Matt Stoller does us a service by delving into the voices of moderation that are praising Obama for his sudden tack to the center. It’s important to understand the difference between a desire for a calmer, more collegial kind of politics (bipartisanship) and a left-wing that is coopted by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley executives (moderation).
Yet, I am not concerned at all about Barack Obama’s sudden move to the center. That is standard practice as a candidate moves from primary to general election mode. Political posturing does little harm (although the harm it does is sometimes underestimated) and is to be expected. The only area that I care about is the FISA bill because the FISA bill contains an irrevocable retroactive immunity provision and it weakens our Fourth Amendment rights dramatically. It’s the permanent damage of the FISA bill that separates it from the rest of Obama’s political movement.
What bothers me is Obama’s sudden plunge from being politically savvy. Assuming his betrayal of FISA is a result of shameless pandering and not the unveiling of a neo-fascist heart, what constituency is he hallucinating that will cheer for telco immunity? I sure don’t see any interest outside of the telcos themselves and their wingnut allies — none of whom would ever vote for, or not attack, Obama in a million years. How can he not see that the remarkable trust and enthusiasm that got him the nomination could blow away like pollen in the wind if he goes through with this pointless crawl toward Bush’s ass? It’s like the Bushies threatened to kill his kids or something.
The FISA cave-in is an acknowledgement of the profound power of the intelligence communities in our country.
Exactly so.
And it was his “ex”-CIA advisor that pressed him HARD on this issue.
I’ve read quite a few articles in newspapers the past few days about “Obama heading for the center” and it’s curious to me because he’s always been center from my POV. Am I missing something here?
You and me both fabooj. My take on Obama was that he was center with left tilt(while I felt Clinton was center with right tilt)at least that’s how I see his voting record. I think the difference comes from how he has voted and people ‘wanting’ to believe he will vote more progressively…or if elected turn into a new FDR-and only time will tell on that.
Think about the nominations of the two major parties as a funnel. The closer you get to securing the nomination the narrower the range of possible policy positions available to you.
For this reason, all successful candidates will eventually resemble each other. It’s a bit easier to see this this year in the GOP contest.
They started out with some unconventional Republicans. Pro-choicers Romney and Guiliani. So-called maverick John McCain. Hollywood actor Fred Thompson. Born-again populist Huckabee.
But they all wound up parroting Bush and Cheney on everything except immigration reform, which they all wound up opposing.
The real test is understanding the forces that make up the walls of the funnels. How do the media, the activists, the donors, and the opposing party work together to narrowly define the road to success?
In any case, there is a world of difference between Obama and Clinton, but that distance is blurred as they head down the same narrow path.
And, in the end, both party candidates wind up battling over a fairly narrow ideological battlefield. This is what give salience to Nader’s types of attacks that there are few differences between the two corporate parties.
It’s true. But a president can govern how the want despite these constraints. Bush proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Is Obama a centrist? He’s running as one. So did Bush. It means more about America than it does about the candidates.
You’re missing that, despite his rhetoric, a national magazine tracked his Senate votes and found him to be the most liberal of all.
That’s one of the reasons I thought he was such a strong candidate – he appears very centrist, and has a genuine history of creating and promoting bi-partisan legislation, often with compromises which, while unpleasant, are the mother’s milk of getting legislation passed.
But I’m with Booman. FISA is the one place I wanted him to put a stake in the ground, explain to the public what’s at stake, and really work hard to undo the damage.
He is very practical. Maybe there’s no chance in hell it could pass and be veto proof. But if ever there was a lost cause worth defending, this was it. IS still it.
But even that magazine said that their tracking was based on a few things. Just because a magazine says he’s liberal doesn’t mean he is. I don’t know…I never thought of Obama as a liberal, definitely not a progressive, whatever that is, he was–to me–a centrist. That why I kept saying that on paper, him and Clinton were pretty close.
About the FISA thing…
I am confused that people are throwing around the words “retroactive immunity” as though the bill will immunize people from criminal charges. It doesn’t. It only directs courts to throw out civil lawsuits if the telco’s file some silly paperwork stating that Bush and his Justice Department told them it was legal. I know, that stops the discovery that would come of the civil suits and prevents us from using them to discover what was really done by the government with the aid of the telcos. It also saves the telcos of any financial liability, which this wasn’t really about anyway. People involved in the suits did this not for money, but for the truth to come out. At the same time the bill directs the inspector general to fully investigate and report on exactly what was done under the program.
This bill is still bad (at least worse than doing nothing) and I wouldn’t want anyone to support this bill if they can get away with it politically. But some are misrepresenting what’s really involved here, I think.
Have you noticed this ugly back-and-forth that’s started between Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann? It’s all about this issue. Greenwald insists that Olbermann’s giving Obama a pass because he’s in the tank for Obama and calling him a hypocrite for not being as rough on Obama as he was Bush on the subject of FISA. Olbermann (relying on John Dean’s analysis) insists that there is a huge hole in this bill that will allow Obama to prosecute everyone involved once he takes office, so it’s not so bad even if he does support it in its entirety. I think Olbermann’s even doing a Special Comment on the subject on Monday.
I’m just sitting on the sidelines watching what happens with this thing. I will not let this issue sway my support for Obama in the slightest though because if we let that happen we could wind up McCain as president. Alot of emotion being expended out there though…
Would a civil suit be heard before the elections? That would make a case for blocking immunity.
It’s hard to say. These things move very very slowly through the courts. Even the Inspector General’s report ordered under the bill will no doubt be delayed until after the elections. It seems unlikely to me that we would learn anything either way before November. It always seems to work that way. However, if they fail to do something legislatively with FISA, it could be used like a club to beat all Dems with if something scary bad happens before the election. Then all of the wishy washy “undecided” voters will flow to McCain and Republicans in congress because they’ll buy the meme that you can’t trust those wussy Dems to fight The Terr’ists.
It does seem that the real pressure behind the bill seems to be about saving the telcos financially though – so much so that they’ll take their chances with the criminal part.
so you fall into the camp of Democrats that believe you should always legislate under the threat of getting blamed for a terrorist attack.
this is emasculated style of governance that has given us war, torture, loss of privacy, and international pariah status. And you want more of it?
What criminal case? How does the government prosecute a company for doing what it told them to do? You speak as though we live in a democracy where the citizens can somehow force the power to do what is right. If a Democratic Congress and a Democratic presidential candidate can’t even allow the possibility of a civil suit, just who is this prosecutor of which your speak?
The advantage of civil law is that individuals and organizations can force a hearing whether the go-along-to-get-along crowd (which now apparently includes Obama) like it or not. I know, I know, when the Dems have the White House and a 90% majority in Congress they might be able to get something done, but in the meantime they have no choice but to do what Bush wants, because they wouldn’t want his 25% fan club to be mad at them and call them names.
“Yet, I am not concerned at all about Barack Obama’s sudden move to the center. That is standard practice as a candidate moves from primary to general election mode. Political posturing does little harm (although the harm it does is sometimes underestimated) and is to be expected.”
Not because of my diary on the subject that I make this observation. Imho, Obama can’t afford to be defined as “Kerry with a tan” Also, after BushCheney this is a different cycle with certain expectations. No room for flip-flopping on a dime, way out from left field.
Not since the Kennedy years that we’ve seen so much emotion, enthusiasm attached to candidates; so much so, the invested emotion impedes the necessary healing. Obama is fast accumulating unforgiving negatives.
Center-Tacking, moderation. What’s the difference between Maverick McCain and Obama?
Emotions run deep for varying reasons. During the primaries Obama bashed the Clintons’ policies, now he rushes to hire their entourage.
Take Bubba:
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must ‘kiss my ass’ for his support
Bubba may be right. Obama will hand McCain the presidency. Like Bubba, many in the base won’t give a damn about the configuration of the Supreme Court. The neocons had no principles. Obama promised to be a different kind of pol.
Barr and Nader are looking more attractive.
That’s what’s making me crazy: how can Obama not foresee that if he keeps going like he is lately, Bush-pimp McCain is going to validate his phony “maverick” image as “new politics” Obama looks like just another Kerry/Dukakis/BClinton. He seems to think his powerful speeches can just keep working in the absence of any substance at all. What a waste of one of the best political minds we’ve seen on the national stage in decades.
As the putative presidential candidate, Obama is in a unique position in the Democratic Party. He is also in a power struggle within the party. Winning the primaries is a major victory in that struggle, and because of that victory — although he does not yet have the nomination — the internal struggle has (at least outwardly) been suspended for the time being. But it isn’t over — especially in regard to the Blue Dog Democrats, mainly the Dems who support or are likely to support this FISA bill.
As for the external struggle with the republicans, McCain is a poor candidate, true, but part of the idea of the 50-state strategy as I understand it is not simply to beat McCain, but to rack up the biggest possible margin and the most congressional victories around the country. He seems to be doing very well, but we still have more than four months to November.
So Obama has great influence as leader, yes, but it’s not as if he really controls the Democratic Party. He is still vulnerable both internally and externally.
That being the case, and as important as the FISA battle is, I think there is a good case for Obama NOT being the point man in this fight. It would be closer to the truth to say that in the Senate, he’s still a junior senator. It makes sense that he’s playing his cards close to his vest on this. Many are interpreting it as “caving”. To pledge that he’s going to fight the immunity provision is not exactly caving.
Meanwhile, Feingold, Dodd and Leahy are leading the fight in the Senate, and the “reprieve” now granted until after the July 4 recess indicates Reid’s cooperation. The talk is that the amendment stripping immunity from the bill is expected to fail, and that this is all a maneuver to take the pressure off Obama.
The good Dems are in a very difficult political position on this. I’m not at all sure Obama, whose control over the Democratic Party is not yet secure, and who certainly does not control the Blue Dogs in the Senate, and who is in the early stages of campaigning against McCain, could add that much to what Feingold, Dodd, and Leahy are already doing. If he didn’t vote with them, then I would call it a cave. But short of that, let’s be realistic about where he is right now.
To sum up — if this FISA bill passes as is, as terrible as that would be, I don’t think Obama deserves the blame. And I do think the opposition to it is in the best possible hands — Feingold, Leahy, Dodd. Let’s see what happens.