[This is the great post masaccio originally posted to Oxdown Gazette--before we delayed the start of it. I wanted to publish it here to further the great discussion masaccio started. -ew]
[And was so inspiring we wanted fdl pups to see it too. Welcome, masaccio! -eg]
What can we get from an Obama Administration in exchange for our money and our work on his campaign?
There is no doubt we will vote for Obama. Many of us will do more, contribute money, do phones, door-to-door and all the other nuts and bolts of an election. Many of us were stirred into action by Jane and Christy, and without them would never have thought of doing this stuff.
But what are we going to get for it? Right now, the pols and consultants think we will work because we are afraid that four more years of McBush will ruin the country. They don’t expect to have to do anything for us in exchange. They think Obama can run to the mushy middle, and we will hold our noses and work hard like we always do. In the past, the Democrats have been able to take advantage of the fact that on most of the issues, their views are close enough to ours that we’ll just work for them, and be happy with whatever we get. Some of us will be active because of health care, or ending the war, or the Supreme Court, or some other specific issue, and that will seem like enough to motivate us; we’ll provide our services and our money, and once in office, they pat us on the head and say “aren’t those bloggers cute”.
This election is different. For the first time, it isn’t the candidate, party pols, rich business contributors or consultants who are leading us. Our leaders come from our own ranks. Each of us votes with our clicks and our dollars for those we think express our views, those we select to teach us about issues, and those whose sense of humor resonates best. The issues we care about grew organically from our own efforts, not some pointless national poll, tilted by the views of too many ill-informed potential voters, but in the robust give and take of post and comment. It manifests itself in phone calls, e-mails and letters, contributions of money, and all the rest of the efforts we saw in the FISA battle.
In this election for the very first time, the hard-core political operatives know a large number of activists are reading lefty blogs, and are getting fired up, not by their efforts or the candidate, or press releases with pallid promises on traditional Democratic Party issues, but by our own issues. Even the mainstream media recognizes this. Glenn Greenwald and our own Jane Hamsher are now worthy of being quoted.
Activists have never made demands in the past. In fact, we have never had the ability to make demands. We have never had a voice. Now we do. If the netroots can come together on a single demand, we can make it stick.
We offer our enthusiasm, our money, and our work. They need to put something on the table to earn it. Remember, we can put our efforts into other parts of the campaign for what we want: working for more and better democrats at every level. Many commenters here and at firedoglake have made it clear they think this is a better use of our efforts anyway. You want us working for Obama? Give us something. Something real, and something we select.
If you don’t, the blogs will say so out loud, and encourage every one of their readers to move to the other part of this election: more and better democrats. This is a real threat. We have the template for that here at FDL, many other sites. We want legislators who will be responsive to us. We know that many of the democrats we elect, like Donna Edwards, will listen to us, even if we aren’t in their district. That will be a better outcome than helping Obama with no return. It won’t be perfect, many of us will work for Obama, but there will be a noticeable difference.
And remember this. A big chunk of the netroots is angry because of the way HRC was treated. Another big chunk of us are angry because of the cavalier way Obama dealt with women’s right to control their own bodies. And another big chunk are angry about FISA. Cass Sunstein’s comments have angered more than they might guess. If he wants a big victory, he needs all of us.
How do we get this to work?
Emptywheel posted here a workshop on lessons learned from the FISA fight, and the commenters joined in. Here is a list of ideas that will serve as action points focused on offense rather than defense
1. Identify the real terms of debate. EW
2. Recognize when leadership begins to negotiate. EW
3. Profile all the key players. EW
4. Open up better lines of communication with our allies in the media. wigwam @ 9
5. Better counter-messaging when we draw fire, while holding our own points. EW in text and @ 11
6. Transparency and coordination in decisions about strategy. maryb2004 @ 28
7. Start earlier. MadDog @ 38
8. Build a broad based coalition earlier. klynn @ 89
9. And the money: Ron1 talks intelligently about money in several comments.
These ideas are the nucleus for an action plan. We find out who we need to influence, and gather information about them. This makes it easier to figure our how to make our demands work. We have a backup plan, our minimum demand, in case we have to negotiate off our initial position. We make sure the people doing the negotiating are competent. We work on a media strategy to make our views open to the nation. We start now. We seek allies. The money follows along in due course.
Earlofhuntington made a strong point that the blogosphere isn’t like the groups traditional politicians are used to dealing with. We are fractious and demanding, and it is not easy to hold us accountable. We need to figure out how to be more like traditional bargaining partners. This means being accountable, reliable, and responsible.
What do we demand?
I want to call special attention to maryb2004’s view that the decision on what to demand must be as transparent as possible. Moveon polled its members on the endorsement of Obama, and regularly seeks input from members. We can’t do that, and I don’t think that kind of thing works well anyway. But if there is an open and robust discussion on the front pages of lots of sites, we can learn from comments if we are in the wrong place with a particular demand and alter it to one that resonates with more people. Only then will we be in a position to make a demand we can enforce.
We have to act responsibly. There is no point in making demands that relate to existing campaign issues, like ending the war, health care, or taxes. Instead, we pick something currently off the radar for the general election. It has to be something we can get that won’t throw the general campaign off balance. If we demanded and got something really splashy, it might well backfire.
That said, there are many issues that we deeply care about. Here is a starter list: FISA reform; Patriot Act changes; Input on selection of the Attorney General; Appointment of some of our people to responsible positions in the new administration. This list can grow.
An Example: Accountability
I really care about accountability. I think lack of accountability is at the root of the damage this administration and its cronies have inflicted on us for the past seven years. It has the advantage that it can be publicly announced, without upsetting the general campaign. Obama has already promised to do something vague on the issue, although this was recently undercut by Cass Sunstein.
Here is the first step: we prepare a demand letter; not to send, but to serve as a discussion paper. Here’s how it might look.
1. We want accountability for specific issues:
a. torture
b. eavesdropping
c. the lies that led us into war
d. corruption in the Department of Justice
e. politicization at all other departments
2. If Bush pardons people, we want an independent truth and reconciliation commission with subpoena power and the power to examine witnesses in public. We don’t want whitewash artists like Lee Hamilton or Warren Christopher on such a commission but people with the courage to take us where the truth leads. We want input into selection of the staff. We want a written report. And we want Obama to speak about the report publicly, naming names and publicly accusing people of the evil they have done in our name.
3. If Bush doesn’t pardon people, we want a new unit of the AG set up immediately to work on criminal prosecutions. We want either prosecutions or a report, and a report that Obama will stand behind.
4. We want public release of all of the torture opinions including those of Judge Bybee, John Yoo, and Stephen Bradbury, and of all related files.
5. We want an end to stalling on FOIA requests and Congressional staff inquiries.
The letter has to be clear and pointed. It has to state our demand precisely. And it has to be something we are willing to enforce. Once the terms are in place, we have to deliver, so they will. The letter creates public accountability both ways.
Conclusion.
I am sick of seeing my money and work go for nothing. I am disgusted that the few progressive issues we get moving are stalled and crushed by Steny Hoyer and the Blue Dogs. I am stunned that the Congress has let this sleazy administration have its way on issue after issue, ignoring the will of the people who elected them.
Can we have accountability in an Obama presidency? Yes we can! But only if we force the issue.



141 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
thanks masaccio
I may be misguided, but I think that Obama may be more liberal than he has indicated thus far. I think we may be pleasantly surprised in January.
welcome, masaccio!
Hey masaccio! Congrats…
Digg
You’ve got three aspects to every politician
What they believe (usually irrelevant)
What they SAY to get elected
What they DO once they WIN
The three have no necessary relationship to one another…
If we think that Obama will get us more of what we want than McBush- then we’ll support him and hope for the best.
Some of what he’s DONE as a senator, though, is not too encouraging.
What a great post ! I like the idea of having our own demands.
What should Obama do for us? Well just what are we worth to him? We might not have any alternatives now so he thinks he can screw us but every President gets in trouble sometime.
Its the real friends vs fake friends problem.
I agree 100%. We need to learn how to hold our approval and support hostage, the way the conservatives have done to the Republicans.
I made an earlier comment that was OT where I put it but is directly on topic here: http://firedoglake.com/2008/07…..nt-1560629
Hi all, thanks for the welcome.
We threw this guy a ton of money in the primaries and what did we get?
Accountability
Accountability
Accountability
Or we wake up in 2024 or 2028 with another Republican administration with Hans Von Spakovsky or Bradley “ALL-VINNN” Schlosman or Rachel Paulose or Tim Griffin or Monica Goodling as the AG and/or Sara Taylor as CoS or some such in a repeat of the late ’80s where most of the prime players from Iran/Contra wound up back in charge of foreign policy.
You’ve got three aspects to every politician
What they believe (usually irrelevant)
What they SAY to get elected
What they DO once they WIN
The GOP voters are assuming that Obama will go Left anyway nomatter what he says and yet Obama is still picking up GOP votes.
Yet still Obama moves to the Center even though it hurts him with the Left and does not get him any 30%er votes.
Is Mark Penn running Obama’s campaign?
So far what I’ve seen is Obama telling the netroots to, in essence, take a hike. I don’t think we’re in any position to make demands on him. His FISA vote seemed to make that very clear. He wants our $$ and our efforts but has yet to show any signs that he wants to work with us. At this point he’ll be lucky to get my vote.
Energy and money go down ticket to better dems. Period.
How can W pardon people without naming the crime?
If he pardons them for crimes we don’t know about he has to admit that he knew about the crimes and did nothing.
Isn’t that obstruction of justice?
And most of us pray that you are correct but that is taking a great leap of faith when there has been no objective, verifiable evidence of it to date.
huzzah!
Hi guys. How you all doing tonight? Lovely weather we’re having eh? It’s a nice night for accountability….
excellent post, masaccio – thank you
hey bmaz – every night is a nice night for accountability…
Agree that we should hold him to ideals. Definitely.
But, in answer, we did get a view of how Europe will embrace him. Its shows the potential for some healing between us and the rest of the world.
That’s one thing.
When is the Oxdown Gazette going up?
Obama’s campaign seems to be well run in my estimation.
He has anticipated the gooper attack lines and moved to foil them with premptive moves.
He knows that they want to attack him as being a radical- so he has laid down positions that won’t fit with that scenario.
He knows that he’ll be attacked as a pacifist- so he takes s hawk position on Afghanistan
etc.
If you read the article in today’s NYT about his time as a law professor- it pretty well lays out his political sense. It appears that he’s been studying politics longer than law.
But you forget. When the pretzlenit does it it’s not illegal. Just ask him or his OLC, they’ll tell you.
they are still working on fixing the coding glitch that delayed the opening. we are hopeful it should go up soon
while teaching at the University, Obama learned that it was better to take no position on controversial issues but rather just to describe the facts. He has learned that taking a position is usually a loser move- so he doesn’t take many.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
That’s such pre-9/11 thinking.
True but Pissing us off is a mistake his campaign has made.
that’s the kind of leadership we need. Not.
Look! Up in the sky! Ir’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s …
JMHO…prior to the elections, there is no way that Obama can come out and say that he is going to hold the current administration accountable for anything. He will have do what it takes to get elected.
The American people in general will not support putting BBQ W in any situation of crucial jeopardy. Ain’t gonna happen. Ever. Read my lips.
Reality.
Bushco walks….sorry. Bushco walks.
Only the international courts will have any impact….maybe and unlikely.
Mission the fork accomplished.
And this is if they, indeed, actually leave. We have a long, long way until 1/20/09. They will not go easily into the night.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I am down with Masaccio demands.
They figure that’s a calculated risk- in fact they are probably patting themselves on the back for it- nothing is better for his centerist credentials than getting attacked by the left.
The truth is- none of us know what his agenda will be if elected.
Well here is some of what Obama hasn’t done for us
1) Voted for the FISA Amendments Act
2) OK on SCOTUS overturning DC gun ban
3) Thinks women who want late term abortions for mental health reasons should tough it out
4) Against overturning death penalty for child rape
5) Belligerent on Iran
6) Backed unified Jerusalem as capital of Israel and then backed off his stand
7)Wanted to pull down walls in Berlin but said nothing about Israel’s or our own border fence.
8) Dennis Ross is his Middle East adviser
9) His healthcare plan is not universal or mandatory
10) He favors faith based initiatives
11) He voted for Petraeus and Odierno for CENTCOM commander and head of MNF-Iraq respectively
12) Cass Sunstein is one of his legal advisers
If there are other things to add please feel free.
Betsy..I’d like an opportunity to be pleasantly surprised; if we can’t get people to move beyond their racism, I think that’s a real question.
I hope we all would rather vote for Obama than McBush. This might give us a reason to vote and to work for him.
So, what’s the deal? Are there two whole different sets of comments to the same post, one here, and the other over next door?
Bob in HI
I agree we don’t know what his agenda will be heck he maybe everything we hoped for.
But I’ll be dammed if the Center Dems try and claim credit for Obama wining when all they have ever done is surrender to Bush!
Fantastic stuff.
And here’s what I want to know.
Will Obama think ahead and come to the Netroots like, oh I dunno, FDR once did with the progressives?
Like, say, this:
“President Franklin Roosevelt recognized that his ability to push New Deal legislation through Congress depended on the pressure generated by protesters. He once told a group of activists who sought his support for legislation, “You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it.”
OK?
____
’tis ‘of course, a Digby thing.
.
He was never a law professor. He was, at best, a contract lecturer. He cred in this regard has been wildly overblown from what I can discern.
this post is cross posted at both locations – the ew post went up first (4:23pm) and then we brought it over here to share at 7:15.
Isn’t it really up to Obama to make the case for why we should support and vote for him?
I’m thinking more along the lines of not voting at all. For the first time since I was old enough.
I’ve said that here before and gotten push back, but seriously my vote has a price tag. It’s called standing up for the Constitution and for all issues related to privacy. So far he’s not delivering.
Exactly, I’m not going to be any water the dems until they actually do something. The 110th congress, among others, has been a _complete_ shame.
i’m not planning to.
i have no idea how there can be any accountability if Ds can count on our vote (and support) regardless of what they do.
but more than that – hasn’t obama already shown that he doesn’t think he needs our votes or our support?
Replace Corn based ethanol with Suger Beet based ethanol. Much, much less water used.
“Mr. Obama, now the junior senator from Illinois and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, spent 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School. Most aspiring politicians do not dwell in the halls of academia, and few promising young legal thinkers toil in state legislatures. Mr. Obama planted a foot in each, splitting his weeks between an elite law school and the far less rarefied atmosphere of the Illinois Senate.
Before he outraised every other presidential primary candidate in American history, Mr. Obama marched students through the thickets of campaign finance law. Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured. And before he posed what may be the ultimate test of racial equality — whether Americans will elect a black president — he led students through African-Americans’ long fight for equal status.”
nyt
Goddammmm…channeling Thurman in Pulp Fiction….pretty much my sentiments…
Oh please reconsider, RevDeb, you live in a state where the outcome is uncertain. There may be some pups who can justify staying home or voting third party/protest, but surely Pennsylvania is not one of them?
I know how you feel about this but I would ask that you think of just one thing – the Democratic Party has nominated an African-American man. I never thought I would see such a thing in my lifetime and it touches me in a way you cannot imagine. I don’t like some of the positions he has taken but I try to think what the burden must be like for him. He is the first, among many I hope, and that is a major responsibility. I don’t envy him and I wish him godspeed.
I’m not going to. The only Dems I’ll support are the BA Dems. People that will engage, listen and work on progressive issues.
Isn’t half a loaf better than none? My republican congressman Dave Weldon, almost never responds to my emails and I disagree with almost every position the man has. And he uses his official House web site to talk down Democrats.
Politics is a black box- you put in money, sweat, and votes- and hope something comes out that you like- in the case of Obama- there are more unknowns than knowns.
Good Evening Massacio and Firedogs,
bravo – insightful, thoughtful post – practical as well
now -
am certain this community is capable – but how and what does it look like ?
steps ?
I think this is vitally important and integral – having trouble being a big thinker and putting my hands around it’s practicalities
Yes.
I’ll vote for Obama because although I don’t know if he’ll make a good prez- I’m certain that Mc Bush will be a disaster…Seems like we ought to have better choices- but we don’t.
yesterday there was a very interesting interview on democracy now! with ryan lizza: How Chicago Shaped Obama: A Look at the Rise of a Politician
Honestly. Obama is the bravest man I’ve observed in my lifetime. It is not about policies…but bravery….Obama is it.
I’m well aware of that. Very well aware. But like I said, my vote is not to be taken for granted and so far I’m seeing nothing to make me want to vote for and reasons for me to not want to vote. I will support and vote for my state sen. and rep. and leave the rest of the ballot blank unless Obama gives me a reason to want to vote for him.
And Twain, that’s not enough of a reason for me. If every move is calculated by him and his campaign for a win, he’s calculated me out of the equation.
As I’ve said before, that could change, but I need a reason for it to change. Should he pick Kaine or Bayh for veep, then there’s no turning back.
masaccio;
Absolutely fantastic post!!!
I suspect Obama is educable, mostly because he has young children and must care about the world they will inhabit. Perhaps he is wise enough to realize that it is their world already, and his task is to protect and preserve it, to make it better, more humane, more equitable, more decent.
He can only do this by example and with help.
It is a foolish man who insults those upon whom he must needs depend.
It is Obama’s job, in so many ways, to convince all sentient humans that he is NOT foolish or blindly ‘pragmatic’.
We shall see.
Me too. Well said. Good Point.
To me, this is the usual way we do business: we wait for the candidate to do something. That is the language of the low-information, disinterested citizen. Did Verizon do that? Does Blackwater? No. They put the money on the table after they get the promise.
If we want to play ball, we don’t wait, we move proactively to ask for what we want, and withhold support if we don’t get it.
it wasn’t just his vote on FISA
Oy.
i think that is what the fisa vote and his lies about it were.
i’m now at the withholding support stage.
Warning, Obama is a paid-up member of the Chicago machine. He’ll be better than McBush; but trust him as far as you can throw him.
He will move on an issue when he finds what’s in it for him.
Here is my suggested reason, and it’s not the Supreme Court.
The Republicans can NOT be permitted another 4 years running the executive branch, they are destroying the government. I do not use the term lightly or metaphorically. They are actually destroying the government. This benefits the wealthy and the powerful. We can leave them in charge of the demolition derby, or we can elect a most imperfect man to start turning things around.
Your choice, but in Pennsylvania that is an important choice. Thank you for hearing me out…
hmmm. don’t know what happened to my comment…. will try again.
it wasn’t just his vote on FISA, it was the lies he told us -both his prior promise and his lies about the bill itself.
that was the important line he crossed for me then. but there are lots of other things and i suppose another big one is the economic team he’s putting together (rubin redux)
This article in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07…..f=politics
says that he was offered tenure but he turned it down. I don’t know the nature of this position and Obama never published or wrote articles on the law in his 12 years at the University of Chicago. The article does say that he was a senior lecturer and that this title was normally reserved for a few federal judges. The law school being a professional school may have been set up quite differently from the rest of the academy but it sounds like he was adjunct faculty and that he was offered an unusual tenure arrangement.
one can completely agree with your characterization of the republicans and yet not think that obama is any kind of good alternative (or have other reasons for choosing not to support obama).
The democrats have proven equal destructive.
How do you know what team he is putting together? He seems to be talking to lots of different people and if I were going to have to make some of the decisions facing him I would talk to anyone and everyone to find out the best path. I don’t think it means the ones you don’t like are necessarily going to be on his team.
If I don’t vote it doesn’t go for him or against him so it’s a wash.
And if the dems really give a sh*t about democratic principles and the agenda that we care about, it’s up to them to act that way. Sestak, my new friend, lost my vote over FISA too. Won’t vote for him or against him.
They’ve got some work to do.
On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection,” Mr. Obama said.
But the liberal students did not necessarily find reassurance. “For people who thought they were getting a doctrinal, rah-rah experience, it wasn’t that kind of class,” said D. Daniel Sokol, a former student who now teaches law at the University of Florida at Gainesville.
For one thing, Mr. Obama’s courses chronicled the failure of liberal policies and court-led efforts at social change: the Reconstruction-era amendments that were rendered meaningless by a century of resistance, the way the triumph of Brown gave way to fights over busing, the voting rights laws that crowded blacks into as few districts as possible. He was wary of noble theories, students say; instead, they call Mr. Obama a contextualist, willing to look past legal niceties to get results.
For another, Mr. Obama liked to provoke. He wanted his charges to try arguing that life was better under segregation, that black people were better athletes than white ones.
“I remember thinking, ‘You’re offending my liberal instincts,’ ” Mary Ellen Callahan, now a privacy lawyer in Washington, recalled.
In his voting rights course, Mr. Obama taught Lani Guinier’s proposals for structuring elections differently to increase minority representation. Opponents attacked those suggestions when Ms. Guinier was nominated as assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1993, costing her the post.
“I think he thought they were good and worth trying,” said David Franklin, who now teaches law at DePaul University in Chicago.
But whether out of professorial reserve or budding political caution, Mr. Obama would not say so directly. “He surfaced all the competing points of view on Guinier’s proposals with total neutrality and equanimity,” Mr. Franklin said. “He just let the class debate the merits of them back and forth.”
While students appreciated Mr. Obama’s evenhandedness, colleagues sometimes wanted him to take a stand. When two fellow faculty members asked him to support a controversial antigang measure, allowing the Chicago police to disperse and eventually arrest loiterers who had no clear reason to gather, Mr. Obama discussed the issue with unusual thoughtfulness, they say, but gave little sign of who should prevail — the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the measure, or the community groups that supported it out of concern about crime.
nyt
I have seen both you and revdeb say this in the comments before, and in part, I was trying to provide you a reason to support Obama. I don’t think he will come to us, we have to go to him and make a demand if we want something, or he and his politicos will take us for granted. We have numbers.
What would you demand if you were sitting across from him?
Obama said he would filibuster any bill with telecom immunity and not only did he not do this he voted for the bill. This was especially egregious since if he had opposed the bill it is unlikely Hoyer, Pelosi, Rockefeller, and Reid would have brought it up at all. I thought this was a case where we made it very clear to him what we wanted from him and he blew us off.
EPU must be around…
A democratic administration would, for one, permit the reinstatement of loosehead and a great many other stellar, principled folks back into the DoJ. Think about it. All evils are not equivalent.
I want a straight forward answer…..did Obama attend in any way shape or form…the Bilderberger meeting. I want to know. Did he or didn’t he. Was he vetted by them or not.
I want to know this.
Pretty clearly, Obama is willing to do what it takes in his mind to be elected. He perhaps feels that the good he does after the election is worth what it is necessary to do before it…unfortunately- we don’t know what good he plans to do..
I was in fact sitting across from him, and I asked what he was doing as a Senator to work for disarmament and making the world more peaceful. His answers were detailed and competent. He could easily have tried to bluff these questions; instead, he responded in great depth.
well, for starters, obama has made jason furman his economic policy director.
for a good intro, i recommend amy goodman’s recent interview with naomi klein. skip down to “AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, Obama’s Chicago Boys, who are they?”
Coming from you…I feel better.
LS don’t know if you saw my response earlier, we share a common viewpoint on certain issues, and I honor your attempts to introduce them into our community conversation.
Yes, that is why I said he was a contract lecturer. I know Federal judges that have done exactly the same thing. It is usually for one class a semester, sometimes only one a year, in their specialty. But they often do it for years. To me, that is what it appears Obama did.
;) Yes.
And in fact, he did work seriously on that with Lugar, right?
i don’t know how to say this any clearer – i’ve already been there. i don’t know how many times i called his campaign office and his senate office regarding fisa and telco immunity.
damn, i made a hundred calls to senators in dec 2007 alone (before dodd’s fight on the 17th).
i demanded support for our constitutional protections. he blew me (and the oath he took when he became a senator) off. and he lied about it.
now the question is – what do we do about that? i know different people will have different answers to that question, but there is no turning the clock back and pretending it didn’t happen.
IIRC, Univ of Chicago also offered Obamab support in writing his autobiography….for which he required seven years. Covering from birth to a bit past forty….
not making a choice IS making a choice.
choosing not to choose.
therefore leaving the decision for others to make.
no physical investment in it. and also don’t have to claim any reponsibility for the choice made.
IMHO Barack Obama represents change more than he effects it.
ANd that’s not the worst thing in the world.
I ma essentially cynical
*My* favorite candidate *never* gets nominated…I have to hold my breath *every* four years.
At least this year it doesn’t pain me as much.
As for pleasant surprises, I have had nonefrom my Obama as my Senator. My expectations are set.
That said. I personally could have and should have done more to support Gore and Kerry (two shades of beige).
Make no mistake, this time it’s for keeps. An Obama SCOTUS nomination will not likely reflect my exact preferences, but wil undoubtably be better than a McCain appointment.
And the next nomination is critical to the nation my child will grow up in.
(She might explore her Canadian heritage if things go 2wrong – hell they have more water than us anyways)
“alsooffered Obama support”
(can’t type for beans here…)
see Hugh at 73.
What do I want from him? A promise that the crimes of the Bush administration will be thoroughly and fairly be investigated and that there be accountability. As Bob Barr said last week in the not impeachment hearing—this administration has set a new floor, not ceiling, for illegal behavior.
A promise that he will clean out the DoJ and appoint qualified judges and justices who will uphold the right to privacy with conviction and without apology.
A promise to uphold the rule of law, uphold the Constitution, close down the ghost prison sites around the world, and bring transparency back to government.
That’s a start.
During a Sunday press conference and campaign rally attended by RAW STORY, Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader claimed that liberals and Democrats who will vote for Sen. Barack Obama as the “least worst candidate” are actually trapped in “political slavery.”
Nader goes on to attack Obama in harsher words than McCain has ever used.
I throw my caution to the wind, because the frikkin’ hurricane, Katrina, taught me…don’t listen to Republicans or Neocons no matter what they say then or for ever forward in time… Of course, I knew that way before…don’t listen to the BS of the Bush family or any of the other Neocons…don’t listen to Cheney. Condi had a tanker named after her…don’t listen to Chevron….especially, don’t listen to a goverment ruled by a self-aspiring dictator who is a grandson of Prescott Bush, Nazi sypmapathizer and enabler.
So!!!!
Well, that’s water under the bridge. I’m with kayinmaine, if he loses, it’ll be on us. So, what would you need today, and how do we get it?
i never said all evils were equivalent. that is not my position.
i’m trying to think beyond just the next election.
Hugh,
Take it from me, Obama has been tone deaf on this issue from the beginning.
I got the impression his staff considered it a nuisance.
And have seen nothing in his follow through indicating anything more.
kirk upstairs
if obama loses, it will not just be on me. it will also be on obama. he has made it very clear that he neither needs nor wants my support.
uhh..masaccio: if we wake up tomorrow and Stevens sez his false statemenst and bribery are “water under The bridge” – should we want the FBI to drop the whole thing?
It is comments such as yours, based on personal experience, which confirm my hopes that Obama WILL respond to the needs of the people and the times, perhaps more progressively than he now intends.
Thanks, egregious, for asking important questions of the man who might well have a major role in deciding the fate of of this nation if not of humankind itself. The next few years are among the most critical our species has yet faced, for decisions made ‘now’ will set the direction of many endeavors for decades to come.
It is a daunting task which faces all of us; but it is about time the political class chooses whom and what they will care about, the people and the nation, even the world, or money, power and endless warfare.
I think he will do alright on most judicial appointments; however, Cass Sunstein is a nightmare (very moderate, almost to the point of trending right; very corporate friendly) and he is likely to be Obama’s first SCOTUS pick.
Eat your Wheaties™, Justice Stevens.
I would love to see he and Ginsberg hold out for a Liberal.
That’s not OK with me. And the dems will rubber stamp whatever he wants. Also not good with me.
Yeah, set us free Ralph
Helluva job you’ve done so far.
I am eternally greatful for the seatbelt, now STFU.
That was my response to Nada(r)
I am not sure I accept the premise. Obama has gone out of his way not to sit down with us. A lot of his advisers are ex-Clintonites and University of Chicago types who are as Establishment as they come. They do not represent his message of “change” or “doing things differently”. They bring old mindsets and old ideas to the table that did not work the last time they were in power. Like so many Democrats before him, he is running away from his base. Again why should we make nice? The war, the economy, healthcare, global warming, peak oil, the hollowing out of the agencies of government, domestic spying, accountability, torture, rule of law, excessive speculation in financial markets, the housing crisis, these are not just our issues. They are America’s issues. If he can’t speak to these, then even if he is elected, his Presidency will fail. He needs to get behind progressives, not because it’s cool to be liberal but because conservatives and the center don’t have answers, plans, and solutions that work. Simple as that.
What’s the emoticon for “I couldn’t agree more!”?
Agreed
I would actually prefer a real conservative (you know, the kind that actually beleives in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and all that old shit)
Interesting wiki on Obama. I’ve never read it before!
and obama’s statement “explaining” his vote was filled with falsehoods. dishonesty from start to finish.
Huh?
exactly. if obama nominates someone like sunstein then we know the senate will confirm. but if a republican nominates someone like sunstein, then there is a small chance (yes, i know it is vanishingly small) that the dems will fight it.
a miniscule chance vs none.
Sunstein is a nightmare but he’s liberal in the same way Michael O’Hanlon is, which is to say not at all. He has signed off on the most extreme excesses and illegalities of the Bush Administration. There is nothing remotely moderate about that. His economic views are goofy.
this thread has separate comments section over at emptywheel’s place.
This is my cross post comment
my comment:
I agree. And there should be electronic congresscritter signatures tagged to any and all additions/deletions to the bill, so we the Public can figure out in real time and after the fact who is helping to shape the progressive bills we are watching grow in “the womb” and who is throwing poison pills and wrenches into it to produce a stillborn.
I’m sure that analogy would eventually work as a double-edged sword and horrible bills the righties will write will have to be “killed” outright or tabled and left to die but for the hand of God to save it.
I emailed my similar idea last year to Virgil Griffith hoping he could figure out a way to do this for pending Congressional bills. (I don’t know if he got my message). Griffith is the CalTech grad student and inventor of Wikipedia Scanner, a datamining tool for researching the IP addresses of people making changes to Wikipedia entries.
See Wired.
IMHO, neocons dominate both parties. On civil liberties, national security, and foreign policy, I’ve seen relatively little difference between Clinton, Obama, and McCain. On social services (e.g., healthcare and education), taxation, and economics there are significant differences, but nobody is talking about catching up with the other developed economies in these areas.
It was some of the most outrageous double-talk I’ve ever seen.
1. Protect and defend the Constitution.
2. Give back the executive power bush has illegally assumed.
3. Return Habeus
4. Overurn FISA
Just to name a few.
And bring the evil-doers to justice.
we were promised some of this by pelosi, reid, slaughter and obama at the beginning of the 110th congress (from jan 18, 2006): ‘We Will Create the Most Open and Honest Government in History’
something we saw this past year wrt fisa legislation – on multiple occasions, lawmakers (and citizens) were given less than 24 hours between when a bill was available to review and when the vote was held.
congress is seems likes to do this when the bill is an unpopular one.
They take us for granted. If we want to change that, we have to be willing to do something unexpected. We can’t expect them to change their attitude until we prove we can make our demands stick. Whining won’t get it. When there are enough people like revdeb and selise, we get the change we want.
Yes, very frustrating to watch the crash in slow motion. What were they doing? And when is someone going to leak to us bloggers a copy of the script they are all acting from?
In fact bullet point 5 seems antithetical to what Pelosi allowed wrt FISA/Patriot renewal/telecom retroactive immunity
Let’s bake her several cakes that contain all these words and make her eat them on TV during prime time
Yup, they said they would drain the “swamp.” What a frikin pile of shit.
oops, bullet point 4–not that Pelosi is paying attention to care about accuracy.
the 110th congress has been an eye opening experience for me. and extremely unpleasant – but i don’t think it’s any good to pretend things are what i wish them to be instead of what the evidence says they are…. :(
Agree 1010%
Well if you say we are going to support them no matter what, you have already given away the store, and they won’t listen to you. Why should they?
Campaigns set the agenda. GWB might be a bit of the exception- he hid his radical right agenda behind codewords and “compassionate conservative” pablum.
If Obama makes it to the president- his agenda will be set by his campaign. Unfortunately, running to the “center” to please David Broder isn’t a very good start for a legislative agenda. If he becomes triangulator-in-chief, the united Republicans and their blue lap dog allies will still be able to stop anything and might even be able to set the agenda, ala FISA. We want Obama to be the reformer who restores our democracy. Unfortunately, it appears that he is running on being the red-state, blue-state uniter who will roll back some of the radical republican agenda- maybe a long, slow draw down in Iraq (coupled with an escalation in Afghanistan) but he isn’t going to make any drastic changes or take any large risks or do anything that might lessen the chances of him winning a few Red states or offending the village insiders.
How likely is a reform agenda when you have a red-state governor or FISA co-capitulator on the ticket? Or when he supports the current, corrupt Democratic leadership to retain their positions in the next congress?
I still have hope, and Obama’s words in the primary were very close to what I wanted to hear from him. But the current, tack to the non-existent “middle” Obama gives me great concern- not the least of which is that I strongly believe that message will not get him to the White House.
Can we afford to go on this basis? Isn’t it akin to W’s trust in his gut feelings?
Deb, being formerly in the same club as you (Lic Th), I want to raise with you a dilemma facing voters, and not just those presently who have no good alternative between McC and O’B:
In a representative democracy, when we vote for a representative, we are erecting a vicarious moral agent who takes, in our names and with our consent, moral decisions for which we alone are responsible. We cannot delegate nor can we abrogate this responsibility, and it will not do to assert that we ourselves have not done this or that, but rather that our representatives have done it.
I have received a lot of flak, but, tellingly, no analysis on FDL for this position, but if one goes into these matters seriously and thoroughly, I am altogether certain that there is no escaping having to work through this dilemma. And this holds for non-theists as well; it holds for anyone who accepts personal responsibility for their actions. And as I have inisisted, these things cannot be delegated.
Rejoinders such as such a position is impractical, or would make our polity, as presently constituted, unworkable do not address my points, and in any case, they are posterior, logically, to my points.
I have appreciated your posts and what I take to be your attitudes and capacities. I welcome, nay I am keen to hear, your take on this matter, than which nothing could be more serious.
I found something in the Wired article I linked to above (second page) that I think Jane might enjoy:
Looks like Jane has at least one potential friend in CIA. Unless…Jane doesn’t work there, right?
This is a good system?
Thanks for this, Egregious. I have asserted hereabouts that evil is evil; and that the lesser of two evils is yet evil. Your frame gives me a useful way to think about these things in trying to understand those who are not moral absolutists. Moral absolutism is not the same as doctrinal rigidity, mind. There are just some things, IMO, that are not relative and which must be addressed head on.
Dam straight, LS. I want to know as well.
It’s the only system that has ever existed.
Point taken, albeit in a restricted sense.
My question stands: Is this a good system? And I am not aware that human institutions are cast in bronze or graven in stone.
Me, I think it a lousy system. For most of my long life I have been a student of the roots of political obligation: what can a polity demand of its constitutive persons; and a student of various theories of polity. Plato tried many different theories out in such dialogues as his Republic, and in his Laws. Aristotle had a go at it in his Constitution of Athens and in his Politics. Much later Thomas Hobbes made valuable speculation in his De Corpore Politico and in his Human Nature. And of course in Leviathan. A more recent invaluable discussion is in The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism : Hobbes to Locke by Charles B. Macpherson. I have profited from Consent, Freedom, and Political Obligation by J. P. Plamenatz. Sir Isaiah Berlin has made interesting arguments in favour of accommodation of a very wide range of opinion in his advocacy of democracy. The literature is vast.
I still do not have a satisfying answer. But Plato did opine that the reign of the thirty tyrants seemed a political golden age as compared to the soi disant democracy of the 5th century B.C. Athens. Plato considered democracy mobocracy, and I do as well. Not that I adduce a more perfect system. I am disenchanted with all of ‘em.
The wealth of the United States was built on a brutal genocide against the Native American tribes and an equally brutal exploitation of African tribes.
Steny Hoyer will lobby Obama hard to defeat Donna Edwards in 2010. Blue Dog John Barrow used Obama’s endorsement to crush the liberal Regina Thomas in the 2008 GA-12 Democratic primary. Donna’s criticism of Obama at the Netroots convention was a “profile in extreme political courage.” We have to defend Donna and beat Steny in the Democratic primary in 2010. That will be one of many battle lines between liberals and the Vichy Democrats.
Based on what happened in GA-12, I don’t see how Donna can win, if Obama endorses Steny’s replacement for her.
To me the only way to gain a real voice is to wield the power of the Primary vote first. We have to make a united effort to purge the party of Blue dogs and those who have betrayed the Constitution and the electorate. The fact that Democrats in DC feel they could ignore us with impunity over FISA validates my point. These Un-representatives must learn to fear and respect us more than the fear the Repiglicans! The POWER of throwing the bums out is the only true STICK that we can wield that they understand. Once we show them we can kick them out then and only then will all Dems begin to listen.
Then we should really focus on Donna’s primary win. Getting her elected is key to getting Obama’s attention!
Voting is one thing. Working for them, and giving them money, is our bargaining point. We have other people we can work for and other people to give money to. Cut that off, and it is a problem for them. That is unexpected, and that will make a difference.
My issues:
1) Accountability – no matter what Bush does, I want a commission to review the crimes, and issue a report. If Congress can’t do it, then spend some money and ask a couple of think tanks to collaborate and issue a report. Money, deadline, fully published.
2) Transparency in every part of the government, e.g., Johnson at EPA may be charged with lying to Congress (re: California). “His” decision would not be known to us if an assistant hadn’t left the EPA and then told Congress how the decision was made. FOIA requests must be answered promptly. Whistleblowers up and down the line must be given incentives AND protected.
3) Campaign finance reform. The real deal. If democrats sweep the Congress there’s no excuse for not instituting rules so that every part of society gets a seat at the table. Talk up the $1.00 check off — increase it to $5.00. (Ask Fritz Hollings to talk to us about his new book. Use it as a “how-to.”)
4) Finally, a plan to cultivate people in the media who will broadcast a fair reading of the issues. In the past, we have relied too heavily on their judgement of what’s important and their sense of fair-play. We don’t digg our own stories enough, but we also don’t have go-to people who will give a fair hearing to our concerns. We need old media megaphones.
oops! A list of three sounded good in my head — I couldn’t leave off four, it’s just too important. And now my fifth and final request.
5) Paper trails. IF we actually win, I want paper trails for all federal elections. No more half-way grassroots efforts for “one man, one vote.”
Having to win every election by a landslide just to make sure a democrat gets in, is getting very old.
In-your-face lies. Spoken while knowing informed people would recognize he was lying.
So, how much “propaganda” does he think is OK? How can we know when he’s telling the truth? I’d really like to know.