digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at blog.wired.com

Activists Are Still Mad At Obama For Wiretapping Flip-flop

blog.wired.com — Netroots activists who helped Barack Obama to become the Democratic party's presumptive presidential nominee are unmoved by the senator's explanation of his change of heart on a pending bill regarding warrantless wiretapping.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • notthatnoise, on 07/07/2008, -50/+15does this really qualify as news? this is like saying "this just in- water still wet!"
    • kemp34, on 07/08/2008, -2/+24Huh? Of course this is news.
      • doctechnical, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4A politician flipping positions isn't news, it's SOP. I'm sure Obama took more than a few pages from the Clintons' "Triangulation" playbook.
      • draegloth, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3I think it's a bad title. The way it's phrased is akin to saying, "your brother is still mad about the fact that you ran him over in his own driveway after screwing his wife and daughter."

        Of course they're mad.

        Now that he's the nominee, he's apparently changing his stance on issues that got him there.
      • notthatnoise, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2No, I realize barack flipping positions is new, but the article is that people are still mad about it. of course they are.
    • klasikahl, on 07/09/2008, -6/+9I have been an ardent Obama supporter since his DNC speech in 2004. I was a member of the Draft Obama campaign.

      I believe that Obama has shifted away from the hard stances he used to take in an attempt to appear more centrist. I am not at all happy with this and actually quite disappointed. These recent shifts make me question his other positions, like rebuilding America's infrastructure (roads, bridges, energy, Internet) along the lines of another New Deal. Having said that, he still has my vote because no one scares me more than John McCain.
      • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3No one scares you more than John McCain? Does that include Dick Cheney?
      • eohano, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5"These recent shifts make me question his other positions, like rebuilding America's infrastructure (roads, bridges, energy, Internet) along the lines of another New Deal."

        First of all:
        All Obama has said about "America's infrastructure" is that it needs to be "Changed". And "Strengthened". That doesn't mean anything at all. He has no plan to do so, but "Change" and "Strength" are powerful words that gain him votes. Once he's in office, you will see that he does nothing about it. I would not, however, but it beyond him to tax the people for "Change".
        For the hundredth time, in order to change or strengthen something, you need to have a PLAN. "Change" is not a plan.


        Secondly, it's not America's internet. It's not any country's internet. As such, no government should, or should be allowed to, control it.
      • klasikahl, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1eohano, you do realize that you have to have a physical infrastructure in order to be able to access the Internet, right?
      • vinod1978, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2@Barackalypse - John McCain has the war mongering & the "I don't give a f*uck" attitude of Cheney & the stupidity of George W. Bush all rolled into one convenient package.
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6QUOTE: "Pincus says he'll continue to campaign for Obama no matter what happens because of a lack of viable alternatives, but that Obama's recent flip-flop has diminished his civil liberties credentials -- something that made him an attractive candidate to voters like himself in the first place."

      And Obama knows he can do what he wants and this guy and anyone who follows him is a fool. Obama is going to continue to do what he wants....which is to move as far to the right as possible including looking like a fascist if possible to win the election.
    • lukas88, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Well it is one way to explain the sharp drop in obama stories on the front page.
  • ordig, on 07/07/2008, -15/+141Yeah, seriously. The democrats totally lost my vote this year. It seems the only non fascist parties are the ones with no chance of winning. America is *****.

    I guess I will be voting green in the fall.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 07/09/2008, -22/+14Liar. You'll vote for Obama. You won't be able to help yourself.
    • sindex, on 07/09/2008, -8/+37How about the Libertarian Party?
      • AzureRise, on 07/09/2008, -5/+8Falls into the "no chance of winning" category.
      • kveratis, on 07/09/2008, -1/+16That is only a self-fulfilling prophecy that the MSM wants people to believe. The first time Ross Perot ran for president exit polls showed that he would have won by a significant margin if people had voted their conscience. However, Clinton won because the MSM convinced everyone that voting for him would have been wasting their vote. I would also point out that president Theodore Roosevelt actually won as a third party candidate for the "Bull and Moose Party".
      • rowjimmy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+15why would a person who leans green vote libertarian? have you actually looked at both parties platforms? they are as different as night and day...
      • sindex, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Since there's little to no difference between Republicans and Democrats, I assumed his suggestion that he'd "vote Green" was solely because he didn't think of them as "fascists." I was suggesting the Libertarian Party as an alternative that is also not "fascist."

        As to the "no chance of winning" comment: First, let me say that winning is not the point. The point is to take enough of the vote that politicians notice that their lies and spin are no longer working on Americans. Taking 10-15% of the vote will not put a Libertarian in office, but it would scare the hell out of the Republicans and Democrats.

        Second, taking a significant portion of the vote - again, even if they don't win - would show the American people that there is a growing surge of voters who are willing to step outside the mainstream "Two Party Politics" and have a serious look at our country. I personally know plenty of people who have said "Well, I'd vote Libertarian, but it's just throwing your vote away." I know that anecdotal evidence is *****, but I'm willing to bet you know people who have said similar things. If *all* those people just voted Libertarian, this country would see an amazing political shift; a revolution without a single shot being fired. It would be breath-taking to behold.

        Third, once the ball got rolling, you couldn't stop it. 10% would become 15%. 15% would become 20%, and eventually - granted, in 20-25 years - we'd come out on top. Either that, or the Republicans and Democrats would have to reclaim their parties from neo-cons and wolves-in-sheeps-clothing and shift their beliefs to fall more in line with the growing, dissenting, independents.

        So winning *this* election is not the point. Getting the ball rolling is the point because it will pay off down the line. If nothing else, and as "kooky" as some say he is, Ron Paul has done more to promote Liberty than any other Presidential candidate in my lifetime. For that, I will forever be grateful.
      • radu79, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Did you check the Libertarian paty's candidate? He is a former Republican who voted both for the war and for the USA PATRIOT act.
        The only chance was Ron Paul, but people wasted it.
      • netant, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2@kveratis

        Cut the revisionist crap about Perot. I was THERE. The reason why Perot lost was because he flaked out and withdrew from the race, only to come back weeks later claiming there was some sort of plot against his family. I was SO POISED to vote for him before the meltdown. But I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for President someone who's STABILITY I had to question, not to mention his thought process involved with his withdrawal/re-emergence.

        Can an independent party win the Presidency someday in this "modern" age? SURE IT CAN. Can an independent party influence an election enough that its core issues force discussion on the political scene? Certainly it can. I am a whole hearted supporter of independent candidacies. But at the end of the day, the independent still have to fulfill the same qualification criteria every candidate needs to meet. I'm not going to vote for a dork just because he's an independent, or more likely to win, or more likely to allow loser party X to get high office.
      • netant, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@kveratis

        Also, Theodore Roosevelt served both Presidential terms as a Republican. When he tried running as a 3rd party candidate, he lost to Woodrow Wilson and the Republican candidate.
    • Malacandra95, on 07/09/2008, -15/+19Yeah. That'll help. Protest votes have always worked out just dandy.
      • dracflamloc, on 07/09/2008, -2/+24They would if enough people would stop that mentality and grow some balls/brains
      • scubaman5000, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2"They would if enough people would stop that mentality and grow some balls/brains"

        While I agree with you, theory and reality don't agree with each other in this case.
      • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4No, it won't. People who abstain remove themselves from the voter pool and the election becomes a reduction to the mean. That's the reality of elections, the outliers never decide anything, the noncommittal middle does, it's a statistical certitude.

        Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, the Libertarian Party is smaller than the Constitutionalist Party. The Constitutionalist Party is an aggressive Right-Wing theocratic party. The Green Party is smaller than the Constitutionalists but, again, about twice the size of the Libertarian Party.

        So most of the Libertarians on Digg, as vocal as they are, aren't particularly effective.

        The reality is that the independent parties only have influence over local and municipal elections because of our bicameral legislature that gives disproportionate power to concentrated political groups.

        Since Republicans and Democrats act differently in local and municipal elections than they do in the House and Senate and the Presidency, those parties can easily weave and shift through the different landscapes of the country while at the same time being pressured to step into line behind party power interests.

        This makes the independent third party groups a paradox because the simplest way to control a party is to vote in its primaries but independents decide they are so disgusted by the lack of ideological purity of the party as a WHOLE they refuse to control it where they CAN and instead demand immediate influence over an impotent minority party.

        The result? They dilute voter strength from one side of the ideological divide, giving more power to the even WORSE alternative. This is how the Republicans gave us the three largest, most expensive governments in the last 30 years and increased our national debt 9-fold over the span of 20. Because the Left threw a fit.
      • Malacandra95, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1"They would if enough people would stop that mentality and grow some balls/brains"

        Look up "Duverger's Law" some time.
      • thepotatoman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Ha looking at this i don't know if many diggers fall in line with that constitutionalist stuff:
        http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.ph ...

        "The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born." (I in a way agree with this one though wish they take religion out of it, because thats just too polarizing)

        "The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered." (big disappointment for me, this is something the libertarian party opposes)

        "The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman." (really think they need to rethink this one.)

        "We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes and to require restitution for the victims of criminals."(just the fact that someone eventually has to be executed wrongly makes me think this is a poor decision.)

        "We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy." (heh heh)


        They sound exactly like the republican party except they oppose income tax and a have a non interventionist foreign policy. The independent party seems to have those welcome changes plus more. Also I know he wont win anyway, but thinking strictly who i want to be president, it seems to me that a talk show host and pastor would never be qualified to be president no matter what his position. I don't really like the indepentent party's choice either just from his history but both are still way way better then the dems and reps.
    • bjs3171, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6smart.
    • jdowland, on 07/09/2008, -11/+17So.. you want McCain to be President?

      What is your goal? To make a puny protest vote that no one is going to pay attention to and elect Bush III?

      If people don't vote for Obama, McCain will be elected and it's going to be worse than just this bill.
      • ordig, on 07/09/2008, -2/+15And based on Obama's recent positions how do you know he won't turn out to be Bush III?

        That's the catch 22 of the two party system. If your choices are between bad and worse your not actually voting for anything, so much as you are voting aginst something else.

        It's pretty much the good cop/bad cop routine on a massive scale. And it works in favor of corporatists everywhere, because Americans are ***** dumb and afraid.
      • tomasII, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1Yeah, it will be much better to elect Carter II

        NOT
      • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Obama's "recent positions?" The only "recent position" he's had is FISA, and he is on the record voting against several amendments that gave immunity to telecoms. Coward he may have been at the end, he was not MOTIVATED to err.

        On campaign finance reform, didn't we read an article on Digg where McCain said this was a better version of public financing back in 2005? Didn't Obama merely pledge to PURSUE an agreement? Didn't McCain's counsel refuse to negotiate?

        One cowardly concession, NOT a flip-flop, in an entire campaign is pretty damn good considering this is a general election.
      • JigoroKano, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4How many illegal wars did Carter enter us into?
        How many democracies and regimes did Carter have overthrown by violence?
        How many times did Carter violate the Constitution?

        Really people, read some ***** history. Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush were the last two presidents we've had that weren't hell bent on ***** ***** up around the world.
      • FLarsen, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Maybe it would be smart to try to change things in the long run?

        Since both candidates suck, maybe it would be smart to try to increase, say, the Libertarian party's popularity.


        Just a thought.
      • richmomz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I think the point is that they are BOTH two-faced scum - two sides of the same CFR-minted coin. McCain seemed pretty decent while he was still on his "moderate maverick" platform but that got jettisoned the instant he clinched the nomination. Now that Obama has his foot in the door his true colors have emerged as well.
      • wojtyk, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0>> Obama's "recent positions?" The only "recent position" he's had is FISA, and he is on the record voting against several amendments that gave immunity to telecoms. Coward he may have been at the end, he was not MOTIVATED to err.

        He also caved on the Patriot Act renewal. The similarities are actually remarkable between this issue and that. He disagreed with both, attempted to get them voted down, and then compromised and passed something almost just as insidious.

        Another "recent" position change is the softened Iraq stance. He originally ran on a platform of "ALL troops will be removed IMMEDIATELY". This stance has over time evolved into "Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.". Sounds exactly like the Bush/McCain stance to me.

        He also flipped on public campaign financing (which was a big part of his push for "reforming the political process").

        Then there's the faith-based initiatives stance which is still tied to the religious nutsos.

        Obama is not a candidate of "change"...he plays the same politics of all those before him. I'm voting third party this year. My hands will be clean.
    • gernblansted, on 07/09/2008, -3/+26If Obama is willing to cave on this most serious issue, why should I believe he'll handle any other issue differently than McBush? He won't. He's shown he's all talk. I tried to call his Washington office, and was told the mailbox was full, goodbye. I called his local office, and the person on the other side would not say anything but the Obama statement. When I tried to say I was familiar with the official statement, the person on the other side finally said something unscripted - "Wait, I'm not done reading the statement". When the statement was done and I tried to ask about Obama's oath of office - to uphold the constitution, the person started reading the prepared statement again, and wouldn't let me talk. Finally, I managed to get someone else on the line who said only the following words over and over again in response to any question or statement on my part "Your opinion has been noted. Your opinion has been noted. Your opinion has been noted.". In other words, F*CK OFF.

      I just can't vote for him. I won't vote for McBush either, so I won't vote for a presidential candidate at all - just against those Congress people who gutted the constitution, whatever their party.

      Does anyone REALLY think Obama will get us out of Iraq or make a difference in any important way? Your a fool if you believe anything will change.
      • vinod1978, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4I believe that Obama will truly get us out of Iraq - there is no other logical choice. Either in terms of finance, troops, American public support, or even Iraqi governmental support. There is no other solution, so he has to get us out - the question really is how & when - that is something that requires an open debate but to say that he won't get us out of Iraq is just foolish because it does not make any logical sense.
      • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3The FISA bill is simple and there are only two sides. The United States committed grand larceny. Telecoms committed petty larceny. Do you give the telecoms immunity for petty larceny to get them to cooperate in a grand larceny case against the United States or not?

        I would rather not let the telecoms off because I know we're too much of a bunch of cowards to even pursue grand larceny, but I can understand the point.

        THIS is important. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. John McCain and George W. Bush are criminals, Barack Obama is a D.A. letting off their henchmen with a warning. Righteously indignant I may be about this, I still know who committed the crimes in the first place and who would keep committing them.
      • netant, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@vinod1978

        Agreed. I only wish McCain wasn't such a power-mad vacuous tool, and had made some sort of mealy-mouthed inclination to get out of Iraq in his first term. But hey, if he wants to stay the Bush course, good luck.
    • Verfel, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11Writing in Stewart/Colbert =)
    • vinod1978, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1You'll have just as much relevance in this election writing in "Mickey Mouse" as you will voting for other candidate besides McCain or Obama. Whether that is right or wrong is a different story - but don't lie to yourself thinking it will lead to a positive change.

      Voting for Nader back in 2000 did us all a world of good, didn't it?
      • thepotatoman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1In some ways you can apply that same logic to why vote at all, since one or two votes wont make a difference no matter who you vote for. I guess im just hoping for a snowball effect by voting third party. The more votes a third party candidate gets, the more voters are going to fell less hopeless to vote for.

        And besides whose to say gore wouldn't have made the same sort of mistakes bush did when it came too war on terror and stuff like that.
    • mllawso, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Bill Nye for '08
    • paradexes, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Just vote indy. Dont vote on the two party system.
    • mnoe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Do you want John McCain appointing our next Supreme Court Justices?

      Voting requires thinking.
  • rationalbeats, on 07/07/2008, -18/+154Obama is a great disappointment, and has taken the "netroots" for a ride. He used the blogs as a virtual ATM and now that he is in charge he is changing his position on some very fundamental; progressive ideals.

    WTF Obama, ripping off the people who got you the nomination is shallow, cold, and so Republican.
    • jfreeman, on 07/09/2008, -4/+28I wouldn't be surprised that this comes from a Democrat as well. All power-hungry professional politicians will lie to get elected. What we need is a statesman.
    • ender7074, on 07/09/2008, -31/+30I love how when your darling is exposed as the pig that all conservatives have been saying he is, you still blame the Republicans. Take some ***** responsibility for a change and stop blaming others for your lack of character judgment. Oh, wait, I forgot that liberals ALWAYS blame someone else. Its never their fault. My bad. I must have had a brain lapse there.
      • Chassit, on 07/09/2008, -12/+7Ok more idiocy.
      • bromac, on 07/09/2008, -10/+28You ***** pussy. Someone mentions the word Republican in juxtapose to unethical behavior and you get all sensitive.

        He didn't blame Obama's behaviour on the Republicans. He compared it to their behaviour - describing it as REPUBLICAN LIKE.

        And then you ***** knee-jerk with the lamest insult in the world - LIBERAL.

        NEWS FLASH - Being liberal, by definition, does not descibe how someone finger points. It's simply being NOT AFRAID OF CHANGE.

        So drop your persecution complex, pick up some reading comprehension, and realize that your country was founded by LIBERALS. Every single one of the founding fathers was one.

        Disclaimer: I'm not American, I don't give two ***** about the Republicrats who you give blind support to. But at least I can comprehend that the OP didn't blame the Republicans for anything before you got all defensive.
      • apothekari, on 07/09/2008, -6/+10Yeah because the Republicans have FLAWLESS perception in regards to character.
        {THICK DRIPPING SARCASM}
      • Infidelcastr0, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1So republicans are innocent then? Riiiiiggggggghhhhhtttt. This entire thing is just an appeal to conservative swing voters, just like Clinton's worst blunders. Not to justify this move, it is wrong and there is no justification, but the core of this problem is the fact that there is a slight conservative majority that marginalizes real leftists who actually stand up for whats right. In a perfect world the front runner would be Dennis Kucinich with a slight lead over Ron Paul, but this is not a perfect world (as conservatives love to point out) and I'll take Obama over McCain any day of the week.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7It's a politician thing, not a republican thing. It was pointless to mention republicans other than to take a cheap shot and discredit the seemingly unbiased words that came before it. Bromac, you are aware of the irony of you getting even more sensitive than him because he mentioned liberals?
      • bromac, on 07/09/2008, -5/+2I didn't take offense, nor am I sensitive about people mentioning liberals - as long as they don't bastardize the term. You cannot tell my political leaning from my post - I neither advocate for liberalism or conservatism, so to make an assumption that my motive to post is because I'm "liberal" is false.

        My pet peeve is the bastardization of the term "liberal" by the American political right. It's gotten to the point of being an insult, when it has a very simple definition which I stated above.

        I just want my English language back, not this Newspeak *****.
      • ender7074, on 07/09/2008, -4/+5@ bromac

        You really are an idiot. I could pick apart your post, but I'm not going to waste my time on someone with limited intellect such as yours.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6First of all, I was talking about the original poster discrediting his own words, not you. Second of all, it's very hypocritical of you to take offense to the 'bastardization' of the word liberal further down in the thread when you skipped over the 'bastardization' of republican and actually went on to defend it. It also contradicts your claim of not being biased to either of them.
      • bromac, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2He didn't redefine Republican. It still means a member of the party of the same name. I don't have the same reverence for the NAME of a active group, who's responsible for the reputation of that name, and a word in the English language.

        He called Republican behaviour cold. That's his opinion. He's entitled to it. You could replace it with Democrat, and I'd agree - being Canadian your silly two party system is ***** on both sides.

        I just want to use the word liberal (little L) here in Canada and know what its definition is.

        Anyways, I'll leave you yanks to your flamewarring. And ***** you for trying to tie me to one side of your black-white political landscape. Out here in the real world, we can have a much more granular view of issues.
      • Andrwmorph, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1He is still better than the alternative.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3I didn't try to tie you to anything, you did that yourself. You made your own comments, I just pointed out the hypocrisy. ***** you for trying to tie me to tying things to you. I still have no idea how what you said is suppose to make one 'bastardization' ok and the other not.
      • bromac, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Because they are "bastardized" in two totally different fashions.

        OP said that Republican behaviour is cold and shallow. THAT'S HIS OPINION. Whether you think it's cold or shallow is your own subjective viewpoint - they could very well be. An active group, just like a person, can change and be labeled with different terms depending on how they conduct themselves.

        On the other hand, here in Canada, "liberals" are NOT a static group of people. It's not a blanket label. It certainly doesn't mean, by definition, that you blame everyone else. If you blame everyone else, you're a finger-pointer, or something else along those lines. It doesn't make you LIBERAL on an issue.

        It's this bastardization of normal political terms of late by AMERICAN POLITICS that's wrong.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Ok, so now tell me why one is "just an opinion" while the other is "not". They are of the same, whether you acknowledge it or not.
      • bromac, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1They're both opinions. I didn't say that he wasn't stating an opinion.

        It's just that he ***** up on the usage of the word "liberal" in his opinion. Unless he has objective evidence that "liberals ALWAYS blame someone else.", then that's a pretty ***** tall order to fill.

        If he stated, "In my experience, people with generally liberal viewpoints tend to place responsibility for their actions on others". But to use "liberals" so generally is a total inability to see the forest for the trees, and realize that the term means much more than the political Left of the USA.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Can you say double standard? Unless he has objective evidence that "ripping off the people who got you the nomination is something only republicans do", that's a pretty ***** big double standard. You either don't see it or won't admit it. Regardless, I'm done trying to show you.
      • bromac, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1He doesn't have to qualify that ONLY Republicans do it.

        He said Republicans do it. That's all. IMO, most politicians do it. But that doesn't mean he has to list all the parties just to stop your panties from twisting over singling out Republicans.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2He should mention all or none. Obviously the implications of listing only republicans is that the flip side, democrats don't do it. This was further implied by being shocked about a dem doing it. Oh well, just another double standard. That is soo democratiish. Do you see the implications?
    • Scrappy1850, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1in charge? of what?
    • doctechnical, on 07/09/2008, -2/+54Wow, is this your first election? Obama is no different than any other politician, he had to be left of Hillary to beat her (and he did), now that he's got the nomination locked up he needs the crossover votes from the center-right, and he's triangulating accordingly.

      No one who actually takes a firm substantive stand is going to win an American political battle. Witness Nader, Kucinich, Paul et al.
      • Andysan, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5You are partially correct in that Obama is nothing but a flim-flam politician. However, politicians like Reagan and Kennedy actually staked out a position and stuck to it through their campaigns and their administrations. As much as people criticize George Bush, they forget that he has done exactly what he said he was going to do -- like it or not. Obama is so far removed from being a trustworthy candidate that he is just plain dangerous.
      • vinod1978, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6One thing I'll say is that if you look into the speeches that FDR gave before he got elected when he discussed some of the things he wanted to do, particularly to the New Deal, he often gave contradictory remarks in order to get elected. There is no way democrats can not say FDR was not one of the best (if not THE best) democratic presidents the United States has ever had, but if you look at his campaign strategies and the timing of his election it is very familiar to what is happening now. He ran when there were rumblings of war with Japan & Germany, and he almost lost the election and had to move to the center, in regards to the New Deal, to appease voters from the right to get elected.

        I know so many people are so upset that they are willing to literally throw their votes away to some 3rd party candidate that has as much chance of winning as my *****, but in order for a president to change the country, he has to win. Do I think Obama should have flipped on the FISA issue? Hell No. But I am happy about the new bill that just passed in the Senate. McCain was campaigning, while Obama was there and voted for it. Under the new revised law, a warrant is required to spy on an American, including, for the first time, Americans who are abroad. Now this doesn't satisfy me to what has happened in the past, but at least the future is clear. I hope Bush doesn't veto this, and if he does I hope congress has enough balls to stand up to him.
      • Snuff99, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Bravo!

        Doctechnical 08!

        Damn it's tough to find diggers who speak like they have a sense of what the real world is like. I agree with your statement 110% percent because it's effin realistic!

        Spread this message of realism and I'll do the same my friend.
      • JigoroKano, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5George Bush said he would have a humble foreign policy and would not partake in nation building.
        George Bush said he would simplify the tax code.
        George Bush said he would reform Social Security.
        George Bush said he would reform Immigration.

        George Bush hasn't done ***** he said he would do but with one exception.
        George Bush lowered some wealthy people's taxes.
      • Kohaxx, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1I agree 100%, as much as I don't like to see Obama wussing out to appease the majority like this, until the election is over he has to lean towards the middle, we just have to trust his previous voting record to represent what his real plans are.

        Politicians and Politics suck, but that's the way the world is.
    • rblancarte, on 07/09/2008, -1/+32Today I am highly disappointed to find that Obama is simply like all other politicians - out to do what it takes to get elected.

      Change we can believe in? Hardly. No change at all.
      • KingBabi, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2I don't see why he can't do that and then return to his original positions once in office. He can ***** campaign anyway he wants as long as he wins; I have little doubt that he will come around when elected.
      • Eldavidos, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Naive
    • AgainstObama, on 07/09/2008, -0/+23Change you were BS'd into! LOL.
    • dinot, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4I don't understand why people are so worked up about this. I'm also unhappy that he voted yes, but we're all acting like Obama is personally responsible for this bill passing. The fact of the matter is that it would've passed whether he voted yes or no. Besides, he has supported an amendment to strip retroactive immunity to the telcos.

      Which brings me to another question. Why the ***** aren't we all up in arms with the fact that the Bush Administration were the ones who forced these telcos to break the law in the first place? Isn't this bill being passed to prevent something like that from happening again?

      I'm still an Obama supporter. And I'm not fickle enough to switch sides over one issue.
      • rblancarte, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Am I going to switch? Heck no. And is this bill passing Obama's fault? No.

        HOWEVER, that being said, you ask why I am pissed. And I will tell you. Because this is exactly what Obama was speaking out against. He spoke about how domestic surveillance was one of the wrongs that this administration has done. He spoke about how he would stand by his principles, how he was anti-war from day 1, etc. Yet when his chance to take a stand was given, he didn't take it. He voted FOR domestic wire tapping (even though he did try to vote in amendments).

        Am I pissed with ONLY him? No, all democrats can SUCK IT today. The way they caved is PATHETIC. It is pathetic that a Congress that we voted in, SPECIFICALLY to:
        A. Get us out of Iraq (or at least start)
        B. End the crap that this administration has done (domestic spying, and basically treating the Constitution like toilet paper)
        C. Work to fix our economy, etc
        Has done NONE of these things. On A - they GAVE Bush his money, on B - just see today on C - year, our economy is in great shape. They stood on a platform and LIED to our faces.

        Am I pissed at George W? Hell yes. I think the man should be impeached immediately, and possibly brought up on charges. But I am more pissed with a Congress that was given the power to do something about this, and instead has capitulated to everything W has wanted. It is sad and pathetic.

        I am mad at Obama. But today, Pelosi and Reid are far worse than he is. Everything they said they stood for January 2007 - HOLLOW, EMPTY RHETORIC.

        Today I am embarrassed to be a Democrat.
      • vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@rblancarte - Though, I agree with you I would have been even more embarrassed to be a republican.
    • paradexes, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3Glad I held back on Donating to his campaign. I figured it would be best to wait until he was nominated and the Hillary fight was done. That way we could see his true colors. Considering he showed up on corrupt politicians lists (bipartisan lists) on a number of occasions I was optimistic but reserved.

      I am voting independent, not sure which party yet, But I am sure as hell not voting Democrap or Repugnant.
      VOTE INDY PEOPLE. Pick the Green, Libertarian, Vampire, Pirate party, Whichever you choose. pick one but the 2 main large ones. Send a message to DC crooks. The real high crime area is right on Pennsylvania avenue not the "high crime" area they talk about.
  • widman, on 07/07/2008, -8/+52He didn't play it quiet but openly supported this madness... Clearly nothing like a new Bobby Kennedy like some people promoted him to be.

    A product of a bipartisan system.
    • ender7074, on 07/09/2008, -3/+17You mean the Bobby Kennedy that secretly wiretapped Martin Luther King? Looks to me that they are one in the same.
      • giveupsin, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2That was J E Hoover. B Kennedy actually wanted the wiretapping stopped. Hoover did...for one week, then turned it back on.
    • richbleak, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3This concept and these comments show exactly why the Democrats will always lose to Republicans. American political contests have nothing to do with doing and saying exactly what you believe. You have to concede to the sensibilities of the morons that litter this countryside. Save your principles for when you actually get elected. Notice how Bush's presidency has been nothing like his initial campaign? That is because Republican politicians and Republican voters understand what is required to come into power in our ridiculous system. I thought Democrats were suppose to be the smarter party? Why aren't we savvy enough to understand this? STFU, get Obama elected, and sit back while we get appropriate Supreme Court nominations, progressive policy that will actually get past a veto, and the ability to investigate the sins of the past 8 years.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Union-busting HUAC committee Bobby Kennedy? Look, here's the reality you have to face. None of your political heroes are heroes, which puts our observations of Barack Obama at an incredibly high double standard.
  • DeskFlyer, on 07/08/2008, -4/+70From the statement on his website: "That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate."

    So why are you still in favor of the current bill that contains it now? Why don't you work to get it removed, then favor it?
    • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -0/+24For the same reason he re-authorized the Patriot Act. Obama consistently votes to expand the scope and power of the federal government, just like most of Congress does.
    • CarStan, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1He DID vote against the particular Title II everyone is complaining about.
      http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...

      What he voted for is the whole Bill wich is a very much needed update of a 30 year old bill. As you might know, in the last 30 years new technolgies like the internet or cell phones where developed and became a critical part of society. Technologies nobody thought about when the first FISA bill was made. The Protect America Act of 2007, wich wasnt that good to beginn with, was only limited and has expired since february.
      You have to look at the whole picture.
      It's much faster to pass the bill now and then let Obama strip the telecom immunity as soon as he becomes president, than to block it and wait another year, when you have fight for all the compromises it includes now all over again.
      Bush would have veto'd it anyway without title II.
      If Obama would have voted against the bill, the republicans would have used against him, saying he's weak and useless when it comes to homeland security. And if McCain wins the election the bill would have come through either way.

      Many people seem to forget that Bush is still president, if they like it or not. And because of his veto power the democrats cant just pass any law they'd like to. But they can't lay their hand on their backs and do nothing until January '09, imagine the even bigger outcry if that happened.
      • ottonomy, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0The "immunity" provisions only strip civil immunity, so if Obama promised to install an actually fair justice department and pursue criminal charges against the telecoms, we might be able to work something out.

        The Democrats are just laying on their backs with their soft bellies exposed, doing absolutely nothing meaningful to stop Bush's felonies and war crimes. Pelosi has taken accountability off the table, and I hope she loses to Cindy Sheehan this November.
    • lukas88, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3The rest of the bill is nearly as bad, that is why. The whole thing should be sunk.
  • perhapshowever, on 07/08/2008, -27/+103I closed my Obama account last week and joined the Nader campaign.

    www.votenader.org


    FISA, faith based initiatives, war, .... pick the issue and Obama has taken two weeks to destroy trust and faith in his candidacy.

    As the economy looms large McCain has a real chance to close the gap.

    Time and time again the voters have shown that when little separates actions and deeds of candidates they will choose the person who takes the least amount from them in terms of tax dollars.

    I am finished supporting anyone who just recycles views and positions calling them change.

    For six month I thought and prayed Obama was something different. Obviously as his actions support he is not. He is a fraud.

    This two party system does not offer choice it offers dilemmas.
    • RealmDown, on 07/09/2008, -0/+36"This two party system does not offer choice it offers dilemmas."

      Excellent.

      I started saying the same thing a few years back when I realized that I was not deciding who to vote for, but rather who to vote against.

    • Yage2006, on 07/09/2008, -12/+10Great so then Mc.Cain will be your next president.
      Enjoy
    • sucksathalo, on 07/09/2008, -10/+5The two party system is how it always will be in a country with a winner take all (plurality) system of elections. I would and I'm sure a good chunk of the digg community would much rather vote for Nader then Obama or McCain but it is not practical. You do have to vote for the lesser of two evils in this country. It's sad but it's the nature of the system.
    • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -8/+13It warms my heart to hear you become cynical. I knew some of you would eventually see Obama for the establishment hack that he is. I only hope the coming months continue to have Obama showing his true colors so more of his Obamatons wake up before we're stuck with him as President.
    • bkripper, on 07/09/2008, -5/+7Once again we see the Democrats are not worth voting for and Nader is the only real candidate. How dumb can these Dems be? They were crushed with the flip-flop attacks the last several elections but just hand the Republicans ammunition.

      Yea, McCain might be the next President but if people stopped settling for the lying Democrats, we might actually have a real party to vote for in coming elections. The far right stood up and told the Republicans not to take them for granted, they voted their beliefs and are now a political force.

      Having private industry collaborating with our government conducting illegal actions is incredibly scary. Long live our oliogarchy!
    • Antimatter3009, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3@Barackalypse

      The sad part is a lot of people are probably like me. I was cynical before, but by the time Obama won the nomination I had some hope. I never fell all the way in love like some people seem to have, but I felt a lot better. Now I'm just back to being cynical. Oh well.

      OTOH, I still feel like he's the best candidate with an actual chance to win (in other words, he's better than McCain, which is a sad reflection of our political system in itself).
    • Whatiffafarr, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4I just canceled my email notifications for the Obama campaign also. It provides you with a comment box, a good opportunity to express how Obama is a spineless piece.
  • Bagos1, on 07/08/2008, -6/+76Geez.....the Democrats are a frivolous lot. Look at Pelosi....same kind of backstabbing behavior as Obama....and Lieberman, another horse that keeps changing color.
    It's all about getting you to vote them into power. It is not about empowering you though.
    • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -11/+4Lieberman didn't change. The Democratic party changed under him.
      • dalittle, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Lieberman is not a Democrat. He was elected as an independent.
      • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Yes, after the Democratic party dropped him like a hot potato in the primaries. That's why he had to run as an independent after starting the run as a Democrat...

        Saying he was always an independent is way too much of revisionism even for a Democrat, I would think.
    • queenstarsha, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1the democrats are officially weenies, but i prefer that to the republican party, which ass-rapes stupid poor people and convinces them they love it.
  • Todash19, on 07/08/2008, -6/+80Well, he promised change.

    I think this qualifies as change, but i don't think people though it was his mind that would change.
    • NCg8r, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Got-dangit, we're the Incumbents! How can we run on a Reform platform?!?
      • maverick999, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Nice "Oh Brother where art Thou?" reference...
      • diggduggDOOM, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2We'd sound like a buncha Johnny Comelatelys' braggin' on our own midget. Don't matter how stumpy.
    • cheezintern, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Yes change, as in I'll be changing who I vote for in the fall..
    • paradexes, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Well I Promise change....I promise to change.....I promise to vote for someone else that is in either of the 2 dominant duopolus (hopefully a word) parties.
    • paradexes, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Well I Promise change....I promise to change.....I promise to vote for someone else that is in either of the 2 dominant duopolus (hopefully a word) parties.
  • kemp34, on 07/08/2008, -16/+62Obama a charlatan? I have been calling it for 8 months.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -6/+15So why have you consistently bashed me when I've spoken ill of Obama and his politics?
  • EatingPie, on 07/08/2008, -11/+38FTA: "Pincus says he'll continue to campaign for Obama no matter what happens because of a lack of viable alternatives."

    Could this be why Obama did it? A risk assessment very likely said that he could change position, win supporters from the other side, and keep those that already support him.

    Making a statement that you're still going to vote for him completely undermines the letter requesting him to change his position. Why should he? He has your vote anyway. (And psst, there are ALWAYS alternatives, even if they won't get elected.)

    -Pie
    • swrostmore, on 07/08/2008, -20/+11Another day, another mind-numbingly obvious yet subtly misinformed comment from EatingPie, appended as always with a maddingly reduntant signature.
      • Chassit, on 07/09/2008, -4/+12This is what is called an ad hominem fallacy, swrostmore can't actually attack the issue so he desperately attacks the messenger.
      • Monk22, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1you mean like what your doing chassit. good example i get it now, thanks.
    • flumkin, on 07/09/2008, -9/+9Can someone explain how a vote for Nader or Paul or one of the other "alternatives that won't get elected" is any different than staying at home or voting for the other major party candidate?

      You're not going to agree with everything your candidate says or does. You have to go with the candidate that most similarly represents your views. If you vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning, you waste your vote and might as well have stayed home or voted for the other major party candidate.
      • Kikinou, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6yes but then why do they have to lie to us? bait-n-switch. what we were sold in primary is different than what is for sale now.
      • mister23, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I think that it could in fact help with ballot access, inclusion in televised debates, etc.
      • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Obama didn't lie, he was cowed. He voted against telecom immunity amendments but for the final vote when the amendments wouldn't go through. No one filibustered, no one fought.
      • EatingPie, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5flumkin -

        I don't believe there is any such thing as a "wasted vote" unless you stay home and *don't* vote.

        I *believe* (not positive, but pretty sure) that votes show whether you're republican or democrat, so casting a vote for, say Nader shows a democrat -- who presumably would vote for Obama -- was unhappy with "their" candidate.

        Regardless of the above, the more people who vote Nader, et al, means that said Dems/Repubs will need to start taking notice. IE... "Hey, more people are voting for Nader, what is he doing right? What are we doing wrong?" Hence it being called a "protest" vote.

        You are dead-right about not agreeing with everything your candidate supports. I never do. I pick the one who aligns the most with what I feel is important. In the article, though, those interviewed considered this issue of *paramount* importance. Yet they state publicly that they'd still go Obama, which *strongly* suggests that the issue isn't that important after all... and they're making it clear there's no consequence to Obama's campaign.

        -Pie
      • Bagos1, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1I'll vote for the less of two evils.
        What a great American legacy.
        What will the children think?
    • queenstarsha, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1i think the alternative people care about is who ends up in the white house -- a guy who at least wants to change but is too much of a ***** wimp (obama), or a guy who thought illegal wiretapping was awesome all along (mccain)? not to even get started on their differences on iraq, family planning, and health care.
  • BaseballGuyCAA, on 07/08/2008, -9/+54Let's face it. At this point, most of his voters are the people who only like him because he's the trendy pick. They aren't going to care about something small like warrantless wiretapping, so long as he remains the anointed face of the MTV generation.
    • hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9The comments above yours disagree with you. I think that Obama will see a serious hit in his fund raising for the remainder of the election. He may even be sorry for not accepting public financing.
      • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3So if he doesn't take a hit, will you accept what has been said as true?

        I don't think he'll take a hit at all. I think money will pile on him.
      • hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1@superkendall: I am not sure what you mean by "what has been said", but if Obama does not take a hit in fund raising, I will publicly admit that my view of the situation is wrong.
      • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1What you responded to - that his voters are backing him because he's the trendy pick, and therefore money will flock to him. I'm sure he'll have no end of money because there are a lot of very rich backers that want a Democrat in the white house - it doesn't matter which one or even really what he will do (to some extent).
      • hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1There will still be people that will donate to BO, but many people that I have talk to seem dissapointed and they have indicated that they will stop donating money to BO. I am confident that BO will see a huge drop in his fund raising.
      • tomasII, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Doubt it. The hate Bushies have already ingested the kool aid and no amount of whining about his move to the center, which of course is disingenuous, will stop the liberals from voting for their new savior.
      • BaseballGuyCAA, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Whether or not he will see a hit in fundraising is largely irrelevant. The point that I'm making is that the fringe voters--who largely trump the political nuts in sheer numbers--won't care about this kind of thing, and will still turn out to vote for "hope" and "change."

        Money makes a difference, but in the end its the votes that decide the winner.
    • Louis11, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9I'm rather ashamed to be part of the 'MTV generation', as you have put it. When I speak to other people my own age I usually hear some pro Obama rhetoric, followed by "omg, did you see the hills last night?!".

      I for one, am a Discovery man :-P
      • dracflamloc, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Amen... in a totally religious freedom sort of way =)
      • BaseballGuyCAA, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4I couldn't agree with you more. Idiocracy FTW
  • wynja, on 07/08/2008, -29/+4Obama is just another porch monkey that does as his masters tell him.
    • solarsavior, on 07/09/2008, -4/+7Glad to see another white supremacist sheep doing what his masters tell him. White Trash!
      • wynja, on 07/09/2008, -9/+1I'm sorry you don't want to believe that the great black dope is going to be anything nothing more than White House porch monkey.

        The truth hurts, don't it.
      • sindex, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Couldn't tell ya. You've not spoken any truth here; just closed minded, racist, white-trash opinions.
      • flumkin, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4More proof that racist rednecks are likely to be republican.
      • ashfish, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Wait, didn't we take porch monkey back in Clerks 2?
  • OriginalLucid1, on 07/09/2008, -19/+42And yet they will still blindly vote for him. Like a good democrat should.
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/09/2008, -4/+7As opposed to voting for McCain? Damn straight.

      For the record, I'm not a Democrat.
      • mllind, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Good to see another realist. This is politics people, in case you didn't know. Pandering. Now grow a pair and some hair and weigh ALL the issues. This one's an obvious disagreement, but it doesn't have much company in my opinion.
  • BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -12/+11So sad for them.
  • arjie, on 07/09/2008, -5/+18Interesting, so everything changes the second he no longer has to fight someone else for a nomination? Sad, it's too bad America's election system doesn't allow the smaller parties to get anywhere because people are afraid that by voting for one party they'll split the votes on one side and end up with a worse option than before. Preferential voting is so much of a better option.
    • KingBabi, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Look at the Wiemar republic, now tell me how smaller parties help things.
  • EntreLangdon, on 07/09/2008, -14/+41lying through his teeth just like dubya

    seen this one before. is anyone surprised? Ron Paul is the only one who really wanted change...
    • Scrappy1850, on 07/09/2008, -1/+15all politicians lie. its like we forget this every 4 years.
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/09/2008, -3/+14The only way Ron Paul would change anything would be as a dictator.
      Not to say his ideas were bad, but they were radical and the corrupt people in our system do not allow for radical changes,. good or bad, unless it puts money in their pockets.
    • Louis11, on 07/09/2008, -13/+14Oh shut up with this Ron Paul talk, that ship sailed so long ago . . .
    • fani, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3***** Ron Paul. That doofus had so many wrong stands on so many issues. And who's to say he won't flip-flop like Obama if he got the nomination ?

      Get up and realize that Ron Paul is another horrible politician who barks but won't bite
  • theNazz, on 07/09/2008, -13/+78Why Obama will not get my vote this year:

    1. Increased "faith based funding" programs... but with 'better oversight'.
    2. Supported telecom immunity... but with 'reluctance'
    3. Supported renewal of Patriot Act... after voting against it the first time.

    Three strikes, Obama is out. Nader or Paul if he makes the ticket.
    • sindex, on 07/09/2008, -1/+12Paul won't make it on unless you write him in. I'd consider voting for Barr, even if he's not a "true" Libertarian. At least he's got a good shot at being on the ticket.
    • flumkin, on 07/09/2008, -10/+12U should vote Bob Barr if Ron P doesn't make the ballot in your state

      Nader is a loser. U don't want him president. He shld stick to getting pintos recalled.
    • beaverfetus, on 07/09/2008, -6/+8just some words from someone who is completely non-religious about faith based programs:

      In certain needy parts of the country, church based charity is all there is because they were the only organizations to step up. Go to destitute areas in inner cities, or in the gulf coast, and see the impact of church based charities for yourself.

      I'm not saying we should disproportionately favor faith based charities, but it makes sense to treat their funding differently than other non profits (they need more oversight), and it makes sense to increase their funding for humanitarian efforts.
      • theNazz, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Out of the billions of dollars allocated to 'faith based funding', how many of the 22 destroyed firehouses were rebuilt with that money?

        ZERO.
    • Ruqsaq, on 07/09/2008, -3/+12whoa whoa! Nader OR Paul??!?! What are you some kind of schizophreniac? They are complete opposite sides of the spectrum. How can you be for both? Thats like saying I'm a satanic creationist.
      • Cybermaul, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Ironically enough, that actually still works under some views of satanism.
    • Kikinou, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4don't forget his nasa cuttin'
    • ajb2015, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8also apparently obama supports the death penalty now.
      • jwkpiano1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4He always did, you just didn't do your research.
  • Linkin4, on 07/09/2008, -5/+30Netroots? Is this one of those stupid buzzwords, like blogs, or blogosphere? Shoot me.
  • GrodyChamp, on 07/09/2008, -11/+28Obama is looking more like another Bush term than the Republican canidate!
    • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -4/+9McCain at least is actually bipartisan, so yes.
  • blacktriangle, on 07/09/2008, -13/+8AIPAC probably authored the FISA bill.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -7/+48What do you expect from someone who has spent most of his first term in the Senate campaigning to be President? Hmmm?

    We. Told. You. So.
    • BedPost, on 07/09/2008, -2/+15Well, Hillary was a lieing *****, and McCain wants to start another religious (and expensive) war in another sandy country that has little relevance to me - Obama seemed like the best chance, what with his agreeable stances and promises of not partaking in the "old politics".

      He backstabbed us. I was expecting the next 4 years to be progressive years under a progressive president. Instead it's just going to be more of the same.

      I'll never let my cynicism go again - all it did was prove to me that believing a politician will change America for the better is naive. Welcome to the new boss - same as the old.
      • jwkpiano1, on 07/09/2008, -10/+2You're unbelievably wrong. I'm sure you're certain you can't be fooled by the MSM, but in fact you certainly have. The media has convinced you that Obama has changed in positions, when in reality, his positions have not really changed at all. He IS a progressive, and for you to say Obama is anything like Bush is frankly ridiculous.
      • Lazydriver, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3The MSM didnt' convince me of *****, if anything, it made my belief that Obama would stick to his values even stronger.

        With that being said, after Obama betraying his core values and being the biggest charlatain of the 21st century so-far (Everyone knew Bush was bad, but the idiots voted for him anyway, course, Gore's the moral hypocrite, so we've got problems.)

        Support your local third-party candidates, and just pull the jackpot for whomever November!
      • Cybermaul, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1[citation needed]
  • laserdog, on 07/09/2008, -6/+16It's the first thing he's done that I've really disagreed with.

    I mean, this whole "I am a centrist" crap was what poisoned me against Hillary in the first place.

    "Centrist" = "Status Quo". I don't know how you can be for "change" and "the middle ground".

    I mean, I still rationalize that the DNC must have made some demands of him. Hope it's worth it.
    • jwkpiano1, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Centrist actually does not equal status quo, you're completely incorrect. Centrist simply means you advocate the most moderate policies. If you think the current administration's policies (the status quo), are moderate, well then, I don't know where you've been living for the past 8 years. Finally, Obama is NOT a centrist, he is moderately Liberal. Take a look at electoral-vote.com's ratings of how Liberal the Senators are. He's like the 19th most Liberal.
      • tomasII, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Wrong! his voting record indicates he is the most liberal member of the senate.
      • laserdog, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I never said I thought the current administration was centrist, they are infact "radical".

        But it's a fair point, in theory "Centrist" technically doesn't mean Status Quo.

        But, in practice centrist politicians just seem to come up with useless compromises that anger everybody least and accomplish nothing.
    • tomasII, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7"It's the first thing he's done that I've really disagreed with."

      Because he hasn't done anything else.
    • dinot, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2From a comment in HuffPo, but worth repeating:

      "Christ. If you have a problem with FISA spying practices, you might want to try to build a time machine and go back to 1978 when it was created. That effort would be as useful as the overwrought wringing of hands I'm seeing on this site.

      Oversight of the decades-old FISA practices was gutted by the Bush administration. This bill largely restores that oversight. Spying itself isn't a bad thing in and of itself - spying without oversight is the problem.

      So stop bellyaching about how the Constitution died today - that's a load of melodramatic *****. And if your issue is the granting of telecom immunity, just bear in mind that Obama/Congress could spend the next four years, start to finish, prosecuting Bush's crimes. That'd be fun, but there are bigger problems to tackle, don't you think?"
  • Pyehole, on 07/09/2008, -4/+31Damn right we're angry. Does anyone in office have respect for the rule of law and the constitution?
    • thecatcantalk, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9No.
    • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -4/+13Ron Paul, and uhhh, occasionally Russ Feingold.
      • Disfnord, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and which one of those two actually voted against the FISA bill when it was in the House?
      • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Disfnord, I have no idea what you are asking. Ron Paul missed the FISA vote and Russ Feingold is a Senator and thus ineligible for House votes, but he did vote against it in the Senate.
    • Monk22, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1no. have you ever rolled a stop sign or speed on the highway. then you dont respect the rule of law either technically.
      • Pyehole, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3If I were caught rolling a stop sign or speeding on the highway I'd expect to pay the fine for breaking the law. I wouldn't push congress to grant me immunity after the fact.
  • MisterEX, on 07/09/2008, -3/+60"Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise." -Obama

    Since when is the Constitution of the United States up for compromise?
    • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -2/+12Since sometime in the early 20th century when we saw an unprecedented explosion in the size and scope of the federal government under the guise of helping us out of an economic depression. Then somehow we continued that in the middle 20th century with some additional nanny state programs. Sometime in the 21st century we got all paranoid about terrorists and started legislating away civil liberties while the President used the executive office to make an end run around the Constitution.
    • Aero347, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3..except they had to amend (compromise) the constitution to to outlaw slavery.. which is ironically how he was allowed to run for president in the first place.. so it can be a good or a bad compromise.
      • Mark_H, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Well, there are specific Constitutional provisions for amending it (Article V). There's a big difference between doing that and just ignoring pieces of the document, like the fourth amendment in the case of the FISA bill.
    • dracflamloc, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11Since its people stopped defending it
    • tomasII, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2When activist judges make law instead of interpreting the constitution.
  • mrzack, on 07/09/2008, -12/+34SEE!! I told you people O'Bomba was no good. Shoulda supported Ron Paul. Suckers. got tricked, same way Bush supporters got tricked.
  • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -4/+29Who else 'ya gonna vote for? Obama has no need to pander to you any longer. Thanks for giving him the nomination though!
    • queenstarsha, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1nader, if obama doesn't straighten up and fly right. i mean left.
  • dizilbdog, on 07/09/2008, -5/+19So now you see, politicians don't give two ***** about the people or the constitution. There are exceptions but not many
    • flip2trip, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2And the exceptions will never be elected to president because they don't tickle the ears of the ignorant voting populace.
  • flink405, on 07/09/2008, -14/+22The Senate vote on FISA is in:
    Obama voted "YES"
    Hillary voted "NO".

    Hillary in 2008.
    • JinnRikki, on 07/09/2008, -2/+20Hillary voted aye then changed her vote after a discussion with Chris Dodd. Would have liked to hear that exchange.
      • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -2/+19It was something along the lines of "How would you like to be the Democratic candidate this year after all?"
    • jazh, on 07/09/2008, -5/+3She continues to surprise.
    • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -2/+19That's hysterical, Hillary turning out to be the lesser of two evils.
    • AgainstObama, on 07/09/2008, -2/+17Hillary was always a better candidate. At least with Hillary you know what you were getting. The Obamessiah and his rock star image that PR people created are finally being shown what they really are....another empty suit.
  • antipoet, on 07/09/2008, -3/+28Someone finally decided he was close enough to the top to take him into that dark room filled with smoke and all those powerful men and women.
    • TheBuz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7Dugg for Bill Hicks reference.
    • Y0tsuya, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Let's not kid ourselves. The women are only there to pour the coffee.
  • sooch, on 07/09/2008, -3/+15The perfect is the enemy of the good. However, Obama has really disappointed me and will receive no more monies.
  • Hetman, on 07/09/2008, -3/+10If McCain or Obama is elected president, Americans gets what they deserves for there complacency in this matter.
  • pandlcg, on 07/09/2008, -6/+2So am I.
  • Jadinlee, on 07/09/2008, -4/+29In my opinion, Obama has violated his oath of office before ever making it to the White House. To vote for him now would make me a hypocrite. I would have extended him GREAT flexibility and never expected a perfect candidate. But the defense of our constitution and liberties are non-negotiable. Best of luck with the election... I"m out!
    • petrodollar, on 07/09/2008, -14/+3There's nothing unconstitutional about warrantless wiretapping.
      • dracflamloc, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2The majority of the informed populace seems to think otherwise.
      • actionscripture, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6There's nothing unconstitutional about warrantless wiretapping.
        /sarcasm

        There, fixed.
      • gigamugged, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Just in case idiots like you came along, the founders tacked the Bill of Rights onto the constitution:
        Article the sixth [Amendment IV]
        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.
        Many court precedents have held that all forms of communication for which privacy can be reasonably expected fall under the 4th amendment.
      • Hamletlere, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3I think the intent of the founding fathers says there is. They wrote that a warrant, obtained due to probable cause, was necessary before search and seizure of property/papers/persons.

        They obviously felt that one branch of the government (the Judiciary) should provide a check on the power of another (the Executive).

        Man, we used to make fun of the USSR about the State always watching everyone ("speak into the flowers, comrade!"). It's scary to witness fellow citizens of mine that think this sort of surveillance (with no oversight) is a good idea for our own country.
      • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

        None of which is telephone communications, or more specifically metadata about the communications.

        And to the others who think the "majority" of the populace thinks it is illegal, in every pool a majority has supported wiretapping and Digg is not at all representative of the US as a whole.
      • petrodollar, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1"They wrote that a warrant, obtained due to probable cause, was necessary before search and seizure of property/papers/persons."

        lol, NO THEY DIDN'T!!!

        They wrote only that such searches must be not be UNREASONABLE.

        "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."

        Where in the above quoted text do you see a requirement that all searches conducted pursuant to a warrant? Do you not realize that warrantless searches and seizures are conducted every second of every day by police officers somewhere in the USA?

        The higher standard for warrants was established because warrants were historically considered a more powerful tool for government agents conducting searches because they allowed them to, say, enter your home unannounced and beging rifling through your things without reasonable suspicion that a crime was immediately afoot. That does NOT mean that you need a warrant to conduct a search.

        "and no Warrants shall issue"

        What do you think they meant by sticking that "and" in there?

        You people are clueless.
      • petrodollar, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1"They wrote that a warrant, obtained due to probable cause, was necessary before search and seizure of property/papers/persons."

        Really? So if I walk into a shopping mall with a loaded machine gun and open fire on random passers by, the cops need to get a warrant before they can seize me and search me?

        Please try to think before posting next time. And please try to cite the actual language of the constitution and explain how your understanding of it makes the least bit of sense.
      • AgentMull, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Stop being a dirty troll. It looks bad on you.
      • petrodollar, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Hey, AgentMull, maybe you'll find this link informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

        "Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."

        NO WARRANT NECESSARY, NOT EVEN PROBABLE CAUSE!!!

        Thanks for playing!
      • AgentMull, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1... Then wtf do you define probable cause as? You just contradicted yourself.
        "if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."
        Thats the definition of PROBABLE CAUSE.
  • eccitante, on 07/09/2008, -5/+14Obama had my vote for a little while but he can forget it now... If I even bother to vote it will be for "none of the above." He is no different than the other scumbag politicians, secretly hating the very constitution that they swore to protect.
  • tastic, on 07/09/2008, -4/+13Too late - the Senate has passed the "compromise" bill - from the NYT: "WASHINGTON — More than two and a half years after the disclosure of President’s Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program set off a furious national debate, the Senate gave final approval on Wednesday afternoon to broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program." linky: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fis ...

  • Skywise, on 07/09/2008, -6/+14"Still mad"?! He JUST voted for it not less than an hour ago!!!! Can we at least wait a few days to make this claim about "still" being mad?
    • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7But he SAID he was going to support at least a week ago, didn't you read all the angry stories about that last week?
      • Skywise, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3He could've changed his mind. In fact, he voted for amendments that would've stripped the bill of the immunity provisions he said he supported last week.
      • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1He never said he supported the immunity provisions. He said he was against the immunity provisions and would fight to remove them but he supported the idea of compromise. Then he voted against the immunity provisions. They passed anyway, he voted.
  • awesomeric, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3Why can't Obama change his mind, we all did, we all voted for Bush twice, now we hate him (less than 30% approval rating)
    GO OBAMA '08

    actually no no, i won't support him i changed my mind too
    NOBAMA '08


  • banderwocky, on 07/09/2008, -4/+12Looks like he is a politician after all. Flip flopping like McCain is never a good idea.
    • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -5/+3What did McCain flip-flop on? The appeal of McCain is that with things like the surge, he supported them from the start even when a lot of people on both sides thought he was wrong. McCain is way more of a person to stick with something even when it's unpopular.
    • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Obama never flip flopped, he said he'd work to get immunity out, but ultimately that he supported the bill.
      • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Since immunity is still in, and he originally said he'd filibuster a bill with it in, and he did not filibuster...

        Connect the dots man. He was against it before he was for it.
    • riseabove, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1because we should only "stay the course" never compromise, never "flip-flop"
      • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Compromising is what gets us bills like FISA and the patriot Act in the first place. If a bill is flawed, veto it, this country safely existed for over 300 years without these powers, I doubt very much we'll all die in a nuclear holocaust without them.
  • pintomp3, on 07/09/2008, -5/+20he and other democrats keep calling it a compromise. it was a cave-in.
  • hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -6/+11I predict Obama will see a huge drop in fund raising. He may even regret not taking public financing.
    • BDOUG, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5I wish. I really liked him up until this point. We went from having a horrible choice and an OK one to having a horrible choice and a wimpass sellout choice in November. Yay us.
  • JinnRikki, on 07/09/2008, -6/+34Obama officially lost my vote with that, I'll write in Kucinich, he may be short but he's all balls.
    • ouzome, on 07/09/2008, -11/+5he's all crazy, too
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3As much as I hate to bring up the "You're throwing away your vote" argument... by not voting for Obama, you're voting for McCain. Writing in Kucinich won't do anything except ensure another four years of a Bush-style Presidency.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tilting at windmills... but McCain seriously scares me.
      • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2Since he also scares people on the right, it seems like McCain is the perfect candidate for the rational voter. He's nothing like Bush, and a presidency with McCain will be different in one very big way - real spending restraint.
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1You ever thought that maybe the reason he "scares people on the right" isn't necessarily because of his politics? My impression of him is that he's a bully with a temper problem, who's willing to say whatever it takes to get elected. His "spending restraint" is, so far, just an empty promise- he's said that he plans to keep the troops in place, and no matter how much he plans to cut back on other areas, that means we'll STILL be wasting billions. And don't forget- this is from a man who's admitted he doesn't know much about economics.

        I'm not going to take a chance on getting another beholden Bush wannabe. Not this time. Republicans screwed things up, big time, in the last two elections- why should we trust them NOW?
    • bongo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9"by not voting for Obama, you're voting for McCain" is really poor reasoning. If you keep voting for politicians that screw you over, you will continue to be screwed over in the future. If you show support for other candidates then their ideas will be brought more into the mainstream, even if they aren't elected.

      Don't keep rolling over, show your party that the cannot take your vote for granted!
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Hey, I voted for Nader in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. I'm not going to take the risk of another Bush, this time. Neither should you. Principles are all well and good, but look how 2000 and 2004 turned out.
  • palewook, on 07/09/2008, -5/+7The party line of "democrats against the constitution" lost my vote this upcoming election.
    • queenstarsha, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1actually, all 28 votes against this came from the left. i'm very disappointed in obama, but democrats>>>republicans on civil liberties.
  • chrismm, on 07/09/2008, -22/+29For everyone saying "OMG I'M PULLING MY VOTE", I've got a question. Was this the only thing you liked about Obama in the first place? Isn't a pick of *ANY* presidential candidate a bit of compromise to some degree? While I really don't like our two party system, I think this is inherent of any political system. You find the candidate that follows your ideals the closest (easier w/ more viable parties), and you go with it.

    As much as I really dislike this aspect of what Obama is doing, I think there are still a lot of good aspects to him. Yes, the FISA waffle sucks. However I don't think starting a grassroots net-based bashing campaign on him is the best thing to do. I mean, let's just be realistic here. It's McCain or Obama. Those are our choices. Even if you dislike Obama's stance here, do you really think it's worth it to trash him and risk McCain getting in?

    Big picture folks. Ya gotta think about that.
    my .02.

    • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -11/+6What's so risky about McCain? McCain has at least been generally pretty straightforward and sticks to things even when unpopular - lots of people on both sides disliked the surge when he backed it.

      Furthermore, McCain is not that well liked by far right Republicans and has actually been a part of a lot of real bipartisan compromises. Don't we YEARN for someone to really make the office of president bipartisan again so we can reduce the terrible bickering that is going on?

      And lastly, McCain has kept his word not to attach ANY earmarks to bills. To me getting back to fiscal responsibility is job #1 going forward this term, and I feel like McCain could make a dent in both Democratic AND Republican spending which has gotten totally out of control.
      • chrismm, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7I think we've "stayed the course" enough. Yeah that's an oversimplification of things, sorry. heh. This country is on a turning point. Possibly one of the biggest in our history since we told King George to eat it.

        If we don't quit the ***** we've been doing over the past 8 years, we're screwed. I don't expect an Obama vote to bring sunshine and puppies to every house, but when compared to the rhetoric McCain has been dropping in regards to Iran, Iraq, and his economic policies (Keep rolling yo!), anything is better.
      • secrity, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6I won't vote for someone who is endorsed by the Christian Right -- period.
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Woah there, pardner. McCain is pretty much known for NOT sticking to things. He got more flip flops than a beach shop in Miami during tourist season.

        I'd also like to have a President who knows that "Net Neutrality" doesn't refer to fishing rights in the Bering Strait.
      • superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1The whole point is that McCain is NOT "staying the course". The "course" such as it is, has been exponential spending increases. As for McCain flip-flops, I see jokes from desperate Obama supporters with no evidence of actual unreasonable changes in position.
    • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -3/+13No, they were in love with Obama as a "do no evil" candidate that was all principle and would act different than the Washington establishment does. In several votes now he's proved he isn't any different than McCain or Bush and is more than happy to sell out his supporters. Some of them noticed this.
      • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"Several votes?" Oh, right, this vote and giving armor to the troops. Evil bastard.
      • Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2ZenMojo, I was actually thinking specifically about the Patriot Act re-authorization and the Border Fence Act, both of which McCain, Clinton, and Bush were all on board with and which I don't think the traditional far left liberals would agree with.
    • rowjimmy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5the big picture is - this country will continue going down the ***** (and hopefully not take the whole world with it) so long as people accept corporate governance. sorry kids, but the bottom line has nothing to do with people (except as exploitable resources).
    • obamayomama, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2And $.02 is about all any of us will have left (no pun intended) after the O'man gets done shaking us down.
    • TheDiver, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6I think the point is that this is one more example of how Obama has shifted his stance on an issue out of political expediency. He portrayed himself as more populist and left-leaning to outflank Hillary in the primaries. Now that he's fighting in the general election, he needs centrist and independent voters, so he's drifting towards the right, and counting on the fact that he won't lose many votes because the vast majority of those disappointed in him will still vote for him over McCain.

      I don't want to speak for those talking about pulling their votes, but some of them seem to be realizing that Obama's word doesn't count for very much, nor does his eloquent and inspiring--but ultimately vague and meaningless--form of intellectual discourse, which often seems deliberately tailored to allow supporters to interpret his words in whatever way would bring in the most votes, and change his stance when necessary.
    • tst1212, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3The Obama Fan Boys were in love with the hype. No attempt to see who he really is, he speaks well, and mentions change a lot.

      DO YOUR RESEARCH! This guy is a fraud, with no proof he can lead this country!
    • eloquentpeasant, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Some candidates are more of a compromise than others. The only problem I have with Nader is that he still uses a typewriter, which makes him somewhat lacking in the cyber issues realm. That is what people have advisers for, though; nobody's perfect.
    • anubis2night, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1This isn't about compromise, theres always room to do that with some issues this is about having a chance to live up to your hype and prove yourself in a national arena of debate to show the American public what you really stand for and when the first chance came to do this what did he do? He betrayed his people. What makes you think he won't continue this trend once he's in office. No this candidate is just the black McCain of change. Nothing more or less. He's just a better hyped, prettier GQ version of Bush and Co. nowadays if you want real change you have to move to another country. It won't happen here.
  • BluesFan, on 07/09/2008, -6/+6Obama and McCain wouldn't of made it this far unless the real people who run the country didn't want them to.Were going to find out down the road that the hidden elites are pulling the strings of every president....if we already didn't so far.
  • dracostimpy, on 07/09/2008, -7/+42Myself and fellow "Paultards" to Digg's Obama Army: Where is your god NOW, suckers!?
    • riseabove, on 07/09/2008, -10/+2shouldn't you be on a blimp somewhere?
    • obamayomama, on 07/09/2008, -8/+0I like to refer to you as "Pulnuts." It is fun to see them meltdown though.
      • Tenbatsu404, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Coming from a guy named Obamayomama. Nice.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2At least he believes in evolution and the separation of Church and State.
      • dracostimpy, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5...which only proves he's smart enough to understand that he's selling the Constitution up the river. That makes him more than just ignorant a la Smirky the Chimperor; that makes him genuinely sinister in his cold, calculated disingenuity about FISA, troop withdrawal, etc... I wouldn't be surprised if after he wins the election, he starts snatching up and eating the same babies he's kissing right now!
  • zyl0x, on 07/09/2008, -6/+19You fools are doomed. There is no miracle president who will fix all your problems with a wave of their magic wand. Civil war or bust, seriously.
    • frankingeneral, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6What would a civil war accomplish, seriously? Seeing as how there is no miracle president who can fix all our problems, I think we're really just effed in the a
      • Hypnotoad8, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5At least we're not in Europe.. right?