If you have "no place to go," come here!

No one could have anticipated...

vastleft's picture


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.

He adds:

Nobody should be fooled by Obama's vow to work to remove telecom amnesty from this bill.

There is a pony in here, though: Obama now cares about swing states (at least their worst elements)! I do so hope that includes FL and MI!

I am so happy!

No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... McCain to be a civil liberties champion, perhaps?

Fucked is fucked.

cal1942's picture
Submitted by cal1942 on

"Are You Expecting
… McCain to be a civil liberties champion, perhaps?

Fucked is fucked."

Given a choice between two schmucks, I'd prefer that the schmuck president not carry the Democratic Party label.

That's why the top of my ballot will be blank.

Submitted by lambert on

No, I'm not glad. Did I say that I was?

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Marketing! Because Obama is nothing if not the New Coke.

Via the Talk Left comments, check out Obama's new seal. The latin at the top is "Yes We Can."

And you thought only the Democratic Party that was being assimilated.

MJS's picture
Submitted by MJS on

Now I'm tired of the Constitution thrashing.

Tomorrow I plan to be tired of the teeth gnashing.

Let's face it: I'm tired.


Submitted by lambert on

If they don't come after us there, of course. I'm tired, too, believe me.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

are good. Nicely done by the coalition. We need more like this and it sounds like we're going to be getting it.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Glenzilla never considers that maybe Obama would LIKE to have those powers are president.

gmoke's picture
Submitted by gmoke on

Obama is indeed looking more and more like an ordinary politician but I'd like to ask you a question because I honestly don't know:
Where's Hillary on this question? Did she release a statement on FISA today? Has she stood up the way that Feingold and Dodd and a few others did?

I wonder if she had been the nominee whether her stance would have been much different than Obama's.

Solar is civil defense

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Where's Hillary?

well, at least it wasn't the first comment in the thread this time.

BTW, Greenwald is full of shit.

The fact is that this would make a great campaign issue -- and coming out strongly against immunity would certainly cost Obama no vote.

The real explation (IMHO) is that the reason that pelosi and other congresscritters were so eager to get Obama installed as nominee was because he would NOT provide leadership.

Obama promised Pelosi et at that he would pretty much let them do whatever they wanted -- he might send up some bare-bones legislative proposals, but wasn't going to be involved in the legislative sausage factory.

Clinton, on the other hand, would be providing leadership -- she'd 'consult' with congresscritters, then come up with a fully formed legislative proposal that she expected the Party to pass with as little change as possible --Clinton would make the deals BEFORE the bills got sent to congress, making people like Pelosi and Reid mere factotums.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I think Obama and the leadership got on the same page a while back. For a variety of reasons I hesitate to see him as any less than a full partner. Obama is no slouch for intellect, he has an eye for the main chance and the ability to focus on what he wants and execute what needs doing to get there. Barack Obama is not, to put it bluntly, House Nigger material.

If Pelosi and Reid and whoever, the committee chairs maybe, feel they will be able to control Obama once he's sworn in, they are I think going to find themselves with a tiger by the tail.

I don't think that's the case. My view I think they've had a couple of months to talk this over and get their plans sorted out, at least since it became clear that Hillary had next to no chance to catch up in delegates. The DNC, the Obama campaign, and the congressional leadership are united in purpose, and they are executing the plan they have all agreed on. There is no difference now between them, and none is being used more than they are using the others.

Strategically, from the state-to-state Electoral College standpoint, a Hillary campaign would be focused slightly differently. Some minor campaign strategies might be adjusted because of that, but on the main themes and the big moves like passing this unconstitutional law, it would be the same.

The way the requirements for winning this election are being viewed, either of these two unconventional candidates has to run to the right in order to be actually seen as centrist and therefore safe; safe is a requirement to beat a white male. Those structural requirement views (valid or not is another issue) dictate this action. I don't agree with those views or this action, but I see it is a tactical move not an authoritarian power grab.

For a silver lining, consider that it may help to have all this power if there ever is to be a rounding up and bringing to accountability stage. Remember the Bush family owns a big spread in Paraguay, and both Bush and Cheney have "friends" all over the world.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Obama has never once bucked the partyline while in the Senate. He's gone along to get along entirely.

Punishing criminals like the entire administration would be a "partisan fight" -- and Obama blames both parties for the "broken system" a la Broder, and has refused to accurately call the GOP out--and in fact praises them and uses all their tactics.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

If Pelosi and Reid and whoever, the committee chairs maybe, feel they will be able to control Obama once he’s sworn in, they are I think going to find themselves with a tiger by the tail.

as long as obama can claim credit/shift blame for something, there will be nothing to control.

He has no interest in providing leadership on policies and issues. His idea of a good "President" is Ronald Reagan -- but not the real Reagan, rather the imaginary Reagan who was deified at his funeral.

Obama's only agenda item is self-aggrandizement --- Pelosi and Reid won't have to 'control' him, because he's already ceded control of all the important stuff to them.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and the DC Dems (and his Chicago crowd) are "the experienced Washington hands" who will guide him and be there in an Obama administration--just like they sold Dubya to a skeptical nation.

The NY Times is openly talking about the resemblance -- A Delegator, Obama Picks When to Take Reins

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Perhaps he's somewhere in between, or something else entirely. I think it is very difficult at this point to say with great certainty how things will go with Obama, but I am fairly certain that under McCain they will all go very badly. Anything better than "very badly" is about as much as I can hope for this cycle, and probably about all I will get.

If, as you suggest, there will be some greater degree of collegiality and closeness between the White House and Congress under Obama, whoever is playing lead, is that certain to be a negative? Wouldn't then the liberal wing and the few progressives in Congress have greater influence and opportunity for good than they would under McCain - even if only marginally?

I'm not happy with Obama at this point, and of the two would prefer to have Hillary but then my first choice didn't run and so I've been on less than stellar rations for some time. Obama or McCain, moldy loaves and hard cheese is better than thin soup and daily beatings - IMHO.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

even rightwingers acknowledge he's never ever bucked his party-- "When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue where Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance." --

and Obama himself--in supporting Lieberman and all the other horrible incumbents over challengers, and in his votes -- demoonstrates and even says it -- "... 'Sorry, I take my marching orders from Chuck Schumer.' " But Obama was joking, right? Not at all, says the former candidate, and an aide who was also present for the meeting seconded that: Instead of big-dogging it, he was trumpeting his obeisance. ..."

and even now-- "... not only is Obama doing nothing about any of that, but far more, he's actively intervening in a Democratic primary to help one of the worst enablers of all of this stay in power, while helping to defeat an insurgent, community-based challenger. ..."

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

who are the ones the DC Dems always listen to, tragically--like on this FISA thing... The Two Obamas -- "... Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes. ...
And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. ..."

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

horse's ass.

But if you're determined to quote him, at least put up the nut graf:

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

Brooks bashing Obama, not exactly what I'd call an unbiased, critical POV or a meaningful reference for anything other than as an example of how corrupt and malignant contemporary media has become. Nothing he says has any value.

Better character assassins, please.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

David Brooks is a horse's ass. He has always been a horse's ass. Nothing he says means anything in particular, including praise or condemnation of Democrats. Brooks is one of several Village Idiots as well as a horse's ass; what he says on any given day, and any change along the way, is meaningless. It is meaningless to cite him, in either support or attack, of any position.

Except for occasional amusement purposes, reading him at all is a waste of time. David Brook’s opinions on Obama mean nothing to me. I cannot imagine why in any but the most peculiar circumstances they would matter to anyone. This is not one of those times.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

things are peculiar enough that I'm willing to take David Brooks as a reference on the character of a Democratic presidential nominee, or being insightful and trustworthy enough to be of value in sorting out anything political.

Not now.