Oh I agree - I thought we had good discussions on the Clinton vs. Obama stuff. I was referring more to the bigtexxx's of the world that just boil everything down to Obama-lover / Bush-hater / America-hater / etc.
I am curious though why this seems like that sensitive of a point with you? Several Obama supporters have said that Obama has surprised them in regard to positions he's taking. I will take you at your word in regard to that you didn't think he was the political messiah. As even if we dug back to previous post we are talking about subjective perceptions and as we are dealing with determing what is just vociferous support vs.drinking the kool-aid. Even if you were expecting some level of dissapointment out of Obama are the things coming out regarding Obama's positions regarding public financing, FISA and etc. what you expected? Do you find it problematic if you do say that are perhaps more dissapointed than you might've expected?
It's really not that sensitive of a point. You'll know when I'm sensitive. Here I'm just calmly shutting down the same stupid memes that have floated around this board since Obama first gained traction. I've never been a blind loyalist to any candidate for office. I worked hard for Jerry Brown for about a year and I disagreed with him sometimes too. I'm not disappointed in the least about his position on public financing. I kind of wish he hadn't made the original statement, but I'm glad he made the decision he did. I am disappointed on FISA, though I regard his position there to be more pragmatic than pander. And I'm also mildly disappointed by his dig at moveon and was a little more than mildly disappointed by his dig at Clark. But he's more than made up for the Clark thing. The wild thing about this whole issue is that non-Obama supporters (or new converts from competing campaigns) hold Obama and his supporters to some stupid, invented standard. Like if he ever does anything wrong or with which his supporters disagree it's somehow totally shocking and proves him for a fraud. You guys invented the Messiah stuff, not me. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.
much like the way you trumpet any deviation by an otherwise admirer of bush from his stance on a given issue.
It seems to me that everyone here needs to put on "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" and watch the Texas governor do his song and dance. It's the most perfect description of a politician I've ever seen. Obama and McCain are no different.
How can you make the claim that 'Obama is the greatest candidate in my lifetime' ~ when you have worked for Jerry Brown ?
I certainly hope that I didn't seem pushy. If I offended, I hope that I have your pardon. I respect your decision to not speak on this issue.
Careful, Sishir... you may need reams of material to support that comment, indexed, with links. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Of course he is defensive about Obama. He supports Obama to lead the country. I am somewhat defensive about McCain because I support McCain. It is normal to be defensive of whatever camp you have subscribed to. Am I the only one here that thinks this discussion has become nuts?
No one has mentioned this, but I'm going to say it: Some people drink the Kool-Aid with Obama. They think he can do no wrong. They are over-idealistic about Obama, and it has nothing to do with reality.
That may be, but to have pages of discussion about who has drank the Kool-Aid and who is merely a supporter is absurd.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the FISA legislation, I think it's good to see Obama interacting with the groups on his site. After he said he'd support the FISA bill, thousands of people joined an anti-FISA group on the community blogs on the Obama site. He posted a response to their concerns here, and some of his security staff made themselves available to answer questions from the community: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise. This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate. But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report. The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future. Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down. I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny. Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course. So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.
I know I dont post seriously often, but I do believe I have previously mentioned my preliminary support of Obama, I mention this now in the interest of full disclosure for those that will automatically discount my opinion based on my perceived left or right leaning. that out of the way.... That is an extremely good answer by Obama....it makes sense and it very clearly explains why he felt he had to go somewhat against his, and many of his supporters, positions on that bill. btw...for the most part, Im fine with him moving closer to center, he was just a *little* too much to the left initially, thats why my support has been provisional on more information. It looks like to me that he started with lofty liberal goals, and as he finds out more about the real world situations has been forced to moderate those positions as un-realistic when it comes down to it.
