skeptonomist

Real-life politics

You ask why Obama supports Blue Dog incumbents. The reason is simple - there is perceived to be a choice between a Blue Dog who supports many Democratic positions and a Republican who supports none. The white voters in these southern districts probably will not elect anyone who is not conservative on certain issues.

JimInChicago

Glenn, it's more complicated than that.

Obama knows he can't shake up the state's Democratic establishment when he may depend on it to deliver the Democrats the White House, which is a far more valuable to progressive causes than a dozen state representatives.

cresttwo

Glenn I love ya, but you're letting your indignation [righteous in the literal sense] over the telecom immunity outrage overwhelm your common sense. A President Obama will need the Blue Dogs to get anything done, and it doesn't matter one bit how long this particular congressman took to endorse him.

I'm 1000% positive that if Barack Obama went on TV tonight and burned the Constitution and vowed that on his first day of his administration, he intended to issue one massive signing statement declaring his right to break every single law and the unveiled a plan to bomb Iran on Day 2, there would be many, many people here in my comment section -- and every other blog -- oh-so-rationally explaining that this was really good electoral politics by Obama, how he had to do this to win swing states, how it's all part of a complicated political strategy, that we have the obligation to stand aside and let him do what he needs to in order to win without criticizing him, that this is just the nature of political reality and anyone who objects is being naive and overly idealistic.

Or, as sysprog put it:

Four-year-olds see their preferred politicians as god-like fathers (or mothers) whose virtuous character will guarantee good judgment. If a judgment looks questionable to you, then it's because you don't know all the facts that mommy and daddy know, or it's because you aren't as wise as them.

Blind devotion is really unhealthy.

it's seemed implicit in Glenn's posts that there will be nothing that our side (folks truly not wanting telecom immunity) will end up getting for having telecom immunity passed and that's been my assumption all along as well

but it seems that Hoyer would have to be touting something (even if it were a total lie) of a gain in return for this nonsense

it's not that I want something in return. this is too big of an issue to makes trades with, but WTF? "OK Hoyer, you're gonna roll over on this, what are you supposedly getting out of it?"

The aide with whom I spoke claimed mine was the first call she'd gotten. I did my best to impress upon her the urgency of the situation and said that I'm waiting to hear the Senator speak loudly and boldly to this issue.

Keep calling: 1.866.675.2008 option 6

I got into some back-and-forth within the Obama campaign site on the Privacy and Civil Liberties mailing list.

I'm posting the current state of play here, because I think it highlights the two different styles of thinking that are in play here:

Henry:

FISA is NOT a second-string issue. It's part of why I continue to work forObama's election. But FISA is a deal-breaking, vote-losing issue with manyvoters; read the polls! Thanks to mainstream media, many Americans stillthink that supporting Privacy and Civil Liberties helps "the enemy," andthey already think that the Republicans are the better choice against "theenemy." You can't change that now, but Obama can from the bully-pulpit ofthe presidency if you give him the chance. I hope that Nader-style put-it-all-on-the-table-now-and-lose-the-election isnot typical of the Civil Liberties group. The ACLU isn't trying to getObama to run a losing campaign; why would you? Perhaps you know better thanthey (and Obama) do? Party unity during the general election (which, for what it's worth, beganwhen HRC asked her supporters to work for Obama) isn't just a good thing,it's the only thing standing between McSame and the White House.

Choose change now, or in November it will be too late.

Me:

It seems that the FISA issue has provoked some lively conversation. This is as it should be, as it is an important issue. It strikes me that the debate is coming down to a question of whether to educate voters who as Henry point out, have been sold a bill of goods to date, or to reassure them in order to get elected first. In the meantime, a really bad bill is being pushed through the House as we speak, so there is a bit of urgency to the question.

I can see value in either approach, but the one thing I think would be a mistake is to be afraid to discuss the issue. An important part of the process of campaigning is to convince people that your position is correct, not that it is simply just like their position.

Here are some pertinent links. All I ask is that people stay informed on the issue and don't be shy if you encounter someone who is misinformed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18wed1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/immunity-news

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000002899718

Is going to support the blue-dogs, name Nunn as his VP, spend a bunch of money there and then lose Georgia.

that criminal thinking errors would surface in a hierarchy that rewards and selects for criminal thinking and behaviors.

Shocked.

Don’t forget to vote!

As my students would say, you totally rock.

Thanks for this article. While it may not be easy or comfortable to write anything critical of Obama, you were willing to do so to bring to light these important distinctions. He is clearly a better choice than McCain, but you're absolutely right that he, like any other executive, needs checks and guidance. His advisors and colleagues should play that role, but so should citizens. I appreciate Obama's desire to change politics as usual, but as Mary Parker Follett said while castigating Progressive Era reforms: change comes from the grassroots.