Barack Obama vs. Barack Obama Supporters
The Huffington Post is reporting that all is maybe not well between Barack Obama and his liberal lapdog supporters...
Only weeks into the general election campaign and already a notable tension is beginning to materialize within the Democratic Party. At question is Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with the progressive netroots, the online community that helped aid the Senator's rise to the presidential nomination, but has since seemingly played second fiddle in terms of courted constituencies.
Whaaaaaat? How can this be?
Here's how it all went down. Over the weekend, Barack Obama announced that -- although not in favor of the idea of retroactive immunity for the shady corporatations that helped our own government spy on us -- he supports the FISA legislation that the Senate is about to pass that will magically make all the illegal wire-tapping that the White House did legal after all.
But it's all alright, because he super double-dog swears that, as president, he won't take advantage of the power to watch over all of America like Big Brother...
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.
Oh, well, he seems like a nice man. How can you mind surrendering your Constitutional rights to someone so charming?
Anyway, uber-lib Glenn Greenwald over at Salon was quick to get all "Waa waa waa, I don't want the Constition Constitution* torn to shreds" on Obama's ass...
It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions.
The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections.
And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.
Isn't it just like a liberal to want to conserve our inalienable rights and keep the federal government from amassing too much power? Fucking predictable.
* I am the wurst spellor on the planit.
Ask
backflip
blinklist
BlogBookmark
Bloglines
BlogMarks
Blogsvine
BUMPzee!
CiteULike
co.mments
Connotea
del.icio.us
DotNetKicks
Digg
diigo
dropjack.com
dzone
Facebook
Fark
Faves
Feed Me Links
Friendsite
folkd.com
Furl
Google
Hugg
Jeqq
Kaboodle
linkaGoGo
LinksMarker
Ma.gnolia
Mister Wong
Mixx
MySpace
MyWeb
Netvouz
Newsvine
PlugIM
popcurrent
Propeller
Reddit
Rojo
Segnalo
Shoutwire
Simpy
sk*rt
Slashdot
Sphere
Sphinn
Spurl.net
Squidoo
StumbleUpon
Technorati
ThisNext
Webride
Windows Live
Yahoo!
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the 
RSS
At least we have yet another possible reprieve on this. If this bill is delayed until after the recess, McCain can continue being outrun by Obama - and the next time this piece bill comes around, the telcom immunity crap can be flushed out of it.
I'll take what I can get.
"but hey, if it keeps me safe Im ok with it"
Can you spare CHANGE?
"liberal lapdog supporters"???
Another word like "terrorist" gets thrown around ad infinitum in order to make it utterly meaningless.
Our pathetic national media that refuses to call to task Republican criminal activity (ie. warrantless wiretapping of opponents, torturing innocent people, killing innocent people in a war started on lies, outing CIA operatives) are "lapdogs".
Liberals, or anyone interested in preserving the Constitution (actual conservatives, libertarians, Americans, etc.), are not some monolithic group that acts in unison out of cowardice, as the name "lapdogs" refers.
But then again, all you have to do to be a "terrorist" according to the rightwing nutjobs running our country is to defend your own country against an imperialist agressor that wants to control your land and it's assetes, which makes everyone from our founding fathers to the people in Iraq all "terrorists".
This is utterly disheartening to read. Another politician pulling the old bait and switch to further their own selfish ends.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Glenn Greenwald is a ultra liberal? Hmmm, that's interesting, because if you read his blog and the comments he posts in it, he seems to specifically avoid being labeled as anything.
It's also just like a libertarian to want to conserve our inalienable rights and keep the government from amassing too much power.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2beanornot2bean/2223239288/
S o you want to win an election?
T he Republicans
R eally don't want McCain
A t least we have that
T urn away from the light
E mploy the Rove-Reversal
G o for the throat
Y ou must trust me on this
So much for any further campaign contributions to him. I won't send him another dime because of this issue.