The Sky Didn't Fall

 Over at BO's blog so many people have been doing exactly what you are talking about, posting it's a deal breaker, I'm done with this campaign but then they are there later in day or the next day saying the same thing. I love it--

How can I miss you if you never go away?

I have said that to a couple of my boyfriends in the past. :-)

O/T Vanity Fair photoshopped the Faux news pundits, it is funny.

Al, you have outdone yourself.  Thanks for this post.

I also keep my sense of perspective because I do more than sit at my computer all day reading and commenting on the election (OK, not a LOT more, but more).

When I go door-to-door, or work the Obama table at an event that is not Democratic-activist centered (like I did over the 4th of July weekend), NOT ONE PERSON has asked about FISA.

People ask me about the wars.  People ask about the economy.  People ask about who Obama's VP will be.  People ask me about Obama's position on gun ownership.  At an LGBT pride event, many asked about Obama's positions on issues critical to our community.

FISA?  Nope.

I also use my mom as a source.  She's a Republican in her 70s, lives in a small town in southeastern Alaska, may see the evening news a few times a week and reads her local weekly paper.

When the MSM is whipping a stray comment or non-story into a frenzy and I'm getting frantic about it, I'll call her and ask her what she thinks.  Most of the time, she doesn't know what I'm talking about.

And she believes Obama will win the election.

I do tech support for a blogging service and the customers that most loudly announce at every glitch or bug that they are going to cancel their service are the ones that stay around the longest. They are also the ones we wish would cancel their service so we don't have to deal with their prima donna behavior anymore. I couldn't help but think of that as I read this!

Thanks as always for being a beacon of sanity, Al.

But I have to wonder how much of the work done on FISA has included outreach to folks OUTSIDE the blogosphere. Because it seems to me (and please correct me if I am wrong) that there was a lot of exhorting each other to call reprentatives, etc, but how much was done on outreach with the goal of expanding the number of people who were invested in the issue?

Thanks for the reality check.

Last weekend I stood outside my local Kroger (in a heavily Democratic area in Atlanta, GA) and ended up registering 14 new voters. Many are going to be voting for the first time this fall and are excited about casting their vote for Obama. It felt great and I highly recommend getting off the blogs and heading out the door to do something like this.

 

 

Feingold's comments are spot-on and a great example of Smart Dissent.  Make your objections to a tactic known while still demonstrating a clear eye on the real prize and the greater good that will come when it is won.

This is one of many reasons why I champion him for VP.

thank you. required life reading. have nothing to add.

except that your 'personal' best was jurassic post.

It's hard for us Americans to have any faith in politicians these days.  Do you think Barack really believes in his vote or was he doing it to win the election.  Does this matter??  And why do you think Hillary voted the other way? Did she believe in her vote? Have they switched candidacies?  ----Confused but still for Obama----

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/10/101257/821/879/549336

Glad you posted that Feingold statement. hadn't heard it. I saw the interview where he was saying essentially that it was outrageous there was spying on Americans, that it can't be permitted, etcetera. Which I called stupid two threads back. Because he's on the committee that should know these things and has had multo time to create effective oversight.

But I also realize he's precluded from saying We've been doing this to you for nearly four decades and we can't control it, it's got away from us, and now we have commercial concerns doing it for us that we dont know how to regulate

-------------------------------------.

To use Andrew Sullivan's schtick, the 'money quote' in your post is: "I've concluded that a much bigger problem in the USA than any piece of legislation passed by Congress is the petrified manner in which so many Americans define and limit their participation in current events."

I read an AP story yesterday (one of those "Most Popular" ones on Yahoo!) about Obama, Clinton, and Caroline Kennedy flying together to NY.  The last sentence of the article was this:

"Obama spent the majority of the day in his Senate office and on Capitol Hill for a series of votes, including on a bill overhauling rules on secret government eavesdropping. He did leave for one private meeting in a local hotel. "

I think this probably just about sums up the level that the general public is paying attention to this issue, if at all.  So we move on.

And thanks for encouraging the call to real, effective action.  I'm in Vermont, and I'll be going to the weekly phone banks that are starting this weekend - they even have a campaign staffer here in Vermont! Isn't that amazing!

I also read yesterday that the campaign staff in Missouri is being tripled to 150 paid staff (McCain has about 10-15 I think).  And, in Nevada I read there are 500,000 new democrats registered this year (putting their registered numbers above the Repubs).

Finally, there's a great program on the BO site now, and if it's operating in your state yet, you should join.  It's called neighbor to neighbor and you sign up for it and they assign you 20 people in your neighbourhood to talk to, and you do it on your own schedule, and then when you've talked to them you check them off your list.  I know it's already launched in VA, so go to this page and put in your address to see if it's in your area.

http://my.barackobama.com/modules/votercontact/login_signup.php

KD

Feingold's comment is very interesting, as he has been perhaps the most vocal opponent of increased government intrusion into citizens' lives starting with the original Patriot Act.  In fact, his statement is somewhat of a mirror of Obama's statement defending Feingold and others for voting for Roberts and Alito for the Supreme Court.

 

At the same time, it is a warning to Obama that he better follow through after he becomes President or Feingold is going to hold him very much accountable.

 

Obama's statement is a request to be held accountable by everybody.  He is promising to do a revamp of all the extensions of executive power and to curtail it in a manner that will have meaning to future administrations and he more than anybody knows how powerful the grassroots (notice I did not say netroots) can be.

 

But the real point of this comment deals with ideological purity.  For years the left side of the blogosphere has been very condemnatory of the Republican tendency to walk in lock step with the adminstration and the party talking points.  It has decried this form ofideological purity, but apparently only because the ideology was one they disagreed with.

 

Now they are demanding the same level of ideological purity from Democrats, since their ideology is the ascendant one.  I think there is a word that describes this behavior.  It is called hypocrisy.

As others here have pointed out, if one stops griping and gets out the door, or on the phone, and actually communicate with voters, you get perspective real fast. You hear about bread and butter issues, the economy, the war, health care. But FISA? Never. Ask most voters and they'd probably guess that FISA is a new credit card.

 

But some on the left are hopeless. They'd much rather win the battle and lose the war, than vice versa. They aren't your typical campaign volunteer -- that's much too pragmatic. No, they'd rather stand on the sidelines and shout into the wind.

 Maybe you are thinking about it, maybe not, I am.

Yes. I also wanted to add something about the phenomenon of keyboard-complaint-cum-faux-activism. The phenomenon of liberals (like many academics; liberals and academics are also very distinct as I actually see very little of what I would call progressivism in the academy) declaring this or that as a "deal-breaker" is not simply an exercise in delusions of self-importance.  Rather, in my view, it involves an extraordinary failure to grasp the sheer enormity and complexity of the worlds around us and in which we live.  Economic and social interactions on a global scale are so vast and complex that even with the vaunted and classified technology that lies at the heart of the FISA dustup, we are still, and very obviously, in the analogous situation of doing brain surgery with carpentry tools (or lasers and the latest imaging technologies, for that matter). And the same goes for politics--like the biological universe we are destroying.  The scene is so vast, so complex, so awe-inspiring, that the single-issue voter like the single-issue blogger-enthusiast is nothing but an isolated monad or mote of dust in the maelstrom.  To not see this complexity is to be willfully stupid.  Catching glimpses of such enormity, besides ensuring perpetual humility (as well as humiliation), also reminds how extraordinary it is when single individuals actually do "change the world" through their words or deeds.  But, we all want to be heroes right? We need more people telling us--a la American Idol--that we can't sing. Then we might focus--and actually work towards the day we envision.

Nicely put Al.  Increasingly I'm finding many "progressive" blogs strangely similar in tone to The Onion.

...if Obama had held to his position of filibustering retroactive immunity to the telcos in this bill? I hear you loud and clear about armchiar, wi-fi-ed, entirely notional "activism", changing the world blog post by blog comment, as the nonsense ity surely is. What isn't clear to me is what Obama has gained by this reversal, except more calls that he's a flip-flopper and in bed with the telecommunications industry.

Right on, Al! A pitch perfect post.

The most depressing element of the FISA caterwauling has been the absolutism of it, the threatening dogmatism, and, of course, the smug and self-righteous sense of superiority. My way or the highway. Gone from the discussion is the long view, the idea that the best possible outcome for FISA and every other issue is a Democratic president, a Democratic attorney general, a strong Democratic Congress and Senate, and a Democratic agenda.

I've been scratching my head at the myopia of the FISA trolls, stewing in dark corners with furrowed brows and cartoon frowns, CAPS LOCK keys perpetually turned on, angrily ripping their Obama bumper stickers from their cars. You just want to scream, be patient! Take the long view! A campaign has a complex gestalt and, by definition, is more about the creation of an environment in which each single issue can assert itself with greater likelihood of efficacy than without that environment. In fact, that's exactly what the FISA vote revealed. Obama's vote didn't matter at all in the long run because the environment in which it would have made a difference was not there. And that's the point of the campaign.

Your post, Al, goes a long way toward pointing the way there.

Simply, Al--your approach and insight are and have been such a gift this season.  Your experience of being "off the reservation" are similar to my own.  Burned to the point of being unrecognizable from purity rage--I dropped way out for a while.  This time around, I try and remember to be compassionate about the outrage-identified.  Anger turned inward (or typed anonymously) turns into something morose and self-destructive.  It also leads to a tougher skin.

Thank you once again, Al for staying solidly on the ground and refusing to be swept up in the whirlwind. It is a relief to have a place of balance and sanity to come to when tired of the tratruming of those who are unable to conceive of long term success as being a product of long term strategy.

I especially appreciated this:

"Or another of my favorite fortune-cookie axioms: He who says a thousand goodbyes never leaves.

It's the only dance move that some people know."

In my other life I am a child custody mediator, and find those who are the most intractible, the most stuck to their perceived "bottom lines" are the ones who, while professing their disdain for their former partners, never find a way to say goodbye, and prolong this process for years. The foot stomping, the posturing, the "my way or no way" I've seen across the "liberal" blogosphere has the same quality.

Btw, love the pix of chicken little...

people told me the sky didn't fall when Roberts and Alito were appointed. they're right - the sky didn't fall. who SAID the sky was going to fall? I'm getting so used to getting words crammed in my mouth that I think I'm beginning to like it!

Obama didn't do what he said he would do. Arlen Furshlugginer Specter talked about it better than the Democratic Presidential Candidate did. those things don't bother anybody but me? fine.

 

I never said the sky was gonna fall. I said he didn't do what he said. no matter how you fluff the man's pillows - he's not doing what he said. Obama's willing to take his lumps. His supporters would rather make lumps on guys like me.

 

thank you sir, may I have another?

I wish he hadnt voted the way he did. But I trust him and I havent seen any signs of weakness in the way he has run his campaign.

I dont know the ins or outs of the bill or a winning campaign, l just listen and learn...and trust.

dKos is unbearable these days with all the faux outrage, and the threats to abandon the Obama campaign...I never saw so much stupidity...well I have..this is how Dems lose elections.
one poster had a great comment in one of the threads where the author was threatening to quit the Obama campaign...in it the poster stated how he was angry at Gore in 2000 for some of his centerist positions during the campaign and how he stopped donating and volunteering...he said " imagine if I and few others like me went down to Florida and capaigned extra 600 people to vote for Gore...how the last 8 years would have turned out?"
the left blogsphere will cut the nose to spite the face...and I am sick and tired of the condescention from the likes of Greenwald and his types.

chicken little. .

amk

So many people--"anonymous-by-keyboard" or not--think that they are the last word on Obama and the Campaign strategy.

Many people believe in their own "importance" to the detriment of themselves and Our Candidate...are you listening Rev. JJ?

Then there are the "little" people who do "small" things that actually turn out to have positive effects:

Christi and Suzy noticed that the signature rate for the Petition had slowed considerably.  So they came up with the great idea to do a series of posts over on the BHO site.  We divided up the times, taking into account our different time zones.  In less than 8 hours, we have 100+ NEW signatures; and are well on our way towards our goal of 1,480 before next Wednesday!

Other Fieldhands are doing face-to-face voter registration, phone banking, posting on comments sections, Platform and Vote for Change Meetings, etc.

Whining and complaining changes nothing.  Like Our Candidate says: Listening, thinking, and then responding with intelligence and thoughtfulness is the way to go!

We here at The Field and over at the Fieldhands Site are continuously amazed at and grateful for Our Leader, Al Giordano!

Great post and wonderful pic, Al!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

 

This link provided by KD above is pretty cool:

 

http://my.barackobama.com/modules/votercontact/login_signup.php

 

Neighborhood canvassing - not phone banking.  My list was 20 voters within about a third of a mile from my house.

 

That DKos post PalGal mentioned is twisted.  The implication is that we would have been better off with Al Gore even though he didn't do with the poster wanted him to do.  And yet, he's proud of making the same mistake twice??  Is that just narcissism at work?  Trying to make your own actions seem to all important??  It's only together that we can make a difference.

Al's post supports the old adage: "Know thyself"--which BTW is very difficult.  However, I enjoyed Al's oracle du jour even more: "I speak, therefore I act is the great American illusion of politics."

It's these little tidbits that keep me heading to the Field, as my first read.  But not before I have my coffee and cigarette! Tomorrow afternoon, I will be working at an Obama table during a public festival in my city. (Yes, I need to get off my duff, too!) I will see how many people are concerned about FISA and report back. That is not to say I agree about the FISA vote, but Sen. Obama has to get elected first, before he can help fix the messes that have been made for many years. This will be a difficult election, just as they all are. 

 

 

Many have been so angry for so long they just don't know how to direct it anymore. I've always noted that the quietest people make the most impact when they do speak up.

A really smart guy once said....

"Holding anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned." 

Using anger and Faux Keyboard Activism, ensures being burned.

For a supposed grass-roots site, it is odd that there is so little back-and-forth allowed here. I have seen very little actual discussion of what the FISA bill actually does, especially the new power that the President is given and the ham-stringing of oversight. But I have seen a lot of demonizing and intimidation of those who are honestly and deeply concerned with the actual legal issues this bill raises. And yes, the legal implications are what matters for those upset with Obama's vote, not who is licking what wounds, who's the Velociraptor and who is the weak silly girly Chicken Little. I am sure past battles and experiences color all this, and experience in how one actually fights against organized state corruption on the neighborhood level, but really, take a look at the tone being set here.

correctly...
he was saying that we CAN'T repeat his mistake of sitting on the side because of few minor issues...he was actually chiding the posters who wanted to repeat his mistake......he was telling them that if he had considered the bigger picture in 2000, maybe things would have been different..he was expressing regret because he didn't participate in 2000 and vowed not to repeat the mistake again.

I was suffering from Chicken Littleism.  After reading this piece I've regained perspective.  Actually the tender spot to me was the immunity essentially closed the door on discovery of evidence to convict the bush cabal.  But that was never happening anyway.

I still find it difficult to compromise though.

And that's saying something considering that all your posts are great.

 

The liberal blogosphere's overreaction to Obama's vote on FISA has been ridiculous. It seems everyone has been threatening to withhold donations and volunteer work if Obama doesn't vote their way. I equate those single-issue FISA voters with single-issue abortion voters. It's an important issue and I don't agree with his vote, BUT expecting Obama to expend all his political capital -- remember he's still a Jr Senator and not President yet -- on a largely symbolic battle is stupid. There are more important and pertinent issues like, oh I don't know, the nosediving economy, Iraq, health care, education, and the energy crisis.

 

I'm honestly jealous of those chicken littles though. Their financial situations are strong enough so that they can support a candidate solely based on these wedge issues. Then again, I have a feeling those same people threatening to not donate and not volunteer never really did much of either beforehand. Anyway, thanks for bringing a fresh breath of air into a liberal blogosphere that is oftentimes disconnected from reality.

"CharlesF" - I once knew a great man named Charles F: And Charles F. McCarthy would have dissented to your supposed dissent! Could you look at your comment as a mirror, please, and please note: the preemptive whining over a censorship that did not occur, and with it the urge to censor others that talk about Chicken Littles and Velociraptors and other things that apparently ruffle your feathers.

What's the difference between your "dissent" and mine (or anybody else's) that questions yours?

Whine, whine, whine if you must, but you don't get a special court order here that protects your words from criticism, either, and your comments seem to indicate that you expect that.

From your opening salvo, calling this a "supposedly grass roots" forum: One supported entirely by small donors, with more than 400 copublishers that use our real names (and therefore, as you can see, are much more responsible about what comes flying off their keypads than you will find almost anywhere else online) and whose comments are not moderated, with a high participation by commenters that would be the envy of most blogs, but you have nothing substantial to say except whining about what others say!

And if you don't like that "tone being set here," tough luck. In the memorable words of Senator Clinton: "Should I get you a pillow?" What is it that you want? A public masturbation platform? Like, you can't get that in a thousand other places already online?

Still, your readership and your commentary is appreciated. We're honored that out of millions of blogs you choose to keep coming back here over and over again! Have you thought about why that is?

Charlesf - there are no shortage of sites on the web where you can indulge your "back-and-forth" on FISA. Do we really need another? Per usual with the FISA folks, your "concern" comes across as somewhat threatening. And, I sense, that what you really want is not back-and-forth at all but another place to commence your hectoring FISA lectures. Why not just post links to your rants on other sites and save yourself some typing?

Thank you, Al! I have recently decided, or come to my senses, that the most effective use of my energy is to do less blog-reading and more voter registration. I remember you saying during the primary that the least anxious people are those who are out there working for their candidate--ie, transmuting fear into empowered action.

but I see Al already took him out with a bazooka!

My point would have been that he hasn't seen more dissection of FISA here because there's more than enough of that elsewhere in the blogosphere, and the mission of The Field is, as Al so sneakily hides it in The Title of His Blog, to report on the U.S. Presidential Election. 

To the extent FISA influences the outcome of this election it is certainly worthy of mention here.  As it has been.  And now that it has had its news cycle and other issues rise in importance to replace it, those will also be discussed.

Just to add a little to Al's comment.  Charles, you are confusing what the criticism is about.  If you read the comments carefully, you will note that many people have objected to both the bill and the vote.  What the post is really about is the extremism of the reaction.  It is not a coherent disagreement with Obama's position, it is a "Since I disagree with this particular vote, you (Obama) aren't getting my support anymore". 

 

It is this type of reaction that people are criticizing.  It is what some of us here call forgetting the long term goal because of the specific vote. 

 

I may disagree with Al about the actual consequences of the bill, not necessarily in a technical sense but in a psychological sense, but I agree that we can't overreact to it either.

Al,

I have an off-topic question for you that might be stupid and irrelevant (and if it is, feel free to delete or admonish or do whatever else is necessary).  I am posing this quesiton to you because I suspect that you might have a compelling read on this given your past political experiences.

So, here's the question:  could Jesse Jackson's remarks being broadcast all over the cable punditocracy today have been scripted and choreographed?  Here's my rationale:

1.  Jesse Jackson is not stupid, and is the father of an extraordinary loyal Obama backer.  He also happens to be Chicago-based, which is big-time Obama country.

2.  Jackson was on Fox News when he made the remarks, and had to have known that anything he said was fair game for red meat-seeking tabloid journalists.

3.  Jacksons' comments actually crudely play to Obama's advantage ... it reverberates Obama's ability to speak truth even when the truth hurts (I hate to compare this to Clinton's Sista Souljah moment, but that's the best analogy I can come up with), tempers concerns from white Democrats that Obama is beholden to his African-American base and highlights his faith-based initiatives.

4.  It neuters any of McCain's perceived momentum or foreign policy advantage over Iran's missile tests by completely co-opting the news cycle.

5.  Jackson's delivery of the comments look scripted to me.

Just curious.

- Vik

Vik - It's plausible. The same thought went through my mind. But we'll never know!

Between Jesse's falling on his tongue-sword for Obama and Phil Gramm's calling us all whiners because 1% Depression-style economic growth isn't good enough for us, I'd say McCain's lost this news cycle.

Thank you, Al.

I live in Indiana and people are hurting here economically. The last thing on the mind of an Indiana steelworker who just lost his job is FISA. He's more concerned about putting food on the table and paying his mortgage on time. It is my hope that those who dare to turn their backs on Barack keep in mind what's really at stake in not just this election, but in the years to come. This is the most important election of our lifetime. What we do in this very crucial election will determine whether this country follows the path of peace and economic security or war and destruction.

 

I understand that for some FISA may be a deal breaker, but I would implore those individuals to think about someone other than themselves before abandoning Barack. Think about the single-mother in Ohio who works 3 jobs so that she can provide for her family. Think about the the grandmother whose breast cancer has returned who worries about her medical bills. Think about the Gold-Star mother who just lost her only son in Iraq. Think about the A+ student who is excited to go to college, but can not go because it's too expensive.

 

This election is about all of us. Black, White, Latino, Straight, Gay, Young, Old, Republican, Democrat, Weak, Strong, Rich, and Poor. This election should be about putting your fellow man before partisanship. We won't always agree with Barack, but there are too many serious issues that plague us for individuals to quit all together. As Barack likes to state, this is a movement. Movements require hard work and guts. The weak need not stay nor apply. If you're going to run at the first sign of disagreement, then maybe you weren't really committed to the cause. There are rewards and setbacks in movements. You have to learn to take the good with the bad.

 

Barack has shown me to think of someone other than myself in this election. That is what motivates me into making sure that Barack gets elected. I'm getting out the vote for my elderly neighbor Rosa who can't afford her prescription drugs. I'm getting out the vote for my 12 year old cousin who I do not want to see being shipped over to Iraq in the years to come to fight a 100  year illegal war. Those individuals are who I am fighting for in this election, not myself, not just one issue. There is no other choice but Barack Obama come November. Rosa, my cousin, and millions of Americans like them are counting on us to get it right this year.

 

In closing, fight for whatever causes that move you, but my only request to those individuals is while you're fighting the good fight against or for any issue, remember to think about someone other than yourself and what this election is truly about--all of us.

"And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok."

This is a very effective sales technique.  People like to use the "deal breaker" line to garner attention or as a negotiating ploy.  The best way to diffuse them is to take their objection off the table.  If FISA is really a deal-breaker for these folks, then we shouldn't waste our time trying to convince them otherwise.  If they are just saying it's a deal breaker, we should just ignore them, because there's no reasoning with an inauthentic reactionary.  Either way, ignoring them is the best approach.  There are more effective ways to spend our time and effort.

you're not the only suspicious one. from today's chicago trib, columnist john kass:

"Rather than listen to Washington talking heads explain our town's politics, I called a friend, a prominent African-American activist of the far left persuasion. He considers me his token conservative buddy.

"All I want to know," he said, "is how much David Axelrod paid Jesse to say that @#$%! [rhymes with "it"].

He was speaking rhetorically, knowing that Obama/Daley strategist Axelrod wouldn't pay Jackson for such nonsense when he could get it for free..."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-10jul10,0,725595.column

good point about that journey of wandering to find your path again, al...and the surrounding drama that usually indicates a person hasn't committed to it yet.

Vik, I was pondering the same thing this morning, after reading this post about the potential benefits of Obama's "accidental Sister Soujah moment." http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/10/obamas_accidental_si...

Which started me thinking about how, for such a susposed egomanic, there's been nary a peep out of Rev. Wright since his Press Club "meltdown" and subsequent divorce from Obama, and how Wright's receeding fast from memory as a result (fingeres crossed).

Like Al says, we'll never know for sure what was orchestrated and what was luck. But if someone writes a definitive inside-look at the campaign someday, I'd love to read that book.

I went over to a repulsive anti-Obama site and people were complaining that bloggers aren't talking about FISA anymore. As I informed them, most people don't revisit the same issue over and over again but can move on. Also, most people vote based on their overall level of agreement on a set of issues. (Of course, they found that very annoying). In any case, they seem to have enough connection to reality to be able to recognize that the issue isn't sticking.

The same thought occurred to me this morning.  In fact, if you think back, there have been a number of people who have fallen on their swords at opportune moments, including the good reverend, General Clark and now Jesse.  There may be others I am forgetting.  Not that I am complaining.  I think of Al's comparison of Obama's playing chess while others are playing checkers.

JoAnn

Dear Barack,

Everything is forgiven if you'll make Russ Feingold your VP pick.

Yours Truly....  Eagleye

Al, great point about having to get some distance in order to truly see this country.  As a Canadian who lives (and now votes!) in the States, I have often felt that one of the biggest problems the States faces is that this country is just so big (and I don't mean in area) that its citizens, be they on the left or on the right, well-intentioned or not, just can't see it, can't get any perspective on it and its doings in the word.  I imagine the Roman Empire had the same problem!

Dear Barack,

I will vote for you and all will be forgiven if you do the following upon taking the office of POTUS:

1) I want Dr. King's Face on Rushmore.  I know, I know, the white folk only like president's faces, not Kings.  It don't matter, I want it.

2) Apologize to the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, and others that have been harmed by US imperialism over the centuries.

3) Bring Bush ( I & II) and Bill Clinton to a war crimes tribunal.

4) Tell Isreal to abide by all UN resolutions and to dismantle the settlements.

5) Invite Hugo Chavez to Camp David for a week.

6)  Appoint Al Giordano as a special liason for Latin American Affairs.

7)  Universal Health Care--tax the OIL and Insurance industries, and the filthy rich, to pay for it.

8)  Raise minimum wage to double the present rate--effective immediately.

 

These are just a few things that I personally want.  You know that the world revolves around me, so you better do it.

If you don't bow to my demands, I will jump up and down until you do.

Mainer - Thanks for the excellent report from that corner of the woods. What I think upsets some folks like "CharlesF" is that the task of hijacking conversations to get everyone screaming "the sky is falling," so easy on other parts of the Internet, is so much more difficult (and so far impossible) here. It's not that those opinions don't appear here regularly. It's that folks just look at it, move on, and talk about things they consider to be bigger priorities.

I also sense that some don't like my penchant for ridicule (which Abbie Hoffman taught me is a change-agent's greatest weapon). That's the flip side of humorlessness in general. But like I said to Charlie, if it's not somebody's cup 'o tea, it's a big Internet out there and I'm sure he can find what he's looking for elsewhere if this brew is not to his taste. (However, it's like what Laura said, above, about working Tech Support: the ones that complain most frequently and threaten to leave are the ones that keep calling again and again. Funny how that works out.)

I will give you the "Campellian Journey".  There is not an ounce of exaggeration in it.  My question is regarding the thing that you brought back.  Given the present context, would that thing be that the Zapatistas should have supported Lopez Obrador?

Jesus - When reporting on political movements, be they non-electoral (like the indigenous movement in Mexico) or electoral (including the present one), I don't tell the protagonists what they should or shouldn't be doing. I may offer an opinion from time to time, but never phrased as a demand. In the specific case you mention, I don't think that it would have helped that candidate in the 2006 Mexican elections had they supported him, and probably would have hurt him (he did win, after all, only to be robbed by electoral fraud).

Every circumstance in every country is different. Mexico has vibrant non-electoral movements that have won important victories. Nothing of the sort yet exists in the United States. It would be apples and oranges to compare the situations in two different countries.

I think there is a time and season for almost every kind of tactic and strategy when it comes to making change. I wouldn't apply what's best in one land in one year to determining what's best in another in a different year.

I think the discussion on FISA hasn't been sufficiently nuanced.  It's pretty much been two camps shouting at each other, without the recognition that it's possible for us to be supportive of Obama's campaign while also being fiercely critical of his vote on FISA.  We can walk and chew gum at the same time, can't we? 

I am very concerned and disappointed about Obama's position on FISA--   It isn't just that he voted the wrong way on the issue; the larger problem for me is that he made a lot of noise about opposing the legislation if it contained retroactive immunity for the telecoms, yet in the end Obama voted to approve it anyway.  So that leaves us wondering if he can be trusted to follow through and live up to his word.  Can we believe that he means what he says the next time he speaks to an issue?  Is he just another politician with jelly for a spine?  Is he stuck in the same fearful, defensive posture that the Democratic Party has been in during the Bush years?  These questions didn't arise for me until he rolled over on FISA.

If Obama thinks this lousy FISA bill is worthy of his support on its merits, then I have a problem with his thinking and his judgement.  And if he cast the vote for craven political reasons, then I've got an even bigger problem with him.  From my point of view, Obama made a serious error on this one, not because the new FISA legislation is going to impact our lives very much, but because Obama has opened the crack of doubt about who he is.  He squandered some of his political capital on this one, and got nothing in return.  I'm not one of those who are going nuclear about it, because the alternative is McCain, and he is not acceptable.  But I've got to be honest and say that for me, some of the lustre has come off Obama's campaign.  I worked very hard and gave a decent amount of $$ to help him win the primary, and I'll continue to be supportive, but I can't overlook the reality of what just happened; the Bush administration and the telecoms broke the law and dishonored our Constitution, and the response from a Democratic Congress was to give the culprits a free pass on their crimes, and give the Executive branch even more surveillance powers in the bargain. 

I appreciate Al's effort at providing some perspective and balance, but I don't think we ought to sugar coat this thing-- yesterday was a very dark day for our democracy, and our Presidential nominee signed off on the deal.  Why?

Basil - All these "problems for you" come from your own expectations which I think were unrealistic given the state of US politics and media. You ask "Why?" Well, it's already been explained. You can either accept the nominee's explanation or reject it. But the vote happened yesterday. Nothing will change it now.

I actually have a grudging respect for those that just walk away over those that keep harping on something they cannot change, because it is already in the past. When we're disillusioned in somebody, it's partly our responsibility for allowing those illusions in the first place.

I think it's also an exaggeration to claim this is rightfully a "trust" issue or that anybody "rolled over." It was not the same legislation as was voted on earlier in the year. Concessions were won for more oversight. You can legitimately feel that the concessions were not enough, but you really can't fairly describe it as a change in position because that's the legislative process on virtually all legislation: When a bill can't get the votes, the sponsors compromise with those that hold differing views, and they hammer out something that probably neither side is thrilled with, but concessions were, in this case, made.

So if "trust" is the issue one must really also learn to distrust one's own presumptions in politics when it comes to legislation. What I find unpersuasive is when people, even knowing all that, even having seen the same arguments made over and over again and seeing that they didn't work, they then go repeating those arguments. It's like a broken record. It's boring. It solves nothing, because nobody's invented a time machine yet to go back in time and change the outcome.

And to say something like "well, he hurt himself politically because some other people will see him as capitulating" out of supposed "concern" for the nominee's electoral chances, and then to repeat, ad nauseum, the arguments that were already made and that did not work, you end up doing the very thing you claim to be worrying could happen. I find it selfish, frankly: it's still all about "you" and the perfection you insist on from somebody else.

Still, your dissent is well stated and sticks to the issues, and I appreciate that.

After hearing how Markos Moulitsas is so vewwy vewwy upset about FISA he is not going to give his $2300 to Obama, and similar self-absorbed tantrums. It's refreshing to come to a site with perspective. Here in Oregon no one knows much about FISA, those who do, vast majority are for some resolution like the one that passed. Obama has taken the right tact here by standing with Pelosi on this and getting this issue over with before the GE. It's done. When he's president he can fix it. The blogosphere has just marginalized itself and is carrying water for John McCain. A disgusting lot.

Bill R - Markos did not decide not to max-out because of FISA. His stated reason was in what he felt was the nominee's undercutting of Wes Clark. One can disagree with that, too, but I think it's important to not confuse the two matters, particularly because I think Kos and his center-column crew have provided a good example of how to campaign against the FISA bill without making it all about just one senator among 100. I think, when it comes to FISA, not only did the Daily Kos leadership engage in what I call "smart dissent," but, frankly, FISA was only an issue, and concessions were only won on it, because Markos, for many months now, made a big issue of it.

Funny how the details are so very important. On this thread I've criticized some FISA opponents, while now defending others! But that's my point. Congress is about Congress. And the Executive Branch is about the Executive Branch. And I think if folks went back to what they learned in grade school about separation of powers, and checks and balances and all that, there wouldn't be so much confusion between the two.

These are the best words I have seen on my computer screen this month: I have recently decided, or come to my senses, that the most effective use of my energy is to do less blog-reading and more voter registration.

The single most important work to be done this summer by most anyone concerned with getting Republican fingers off of the levers of power is registering more voters. Registering voters means extending the Democratic registration advantage in Pennsylvania. It means creating a Democratic registration advantage in Nevada (a state Bush narrowly won in 2004). Registering voters in Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, and, yes, Arizona, makes the hill that much steeper for McCain, Ensign, and Cole to climb this November.

Any frustration to be gained by reading the web this month can be more than offset by going out into the sunshine and engaging more people in the process. Registering voters is a way of keeping our eyes on the prize, and it gets us to meet people we might otherwise never know. It's one way to feel better and do better during the dog days of summer. I've spent less time online and more time registering voters in Ohio since spring turned to summer. Can't say I regret the choice.

I don't normally read Gail Collins but came upon this piece (linked to from Sullivan, I think) that sums up why it's tough for some of us to get worked up over FISA, faith-based programs, etc. Sample quote:

Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?

When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.

Read the whole thing.

Obama's lead over McCain in the national polls isn't growing.

When should I be conerned?

Nepat - great article by Gail Collins - made me smile.

This is a good diary by Kos today with lots of examples of McCain talking about our pyschological problem with the economy.  This should be a campaign ad.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/10/18122/2173/551/549648

KD

Dear yellow, it's way too soon to be concerned about Obama's lead in the national polls.

If you want to invest a lot of energy in polls, you need to drill down much deeper and look at the race from a state-by-state and demographic slice-and-dice perspective.  Follow Al's handy dandy link at the above right to Poblano's 538 site and you will feel much much better.

Yellow, you should be concerned every day through to the election.

Getting the 'big head' and letting down our guard is what must not happen.

Obama should campaign as though the race is dead even--and he should work one day per week more than McCain.

Look, don't totally hang your hat on polling.  It is probably a good thing that Obama isn't ten points or more over McCain at this juncture.  The corporate media have an interest in making this an exciting horse race that people obsess over.

Obama is doing the right thing.  No major gaffs, and his campaign is holding steady.

In my biased opinion, McCain appears like a dead-man-walking--his message is stale, and his delivery is even worse.  He hasn't landed any solid punches on Obama yet, not one.

I am interested in how this will play out, and I just can't see how McCain is ever going to get the upper-hand and develop the "big mo", momentum.

Obama will likely peak after the convention---and then the played-out, moribound Republicans will have their convention, where they will pull out the dead body of Ronald Reagan yet again, and wax nostalgic about the good old days.  Anything they can do to take the public's eyes off of the horrible economy and being bogged down in Iraq they will try.

But, who knows, maybe they will try to make this election exciting and pull a disgruntled old lefty associated of Obama's out of their ass.

If you start to really fret over the polls, then get out and register some voters.

 

Nepat- The Gail Collins article was fantastic. Nice reminder that Obama has not, is not and will never be the left wing Jesus.

Al - You made an interesting point about the distinction between the center column folks and the diarists. I have to admit that although some of the comments and diaries have made me apoplectic at times, the center columns have been fairly balanced. As far as Kos not donating, he stated that his decision not to give to Obama at this point is largely irrelevant, and I agree with him. I don't see many people being so enamored of Kos that they would hold back contributions just because he did.

yellow - After primary season, I have a hard time paying attention to polls period. But just to ease your mind: a large number of people aren't even really paying attention yet; and I have to wonder if Obama can get all of these newly registered Democrats to the polls how accurate they will turn out to be anyway.

 

I'm disappointed that Obama did not do the bare minimum to defend the Constitution in this matter (voting nay).

However, I am not outraged. I never thought much of Obama as a Senator. I mean, he's okay and everything, crafted a nice ethics bill, but he was not the kind of rebel and independent thinker in the mold of Feingold, whom we need to lead and stand up against Bush. Of course, Clinton and especially Edwards were/are even worse.

But we're not electing a Senator; we're electing a President. People tend to forget that JFK was also a pretty unremarkable Senator. I've been an Obama supporter since the day he announced because I think he could make a great president. He is intelligent, taught Constitutional law and actively seeks dissent, so he can view matters from all perspectives. He is a great speaker and incredibly inspirational (and I find it vitally important that politics becomes 'cool' again and more people are involved in the process, which is happening already). His background as a community organizer creates an opportunity for a truly revolutionary grassroots movement. As Obama always says, it's not about him, it's about us.

The magnificent way he has run his campaign has convinced be that he would be much better as head of the executive branch than as one of 535 legislators.

The people that are most worked up about the immunity think Obama has made a "stupid, stupid, stupid" political move. This is another example of their inward thinking - yeah, it's a stupid political move if everyone thought just like you. I guess they can't see beyond their giant, pouting lip that 95% of America could care less about this issue, and during a time when Obama is attempting to define himself and his campaign to the entire nation, the last thing he wants to do is grandstand and make a public spectacle of himself over an issue that most voters don't care about, that isn't part of his core policy message and, most importantly, that he can't do anything about anyway.

For Obama to make any headway into shifting the vote towards a favorable outcome (even though it was literally impossible in the current Senate), he would have had to devote considerable time and energy - time and energy better spent presenting himself to an American public that cares about the economy and their more immediate personal securities.

Well he could have at least voted against the bill, right? Yeah, I suppose he could have (and he did vote for the immunity-removal proposals), but so could have two dozen other Democratic senators. Why single him out if it's obvious he couldn't personally change the outcome? If the bill is really that important to them, the hotheads should have been sticking every senator that voted for that bill on a kabob; instead they made an Obama corn-dog.

Lastly, by voting for the bill, it's quite possible he's just gained some important political capital from across (or from the middle) of the aisle in Washington. By going along with a measure he has no power in changing, he can appear more compromising and later use that leverage for when he does have the power to make change.

Steven Hunt, my understanding is that McCain takes weekends off - so arguably Obama is two days ahead on the average week already!

 

Overall, on the subject of this column, I have to disagree with Al when he excuses the failure by Kos to donate. I am sorry, I know people get worked up about issues and are terribly passionately selfrighteous about them, but Kos really should be more mature than to allow one issue to upset him this way. He's an adult, with an influential, if not always very helpful site.  It doesn't benefit liberals when a leader of liberal opinion sets this sort of negative example.  What he is doing is no different, qualitatively, from the PUMAs, and really should not be indulged.  Temper tantrums and foot-stamping ain't leadership, even if they sound briefly impressive on a bright orange website.

I greatly respect your work, Al and read whatever you write that I can, but I really think you are wrong on the FISA situation and Obama's vote.

I will not foolishly withdraw my vote from Obama for obvious reasons, but I am profoundly disappointed in his behavior on this vote, which directly contradicts his promises.

Having a cavalier attitude about a vote that is clearly in conflict with the Constitution sinks beneath the character that I sincerely thought he had.

Your blase' reaction is just as puzzling to me -- and wrong imo.

I dearly hope that when he is elected he goes after this whole repugnant mess to right this outrageous "compromise" and prosecute the wrong-doers, but frankly I am not holding my breath.

I find the attitude toward the FISA thing here pretty obnoxious--the reaction is as strong as it is because of parallels to the Iraq war vote in the 2002 election cycle, the Military Commissions Act in 2006, etc. etc. & Obama got an awful lot of support from people based on his LACK of association with those past failures. The netroots actually gets ridiculously poorly served by the Democratic party in D.C. on its key issues; it's remarkable that they've stayed on the bus as long as they have. And Al's defenses of Obama's position are pretty much totally unconvincing to me, & remind me intensely of excuses people made for other candidates' bad votes in the primary. But I think the basic point here: don't stand in the doorway of the bus threatening to get off, just get off & disengage from the D.C. zoo for a while if that's what you need to do--is totally sound. I actually figured this OUT, all through 2005-2007, & unfortunately got swept off my feet & caught up in the moment & forgot what I knew about the trustworthiness of Democratic politicians in January, on account of this one candidate who was so very charismatic & was trying so successfully to get primary voters to project their hopes onto him. (I should've known better, but Obama totally set up the negative reaction he's getting--it was all so, so predictable.)

 

I think it might be useful to talk about "getting off the bus" , recharging & acquiring useful skills for future battles in more concrete terms--in my case, I know what to do, because I've done it before. But people focus so heavily on donating & volunteering to D.C. Democratic campaigns as a means of involvement in part because it's obvious how to get involved, & other avenues for real activism are unfortunately a lot less visible.  

I admit that I don't pick apart poll numbers, I rely on others to do the analyzing. I'm concerned but it seems like hardly anyone else is concerned when I read the blogs. So I'm trying to understand why that is...

I just find it strange that McCain, who is running an awful campaign in a year when the Democrats are supposed to have a huge advantage, is basically keeping things even.

I don't know what he's doing, but it is pure magic.

Auden said he felt he had failed as a poet because they had failed in the Spanish Civil War. Yet in that war Pablo Neruda wrote poems that were printed on the front lines from type hand set by the soldiers fighting for freedom, on paper made from the rags of the clothes of the dead. In retreat the soldiers carried these books and read from them, tossing aside other things they could have carried in their packs.

The French government made one of the fees for sanctuary surrender of these books. There are only three that survive. There was poetry in those times and words had powerful meaninig.

The tit for tat that passes for dialog and debate on some blogs, so called "grassroots" blogs have no roots and they have no grass. All that shouting for no good purpose will never achieve a single movement towards the desired result.

Like the brave printers with their single shot rifles facing the machine guns and tanks of the Spanish Fascists, it is time to organize and get to work. To elect the one person who actually can and will change this error. The alternative is to fail entirely, and perhaps like Auden bemoan our failure.

I want to place myself beside those who make the poetry. It's not on the blog screens but it's out in the neighborhoods and communities that the poetry comes alive when we find ourselves in others unlike us and they find themselves in us. Those are the honest debates.

To substantiate your comment, everyone should check their local papers for coverage on this. In mine it was on something like page 7 and the headline was very vague. This was soooo not a big deal to most folks. You'd never know it in the echo chambers though.

 

Nevertheless, I've been sad about it all day. It helps to do what I can for the campaign though.

 

Love your comment, Dan.  Good stuff.

Al wrote:

"Basil - All these "problems for you" come from your own expectations which I think were unrealistic given the state of US politics and media."

-----------------------------------------

 

Al,

Thanks for the response.  You're right--  the sky didn't fall, but shouldn't we speak out forcefully against the incremental erosion of the principles embedded in our Constitution?  I'm sure you know the parable of the frog and the boiling pot of water...

I don't think that I'm being unrealistic in hoping that our nominee for President would actually follow through on his pledge to oppose FISA if the bill contained immunity for the telecoms.  Obama's failure to honor his own words doesn't only cause concern among his supporters-- it's also not in his best interest as a candidate for the Presidency.  On multiple occasions Obama expressed his intention to support a filibuster against the proposed legislation.  Any reasonable interpretation of his words leads to the expectation that he was opposed to the FISA bill in its final form, and would stand against it.   The late changes to the bill may have improved it some, but Bush and the telecoms got nearly everything they hoped for-- they are dancing in the streets over this outcome.  And McCain is already accusing Obama of flip-flopping on the issue.

Obama sold himself as an agent of C-H-A-N-G-E.  That word was the mantra of his campaign, and I took him seriously, so it's especially disappointing to see him cave on the first significant challenge as the presumptive nominee.  I realize that his votes won't align with my wishes in every case, and I understand that politics is a complicated business that sometimes requires a bit of compromise.  My disappointment with Obama on this issue is that he lost a great opportunity to take a position in defense of the rule of law and the Constitution.  He could have reinforced his brand as a man of integrity who promised us that "things would be different this time."  A look at the Senate roll call reveals that Obama aligned himself with the Republicans and the most regressive Democrats on this issue.  IMHO, there was no political downside for Obama if he stood firm on this one.  The Republicans are going to accuse him of being weak on national  security in any case; this vote will not insulate him from those charges. 

Some of the comments upthread note that FISA is an obscure and arcane matter that most people don't care about, and that the vast majority of the citizenry is worried about the price of gas and putting food on the table for their families.  If that is the case, then Obama had the liberty to vote with courageous Senators like Dodd and Feingold without fear of the political consequences.

Yes, the FISA bill was tweaked a bit and the final version provides for better oversight of the intelligence gathering process.  But that is not much consolation when we consider what was given away in this legislation.  Letting Bush administration officials and the telecoms off the hook for past crimes creates a couple of problems.  First, it leaves us wondering when the law is the law?  If illegal acts committed by high government officials conspiring with corporations can be retroactively excused, then the force and legitimacy of our legal system is diminished.  Which laws are we supposed to take seriously in the future?  Second, we can expect that Bush already has an platoon of lawyers drafting the vast number of pardons that will be issued by him on Jan. 19, 2009.  Giving the administration and the telecoms a retroactive pass on their violations of law makes the Democrats in Congress a party to this abuse of the public trust.  I would like to think that by now Obama and the Democrats would have realized that they would be more successful if they demonstrated that they are different than the Republicans.

I realize that it's all water over the dam now, and we have to move on, and it's not worth expending a lot of our energy on beating a dead horse.  And yes, I'll be voting for Obama even if somebody produces a videotape of him having an affair with Pastor Wright in the choir loft.  And I fully agree that a lot of people have reacted foolishly to Obama's vote on FISA by threatening to withdraw their support for his bid for the White House.  But there is no getting around the fact that Obama and a good number of his fellow Democrats just voted to give Bush and the telecoms a sweetheart deal, and what are blogs for if not to raise some hell and express ourselves, especially on bedrock Constitutional issues?  I'm convinced that the reason our country has fallen so far is that we don't demand enough of our political leadership.  Our political culture is cynical, and even here on a progressive blog we're counseled not to set expectations too high.  Bush has run a corrupt, rogue administration that will probably go down as the worst in our national history.  Given the horror show in Washington that we have witnessed over the past eight years, I don't think we are setting the bar too high by expecting that the Democratic nominee for President should do something as basically American as stand up for the rule of law. I want to see Obama win in November, so part of what I'm trying to accomplish in this conversation is to make the point that standing on principle is not just some abstract moral posture-- it's smart politics as well.

Que Onda Al?!

Love the new blog. I have been a fan of Narconews since 2003 and its nice to have you back home. I have been busy working on the Obama Organizing Fellowship in WA State. Un abrazo fuerte desde Seattle!

Blue Demon

Al, sorry I conflated the Wes Clark issue with the FISA issue. Equally stupid and petty for Markos to make his pathetic gesture. I would disagree about Daily Kos and their "smart dissent." It's been one hit piece after another against Obama on FISA, including today. I'm sick of the place since they seem intent spending more time bashing Obama than John McCain. The Netroots gathering looks to me to be more of an embarassment than a rally as they spend their energies ganging up on Obama and professing their purity in the great progressive cause.

I'm from Minnesota. I organize for social justice. Minnesota has this problem - other places do too, but here we have a name for it, "Minnesota Nice."

One of the things that is a problem about that is that people don't like to differ about things. Disagreement - particularly emotional disagreement - is just Not Nice.

So maybe I'm internalizing that. I generally try to motivate people past Minnesota Nice. This is the second thread here that I think has way crappy attitude in the posting. I'm also a "FISA vote mattered, pissed at Obama" person. This may also be influencing me. But some people here do it well, some don't. In My Humble Opinion.

Here's some examples.

"they can't see beyond their giant, pouting lip"

"Markos Moulitsas is so vewwy vewwy upset about FISA he is not going to give his $2300 to Obama, and similar self-absorbed tantrums."

"dKos is unbearable these days with all the faux outrage, and the threats to abandon the Obama campaign."

"the myopia of the FISA trolls, stewing in dark corners with furrowed brows and cartoon frowns, CAPS LOCK keys perpetually turned on, angrily ripping their Obama bumper stickers from their cars"

Reviewing this thread, it's actually better than the last, when I didn't look for quotes. And now that I've quoted these people, they'll likely be all upset at me. (Although the last of them is a very witty portrait of the worst of the FISA folks.)

At the same time I'm trying to influence our community standard of functional behavior, there's tons of people doing direct, wonderful work of voter registration, of actual building. So hats off to them.

The Greenwalds aside, I think the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are pretty cool organizations, and they and I represent a legitimite sector of society. We ARE a voting base. We are not as large as Catholics, or union voters, or once-a-week church goers. Feingold and Dodd are representing us in the Senate (although Dodd's crappy sold-out bankruptcy reform shows he doesn't represent me on other fronts.)

I won't pull my support from Obama over this. I suspect that some who said they would are concern trolls - participants in John McCain's internet thug squad. I object to the characterization that ALL of us who thought Obama's vote sucked are 'purity trolls' because that's a lie.

For those of you who read to the end of this - thanks. I indulge myself here somewhat. It was a long day, from the staff meeting to the chapter meeting. We have appointments with three churches, and people agreeing to contact 15 more, to talk about how the light rail will or will not help the people in the poor neighborhoods it runs through. And I sent an email yesterday to help coordinate access to video streaming for activist journalists at the RNC. Which is to say - don't point that 'keyboard activist' finger at me!

@Dan Carr, that's beautiful.

@Nuisance Industry, yeah:

do I want to wake up on Nov 5th feeling regret about what I could have done?

It's uncomfortable to realize that we have power AND (and only if we also take) responsibilty. It's so much easier to blame.

Nov 5th happens to be my b'day.

Obama better not  upset me!!!

amk

John Slade, I don't think that anybody here thinks that anybody who objects to Obama's vote is a purity troll.  In fact, you said, once you got beyond your misperception o things, to the very point of the matter.

 

One can be upset with Obama's vote (as many of us are if you read all the comments) and also object to the reaction of some people.  You obviously are not one of those people.  To quote you, "I won't pull my support from Obama over this."

 

The problem, as a lot of us see it, is the people who are OMGing and saying they won't put up with this, and yes, do pout.  So I don't think anybody disagrees with the main thrust of your statement, as you are actually representative of the way many here think.

 This week FISA was all over the blogospere(sp?) while McCain was getting a series of free passes on all the gaffes and outright stupid statements. HuffPo has an article posting 10 things this week that should have ended McCains chances, yet Mark Halperin actually has McCain winning the week, WTF? Is this because of all the extremist left screaming about FISA?

I hate to say it but I really believe they might not even nominate him in September. Either way, I see a big loss for the Repubs in November. I sure hope this Iran situation dies down instead of heating up.

We had our annual get-together with my husband's long long time Dr. friend & his family from MI yesterday, when they arrived, of course they would have to notice my signs and bumper sticker on my car. I am always a little nervous when we see friends we have not seen in awhile because you never know how they will react about my politics. After lots of regular socializing, politics came up, they knew nothing of FISA, didn't care and asked me many questions about Obama. When they were leaving late last night, they hugged me and thanked me for working for Barack, and yes, they are Republicans.

Thank you, your site is a welcome relief from the hysteria of the Left. I have been doing voter registration/Obama campaigning in Asbury Park and Princeton, NJ. Thankfully,the subject of FISA never comes up. It's another welcome relief.

@ Al: I continue to marvel at your grasp of personal and group dynamics. How did you become so wise?

@Dan: Thanks for the poetry of your comment.

Yellow, Obama is stil comfortably ahead (5.5% according to RCP) in the polls, despite the media desperately trying to make this election close (and even part of the left is now pitching in).

I think what you'll see is that things will remain about the same up until the conventions. At which point you may start panicking or jubilating.

Anyhow, at this point what you need to do is donate, donate, donate. Obama is in need of money badly, as the Republicans are on their way to raise $400 million dollars for McCain.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/main
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/main
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/main

Al, with all the trashing of Obama by the lefty blogs this past two weeks, I'm wondering how the Netroots Nation conference can be any kind of success at all, coming on the bitter divisions of the primary. There's a lot of hate out on the left for Obama, with hit pieces continuing to be manufactured on a daily basis. Amongst the wider electorate I don't think anyone has paid much attention, but doesn't this really have the effect of marginalizing the left blogosphere when there is diary after diary of people advocating withholding their money and hoping Obama loses out of spite. At this point I don't know why any reputable candidate would seek out support on the blogs when the loyalty seems to turn on a dime and one week you're a hero and the next week they trash you. If you have some perspective on this, it would be appreciated. I can't see much good coming out of all this anger and self-importance. Seems like these people love self-destruction and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. War with Iran is not important, health care is not important, social security is not important, torture is not important, corruption is not important, global warming is not important. But FISA is all that matters.

Christi, the comment you made could probably be said by a lot of people who have friends who are life-long Republicans but just can't stomach what the party has turned into.