously, folks, this is not a response. This is a semi-polite version of "You are expendable." And it sure as shit ain't leadership.

Oh just fucking stop it already. This isn't how you won the Democratic nomination.

The Senator tells reporters in North Dakota he plans a “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during his coming visit to the country.

“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.”

Adds: “My 16-month (withdrawal) timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe.”

I may never write this again, but the RNC's assessment of Obama's actions the last few weeks is right.

“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience.”

When the RNC is right about our nominee, our nominee isn't leading. Obama has run on the fact that he rightly opposed the Iraq war from the start. Since then, he has accumulated greater and greater responsibility for his actions. As President he will bear the ultimate responsibility for America's policy in Iraq and thus the continuation or termination of the war. Good God, man - an increase of responsibility does not obligate you to become more wrong Barack!

Get it right.

People expect you to end the war. If you win, it's on your shoulders. Don't chicken out now, because you will seal your fate, LBJ-style, to have a brutal, unpopular war define your presidency.

In little under seven days, the My.BarackObama.com group Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right has become the largest group, organic or campaign created, in the entire Obama universe.

That's leadership. Obama? Still in the way.

Another day, another article, another non-response by the Obama campaign on the fact that their supporters are so livid at The Man Himself that they're using the My.BarackObama.com social network to organize against his FISA stance.

“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.

So disappointing...so unsurprising.

Supporters of Barack Obama have used his online social networking platform, My.BarackObama.com, to organize against his cowardly FISA stance. A group titled Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right was created late last week. It already has over almost 5,600 members (it will likely cross that mark by the time I finish writing the post). Most impressive of all, in this short time the group has become the fifth largest in the entire Obama social networking universe.

That is, a group created among Obama supporters to get him to do the right thing on FISA is now bigger and more influential than New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, and "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)".

The Obama FISA group is on pace to be the largest group on My.BarackObama.com within its first week of existence.

Ari Melber of The Nation has a write-up on this internet phenomenon:

Since launching last week, the protest group, "Senator Obama Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right," swelled to one of the ten largest campaign groups on Sunday. (FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which the Democratic Congress is poised to amend under White House pressure.) It is the largest group of its kind on MyBo, which focuses on local networking, official campaign events, and constituency groups like "Women for Obama." It looks like the group grew through the Obama network, with a few web mentions on liberal sites such as OpenLeft and TPM, and it urges Obama to reject the "politics of fear" and lead Democrats to oppose the White House bill. Blogger Mike Stark says the effort demonstrates the kind of civic engagement and "open government" that Obama espouses, even if it delivers the "sting of social networking" pushback during a tight campaign.

One Democratic Internet consultant predicted that Obama's reaction could reveal his commitment to meaningful engagement with supporters. "How Obama responds will tell us a great deal about both his willingness to listen to input from his supporters and what influence the MyBarackObama community has on the campaign itself," said the operative, who wished to remain anonymous while working on another campaign. "In the meantime, this is a huge opportunity for Obama's supporters to organize around an issue, not just the candidate, and take action beyond using their credit card."
...
Obama won the nomination by blending the practical and the ideal -- riding the financial juggernaut of Internet politics and promising a new, interactive civil society along the way. He made people feel good, and connected, and they showered his long-shot campaign with money, energy and adulation. Their votes are already in the bag, in general election calculus, but their work, enthusiasm and contributions to any larger "movement" are not guaranteed. Just as the campaign worked to mobilize so many supporters this weekend, it may have to reengage supporters concerned about Obama's recent drift. He could answer their arguments with a direct video explaining his vision for restoring the rule of the law and constitutional rights. Granting more unchecked surveillance power to the Executive and sidelining judicial oversight is a staggering affirmation of Bush's approach, especially coming from the candidate of change. If Obama is going to stand by that failed policy, he should at least explain his thinking in depth. It might even get more hits than a fundraising video.

This is a test. Obama's supporters are passing it with flying colors, integrating the tools the campaign has given them to do something important: tell their candidate that he is wrong on a crucial issue.

As of now, Obama is failing the test. Ryan Singel of Wired reports, "The Obama campaign did not return a call seeking comment."

Hopefully the strength of his supporters' outcries will get him to reconsider. Or at least say something.

The most remarkable email is floating around. This is the website in a widget that it contains.

I am happy to see this.

Glenn Greenwald:

Another top Kos diary -- entitled "Obama's Outsmarted Us Again" -- echoed Jonathan Alter's rationalizations by claiming that Obama's support for this bill was part of a brilliant plan he has to impose Constitutional limits on Bush in his last six months in office. Apparently, Obama's unfailing Goodness is so absolute that even when it appears he's doing something wrong, that's just a failure on our part to discern his secret plan to protect us all.

Look, there's a simple way to get at this: if your defense of Obama entails reading his mind to impart political analysis that he has never made, he's not leading. If the best explanation for why Obama is still Teh Greatest Progressive EVAR is that a commentator on MSNBC raised a point that Obama had yet to speak positively or negatively about, you're grasping at straws. And if Obama has taken a political position that requires you wander aimlessly through the wasteland that is the Democratic understanding of principled leadership while holding two quivering twigs to best divine what he is really thinking because nothing he has said in the last week remotely tracks with previously held positions or claims to leadership qualities, then Barack Obama has thrown you so far under the bus that it will require Superman himself to spin the earth backwards in a non-scientifically based effort to rewind time and put you back inside the bus with Barack Obama snugly by your side.

It'd be nice to be able to wish him out of the way, but in this matter we have no choice. Obama must lead because he is the party's standard bearer. Either he wins and we have 4-8 years where it is up to him to lead or he loses and his failures of leadership will force 4-8 years of John McCain upon us.

It is profoundly ironic that the philosophy of triangulation which guided Clinton, kept her from ever taking a leading stance against Bush as a Senator and ultimately cost her the nomination is now being adopted by Barack Obama, the one person who was and is in the best position to learn from her mistakes and not forget about the desires of the people who brought him to where he is today.

This blog has essentially been dormant since the last round of FISA. Speaking only for myself, what went down in February was one of the most demoralizing moments in my political life. I've been out of the picture in large part because the complete and total abdication of leadership by the Democratic Senate caucus, with rare exceptions, left me feeling that the party simply was incapable of functioning at all in line with the interests of the base or even the country. If they were not there for me, if they would not listen to the concerns of tens of thousands of patriotic Americans, if that willful ignorance of what the public was asking of them was to continue to manifest itself in vote after shameful vote, what use would there be in me spending my time and energies trying to make them behave like the leaders that their PACs and fundraising emails make them out to be?

Mssrs. Young and Paine continued to post during the House FISA fight in March, but I can only imagine that they have shared the same feelings of alienation as I.

Proving that it is truly a herpes upon the 110th Congress, FISA is back. Again. With more puss-filled cowardice and contagious fear than ever before.

And again FISA reveals the dank seams of the Democratic Party. The outrages are too many to tally, but I feel I must start at the top -- our party's new leadership: Barack Obama. Earlier this week we learned that Mr. Obama, who had previously pledged to support a filibuster of legislation with retroactive immunity, now thought national security was the unquestionable trump card over the rule of law.

"The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

It doesn't surprise me that Obama is putting politics ahead of his word. Clearly he is marching in the footsteps of every other Democratic presidential nominee in modern memory when it comes to general election policies. Democrats, you see, can only win by convincing Republican base voters to vote for them. Hence, Obama must now act like a centrist, or, better yet, a Republican. And what do Republicans do? Fuck the Constitution to scare people into voting for them. Naturally that's what Obama does (can you smell the change being disbelieved by OFBs nationwide?).

But the Bob Shrum-style assfucking of the base wouldn't be complete without the left edge being covered. Stepping bravely into the breach on behalf of Mr. Obama are Party Elders Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, who both proclaimed their newly discovered, patchouli-doused, Dirty Fucking Hippie credentials by both rushing to oppose the FISA legislation in full, a position neither man had taken in any previous legislative fights. The result? Obama now has the Democratic "leadership" firmly on his left-flank.

And Lo! He is now a centrist! Let he bathe in the glory that Rush Limbaugh's radio audience shall bestow upon him as he is seen as the third coming of Ronald "I Just Made Russia Illegal, Bitches" Reagan.

Or not. Because that won't happen and only ends up pleasing world-renowned throb wankers like Dan Gerstein. In fairness to Mr. Gerstein, though, everything I have ever learned about politics in America tells me that he is a far more important person to please than the Democratic base as far as the Democratic Party elites are concerned. It's not Gerstein's fault that some Important people are politically clueless enough to think that he's right when he opens his mouth.

Moving on...

It's just been announced that FISA will wait until July 8th, after a pleasant vacation cools tempers and gives our Senators more time to not read the critically important legislation in front of them. What should we expect when the fight resumes next month? More losses. Brutal, craven, embarrassing, disheartening losses. Out of 100 voices in the Senate, there are but two real bright spots: Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold.

This week Dodd delivered what I think easily ranks as one of, if not the, most eloquent and important speeches of the Bush era. There are few things that were left unsaid when it came to assessing how evil and unAmerican the pending FISA legislation is. There were even fewer things left unsaid by Dodd, speaking for over two hours late in the night from the Senate floor, about the abuses perpetrated by this administration, approved explicitly or tacitly by this Congress. Dodd was the voice calling out with utter clarity, "Do not go that way, for I can still see and you are blind." Sadly, his colleagues do not have the most basic survival instincts that would impel them to heed Dodd's words. And so they continue to walk towards the cliff that represents the end of America and the start of a horrible tyranny only previously envisioned in the dark thoughts of McCarthy, Nixon, and Kit Bond.

Standing by Dodd's side, again, is Russ Feingold (a man who if there was any justice in politics would be on his way to accepting the Democratic nomination for presidency in Denver this August). While Dodd's words have focused on right and wrong, legislation and Constitution, Feingold has been the whip on his colleagues. He has offered unflinching criticism of those Democrats who cower in the face of Rovian attack ads. And he has voiced his complete and utter disdain for them, in terms that I cannot recall any other Democratic senator ever using. In a radio appearance on The Young Turks Feingold said:

...Ben Mankiewicz: Alright, well, Senator Feingold, without naming names, and I understand you don't want to single out any of your colleagues, what is the overall reasoning, do you think, what is going on with some of these Democrats who might surprise us? I mean, they're not stupid. Well...not all of them anyway. Why are they buying into a notion of a compromise when there really is no giving on the other side?

Senator Russ Feingold: It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues. It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq War. These are the two real sad aspects of an otherwise pretty good record. It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It's really incredible.

Cenk Uygur: It is incredible. So, I mean, it leads to the question that everybody's been asking. You know, whether it's our viewers, the readers of the blogs, etc. the actual bloggers, everybody that's paying attention is asking: Why are the Democrats doing it? You know, I got three possibilities. One is caving. They think, "Hey if we give into Bush, we're going to win more elections, and we don't really care about the policy, and the fourth amendment in the constitution are an interesting side note, but I want to win more elections." Number two is, they're scared of their own shadow and they didn't get the memo that the Republicans are grossly unpopular throughout the country, and that President Bush is the most unpopular President in the history of the United States. But if they didn't get that memo, you got to question a couple of different things about their judgment. The third theory out there is that they're complacent that people like Rockefeller signed off on some of these abuses and they get money from the lobbyists. So they don't really want to rock the boat.

Senator Russ Feingold: Well my honest belief is that it's the first two. I don't really see it as having to do with political contributions. I don't see it that they really want to cooperate with this stuff. I see it more as the first two things you said. Having to do with political fear, and, you know, calculations about elections to be honest with you. There are many areas that I think are grossly effected by money. I think it is less true of this, and it has more to do with political fear.

In other words, Lead or Get Out Of the Way says Senator Feingold.

We'll see what the butcher's bill looks like next month after the Senate Democratic caucus gives George W. Bush and Dick Cheney everything they wanted and more. My guess is that no matter what Americans do between now and July 8th, the fix is in. Donate to anyone other than Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold at your own peril. Better yet, give to Accountability Now and try to get better people in office who will lead alongside Dodd and Feingold.