Nomination in hand, Obama stiffs the Dem left on FISA vote

That Barack Obama jog toward the political center now that he's won the Democratic nomination appears to have turned into a full-fledged dash today. And there's a lot of folks on the left side of his party that are unhappy.

But, to be Chicago kind of candid, whatcha gonna do about it?

Today, the freshman senator from Illinois voted in favor of the FISA bill that provides retroactive legal protection to cooperating telecom companies that helped the feds eavesdrop on overseas calls. Up until a few weeks ago -- let's see, that would be shortly after the last primaries settled the Democratic nomination and terminated what's-her-name's once frontrunning campaign -- Obama adamantly opposed the bill. "Unequivocally" was the word his people used.

"Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said last fall. In December, as ABC's Jake Tapper notes, Obama's office said: â??Sen. Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Sen. Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill."

In February, Obama voted for an amendment to carve the retroactive immunity out of the measure. And he said: "I am proud to stand with Sen. Dodd, Sen. Feingold and a grass-roots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people."

Let's see, those statements were all made during that endless Democratic primary season.

After June 4, Obama said: "It is a close call for me, but I think the current legislation with exclusivity provision that says that a president -- whether George Bush, myself or John McCain -- canâ??t make up rationales for getting around FISA court, canâ??t suggest that somehow that there is some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps."

Never mind that it's confusing. It's supposed to be. Yes, he's usually a real good talker. But he wanted to avoid providing a clear-cut quote for future use against himself. Bottom line, today Obama voted for the measure he has so long opposed. So he was against the bill before he was for the bill.

And guess what? His primary primary opponent, Hillary Clinton from the Empire State, the one who got ditched by much of the Democratic left in favor of this new guy from Illinois who had no visible warts, she voted against the bill. Talk about retroactive regret by some.

"It's ironic so far, I suppose," one commentor wrote on OpenLeft today, "that Clinton is of late a more reliable ally than Obama." Over at Wake up America they provided a detailed accounting of the excoriating of Obama by alleged supporters on the candidate's own website.
Nomination in hand, Obama stiffs the Dem left on FISA vote | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

So did the "hero" from the left cave in? Sell out? Or just blatantly lie his followers?

â??Words may show a man's wit, but actions his meaningâ?�...Benjamin Franklin

Have a good one!:s4:

Once again:
So did the "hero" from the left cave in? Sell out? Or just blatantly lie his followers?

Have a good one!:s4:

Some people in that sector must've gave him a nice contribution.

Obama is useless.

Still nothing from the hard core Obamites........amazing!:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

I'm honestly very pissed off that he caved on this FISA bill, which is a complete reversal of where he stood several months ago. I am an Obama supporter, but now it seems like the 2000 and 2004 elections again where I have to choose between bush and bush light, now i'm choosing between mcsame and the right-leaning "progressive" democrat who told me he was going to be different and is now turning out to be the same. I hate being lied to, and I probably won't vote for him because of this, unless he SOMEHOW makes up for it (very doubtful) but I definetely will not be voting for McBush.

Hah!
I remember saying to all these crazy Obama lovers that he was lying through his teeth about many things, and these would be exposed when closer to the election.
Well what can we expect. Some people thought he was a living Jesus!
He is still a politician, folks. And he will still say whatever he knows you want him to.

I'm all for implementing legal immunity for telecom companies in this case. People and business shouldn't be facing legal repurcussions for following the legal dictates of a then-current administration, following the law as put forth by government. If you can prosecute anybody for following the law of a previous regime, because that law now greatly differs under the current regime.... well, it's probably time to run to the hills and live as nomads.

Note: I am very against many of the Patriot Act's provisions, including the warrantless wiretapping and general disregard for the essence of the orginal constitutional philosophy. Let not the people pay for the mistakes of government, however.



As for Obama, he does indeed represent "change"; as much as every prior administration represented their own versions of change, which amounted to minor shifts within the status quo. Ron Paul, loving him on some areas and astounded by others, for better or worse, was the only guy IMO that actually represented real change. The rest; they just tighten or losen the nuts and bolts of the same old political machine. Make no mistake; Obama's just another Democrat.

I agree with Gandalf...
Obama is just another Democrat.

AND I SURE AS HELL HOPE HE WINS THE PRESIDENCY!
One change he represents that i support, is not having another rich old white guy as president.

He can lie his way into the oval office for all i care. If he can convince the Conservatives to vote for him, sweet. The true test will happen for these candidates when one of them is voted into office.

I support Ron Paul and the dramatic change he represents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

I'm all for implementing legal immunity for telecom companies in this case. People and business shouldn't be facing legal repurcussions for following the legal dictates of a then-current administration, following the law as put forth by government. If you can prosecute anybody for following the law of a previous regime, because that law now greatly differs under the current regime.... well, it's probably time to run to the hills and live as nomads.

Note: I am very against many of the Patriot Act's provisions, including the warrantless wiretapping and general disregard for the essence of the orginal constitutional philosophy. Let not the people pay for the mistakes of government, however.



As for Obama, he does indeed represent "change"; as much as every prior administration represented their own versions of change, which amounted to minor shifts within the status quo. Ron Paul, loving him on some areas and astounded by others, for better or worse, was the only guy IMO that actually represented real change. The rest; they just tighten or losen the nuts and bolts of the same old political machine. Make no mistake; Obama's just another Democrat.

---

If you support legal immunity for the telecoms, would then the administration that allowed them to do it be held legally responsible, because I'm sure cheney and bush have more than enough money to pay any financial damages occuring from any pending lawsuits. But what I'm more concerned about is finding out the depth that this all went more so than any financial retribution.