New to the board, it's my first post. So, I'm not certain of generally accepted tone... Contrary opinions are welcome and encouraged.

Today, all over progressive talk radio, I have heard far too many kindred progressive spirits who were so disappointed in the FISA bill [that Barack is supporting] that they would not now vote for him. Fortunately, I didn't hear anyone say that means that they'd be voting for McCain (which would be illogical) but a vote for Nadar or a write-in for Hillary is no different.

For those of you who may be upset about this one thing, I'd really like to know why. But before you answer, please hear me out.

I am disappointed in the FISA bill, but it will restore the 4th Amendment at least to some extent, and does not preclude procecution of the Telco's in criminal court (just civil court). This is real progress and reverses the Bush poisoning of our Constitution. When we have a strong majority in Congress and Obama as president in 2009, even more can be done later.

If the FISA bill is why you are so upset that you will now not support Barack, then I beg you to please wake up! I've given up on trying to wake up Republicans, but we are the smart ones! I beg you to think about the fact that this country is a Democracy and the minority (and yes, we progressives are still a minority) must build consensus and compromise, ALWAYS, in order to get what we want. And with a smart leader like Barack we will win their hearts and minds... but it will take some time and there are still many "baby steps" ahead of us.

For a minority opinion, change can only be incremental, and we must scratch and claw, and be extremely patient and tolerant in order to turn this country around, or we will be as ineffectual and feckless as Ralph Nader (bless his heart!) Sorry folks, we like-minded progressives are no where near a majority. Right now, there are only 15 senators willing to fillibuster (bless their hearts!) so it's not like there is a real groundswell for full restoration at this time and there is clearly much work to do. And if Barack wasn't the presumptive nominee, I am certain that he would be number 16.

But he is the presumptive nominee, and now it's time for him to act like a "President". It's time for Barack to be a statesman and bring this country to a consensus. I'm tired of Bush/Rove-style power politics/demagogery and the divisions and anger that results. Barack will not repeat this mistake.

This country has gone far to the right over the last 28 years (if you haven't noticed) and it's going to take time to get us back to sanity. Bill Clinton brought us back, but Bush has thrown us (the USA) nearly over the edge. We need the "bully pulpit" for at least the next 8 years, and I can't think of anyone better for that position than Barack.

I'm as upset as anyone about what the Bush administration has done to this country and our Constitution... believe me. No need to flame me, because we already agree on the issue. But that is not my point. The glass is half full people, not half empty! And if we keep our heads and come together, we're going to get what we want.

C'mon progressives, remember McGovern in '72 and let's not blow this one!!

McCain vs. Obama? Easy choice. There will likely be times we don't agree with everything Obama might do as POTUS, but hey, would you rather have McBush in there? No thanks. Things are fucked up enough now as they are.

Great post djtangman & so true! Welcome To The Board!!

Obama did what he had to do politically, he is a politician and not a messiah. Do not to prop up Obama as infallible. It is my understanding that as the bill is poorly written it has little chance of holding up in court. However I am not a lawyer so I have little to offer than my opinion, which is generally formed from what I heard/read from on Randi.

What I don't understand at all is who do you put in jail anyway? How do you plan to hold them accountable? Although our collective privacy has been invaded; how can they mine the information for anything useful. That is one hell of a group of data. The storage alone would be nearly impossible. I realize they target small organizations, specific individuals, and political opponents. So that reduces the volume of data. But even getting any value add from that amount would be nearly impossible.

I don't think it's right that they have done this; And I don't think it's right that they are given immunity. But who would you hold accountable; and what type of sentence would you expect?

I SECOND THIS! WELCOME!

Exactly

Good post

I keep saying the same thing -- quit pinning all these hopes on one man.

It's actually a version of scapegoating. He's just a man.

Let me say it was a great [post and a big welcome to the board.

Welcome to the board. Yes Obama is just a man, one man with a dream of starting the process of fixing America. I just listened to Obama talk to the NALEAO National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. I have never seen one man tell the truth like this one has. He told them that latino illegals broke the law. We do not want mass roundups gestapo style, we want them to: pay a fine, get to the back of the line, and do what is expected to become an American citizen. He explained that we are a compassionate country, but we are a country of laws. I AM SOOOO BEHIND THIS MAN! Imagine that, a polititian that tells the truth in these times. Go Obama, ! Yes I too wonder about the FISA, my own representative Brad Sherman of the 27th district told me on a confrence town hall meeting, that he was voting for the FISA, they have compromise in mind. I am not for compromise anymore. The Constitution is not for negotiation. I have let my representative know how I feel about this.

This FISA bill is not necessary. It does not right any wrongs from the current bill. It, in fact, gives more powers to the executive with which to further undermine our constitution, in addition to the immunity provision which is to save George Bush more than the Telecoms. The Telecoms have immunity under current law as long as the order from the government is lawful. This is something that their team of lawyers is very aware of.

For an excellent scrutiny of this FISA bill please follow this link and let's all get on the same page...

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/state...6/20080625f.htm

Barack does not have to approve this bill.

While many are dissapointed with FISA and many more should be dissapointed with the latest from the NAFTA-Free Trade comments from Obama, that dosen't mean a vote for someonelse, it just means that 2 of the most important issues of the day in the lives of Americans aren't being re-directed in the direction so many of us wanted them to go..........we realize that a vote for McCain is suicidale and that is indeed dissapointing..............

Thanks for the link, but I've already read it. The bill is bad. I already stipulated that. I've heard many lawyers and legislators state that it's not even written well and probably wouldn't stand up to judicial scruntiny.

However, it does represent a spirit of compromise that was shattered by Rovian "50% + 1" politics in 2002. A politics which quietly gutted the 4th Amendment and which went unnoticed by Republican lemmings. The same lemmings who believe that it is somehow unfair that Telco's being punished for simply complying with a request from the President. I guess these same lemmings who would have exonerated Nazi criminals at Nuremberg.

So you and I are probably in agreement.

I applaud the 15 senators and wholly support them. I imagine Barack does as well. But if he is going to be a great President, he has to rise above politics and build consensus, and on this issue, clearly there is none. The smart decision is to support the current legislation (which is the best that could be done, at this time) and then to leverage the bully pulpit, prepare to fight again and gain even more. I guess some call this "triangulation", but whatever you call it, it's the way a "great" President leads the country. Consensus, reason, patience, and steadfastness.

Or you can do what Bush does, and ignore (and mock) the opposition as long as you've got your majority, no matter how slim that majority might be. My issue is that the radical left actually seems to prefer the Bush approach to leadership. And thus, the radical left is no better than the radical right (even though I would definitely prefer their dicatates over that from the radical right).

But in the end, facism is facism, and I want none of it.

No matter, the radical left scares middle America even more than the radical right. If we moderate progressives allow the radical left to dominate our nominee and the convention (and thus the party platform) we will lose just like we lost in '72. Democratic principles ensure that only a moderate (or at least someone who can sell themselves as being moderate) can win the presidency.

Barack has gotta do what he's gotta do. Barack must distance himself from the far left if he is going to win. He can't sell his soul in the process, but he has to start compromising right now. And he's doing a brilliant job of it. Just this week, he took the "capital punishment" wedge away from the Republicans, and now he's in the process of taking away the "terrorism" wedge away. He's already taken the "gay marriage" wedge away, and he's well on his way to a landslide. If he could take the "racism" wedge, he'd have an 80-20 lead, but that isn't going to happen. I'll take a 60-40 split.

Now all he has to do is avoid being videotaped while wearing a helmet in a tank...

If the far left cannot come to grips with reality, then please go vote for Nader, and get out of the way. Maybe someday you'll grow up and understand. C'mon guys, hold your nose because we've got to win this one! THINK!!

Great first post, sir...

Also, as CJ says and I have said numerous times, Obama is a politician...(I dont wanna speak for CJ)

He isnt a saviour or a magician or a pure of heart do-gooder


He is only a man, one man...but more importantly an extremely savvy politician

He will be 1000 times better than McCain, that is all...

He reiterates the same. He doesn't pretend to be perfect, disclaims it. He keeps saying his movement is only as powerful as the movement is active and numerous. It's not about him, he says; it's about the electorate. I've never seen anything from him pretending to be more than (I think) he is. Anyone got good examples to the contrary?

I'm sure some of his followers want to believe in someone, so might elevate him a bit too much. But I think most of his supporters are just happy to have someone who can actually think and speak well, has a few principles and seems to want to serve.

It's mostly those opposed to him who say he's messiah, only to criticize him for not measuring up. Only by setting the bar impossibly high, then noting he's not clearing it, then saying he's "failing", can they bring him down to where they can compete against him.

YOur right. There is a tendency to want it all now, and then cry when one doesn't get their way!
good post djtangman!

Then this is a PROBLEM.

I agree with all before me! Welcome...and anyone who loved George Carlin is fine with me...

I think people would get a little more clarity if they studied Saul Alinsky and his philosophy of activism and politics. Recognize that Obama is a student and teacher of Alisnky's philosophy and then look at his actions in the context of that understanding.

If far left means standing up for our constitutionals rights, especially in light of a meaningless and unnecessary bill, then call me lefty. This bill allows for warrant-less surveying of all international calls to continue. It does not restore the 4th amendment, and allowing for any form of retroactive immunity for anyone who has committed crimes against our country is wrong. As Senator Feingold stated, "This bill is not a compromise. It is a capitulation." I say put it to rest for now until after the elections.

Are you saying that this particular bill has no provisions related to a FISA court? My understanding is that right now there is not even a operational rubber stamp FISA court.

With respect to crimes being committed, my understanding is that this bill does not give retroactive "criminal" immunity.

Please do not get me wrong. All of this makes me sick to my stomach. I am more than pissed. I am just trying to get down to the practical implications of what is going on.

Frankly I think the FISA court as it has functioned is unconstitutional in that it can't possibly meet the probable cause standard. Further more, the 4th amendment requires particularized searches and not massive drag nets.

Ya, I think it is a problem that some people elevate Obama a little too much. Mostly because doing that is a sign of not really having absorbed that they need to put their hopes less in him and more in themselves in the form of activism and engagement as a citizen.

Which is something that you have stressed over and over again from day one.

Here is an article posted before in this forum about Obama and Alinsky (also Clinton and Alinsky) which I found instructive. Of particular interest to me, was Obama's improvement on Alinsky's method, which we can see in his Presidential campaign: