Maybe it was just media hype, or should I say, it must have been media hype, something by which they could sell more airtime and ink ex nihilo. For surely -- please, tell me this is so -- Obama's progressive base didn't really rise up in prerevolutionary arms as the media intimated -- did it? -- over this harmless moderation:
I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.
Now, I am aware of a few voices on the left -- a few, mind you, but not really the "base" -- whose political chastity felt violated by these words. My only guess is that they preferred Obama to say, "On my fact-finding mission to Iraq this summer, I'll seek no facts and brook no opposition to what I already believe" -- à la George W. Bush -- or words to that effect.
The right would have had a field day. See, folks? Obama is no different from what he lampoons: he molds information -- even that from our esteemed military professionals -- to fit policy, and not the other way around.
At which point those abovementioned few on the left likely would have said, Yep, Obama had best watch himself. He's placing himself in a right-wing trap, he's opening himself to Catch-22 fire -- precisely what we feared. He should have known better, because we always do.
But my other guess -- and there's no polling available on this yet, so guessing is as good as it gets -- is that actual disappointment from the progressive base over Obama's actual words was far more limited and narrow than the media would have had us believe. Anything else is just too unbelievable.
There was, of course, some left-leaning outrage expressed by the vocationally outraged. And that, in turn of course, always makes for good copy. Asked the media: "Has Obama gone too far this time with his winning strategy? Has he finally lost those who brung him to the dance? Joining us tonight to discuss this internal rebellion ..."
Thursday, however, Obama didn't have to wait till nighttime. The outrage professionals, in league with the media and their intriguing narrative of a mushrooming rift on the left, instantly pounced. All was lost. Obama had abused and abandoned his base for the last time, said the former, with the latter lapping it up. He's an unprincipled cad of the old, not the new, politics, they said, and thereby undeserving of the left's angelic support.
Obama, in a follow-up news conference, then pounced with the same rapidity, if not superior exasperation:
We’re going to try this again. Apparently, I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and, again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months’ time.
Will "refinements" be required? Of course they will.
I'm aware of no military operation in the history of mankind that ever proceeded precisely according to original plans. "Refinement" is merely a three-dollar political word for "Snafu." But it didn't change Obama's fundamental position on Iraq one bit.
On the other hand, Obama's terminology was also invested in the happy quality of playing to the middle -- those voters who, like most others, detest our presence in Iraq but are susceptible to John McCain's argument of Democratic hastiness.
The proper response? The ambiguity of "refinement." It's general-election wiggle-room galore -- that marvelous stuff that victorious campaigns are made of.
As for those few, dyspeptic voices on the left who already seem habitually unsettled by Obama's pragmatism? I think they misunderstood what he meant by a "new politics" for Democrats, which in fact embraces a certain bifurcation. Yes, he intended a kinder and gentler mode of the art, but he also meant the winning kind.


Call Me Crazy - But --
It is too early to tell about Obama
Certainly we want a President who makes decisions based on the current circumstances, not the circumstances that existed months ago.
On the other hand, we don't want a President who caves to the right wing even when there is no strategic or tactical necessity to do so.
Perhaps the primary process forced him to seem more rigid than he actually is. Each candidate was vying to make more extreme promises. Any candidate that went too far out his or her way to admit to being reasonable could not win.
I hope that this is all that it is. It is far too early to abandon the ship that may still get us safely to port. In the boating safety class that I took, the saying was, "Don't abandon ship until you have to climb up to get to the life rafts in the water."
ssg13565
Either We End The Iraq War Or It'll Be The End Of Us
Get a grip
You know Obama's not for leaving Iraq, right?
PM, If This is Just on the Iraq War, Then Sure
But - if this is your way of blasting Progressives (again!) for our absolutely correct dismay at Obama's never-properly explained caving on FISA and once again abetting in the raping of the Constitution? Well, that's very different - and if you think I'm off-topic, maybe you shouldn't have done a week's worth of "Oh, Grow Up Ya Commierat Lefties - and Git in Line Behind The Obama Bandwagon!", now should you...?
Give her a pass!!!! Are you NUTS, PM ?!?!?!?!?
1) Caved on her promised opposition and filibuster of the FISA amendments
2) Told MoveOn to take a hike
3) Supported the gun-nuts expansion of the 2nd Amendment
4) Waffled on NAFTA
5) Supported the expansion of the death penalty
6) Promised an expanded war in Afghanistan
7) Softened her promise to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months
8) Promised to expand Bush’s “Faith-based Initiatives”, and
9) stated “mental distress” is not enough to justify late-term abortions.
All this in just two weeks! And you think it’s alright because the end (winning) justifies the means!!!! Hate to say it, PM, but I told you so! She’s nothing but a neo-con DINO, Rethuglican, Bush/Cheney-lite, Khrister-right, triangulating opportunist who’ll say or do anything to get elected! She and her DLC-loving husband should .....
.......................... what?????
Are you dyslexic Yman?
I know .... it's satire.
See my response to vtjozef, nelow.
Huh?
It's the double standard, vtjozef ...
Obama was held out as the only candidate for self-described "true progressives," while Clinton was villified as power-hungry and insufficiently progressive (DLC centrist, Repug-lite, Khrister-right appeaser, willing to say/do anything, blah, blah, blah ....). Now that Obama's the nominee, PM attempts to justify his move to the right as just part of a strategic plan to win the game - a smart, pragmatic politician allowing himself "wiggle room" for the GE.
Now if Clinton had done any of these things ....
Yman! I had forgotten you existed!
The EmperorHillary....And BTW, congratulations for upgrading to the cave from that rock you used to crawl out from under! Now, if you'd be so good, take vtjozef with you? There's a good fellow....
You forgot, "Doc"?
Hey, how's it feel being duped AGAIN? First by Hillary (how many times did you vote for her?) and now by Obama. Did you REALLY believe him when he promised to oppose (and filibuster if need be) the FISA "compromise"?
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_on_fisa_telecom_immunity.php C'mon - it's only the 4th Amendment! ..... didn't even make the top three! Hey, you do whatcha gotta do to win, right?
Duped AGAIN!!!! Wow .....
You must feel like such a FOOL! Vtjozef may be missing a few cards from his deck, but he was right about the meaning of "dupa"!
Stop the hate
Robertjones, Given the Incessant Junior High Namecalling
Sorry that you don't approve - though I wonder where you were when Yman, Thomas M, Neva Stolz, Alibe50 and the rest of the Hillaryinsta trolls were making this board almost unreadable? Are you some kind of BuzzFlash NetCop pulling me over for "incivility" - which given it's Yman and the kneejerk anti-Obama tone of your response, that makes me wonder just how objective you are?
As you said, We All Have the Right to Choose the Candidates and Positions We Support. I'm highly upset at some of Obama's current stances, true - but I know Hillary Clinton would have been even worse had she been the Democratic Nominee.
Selah.
Knee jerk response?
Namecalling?
I do like the part about your opposition to "Obama's current stances", though I'm sure the irony was unintentional.
And you know "Hillary Clinton would have been even worse"? Really? Funny ..... I haven't heard her support the FISA "compromise" ... or the gun-nuts expansion of the 2nd Amendment ... or Scalia's expansion of the death penalty ... or promise an expanded war in Afghanistan ... or soften her timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq ... or promise to expand Bush’s “Faith-based Initiatives” ... or claim that “mental distress” is not enough to justify late-term abortions.
I guess it depends on what your idea of "even worse" is.
After all, it's not like Obama - having won the nomination - can now afford to blow off his self-proclaimed "true" progressive supporters in an attempt to win over moderates and crossover Repubs. I mean, REALLY .... He's got to listen to you, right? It's not like he knows you have no choice at this point.
Ohhhhh .....
BTW, "Doc" - How 'bout ONE example of one of my "Hillary or McCain! rants"? Maybe just one example of me ever suggesting that anyone should vote for McCain?
......................................... That's what I thought.
Never Mind, RobertJones - I Already Got My Answer Below
And to think people here got on MY case for being upset over Obama's FISA stance.... ::shakes head::
Fuck you drprodny!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. That would be a description of you - you ignorant slut.
I give up on trying to talk any sense to you, and will now report you to the moderator and ask that you be removed from this list so that the adults can have a serious discussion about the future of democracy in America without your Koolaide-drunk spewing about Obama -- a candidate you know nothing about.
Coming not from the Left butt from the Behind
Things already crossed off the list
1. He was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position [on the Iraq War] at this stage”, and since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling more than $300 billion;
2. With some hogwash speech about appealing to independents, he can be expected to choose Joe Lieberman (or Chuck Hagel or another Republican) as his running mate;
3. With more hogwash about appealing to independents in the Republican "red" states, he will refuse to campaign in any "blue" states and just concede them to McCain;
4. When Murtha called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq a year ago, Obama voyaged to the Council on Foreign Relations on November 22, 2005, to soothe the assembled elites by telling them how to "control" the wily Democrats with rhetoric;
5. In March 2005, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to Lieberman rather than Lamont;
6. Obama voted for "tort reform" and the bankruptcy bill, thus making it far harder for people to get redress or compensation;
7. Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice;
8. Obama voted to close off any filibuster of Samuel Alito and confirm him to the Supreme Court;
9. When Senator Russell Feingold made a motion to censure the President for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Obama declared "my and Senator Feingold's view is not unanimous. Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president's argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists. The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it." That's not the question at all.
10. Voted "Yes" on March 2 to final passage of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, unlike ten of his Democratic colleagues.
11. Obama voted for Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy Bill which has since been deemed "the greatest pork fest in all history";
12. A large number of companies involved in sub-prime lending practices are major Obama campaign contributors;
13. He voted against a cap on high credit card interest rates, ensuring many more people will continue to stay in debt and poverty;
14. He wants to increase the military by 100,000 troops and he plans to move troops from Iraq to an expansion of the war Afghanistan, merely changing the war rather than ending it;
15. In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts. Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?; 16. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts;
17. Obama opposed single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it;
18. He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage. [Former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason];
19. On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006);
20. Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports expanding it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it;
21. Obama has now declined public campaign financing and is poised to vote for telecom immunity next week – in spite of promises to filibuster against it.
Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change. Fasten your seat belts, kids -- it's going to be a bumpy ride.
So, vtjozef, how does it feel to support an out-of-touch racist?
I SURE don't approve of a lot of what Obama's doing either (just take a look at my last comment here), but unlike you, I CAN see a difference between him and McCain. I vocally protest Obama's stumbles in the hopes that he will realize we know some things are too important to fold on, and that a leader compromises from strength, not short-term expediency. I don't try shoving some Self-Righteous Old Man down people's throats, who is just out-of-touch and Vietnam-obsessed enough to TRY a disastrous immediate withdrawal from Iraq....
Ignorance
Okay, Sparky - Whatever You Say
Otherwise you're just like SOUTH PARK's Parker & Stone - both too hip to bother voting or getting involved in politics because, after all, they wouldn't want to take a chance and possibly be called a "sap" by people Just Like You. Naw, you'd rather support some guy w/no chance of winning while you get your jollies waving That Ole Debbil Israel around like The Red Menace Resurgent.
You antisemitic, bigoted so-called "Progressives" are really making me sick, and ashamed to be lumped in w/you.
drprodny, Our only hope is to get Obama elected and then...
Clueless
Stop it, drprodny
C orrect
Front
I have been with Buzzflash
I have been with Buzzflash since they began. It was a place Democrats (of all kinds)could vent their anger about the Bush administration. The posts were congenial & intelligent, which made for good ideals & conversations. While there were different opinions, we were all Democrats.
Then all of a sudden, when Obama declared his intention to run for President everything changed.
Buzzfash invited & promoted a ugly format that pitted Democrat against Democrat. Everyday they enticed hatred for Senator Clinton with talking points Republicans had used on her for the last 15 years. It turned into a hate Hillary blog. Civil conversations no longer existed. If you were leaning towards Clinton you were called a racist. My thoughts on it now is there were a organized bunch of young kids bloging everyday for Obama. I say that because of the nasty one line comments that were said over & over again.
Buzzflash had been a reasonable blog for democrats over the 7 years or so that I had been a part of it. I hated to see Democrat pitted against Democrat, it seemed to me we were tearing the party apart. And I think we have to some extent. I could never understand the sudden change by Buzzflash. And this P.M. Carpenter with his slimy articles was a huge instigator & leader of the Nastiness. I decided to google Carperter & found out he is associated with the University of Chicago. William Ayers & Obama are associated with the University of Chicago. Then I found out that Buzzflash is home based in Chicago. Now I wonder if we haven't been manipulated by the Chicago political machine. I don't believe in guilt by association, but it would answer some of my questions of why Buzzflash made a abrupt change for the worse.
Change
Sounds Great