June 23, 2008

6/23: Welcome To The General Election, Netroots!

In what the Washington Post describes as "his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee," Barack Obama announced his support of the controversial new FISA legislation. The netroots fiercely oppose this legislation, which dramatically expands the President's power to conduct warrantless wiretapping and gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's unlawful surveillance program. Liberal bloggers are very disappointed by Obama's decision, which they're calling "a big mistake" and "a colossal failure of leadership".

In his statement explaining his support of the bill, Obama said that he would "work in the Senate to remove [the] provision" granting retroactive immunity to telecoms. Many liberal bloggers are urging the IL senator to keep his word. However, it remains to be seen whether Obama will go so far as to filibuster the bill in order to remove the immunity provision, as MoveOn.org is urging him to do.

OBAMA: Oh, Bama...

Liberal bloggers savaged Obama after he released a statement announcing his support of the FISA legislation:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "We'll include Barack Obama in the mix of politicians that apparently think all you who were following the FISA debates are as dumb as day-old pill bugs, and it's depressing as hell to have to do so. He may be the Democratic nominee, but he can still write a milquetoast, self-congratulatory justification for choosing the easy way out with the best of them."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "What Barack Obama has just told us is that he's an essentially conservative democrat who will compromise with reactionaries and totalitarians (the impulse to be free to spy on anyone, with only the executive deciding who, is a fundamentally totalitarian one and has no place in a republic). Whatever sympathies Obama may have for liberalism, or even for the Constitution, he cannot be trusted to fight for either if he feels it is not politically in his interest."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "One of the riveting things about Barack Obama's candidacy is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country. Time and again, in his debates with Hillary [Clinton], and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk 'tough.' [...] If there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation. And this time, he abandoned that premise."
• BooMan: "Unless this all part of a brilliant plan to popularize the campaign of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and thereby win some extra states, Obama is making a big mistake in moving to the right of [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter. And even if it is a political move, the FISA debate is about bedrock principles of constitutional rights, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Political dodges and maneuvers are inappropriate."
• Digby: "This is how Democrats always run for national office. Republicans are action, Dems are reaction, particularly when it comes to national security. They've already pounded Obama very hard for his debate statement that he'd talk to foreign dictators and the campaign knows that's just the beginning. The 'Muslim terrorist' drumbeat is all about making people feel uncomfortable with this exotic new guy's ability to keep the country safe. Reacting to that by showing 'strength' on issues like this is a choice I think the Democrats probably don't have to make this time out --- the Republican party is so damaged that I think their usual schtick isn't going to work --- but it's hardly surprising."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "As I said this morning if I were the next President of the United States I'd be happy to be handed unlimited power by the GOP, too. The trouble is that unlike Barack Obama, I'm not going to be President and odds are neither are you."

Atrios thinks this legislation could come back to haunt Obama: "Democrats will regret embracing the expansion of executive power because a President Obama will find his administration undone by an 'abuse of power' scandal. All of those powers which were necessary to prevent the instant destruction of the country will instantly become impeachable offenses. If you can't imagine how such a pivot can take place then you haven't been paying attention."

OBAMA II: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Barack

Disappointed by Obama's support of the FISA legislation, liberal bloggers are urging him to keep his promise to remove the provision granting retroactive immunity to telecoms that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance activities:

• MoveOn.org has launched a petition urging Obama to "keep his word" and filibuster, if necessary, any bill containing retroactive immunity for telecoms: "On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans. This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. [...] Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, 'It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.' Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to 'support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.' We need him to honor that promise. Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law."
• The Huffington Post's Art Levine: "Sadly, we expected more from Obama than this position on critical civil liberties legislation. That's why it's important to call his campaign to urge him to follow up on his promise to back a filibuster against the telecom immunity provision. [...] Let him know you'd like him to stand up against the Bush administration on this issue, showing the sort of strength that can resonate with voters in the general election."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I think Obama's making a terrible mistake by endorsing the 'compromise,' but if he can work with Reid to remove immunity, it'll be a big step in the right direction."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "A President Obama and a Congress with a larger Democratic majority -- if it had the political will to do so -- could repeal the changes contained in the bill, except for amnesty. Of course, given Obama's willingness to support those bad provisions, too, that possibility is waning. However, there's no repeal of retroactive immunity -- once it's granted, that's that. The terrible precedent of letting these corporations off the hook for knowingly breaking the law can't be undone. That's why, in addition to the fact that pitting the Constitution against AT&T did seem the most potent way to fight this politically, we have focused so largely on telco amnesty. That, and for strategic reasons, is why we should continue to press Obama, [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid, [CT Sen. Chris] Dodd, [WI Sen. Russ] Feingold and others who have said in response to this bill, or in response to Dodd's stand last winter, that they oppose amnesty, period."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Color me not all that surprised that Barack Obama, so far, is punting on this issue. He's never really proven himself among the bolder, more progressive senators, which is one of the reasons I was actually sort of stunned by the near monolithic shift toward him among the progressive blogosphere once John Edwards dropped out. But now he has an opportunity, not only as a senator, but as the putative head of the Democratic Party, to block retroactive telecom immunity as he has pledged to do. We've all been told over and over for the last year that Barack Obama is the change we've been waiting for and has a unique ability to reach across the aisle and forge consensus. OK, Senator, now's the time to demonstrate that ability."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Let's hold [Obama] to this October 2007 promise. [...] If Obama does not filibuster telecom immunity, it proves his commitments can not be trusted. That he will say and do anything to win, even if he does not mean it. A test for Obama's credibility is at hand."

Not every liberal blogger is pressuring Obama to remove the immunity provision from the bill. Firedoglake's emptywheel mockingly paraphrases Obama's announcement of his intentions: "I will make a showy effort in the Senate on Monday to get them to take out immunity. I will lose that effort 32-65. But hey! I can say I tried!"

OBAMA III: I Guess Nobody's Perfect...

Several liberal bloggers are trying to reconcile their disappointment with Obama's FISA position with their support of his candidacy:

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "[Obama]'s a politician. He's going to disappoint us. If I were one of those people who I suspect live mostly in the imaginations of columnists at the National Review -- the people who think Obama is the messiah, capable of making the lion lie down with the lamb, cooling the planet with the touch of his hand, bringing the dead back to life, and so on -- I suppose I'd have just dissolved in tears and sworn off politics for life. Luckily, I'm not. And at times like this, I just cast my mind back over previous Democratic nominees -- [John] Kerry, [Bill] Clinton, [Michael] Dukakis -- and think: FISA compromise or no FISA compromise, he's still the best candidate I can remember. Not that I wouldn't greatly have preferred the 'no FISA compromise' option. A lot."
• Benen: "[Obama's] announcement [in support of the FISA bill] reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton's decision to leave the campaign trail in 1992 to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector. I still liked Clinton, and I still voted for him, but it was a hard thing to get over. I feel a little like that now, too."
• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "As disappointed as I am about what passed the House, I suppose it's good to focus on Obama's intent to run as a candidate from the center. Too many people have too many unwarranted expectations about what Obama would do as President. At the same time, Obama is sending a clear message that he intends to run pragmatically, and has the toughness to do so. Whether it's FISA or campaign finance, that means making some people unhappy. Running to the center means increasing his chances of winning and the size of the win, and it also means that the 'Obambi' slurs (weakness, no substance) are badly missing the mark. I'm not suggesting we suck it up and like everything he does, I'm suggesting we be realistic about expectations. [...] When he screws up, he'll need us to hold his feet to the fire (and we will: see No Republican at Defense and A warning to pro-capitulation House Dems and FISA posts from yesterday). [...] The election season is upon us, and personally, I couldn't be happier. It means we are one step closer to getting that walking disaster out of the White House, and don't lose sight (even for a moment) of what that means and which party George Bush presides over. And if it means treating our candidate like the imperfect vessel he is, warts and all, so be it. Our guy is head and shoulders above their guy, and it's going to be fun to prove it, FISA notwithstanding."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "If there is one good thing that can come from this week's horrific embrace by Obama and our bipartisan political establishment of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, perhaps it will be that the illusions of 'lily-ness' about Barack Obama can finally fade away and be replaced by a more realistic perception of what he is, what his limits are, and the reasons why he merits real scrutiny, criticism and checks -- like everyone else pursuing political power does. Recall that the very first thing that he did upon securing the nomination was run to AIPAC to prostrate himself before them and swear undying fealty to their militant pieties. There will be plenty more of these sorts of ugly rituals to come. Whether you think he is engaging in them out of justifiable political calculation or some barren quest for power doesn't much matter. Either way, no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values."

OBAMA IV: Flippity-Floppity

Conservative bloggers are portraying Obama's support of the new FISA legislation as a stark reversal of his previous position:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Barack Obama will support the FISA re-write that, though labeled a compromise, is actually a victory for President Bush and the telecommunications industry. As the Washington Post acknowledges, this amounts to a reversal of position for Obama. It follows on the heels of his reversal of position on accepting public funding of his presidential campaign. In both cases, Obama has made the smart move, while confirming that he is not remotely a man of principle."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "It's becoming clear even to the Left that Obama has no real firm principles, only ambition. This FISA package doesn't differ much from the compromise Senate bill in February -- one supported by a significant number of Democrats then -- except that it requires a court to certify that telecoms meet the prerequisites for immunity that the first bill granted outright. As Feingold notes, the bill drafts those requirements to ensure that the applications will be approved, as they should be, since the government assured the telecoms that the activities were legal. Obama's stated reason for switching -- that it restores FISA and wiretap statutes -- was true of the previous version as well. What changed? Obama doesn't need the hard Left to get past Hillary Clinton. In fact, Code Pink, International ANSWER, and that 'grassroots movement' will become liabilities in a general-election campaign against a nationally-known war hero. He tossed them under the bus with as much consideration as he did Jeremiah Wright and Jim Johnson."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "The left-wingers who supported Obama and thought he would actually take a stand rather than issue some empty words have now joined that crowd under the Obama bus. Welcome to the general election, folks. Hope you didn't actually believe that 'Hope' and 'Change' meant a new and different kind of candidate. Obama may be just as left-wing as you are -- by all indications, he is -- and just as immune to understanding the way the world works, but he does know how to read polls, and he doesn't have much experience standing his ground under fire. So, while his statement pretty much admits that his 'lines that cannot be crossed' have in fact been crossed, he's just not going to do anything about it. [...] Today, Obama's spinelessness is in service of our national security, so I applaud it. Let's just hope we never see the day when his spine is what we depend on to protect our security."

OBAMA V: A Double Standard?

Liberal bloggers are pushing back against the criticism that Obama has received from pundits following his decision to opt out of the public financing system:

• DemFromCT: "I think the criticism over Obama taking himself out of public financing is silly. The entire campaign finance system is rotten, and Obama is going to publicly finance via small donors, an eminently more fair system than depending on corporate dollars funneled to the RNC and 527's as in past years (that McCain isn't generating 527's at this point is irrelevant -- he's not generating much of anything)."
• Benen: "Barack Obama's decision to skip the public financing system has really enraged the nation's newspaper editors. I've already explained why I think all the hand-wringing is unnecessary. In fact, in some instances, the criticism is backwards -- by sidestepping public financing and raising his own war chest, Obama will rely less on outside, independent groups, not more, which will mean add transparency and accountability to the process. [...] Instead of public financing, Obama is accepting financing from the public. The horror. His spin may or may not be persuasive, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about withdrawing from a flawed system. The conservative scholar who helped write the law said he 'would have sued [Obama] for political malpractice' if Obama hadn't withdrawn from the system."
• The Huffington Post's Jeff Cohen: "There was real emotion in his voice when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson used Friday night's newscast to stand up for little-guy McCain against online-fundraising powerhouse Barack Obama. By opting out of public financing, Gibson intoned, the Democrat could obtain 'two times, three times, four times, as much money as John McCain.' 'Let me ask you a question about basic fairness,' Gibson implored of his top D.C. correspondent George Stephanopoulos. 'People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality; if you start with that much more money, is it basically fair?' It was more a statement than a question, like Brit Hume anchoring at Fox. [...] Are these elite voices truly upset because Obama shifted his position? Are they upset all of a sudden that one candidate has a financial advantage over another? Or is this just the fear and loathing of the Netroots resurfacing -- like when establishment pundits went hysterical as Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in 2006?"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "On [Meet The Press], Obama's decision to opt out of public financing is topic #1, and I have to admit it amazes me the way the Republicans are able to pivot on this issue. [...] What gets me is that McCain has completely gamed the system -- his loan scheme with public financing then opting out is currently not even an issue on the show, and it would seem to me that would be at least mentioned. Of course, it is not, for whatever reason. Additionally, this is even more egregious when you consider that this is McCain's signature issue. His name is on the damned bill, and the message he has sent is that the bill is a joke. [...] I never much bought into the notion of liberal media bias...but the longer I am outside the Republican hive mind, the more I recognize that liberal media bias may be the biggest fraud the right-wing has ever gotten away with. It is absurd."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan also defends Obama's decision: "I find it hard to get worked up over this. If [Obama] were taking money from a few corporate interests it would be one thing. But finding 1.7 million donors is somehow a threat to democracy? Please."

OBAMA VI: Should Dems Be Worried?

Several liberal bloggers raised their eyebrows at Obama's less-than-spectacular May fundraising numbers (he raised $22M, putting him roughly even with McCain):

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "This is odd. [...] I wonder what's going on. Perhaps a bit of fatigue during the end of the primary as he lost a few states?"
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Obama and McCain start off even, in fundraising. That's a bit of a surprise. And actually, Obama is behind when we factor in the committees and the GE, but we all expect that Obama will increase his advantage in the coming months. [...] The Obama/DNC total of $47M against the McCain/RNC total $190M is much more of a disparity than I would have expected. But, there lots of upside for Obama, and we'll see how much he closes the gap in June for a good indication. No alarm bells yet."
• Yglesias: "Nobody seems concerned about this but me, but given how accustomed we've all become to the idea that Barack Obama will be able to raise vast sums of money for his campaign, isn't this factoid a little bit striking: 'Mr. Obama's fund-raising slowed abruptly in May, when the campaign raised $22 million, $10 million less than it had in April and an even sharper drop relative to his monthly performances earlier in the year.' What if the small donors who powered Obama's rise look at a guy who's ahead in the polls and who everyone is predicting will shatter financial records and think to themselves, 'why bother.' Small dollar fundraising requires you to overcome collective action problems and too much success may make that difficult. The psychology of donation seems to me to require both 'buy-in' on the part of the donor and also a sense of being embattled."

Oliver Willis isn't too concerned: "On Obama's most relaxed month he's at parity with the GOP establishment candidate."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Ed Morrissey thinks "the wheels have started coming off the Obama bandwagon": "Barack Obama may want to rethink his position on public financing after all. Not only did he lose most of the contests over the last three months of the primary, his fundraising numbers declined during the same period. [...] The wheels have started coming off the Obama bandwagon. His supporters talked about having a $100 million June, but it looks like the Democrats have wrung most of the funds they could get in the primaries. Small wonder that the campaign waited until Friday night to release this information."

OBAMA VII: Getting Ahead Of Himself...

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after he spoke at a podium adorned with an Obama campaign logo that resembles the presidential seal:

• see-dubya: "Some bloggers have postulated that it's too close to the existing Presidential seal, and therefore violates federal law. I don't think that's true; examining the Obama seal at high resolution reveals several differences:
  • Latin motto changed to 'VERO POSSUMUS', which is Latin for 'Si, se puede!'
  • Close examination reveals Obama's seal contains 57 stars;
  • Eagle's left wing is much stronger;
  • The arrows in the eagle's claw have Nerf tips;
  • That's not an olive branch, but actually arugula in the other claw.
  • There is no snake in the Obama eagle's beak. It was thrown under the bus. It was not the snake that Obama's eagle knew these many years."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Presumptuous, ain't he? I guess, on the bright side, they didn't scrap the arrows, which I guess we can read as a subtle signal that he is not, in fact, going to cancel the war."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "In one of the more shockingly presumptuous acts I have ever witnessed in Presidential politics, a non-incumbent candidate for the Presidency of the United States has actually taken the time to design a seal for himself that resembles the Great Seal of the United States and the Seal of the President of the United States. [...] What Barack Obama could learn from King Canute has already been noted, but not only has the Obama campaign refused to take note of Canute's modesty, they have transcended their earlier acts of grandiosity (the waters are really going to stop rising because Barack Obama won the Democratic Presidential nomination?) with an act that reveals just how much the Obama campaign resembles a cult of personality."
• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "What a douche."

MCCAIN: Talking Out Of Both Sides Of His Mouth?

Following McCain's off-the-record meeting with Hispanic leaders, liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of adopting multiple positions on illegal immigration:

• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "On immigration, I don't think either the right or left should trust McCain as far as they can throw him. After initially supporting the DREAM Act, which would give children brought into the United States illegally by their parents the right to qualify for public college loans and in-state tuition, McCain changed course last fall and said he'd oppose DREAM in the future. His new priority, he told the press, was border security. But there's no reason why increasing security at the border can't be implemented alongside a law that would stop penalizing children for their parents' actions. If McCain has any enduring principles on immigration at this juncture, they're impossible to discern."
• Firedoglake's David Neiwert: "Given the way the anti-Latino faction is frothing over his secretive little 'I'm your friend just don't tell anyone' meetings with Latinos, it's not really any wonder this town hall wasn't open to the press. His problem is that the same faction is the Republican base. So of course he has to keep it quiet. After all, how else can he reassure Latinos he'll do the right thing on immigration despite being at the mercy of a party full of raging nativists? Heaven forfend he should do it in broad daylight. Someone might get the wrong idea."

Conservative blogger John Hawkins mockingly paraphrases McCain: "Yeah, I lied about illegal immigration to get the nomination. So what?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Come Back When You're Older, Bobby

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer doesn't understand the Bobby Jindal-as-VP talk:

"I have been rooting on Bobby Jindal since before 99.99999% of all conservative politicos had even heard of Bobby Jindal. I have no ax to grind; indeed, I am utterly invested in his success. But I have tremendous respect for the incredibly demands of the presidency, AND for the reality that the vice president could become president at any moment, which is why I am flabbergasted that so many people think so little of how much experience and seasoning should be a requirement for either job. We would all be better off to let Jindal take his lumps, work through them, recover from them, and beat the bad guys in Louisiana for four years, BEFORE he gets elevated to a national ticket."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Man Puts On Some Nice Pants For Once In His Life

From The Onion:

"OAKLAND, CA -- Hallelujah, what do you know -- reports have surfaced that Michael Bohlke put on a nice pair of pants for once in his 28 years on this earth Monday. Bohlke, who had up to that very moment looked like a lazy bum just sitting there on the couch, stunned longtime critics by putting on a clean shirt, running a comb through his hair for God's sake, and finally getting rid of that ratty Oakland Raiders cap that he's had since, what, the seventh grade? At press time, however, it would apparently still kill Bohlke to shave every once in a while."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at June 23, 2008 01:32 PM