 |
Damn it Obama, I Thought I Knew you Better |
 |
Obama’s full statement on the House’s spying capitulation (via email).
“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
“That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.
“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.â€
I’m feeling physically ill, how about you?
Glenn adds:
Telling Americans that we have to give up basic constitutional rights — and allow rampant lawbreaking — if we want to save ourselves from “the grave threats we face” sounds awfully familiar. Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states.
floundering, doesnt wanna piss anybody off before he snares the presidency. not happy about it, but the masses tend not to do anything about matters of this sort besides read about it. don’t blame obama, he’s doing what he’s got to to get in office. if your really care, be congruent and take it to the streets
Right on. One reason France has 35 hour work weeks and universal health care is because they DO take to the streets. Just to echo, if you really care, take to the street and get others who care to do the same. Other wise, all this is just patting yourself on the back for being, “for the people.”
The 35-hour work week is quickly disappearing in France, as their economy seems to be less and less competitive.
They have universal health care, because Western Europe has more progressive social policies — not because Parisians “take to the streets.” The biggest take-to-the-streets events happening in France in recent years have been disaffected Muslim youth (and hoods taking exploiting the chaos) protesting for bad reasons.
Wow, as a very ardent Obama supporter who has given money and convinced my family to switch from Clinton I feel sick to my stomech. This situation was exactly what Obama has pledged to stand against and he has sided 100% with Pelosi and Reid. My support is gone if he is not holding press conferences and vowing to filibuster with Dodd by next Monday. I am terrified by this choice. I’ve called the offices of Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi and talked to their representatives, but cannot get through to Obama’s.
I’m quoting someone here because I don’t think I could say it any better.
“The really funny part is that if everyone could read and/or wasn’t so damn ignorant they’d see that Obama hasn’t changed his stance.
Obama supports wiretapping in cases backed by evidence when a warrant is issued by a judge, as is allowed by FISA. There’s nothing wrong with this as long as their is oversight.
Obama does NOT support retroactive immunity. He said the House version of the bill was an improvement over the Protect America Act because it restores FISA and does not allow warrantless wiretapping which is what we all want. The House version of the bill includes retroactive immunity, so Obama said (in the same quote that got everyone in a fucking furor) that he’s going to try his hardest to get immunity removed from the Senate version of the bill.
Have none of you learned how bills are made? It’s very common for the House and Senate to pass different versions of a bill. The different versions are sent to a Committee where a compromise is worked out and then both houses vote on the compromise bill. Obama is going to try to remove retroactive immunity from the Senate version and have it kept that way in the compromise version.
Are you all incredibly daft, or do you not even support legal, with-warrant wiretapping?”
Again - I wish this was being tackled in a non-election season. You’re not going to get a bold, honest statement from anybody whose ass is on the line in November.
Is it possible the Republicans wanted this to come up now and not in January or February?
I think I know what depression feels like after today. I lost all respect for Obama, and will now do what’s right and choose to write in Ron Paul.
How can someone go on & on & on & on about change, then just bend the 4th amendment over and fuck it in the ass.
Signed.
Thoroughly depressed American.
Ron Paul has declared that he specifically does NOT want his supporters to write him in. I support him fully, but I won’t be writing him in. I’ll be doing everything in my power to keep McCain out, however.
Of course, it won’t matter if they fuck with the votes again. As is becoming the norm.
Make a choice in the aggregate. Barack represents so much more than one decision. Fo me he is a shining light in the otherwise dim back room of political compromise. I promise a vote for Barack Obama will leave you four years later standing up for his re-election.
I hope he uses it to spy on the Republicans
The whole thing is sad but Obama explained his position well. Unlike some, I’m able to perceive he is a person facing tough choices, and he’s done pretty well so far with the no-win situations I’ve seen him in. Whenever I want to feel truly nauseated I think back on the last two Bush terms; what we have here is just regular politics.
i don’t see why you’re making a big deal of this. the only reason this was an issue in the first place was because bush was bypassing the FISA courts. to think that wiretapping will just “go away” is silly - it’s a necessary tool for law enforcement. however, the FISA courts are what gives the process oversight - a very good thing.
obama’s simply stating that this bill is a better one because it reinstates the FISA requirements and that he is working to remove the retroactive immunity for telecom providers who have basically handed over the keys to homeland security allowing them to spy on anyone and everyone at will.
i don’t see how anything in this statement is bad at all… maybe you’re just trying to scare off some obama supporters?
ter?ror?ism - noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
I’m all for a bill against terrorism. However, i’d prefer it be focused on domestic terrorists. Like those in office currently betraying America and attacking our constitution.
Obama - for shame. You know better. To give into this type of drivel and endorse it…my confidence in your sincerity and quality of character is devastated.
Same old same old
Why is America so surprised?
Obama-McCain?
It makes no difference. They both stand for the globalist agenda, destruction of the constitution and the encroaching global totalitarian state
There is only ONE CHOICE I’m afraid and the choice is Ron Paul.
Time is short and America’s freedom and liberty is in dire threat.
This is the last chance for the Constitution and freedom…..RON PAUL!
I’m from England. We have 30% of the worlds CCTV cameras, 42 days detention without trial and a de facto police state.
Don’t follow us down the same road. Listen to Ron Paul. He is our only hope
http://www.campaignforliberty.com
I know in the past, Jason, you defended Obama saying he was just as principled as Ron Paul. Would you like to retract those statements? Don’t tell me “politics”, because we all know that all the dems want this stuff ended, otherwise there would have been no democratic victory in 2006 with these intentions.
Thank you.
Not defending Obama at all on this point, but Ron Paul was AWOL for today’s vote. Where was he? What principle allows you to skip a vote as important as this one?
Ron Paul has been busy lately out working hard for that *real* change people keep talking about…
“Jesse Benton was quoted: Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=56#comment-2489
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“And judging by his Statement on H.R. 3773 - FISA Amendments Act of 2008, he would have voted a resounding “nay”.”
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr031408h.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hard to believe, but he can’t be everywhere.
Paul can do and say a lot of things that Obama can’t because he never was a legitimate threat to actually become president. He’s in the same boat with Kucinich, Nader, and a boatload of other people.
Had Paul actually been a realistic contender during the primary season, he probably would have changed his tune somewhat.
Anyway, I agree with the folks who want to cut Obama some slack on this one. He’s in one hell of a no-win situation.
It’s a lose-lose… if he were to vote against it and terrorists blow up a building everyone would be up in arms that he voted against it.
Obama is turning out to be much like Bill Clinton: lots of well-delivered fancy talk during the campaign, with some tactical ambiguity here and there. Once elected, taking pro-corporate power positions on a lot of things. He has opposed the war before becoming a senator, then voted for funding it every time. His plan for Iraq is not really a retreat, it leaves behind a lot of forces in Iraq and in the neighboring countries. He has also effectively committed to keep contracting Blackwater et al., even though he has criticized them for being essentially unaccountable for their actions toward iraqis.
The sad thing is that to a lot of people, he has been quite convincing as a candidate who would challenge the corporations. I’m afraid that he’ll be as big a dissappointment as Pelosi.
“It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance %u2013 making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties”
“It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.”
What is the problem? Does the bill not do these things?
I think Stephen H is on to something, here - it would be one thing if Obama agreed with the entire ‘compromise’, or if he had a history of promising to fight against Bush cronyism like retroactive immunity but failing to follow up. But neither is true, and all he’s saying here is that (a) it’s an imperfect compromise, although *some* compromise is necessary to return to the wiser days of FISA oversight, and (b) he’ll fight to remove the objectionable retroactive immunity provisions in the Senate. That sounds like classic legislative process to me - imperfect, maddeningly so sometimes, but a far cry from fascism or a total abdication of principles. I’m not being naive - he could still disappoint us all - but we should wait to judge him until we can see how he carries through with that promise.
There’s a reason we don’t often have Senators winning the primaries. It’s because they have to negotiate, which makes them look wishy-washy.
Dave is absolutely right. This is the legislative process, and it is exactly what Obama presented himself as from the beginning, someone who follows a middle way and will listen to both sides (even the one you don’t agree with). To pretend otherwise is mere projection.
Sometimes, to get what you want in Congress you have to accept an imperfect compromise and fix it later.
It might seem like the Democrats won the 2006 election, but they don’t have a veto- (or filibuster-) proof majority. All it gives them is the ability to stop Bush from his most egregious excesses. The reason they are so maddeningly complicit with some of his policies is that they are angling to gain a decisive majority this year and they don’t want to blow it.
By the way, the origin of the word filibuster is from dutch through french and spanish. Originally it meant Freebooter, or pirate. In Central America they talk about the age of the filibusteros, American opportunists who went down there to attempt to take over countries with a few hired guns. The name was soon applied to the tactic of taking over control of the legislature through a loophole in the rules of order.
This is a major error in judgment. Does Obama realize how fast his stand on FISA will kill his campaign?
No he obviously can not see how bad this makes him look.
I have no clue if this is Obama’s intent or not, but Bush has pledged to veto any bill that doesn’t have retroactive immunity. So if Obama manages to get retroactive immunity stripped from the bill, then the bill doesn’t become law anyways and he can say he was bipartisan/seeking a compromise.
Holy shit — you’ve finally noticed that your candidate has done one thing you don’t like! Time to throw away your support and let McCain win. I mean, feeling good about yourselves for spotting a flaw (that couldn’t POSSIBLY have something to do with a desire to actually get elected in swing states) totally merits ruining any chance this country has in gaining any credibility in the next four years…
A bit selfish, methinks, in this (admittedly flawed) two-party system. One of the two is going to win, folks, until a third party gains a foothold; do you want McCain or Obama?
Me — well, I’d love to see Obama win. If this ruffles your feathers, people, then you have been extremely naive to this point. Kucinich seemed to be the only “perfect” left candidate (in terms of policies): unfortunately, in this country, that is precisely why he couldn’t “play the game.” He lost.
There’s more than one reason not to support Obama. Obama’s war votes speak for themselves my friend. How do you oppose a war by voting yes on every appropriations bill? Why because he feels sorry for our troops?
The guy Obama makes clever excuses like “we will be careful coming out as we were careless going in” to delay our withdrawal.
80% of Iraqis WANTED
(note the past tense) Americans to get out in 6 months to a year. Obama says that we won’t be out for 16 months after his inauguration!
Meanwhile, in the Democratic Congress, which he was part of, we got a PERMANENT base/embassy the size of the Vatican built in Baghdad.
I wonder where the money to build such a base came from? Did Obama oppose this base? No! He says repeatedly we need to defend it.
And sure,oh don’t vote for the “perfect” candidate because the perfect candidate doesn’t win. Never vote for anyone who has principles because they just never win.
I’m sure your alternative is to support those like Obama who make compromises because compromises are what its all about!
Did America compromise with Great Britain for its independence? Did America compromise on slavery? What was done to end slavery? Compromise?
How do you think real change for the better was ever accomplished? Was it accomplished by people who sit back and say we can’t do a damn thing so let’s be half assed?
If that’s what you honestly think, then vote for Obama by all means.
Never take any responsibility for who you vote for because your vote is determined by who you think everybody else votes for and who the media is ramming down your throat. If nobody votes for real change, real change never happens. Its as simple as that. If nobody votes for a certain candidate, they don’t win. If nobody votes for who they really want because they tell themselves that that candidate is unelectable, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As long as this continues, election fraud or not, the powers that be will always benefit at your expense and democracy stays asleep. Wake it up.
RALPH NADER FOR PRESIDENT
“It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses”
Coming from a region of the world resplendent with an ethically dubious, yet historically tested implementational form of ‘democracy’ - I would argue that in order to achieve anything in politics it is necessary to co-ordinate, at least in essence, the semblence of post-partisan middle of the road suedo idealism in favour of the most broadly acceptable manifestation of the world we’d all like to live in. That said, Obama is something of a politically existential post-liberal dream. We may sense, and fear, compromise and the semblance of ideological capitulation. Fut, at the end of the day, we know that at the very least, lip service to historically ingrained cultural and commercial interests is in fact, electorial wisdom. Obama knows how to play the game - and will, hopefully and dare I say inevitably - win the Presidency and become the first post-partisan, post-racial President in history.
Ron Paul for president!
Just one more thing to show you how two faced Obama is. He’ll do anything to get the presidency.
http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
E-mail him and tell him your angry… I’m angry
Sorry to say, I removed myself from the Obama mailing list, as there is little chance that I would continue to donate to the campaign. There is no more important issue than restoring our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. If he can’t stand up and exercise (VOCAL!) leadership on this most critical of all issues, he’s not the man I thought he was.
My dissatisfaction with the democratic congress is reflected perfectly in this issue. It is unacceptable to vote for a bill that contains morally, ethically, legally abhorrent provisions. Period. Stand up. Lead. Or at least stop telling me that you stand for change, gonna fix Washington. How many times have I heard democrats call it a good compromise - meaning: we only gave Bush 9 of the 10 civil liberties violating provisions that he wanted. Maybe I’ll come back around, but right now I am feeling really ill and can’t stand the thought of seeing those ‘I’m asking you to believe…’ emails. You have a lot of ground to make up, Mr. Obama.
Don’t jump on the “down with Obama bandwagon” too quickly. Politics is complex and things can be pulled out of context. I would like to read an entire transcript before making my judgements.
Don’t jump on the “down with Obama bandwagon” too quickly.
Thank god I’m not on the fake change and hope bandwagon.
NADER/GONZALEZ 2008
The biggest depart in politics that Obama represents to me is the no lobbyist money policy. That and getting us the Heck out of Iraq. Issues of National Security are indeed important and must be protected, however, as far as Bush has gone, this new compromise bill is a step in the right direction.
Asking for an immediate & complete reversal of EVERYTHING that Bush’s White House has done is shortsighted and just plain wrong. Things take time to change to avoid stepping on too many toes.
Please don’t try to stir up muck when there isn’t anything to stir up. You sound like a McCain supporter trying to sow seeds of discontent in the Obama camp.
I don’t see a big deal. Quit making it out to be one.
No lobbyist money? Ha!!! MoveON.org. Lots of money donated to Obama. Millions of dollars. The DNC’s got tons of lobbyist money for Obama. Oh no lobbyist money. That’s funny. That’s a good one.
Aw, the naivete of you Obama supporters is really kind of cute. You really think he’s something special, don’t you? I’m sorry but I’m going to have to break your heart on something else, too: Santa isn’t real.
How are you all going to feel come November when you wake up the morning after and realize that by nominating this guy you helped make John McCain president?
This is silly, all you people over-reacting about this.
It’s politics, it’s based on compromises. You can’t just oust wire-tapping all together (if you don’t monitor the officials doing it, it will be done illegally anyways), and it wasn’t really a problem until it became warrantless. Now the integrity of surveillance has been returned to where it was just a few years ago.
So, what’s the problem? This is more of a win than the Protect America Act would’ve been. I can easily see how Obama is ultimately content with the results (barring that stupid ass retroactive immunity clause, but he did say he’d do what he could to get it removed).
All in all, still sounds like the guy I want to vote for. There is no further raping of the 4th amendment here, just a return to how destroyed it already was before Bush.
why do you feel sick? he is commenting on issues that were passed and saying he wants to go back and change them still and that this at least abolishes the secret and warrentless wire-tapping.
that is a good stand.
the retroactive protections are ones he wants to remove and are put in the bill because it is easy to argue that since the companies were complying with the government, they figured that is within the law of the land. they were wrong, sure, but that is an argument to be made in courts and down the line. until this bill takes the power away, the president could still do whatever he wanted. thank god at least some reins have been put on.
and again, obama is talking about the situation and saying that he still wants to go further. How is this a letdown?
I, for one, think it’s good that people understand what kind of downfalls Obama will face if he becomes president so we have no illusions of what the world is going to become after November (if he gets elected). Obama is not going to be perfect. He is one against many in Washington and will have a hard time moving people in the right direction if he is as resistant as we are. That’s just the way washington works.
However, what Obama has done well is indirectly move his grassroots supporters to do something about it. In no way was Obama trying to hide the fact that this was imperfect. I think most people underestimate the significance of this.
Regardless of my concerns, I still think he’s a way better alternative than McCain.
I agree the bill is bad and I would prefer Obama to vote against the bill, but I would suggest 2 minor ammendments that would make it somewaht more reasonable:
1) That it should be Null and Void if there is a signing statement that does not accept the absolete power of the bill.
2) That the bill will have to be renewed in 1-2 years by the next President and Congress.
That way the President would be stating his acceptance of the control of congress in this area and the bill would be reviewed in the next adminstration so that if it were retained it would have been authorized by these differnet administrations.
I’m disgusted with Obama…he’s becoming a real disappointment. I am voting Ron Paul…he’s the only one who makes sense anymore.
jackoff
So you fail to understand what a “compromise” is. He clearly states that he isn’t 100% happy about it, he feels its a step in the right direction and obviously wishes to take further steps in the right direction.
But you guys feel that there should be no compromise, therefore you will write in Ron Paul, split the vote and end up with John Mc Cain. And you would call that a victory ?
100% no compromise leads to exactly what the french nearly got : Le Pen.
They are us, we are them. Let’s face it. We all wanted this when it came out. We all wanted to blow up the Arabs. We wanted to torture them, maim them, humiliate them. We wanted to protect ourselves at any cost including descrating the Constitution and basic human rights. Congress still believes that most Americans want this. Congress is right.
Most Americans don’t care that we have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, or that we kidnap, torture, and kill suspects without trial or official charges. Most Americans don’t care that the DHS, FBI, CIA, and NSA are reading our emails and listening to our phone calls because “they are going after the bad guys”.
We all know the risks, but we choose to ignore them. Didn’t a member of Congress recently propose to make criticizing the President a crime? Wouldn’t that apply to a Democratic president as well?
America is land of contradictions. On one hand, we are proud of our foreign heritage and melting pot. On the other, we hate all foreigners as a rule and Arabs in particular. We preach Democracy and freedom, but are prepared to invade and destroy any country in the name of our own freedom. We claim to be the land of opportunity, but have not seen real wages increase in twenty years. WE claim to be free and gloat about our Bill of Rights, but we have the largest population behind bars.
America is fucked up, people. And it’s not because of Obama or Bush. It’s because of all of us. We do nothing, say nothing. We eat our Big Macs and watch our plasma tvs. We are fat, ignorant and lazy. We are not “good” or “right” any more. We are hated around the world, not because of our so-called “freedom” but because of our arrogance and disregard for anything but profits and military might.
America delenda est.
We didn’t all want to blow up the Arabs right after 9-11. Some of us really did call for a non-violent response. But our voices were quickly and consistently drowned out, even in the midst of churches that regularly teach “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Karl Rove-types have manufactured a bunch of faux Obama supporters, maybe some of you who have been commenting here, who are tasked to build up Obama and then dramatically “lose faith” in him when he does something that, if he did otherwise, would be self-destructive politically. What a bunch of morons. Go ahead. Put pressure on Obama to put his head on a platter and deliver it to McCain’s propaganda team. Sheesh.
He did as expected. He’s not progressive. What was done to get his seat in Illinois shows he’s ruthless.
Progressives have been moths to a flame. His treatment of women showed us early. This is just what is expected. He is not about change.
I do not support Obama, McCain, or the clintons. Having said that, The Constitution is old. People like you who neglect to realize that we live in severely different times are not only slightly arrogant, but putting a spin on your angle to prove your rant as valid. They will wiretap whether you tell them they can or not. Terrorists have rights too, but if one of them claimed that they could have been innocent and you infringed on their human rights by wiring tapping is about as on target as you are. Nevertheless, fight the good fight, because as I mentioned before, They do not answer to you, and care very little about what you say or do. If they want to listen, they will, and candidly. At least Obama is being proactive about our future, and apologizing for not being able to fix the past that we were forced to deal with. What you should be concerned with is how the cellular telephone companies that you shell out between $70-$200 bucks a month are turning over your voicemail passcodes, and tele-logs.
These politicians are all the same. Both parties are so fully corrupt I can’t imagine why people even react to this. Di you really believe this guy is any different? Where have you been? Wake up and smell the coffee.
You know, this is really an unprecedented opportunity for Obama to galvanize the American people to his side. If Obama came out to defeat the FISA bill, he would win the instant respect of millions. Hope he doesn’t let this pass, a reverse effect is possible if he does nothing to stop it.
This is the best discussion (barring the trolls) of this event that I’ve found. I really appreciate the rational comments of those who point out that there was no way to perfectly approach voting for this bill, and the comments that pointed out that one man cannot be responsible for change in this country.
I absolutely agree with this. If we want change, WE Americans, all of us, must engage in bringing it about - not just with our votes or our money, but by taking some kind of action, getting involved, as Obama has done. We must be the change we wish to see in the world, and stop expecting the people we perceive as our ‘leaders’ to bring it about. A wise man once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Obama was once like one of us, a child with his life in front of him, and he decided to make his life about doing things for our country.
After reading all of the comments on this subject, including Obama’s, I’ve come to the conclusion that I need to trust that he’s carefully pondering what would be the best course of action for the country - like a chess game, in which sometimes you must sacrifice a pawn to win, and I don’t mean the Presidency, I mean creating a safer country and less corrupt government - and doing what he feels is best. Not being someone who thinks about these sorts of things for a living (indeed, not being someone whose whole life has been spent in working toward the goals Obama has been working toward), I feel I must trust that he he thinks carefully what he is doing, and that what he chooses to do is in line with his stated goals - positive change in our country and in our government.
I think - it ain’t over ’til it’s over. I’m going to continue to back Obama.
Obama knows he will win. None of us are going for McCain. So he loses the teaching opportunity of the “bully pulpit”. Do I think he will change? No way.
Now we are finding out WHO is is. Oh well. There was no better.
I took his campaign as a promise of principle. But I didn’t look to see if he voted for the “Patriot” act and precursors to this FISA, the “I didn’t vote for the war.” noise overwhelmed my sense and senses.
The promise of principle, already flagged. This is the second occurrence since HRC folded. The first was reported that B.O. chose a man who was mired deep in getting cheap loans ($7-million) from Countryside, deep in the loans to the unable-to-pay scandals. What did he chose him for? To pick the veep, next in line. ((shudder))
I am officially withheld my vote for Obama. If Mr. Obama’s reason for compromising with his principal just to get elected first, then he is not much better than the one who fooled us into recognizing an illegitimate commander-in-chief.
How do I know once his takes office, what other kinds of “compromises” he is willing to do eventhough they are against the principals.
i proudly voted green in 2000, then left nauseated in 2004 after voting for kerry. now, i’m for obama. when i first read about this decision it made me sick as well. thanks for putting it in the limelight. but how and what do we do now? if obama doesn’t win then mccain will.
its either concentrate on creating a new constitution, or deal with what we have on the terms of the powerful. the larger our numbers are, the more push we can have with our politicians. when was the last time you called your representative or senator to demand impeachment? its been 4 years for me, after daily phone calls and letters. now kucinich calls for impeachment with legal arguments and proof and still no dems stand with him. it is an atrocity, and we are to blame for not calling them on it more.
any ideas? we need good people like yourselves to start running for offices, or we need to rewrite and overthrow the constitutional government. there are no other options.