Hanging Tough with Obama When Obama is Not Hanging Tough
THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher
July 7, 2008
As I've mentioned more than once, BuzzFlash is the oldest and largest progressive Internet news and commentary site between the two Coasts. We have the perspective of the Heartland -- and we were founded on a premise that only when we hang tough for Constitutional values will we prevail.
The most basic and fundamental message of BuzzFlash -- long before the other sites that now get branded on television all the time (we were founded in May of 2000) -- was that you don't win victories by laying down like a doormat; and you don't sell out the Constitution, one person-one vote, economic justice and the energy future of our nation by cowering in a corner every time that the Republicans pull a national security scare.
Of course, there are other factors at work, like the DLC, which have made many Democrats as complicit as Republicans when it comes to voting with big corporations because of the money channeled to their campaigns by "K" Street lobbyists.
Barack Obama offered a vision of an end to this cowardice and betrayal.
We believe that he still does.
I want to make it emphatically clear that I and BuzzFlash oppose Obama's position on the latest House FISA bill; on "redefining" an Iraq pullout; on giving a green light to the unprecedented Supreme Court gift to the NRA; and on his "carve out" of exceptions to late term abortions that would exclude the mental health of a woman.
These are not progressive perspectives (although the Iraq statement was consistent with his prior qualifications -- and those of Hillary Clinton). We oppose his stances as stated above, and will continue to do so. As I have often stated, we are beholden to principles, not to an individual. As a grassroots organizer, Obama, we suspect, understands that.
There's been a lot of Internet speculation about why Obama made these counter-progressive comments. Is he following the advice of his strategists because he needs to ease the concerns of key voting blocks in new states that they plan to possibly pick up (e.g., Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Georgia, Virginia, etc.)? In that case, Obama loses some of his luster as being the "genuine" candidate. Or are these nuances that Obama actually believes? Or are they a lot of "dog days of summer" attention focused on issues that will pass once he becomes president and appoints Supreme Court justices who will lean progressive, along with having a heavily Democratic Congress, including the Senate?
The answer: probably a little of all of the above.
Being in Chicago, as we have said, we have worked with Obama in the past on some advocacy issues, such as putting an end to Payday Loans (although we have absolutely no connection with his campaign; we're talking about when he was a state senator). We also know a lot of people who know him from Hyde Park -- both socially and politically -- and elected officials who worked with him in the legislature.
Most of them will tell you this: if he has a core center upon which he will not compromise, it is related to Constitutional issues. We wager that he and his campaign know that Harry Reid doesn't have the votes to maintain a filibuster on the House FISA bill, so Obama is taking the chance to innoculate himself from the only thing the Republicans got to run against him; i.e., that he is a furtive Muslim sympathizer. As BuzzFlash has speculated before, we think that too many Democrats were given classified briefings about the FISA illegalities and would be implicated if Bush and Cheney were held to account. As for Telecom Immunity, show us the money. When you have the Democratic head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, cheerleading for Telecom Immunity, you know that the fix is in.
Do we justify such "business as usual" political moves? No, but we are going to hold our judgment on Obama, barring some radical departure from his primary positions, until he is elected. This guy is committed to the Constitution, and BuzzFlash and the rest of the netroots are going to be all over him like a panther on the prowl if he doesn't roll back the Bush usurpations of the Constitution and our civil liberties. The same goes for abortion.
Because while he's made these objectionable statements, he's also been "framing" the national security issue in a way that Democrats have not done before; he is boxing McCain in on the definition of what makes our nation secure. That is the larger battle that has to be won.
We've talked in the past with George Lakoff -- the master of "framing" -- and it is clear that he not only approves of Obama's ability to redefine and reframe issues to pull more people into the progressive tent, but that Lakoff has given the Obama camp advice and counsel. (Although as Lakoff's just-posted commentary on the Huffington Post indicates, the Obama campaign didn't listen to him on the "move to the center" statements, of which Lakoff disapproves -- as, we repeat, do we.)
Most Americans share progressive values, but they have been tugged by the demagogic slogans and think tank positions of the right wing. In general, Obama has the rare ability to double down on the right wing by bringing in a larger context to the debate and debunking their charlatan bag of demagogic tricks.
So, I would contend Obama is hanging tough, even when it appears that he is not. The Democrats are going to try and realign the electoral map from the gridlock of the last two elections, and Obama is at a point in the election cycle when he is trying to up the comfort level of swing voters while closing off lines of attack from the Republicans -- or at least reducing their impact.
Will it work? We'll see.
But we'll end with this historical note. In 2000, before the theft of the election by Bush Inc., many BuzzFlash readers wrote us and asked what we would do if Gore won because we were so anti-Republican?
Our response was simple; we would keep advocating Constitutional principles and progressive values -- and when Gore deviated from them, we would criticize him. (Although Gore, after the 2000 election, then went through a transformation and became such a strong change agent and fiery spokesman of truth that he became disinterested in the compromises demanded by the political process.)
So it will be with Barack Obama. We will be there pounding away at his lapses when necessary while defending him from attacks from the right wing beer hall putsch crowd.
The power of government in America is derived from the people.
Let no president forget that, whatever his or her party affiliation is.
THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
Update: 8:35 EST, July 7th
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net




Technorati Tags:
Hanging tough with Obama
Hanging tough with Obama
It IS fun, isn't it?
Most will continue to give him a pass (not much choice now) for a while longer, and will even continue to defend the "revisions" as merely smart, pragmatic politics (Hey - you do what ya gotta do to win, right?). Of course, when they said that about Hillary Clinton just a few weeks ago, it was a bad thing.
But c'mon ......... it's not like anyone ever claimed he was a new kind of politician.
........................................... right?
Obama the flip flopper
Time for Seriousness and Commitment
Right now, the Dems in the game (as opposed to purist armchair quarterbacks like too many of us in the blogosphere) know the establishment--with the help of the MSM and a still influential block of non-attentive voters--can wreck a candidate or a President regardless of truth, fairness, or even the will of the people. Any Dem that wants to stay in the game in order to make any difference needs to do a little ring-kissing (mostly in areas that involve big money for the biggest behind-the-scenes powers) for their self preservation and for the prospect of even limited success (remember what happened to Bill Clinton? He did not start out as a sellout...)
What is needed is a broader Progressive Movement that can credibly counter the establishment on its own, and thus give Dem leaders cover. Crying about Dems inevitable (and probably necessary) caving is lazy, naive and counterproductive. Let's take matters into our own hands...
Dang I forgot Oboma
I know that you have only limited regard for the liberal part of our party but I have heard that you have some regard for the Constitution. If this rumor is true you must know that the position that you are NOW supporting is not supportive of the 4th amendment thereof:
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
FISA is already wrong by being secret from the public. FISA was passed to prohibit BUSH and his CREEPS from finding out what his Enemy’s were trying to do to get elected… or bypass the Executive branch for passing LAW. Your addition is oats through a Bull. And worth just about as much.
(OH SORRY IT WAS NIXON)
(OH SORRY ROVE NOT CREEPS)
(OH SORRY NOT ENEMIES but OBOMA)
(OH WAIT MAYBE SOME OF THE REST ARE INCLUDED IN THE ENEMIES LIST TOO…)
(Oh yeah there is the problem of illegal funding to the Contras as well)
(OH DANG RAYGUN WAS A PART OF THESE CRIMES TOO)
Sorry I just got too much history of corrupt use of the executive power in my comments.
Maybe you are too young to remember the JAPS being incarcerated. Maybe you don't remember the attacks on Mexico to help the Doles. Maybe you think Gen. S Butler was wrong about the use of the Military. Or maybe you don't remember Ike E. warning us about Blackwater/KBR/Bush/and the rest of PNAC as treasonous groupings. EVEN G.Washington was worried about intrest groups.
This is your chance to clean the commons. Your choice… but know that people ARE paying attention.
Please consider that the courts can and must answer the question of legality. Without legal knowledge we are allowing murder, theft, fraud, child rape, porn and treason without knowing. (hey you don’t know do you? If you do ... we need to see what is up with you too.)
(BTW Whatever happened to those White House emails???)
We can pardon crimes by any number of pathways IF WE SO DECIDE. Despite any pardon people injured must be made whole and the crimes detailed. Move to set the bill aside for future consideration.
The FISA court (as scummy and unconstitutional as it may be) can take care of the criminal observation of our people as needed. We can charge the FISA judges with crimes of judgement as needed. I look forward to your promise and plan to review ALL :
Signing statements,
Executive orders,
No bid contracts,
FISA warrants,
DOJ election fraud actions,
EPA actions,
AND SO ON AND SO ON.
IF THE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT LAW SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE. WITHIN A YEAR.
NO MORE LAW FROM THE WHITEHOUSE.
If you dare to act as Bush and his boys have acted many of us will want to replace you.
People are already looking at replacing many of the others supporting the FISA bill.
I wish you support and success in your run to the WH. BUT please know I am watching for where my next dollar needs to go.
Have a great day
:D
Holding my nose to vote for Obama
just a comment
http://www.bushwatch.com/
They have issues too but both of your sites keep good track on the issues people need to know about.
Thanks for the service and I will be so happy to know that the BUSH name is GONE FOREVER from our country...
Have a great day
:D
Show me now that you are for the people, not the elitists.
Money
Holding Judgement till he's elected? No way Challenge him NOW!
Holding Judgement till he's elected? No way Challenge him NOW!
More bleating from ideologues
I agree with Mark Karlin 100%.
Our next president will either be Barack Obama or John McCain.
No one will care about those who voted for Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader etc etc etc.
Those who think Obama will be as bad as McCain can do as they wish. For the rest of the
realists, who aren't right-wing Republicans, Obama is our only choice.
We're not voting for saint. We're not judging who hews most closely to a limited set
of positions. This is not about religion. This is politics - has been since the beginning
of organized political life several thousand years ago.
That being said, of course, many of us care passionately about certain positions, policies
etc. We should express ourselves. We should write to Obama, as I myself did on the FISA
bill. But if Obama has made a pragmatic decision that if he can't defeat them he might
as well join them and cover his ass or his right flank, well, we'll just have to live
with it. The last thing the Democrats/liberals/progressives etc need is to give any
ammunition at all to the McCain campaign.
Voters should act like the adults the law says we are. This isn't the playground anymore
where you can cry and complain that "It's not fair."
No, you choose one candidate or the other, or don't vote. If it makes some people
feel better they should focus their energy on House or Senate races to defeat obnoxious
right wingers and/or support serious progressives. There's need for energy everywhere.
Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA
Your next president
Caving is not leadership
* This makes McSame look right, and look like a leader.
* This makes O'Same look like a late-to-the-party me-too follower.
* This strengths McSame and his wingnut friends.
* This hurts wingnut O'Same.
* This undermines real Progressive politicians.
* This undermines real Progressive policies.
By adopting wingnut policies O'Same is hurting Progressives and helping McSame.
The wingnuts won '08 when the race was narrowed down to Billary, McSame, and O'Same. There's no point fighting on in the lost battle of '08. All we can do is focus now on '10 and '12. And that means voting for Cynthia or Ralph.
Eventually the Dims will get the message and oust the DLC traitors, but we're going to have to hit them hard with an electoral clue-bat before they get the message. And that is the only way that we will undo fascism in the US. Eight more years of O'Same would just make fascism worse.
Obama was never a Progressive
Obama favors increased military spending, warrantless wiretaps, leaving our soldiers to die in the Middle East, and telcom immunity. He favors ethanol subsidies and mass starvation. He is so strongly opposed to single-payer health-care that he has promised to make our existing awful health-care system COMPULSORY. He wants to execute rapists, and he strongly supports Israel's ultra-right-wing terrorism. Some of his polices are slightly to the right of McSame, and some are slightly to the left, but none are Progressive.
There's no reason to vote for a wingnut, whether DLC or Repug.
Ralph? Maybe.
Cynthia? Probably.
McSame or O'Same? Never.
Thanks Mark, the future is now....
Exactly - HelenBack
Well said, HelenBack
Obama's tactical error
Hang Tough?
Since When Is Appeasement to Treason "Hanging Tough", ERW?
How many times do I have to SAY it to you lot who keep insisting "Obama has to track to the (mythical) Center to win"? The Great Ammurikan Heartland Only Respects Strength and A Firm Hand, just like the "Good Germans" they are. THAT is why The Traitor Bush has gotten away w/it time and again - b/c he acts strong and decisive. Which may make the Good Germans (many of whom are my relatives) smarter than most of us so-called "Progressives", who stand time and again by dithering ineffectual twits who are constitutionally (small "c" - they betrayed the Big-C "Constitution" a long time ago!) incapable making up their minds about lunch w/out two polls and three focus groups to tell them what to eat.
Thanks to his waffling two-faced capitulation on FISA, and his inability to explain why to his Progressive base in terms that make sense to us (and yes, I've read his statements - those are excuses, not explanations), Obama Will Lose the Election. Why should the mythical Center vote for him anymore, now that he's proven to be Just Another Unprincipled Weak-Kneed Appeasing Dem?
Will I still vote for him? Of course - b/c he still IS an improvement over McCain. But I'm now going to find it VERY hard to explain to my Right-Wing relatives living in those flyover states I cursed above why they should vote for a Young Black Democrat promising "Change" over "War Hero and Straight Talker" John McCain.... :(
AGAIN?!?!?!?! That's gotta hurt, "Doc"
First you get duped into voting for Hillary. Now Obama has gone from a new kind of politician for "real" progressives to just another waffling, weak-kneed, appeasing, two-faced capitulator? Ouch ....
Did you ever start to think the problem might not be with the candidates/pols? As the old adage goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ..."
Hanging Tough
skinning cats
Nancyspeak
not 50 plus 1
Say what?
And in what way are those states so much more likely to have a large constituency that wants government to spy on us without oversight and wants telecoms to be allowed to commit crimes and get away with it?
Since Obama announced his support for the FISA bill he has lost ground not only in Colorado but in Oregon - Oregon! - and he's still running mighty weakly in PA and OH, and McCain is still ahead in FL. That's not a very good trade-off for one or two western states that only have three electoral votes. (Both Democrats were already ahead in New Mexico. And why doesn't he have Nevada, yet? Even Hillary had Nevada.)
Obama doesn't really appear to be picking up new voters with this right-wing talk of his; on the contrary, he seems to be alienating some of his own supporters instead. I was at the Economists for Obama blog this morning and they're talking about withholding contributions for him over this - and they're a blog that exists to support Obama!
Democrats need to push Obama to stand up for the Constitution and stop sounding like just another Democrat who doesn't stand for anything, or we will lose in November. End of story.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow
Super delegates
Sorry Kids - Obama has never been all that PROGRESSIVE.
More stupidity
Buzzflash suffers from the same delusion and stupidity that have afflicted Democratic voters since Bill Clinton.
What are you people sniffing?
Based on your commentary, it must be pretty intoxicating stuff. And some of the side effects are rather dangerous:
wishful-thinking
delusions
gullibility
naivete
In the last 7 years DemocRATS have been an opposition party:
by voting “YES” for the USA PATRIOT ACT,
by voting “YES” for two illegal wars and subsequent funding,
by voting “YES” for Alito,
by voting “YES” for Roberts,
by voting “YES” for Gonzales,
by voting “YES” for Rumsfeld,
by voting “YES” to authorize Bush's spying
by voting “YES” in the Senate (97-0) for the resolution to threaten Iran.
And how can you people EVER vote for a Democrat again after the blatant backstabbing of 2006, when after promising to end the war, they went ahead and gave Bush even more money than he had asked for? Obama is Bush with a tan.
Blind fools.
Like this provacateur...
Democrats like you can't be fooled
you were BORN fools and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Calling me a Rethug operative is the only way out for you, attack the messenger since you can't attack the message.
Obama might sound great, but he's Dick Cheney in sheep's clothing. He’s a Democrat, isn’t he? Mind what he does, not what he says.
Obama voted to fund this illegal war the same way Republicans did. And didn’t Obama join Republicans in 2005 in passing the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits?
Obama also voted against a bankruptcy bill which would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.
While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Obama votes with the Republican Party more often than not.
In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872.
His record in regulating the nuclear industry and energy policies is dubious at best.
Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it.
He’s supposedly against NAFTA but in his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent’s call for tariffs would spark a trade war.
Democratic voters: incredibly stupid BLIND FOOLS.
so how did the Republicans vote?
So how did my mother vote?
how?
Obama and death penalty
Pandering
Isolation of Killers
G.W.?
Obama is "Hanging Tough"
Doing what is necessary to be elected
general election
I agree
Headline goes here
What is it today, Mikey?
So which is it Mikey, were you lying when you said you were done with Obama, or are you off to fight in Iraq? Can we assume you'll also be getting your "world-class feminist" girlfriend pregnant?
BTW - "Professional writer"? I didn't know you meant advertising! Bit of a stretch, no? Come to think of it, even whores call themselves "professionals". Although (in fairness) they generally garner more respect ... and in their case, there is some skill involved.
A Soul Brother.
A wasted opportunity
fairy tale
Did you ever consider.......