The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


The Clickocracy

Obama Responds to Online FISA Critics

By Jose Antonio Vargas
In recent days, Sen. Barack Obama has been targeted by supporters on his own social networking site,, because of his stance on the FISA compromise. One backer formed a group on MyBO, as users call Obama's site, named "Senator Obama­ Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity -­ Get FISA Right."

Today, that group has grown to more than 16,000 members, making it the single largest group on Obama's site.

In response to the group and a growing online controversy over his FISA stance, Obama took to his blog this afternoon to address concerns about his support for the intelligence surveillance bill.

"This was not an easy call for me," he wrote. "I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power... But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."

In addition to elaborating on his reasons for supporting the bill, Obama sought to reassure his online activists that he heard them.

"Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this site and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions," he wrote."...I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country....

"Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's OK. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have."

Since announcing his presidential candidacy nearly a year and a half ago, Obama has been, by and large, the most popular Democrat online, judging by enthusiasm on social networking sites and the overall buzz in the blogosphere. After some initial suspicion, the online political class -- if not all of the most prominent liberal bloggers -- embraced him.

But since capturing the nomination a few weeks ago, Obama has repeatedly draw criticism from such supporters. Some have decried his stance on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun laws, others his decision to expand President Bush's faith based programs and yet others his support for a FISA compromise. Warned Matt Stoller of, "If he keeps attacking the core values of some of his most ardent supporters, that energy won't go to McCain, but it may go down ticket or de-active some activists into mere voters."

Following on the heels of the "Vote NO" MyBO group, another supporter created the wiki "Senator, please get FISA right," which includes an open letter to Obama.

"I'm very disappointed about the FISA situation," Jon Pincus, the wiki's creator, told The Trail. Pincus, 46, says he's "repeatedly" given money to Obama online. "What Obama's supporters like me are looking for is to be a part of the conversation about FISA."

It's conversation, it seems, that has just began.

This is one in a series of online columns on our growing "clickocracy," in which we are one nation under Google, with e-mail and video for all. Please send suggestions, comments and tips to vargasj-at-washpost-dot-com.

Posted at 6:03 PM ET on Jul 3, 2008  | Category:  The Clickocracy
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: A Recipe for Confusion: McCain, Rain and a Metal Mexico City Roof | Next: Obama Holds Second News Conference on Iraq Withdrawal Plan

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

OBAMA 2008

Posted by: Billy Washington | July 16, 2008 10:36 PM

The Clintons lost my vote forever by playing the game of lying to get the nomination and then disregarding my issues because I had "no one else to vote for." I had only a slim hope for Obama to start with.. now I see I was wrong. I do not think it is too much not to be lied to just to get my vote for the primary. Lie to get the nomination and then insist people should vote for the liar in the general election. Is McCain a liar? Of course.. so now I once again have no one to vote for. Nader here I come.. again.. the DNC will not pay any attention to the actual base until they lose some more elections

Posted by: varth | July 7, 2008 8:07 PM

Unless you have worked in systems development for 25 years as I have, then you have no idea what they can do if they can find ANY bogus pretense to install software in the Internet data stream -- Lets look at one single example -- manipulation of global energy prices :

With nothing to show for my trouble except being left alone to enjoy dead silence, I have told my Republican representative, the Department of Justice, and anyone in this corrupt government that would listen to me since 2002 that Internet based commodity auction (energy trading) markets are entirely corruptible and given the money involved almost certainly so. The issue is that the Internet was never built to run auctions -- so they have an unintended Achilles heal. The problem is that computers used by bidders to these online auction markets set their time by making unencrypted port 13 calls to time servers in order to set their time, and since these calls use frames of unencrypted plain text these frames can be nefariously intercepted and manipulated in transit between the bidding computer and the time server. The net effect is that it is possible to manipulate the clock settings on either the computer running the auction or on the computers of the bidders. A nefarious 100 mille second time shift (one tenth of a second) on a 4 meg connection is enough to push a thousand bids by one market participant in or out of an auction time window, but insufficient to not be attributed to excess traffic on the Internet slowing things down and resulting in a slightly off clock setting. Consider the genius of this scam -- without ever touching the communication between a bidder and the auction system (which might be monitored) you can affect the outcome of the bidding process by affecting an entirely different communication which isn't monitored between the bidder and a time server. You pick your winners and losers and thus affect prices over time by altering their time windows to make them individually either bigger winners or bigger losers. This is a crime which cannot be detected or punished, but it will leave consumers punished at the pump -- so at least someone gets punished . Bravo !

In Barack's defense, I think they would have assassinated him if he took away the punch bowl. Oddly he did the right thing.

Posted by: Ivan | July 7, 2008 3:20 PM

"Obama is just another politician." -- that's the best you repubs can come up with? Looks like the public is not buying your slander and smears! Sorry, you guys lose this time! Change is on the way!

Posted by: Don | July 6, 2008 7:48 PM

riezvvtzq76pu > aemhrp3nx5y2t [URL=] dy3m4cjuc7 [/URL] u2qo7uf0vp

Posted by: kzqr3pegc0 | July 6, 2008 7:37 PM

We've got some winners on today. Do some of you people feel compelled to post every five minutes and say what ever comes to your heads? So it would seem, eh, Krishna.

Wire-tapping, post-opening, on-line monitoring are part of the everyday business of the U.S. government. It would be nice if a constitutional lawyer could do something to get these agencies under control, but how many jobs are on the line here? How many networks and private security services are on the gravy-train that goes by the name of keeping the U.S. safe? What does the NSA do for its money? Hard working hardly working, I suspect.

I agree with the post below (7:44) that Obama has to do what he can to get elected and the last thing he needs is to be pegged as "anti-american".

Keep keeping and don't let the insults get you all down,

Chris Brown in Hamburg

Posted by: Chris Brown | July 6, 2008 2:20 PM

Obama is just another politician.
As a politician, he has done well.
He has managed to get the Democratic Nomination.
He now is adjusting his positions to appeal to the majority of Americans. (that means not just Democratic views but also republicans and those other Americans)

Bill Clinton was supposed to be a Democrat but he opened the way for Corporations to create the Banking fiasco that today is destroying America.

George Bush is supposed to be a Republican but he oversaw the biggest waste of public money and destruction of American Power and position in the world.

Obama is not going to solve any American problem. He will probably be a perfect president satisfying the majority of Americans with soothing words and advice to "sacrifies" for the greater good of America.

Good Luck to America.

Posted by: VelShan | July 6, 2008 10:00 AM

We are PuMaS. Just say Nobama! We are PuMaS, we have PMS, and we are angry! Just say no deal! No more men for president, it's time for a woman to take over. Men are evil. We are PuMaS!!!

Posted by: Janette Doyle | July 6, 2008 6:45 AM

"Isn't it amazing how Obama supporters will accept anything Obama does. As stated before I will write in my vote for Hillary. Obama is still just another politician and voters need to realize that but the Obama supporters really do not care about anything but the rock star Obama. ... Vote for Hillary!
- Posted by: bgail48"

I would.

Posted by: Krishna | July 5, 2008 9:51 PM

"Barack Obama is a loser. The Democratic Party needs to dump him and get Hillary Clinton back. She's a fighter, she's tough and she has an idea of what the hell is going on ... - Posted by: Lynn E"

Hear, hear!!!!

Technically, the party (the delegates at the convention) can dump him, and select a better candidate whoin their opinion, offers a beter representation of the Democratic pary, and offers the pary a better chance of winning; not only just winning, but a clear mandate so that the senators and congressmen can grow some spine and vote their conscience and their fears.

But practically, the delegates are cowards. They are spineless. They are afraid of being termed racists. They are afraid that a major democratic constituency, the blacks, will revolt and that there will be riots in the streets. They are afraid of Denver becoming another Chicago. So like so many lemmings, they will fall in line.

At the risk of chancing the result Chicago engendered; a republican win.


Posted by: Krishna | July 5, 2008 9:48 PM

FISA Facilitates Fraud!

60-70% of our national intelligence budget is paid to private contactors. Private contractors help monitor all telephone and internet communications for the federal government.

Competitors who want trade secrets, R&D plans, bid details, intellectural property or copies of confidential communications can hire well placed private contractors to obtain them.

There is no independent oversight, control or accountability for private intelligence contractor activities.

FISA presents grave intellectual property security issues.

See for links to respected resources describing the risks of private government contractors.

~ Happiness Hacker / Atlanta

Posted by: HappinessHacker | July 5, 2008 6:46 PM

Isn't it amazing how Obama supporters will accept anything Obama does. As stated before I will write in my vote for Hillary. Obama is still just another politician and voters need to realize that but the Obama supporters really do not care about anything but the rock star Obama. They're thinking with their heart not their head. It would be nice to have a president that has experience since our country is in deep doodo but the media had Obama as the chosen one and most fell for it and still are. They make excuses for Obama changing his mind on issues that gave him the nomination but that doesn't matter to some that just can't get the stars out of their heads. Vote for Hillary!

Posted by: bgail48 | July 5, 2008 5:45 PM

"Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's OK. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have."

How many issues does he have to differ with his supporters before the "vast majority" becomes a "tiny minority"? Each separate one may not be a deal breaker, but together?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2008 4:27 PM

"Obama could not win on this one no matter how he voted. - Posted by: JR"

My heart breaks for poor Obama, leading in all he polls, and raking money by the shovelfull, carefuly nuancing all his prior unequivocal positions.

If he couldn't win no matter how he voted, why vote against his own, and his supporters' convictions? Why not remain true to his "original positions"?

From Keith Olbermann (even Chris Matthews - the one with shivers up his leg on hearing Obama's oration) to Charles Krauthammer - nobody is buying his disingenuous explanation.

Posted by: Krishna | July 5, 2008 4:22 PM

It doesn't matter how much lipstick Obamatons put on this political pig.

In short -

...... Obama to supporters - Drop Dead!
...... (I've got other voters to woo)

Posted by: Krishna | July 5, 2008 4:15 PM

ugmz4tp8yeru [URL=] 3skmsvaebsp5pd [/URL] 4umjj1x8qmihp

Posted by: auat7ywqrh | July 5, 2008 3:58 PM

Ahh, if only Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld had listened to their Generals...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2008 12:39 PM

Imagine the headlines if Obama would have voted against the FISA bill:
"Obama votes for terrorism"
"Obama puts our security at risk"
Obama a national security risk"

And all the Obama-haters and doubters would be spreading the word like wildfire: "See, he really IS a terrorist"

Obama could not win on this one no matter how he voted.

Posted by: JR | July 5, 2008 12:36 PM

Do you all realize that the very term "flip flopping" was another Republican smear tactic?

There is a difference between thoughtful modification or even change of one's view and the mindless term "flip flopping".

What O'bama is doing with Iraq is thoughtful and not inconsistent with his previous position.

His insistence on voting against the 4th Amendment is simply reprehensible - not flip flopping.

I really wish that people would stop co-opting Republican right wing smear language.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Attorney | July 5, 2008 12:24 PM

I see that Barr is pandering for our votes now - claiming Obama betrayed those that feel Obama betrayed them.

First, I'd like to point out the voting for this FISA bill, as Obama said he would, is NOT a centrist position. The old FISA bill is not expiring - only the ability to usurp FISA is expiring. This means only Bush's temporary circumvention of FISA is expiring. Nothing in the old FISA law prevents emergency wiretapping without a warrant. Obama's support of this bill, with or without immunity, is not centrist. It is pandering to the extreme right wing who would do away with the 4th Amendment.

Unfortunately, too many Americans do not realize this. Obama would be better served to educate those Americans. Instead, he took the easy way out. That is reprehensible.

However, what is our choice? Barr? If anyone votes for this lunatic because they are angry with Obama, they will be voting for a right wing lunatic far worse than Obama.

I will vote for Obama. There is no other choice, because not voting is a vote for McCain.

I am nearly despairing for our country, when it is considered "centrist" to vote against the 4th Amendment.

God help us.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Attorney | July 5, 2008 12:21 PM

sollz3mt24r9qhxre mkizvmv7859n

Posted by: b6fhxsouxu | July 5, 2008 12:02 PM

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the collapse, or flip flapping started the day your President entered Iraq for no reason. I don't see anyone hoping, but perhaps it is to late to hope. Wake up America. What a special Day the 4th of July could have been.

Posted by: justada55+ | July 5, 2008 8:43 AM

Obama refining his policies. Change at its best. Clearly, Obama has been stealing other people's ideas and positions and making them his own. His Harvard law thesis is probably full of stolen ideas.

Posted by: Classic | July 5, 2008 4:53 AM

Obama refining his policies. Change at its best. Clearly, Obama has stealing other people's ideas and positions and making them his own. His Harvard law thesis is probably full of stolen ideas.

Posted by: Classic | July 5, 2008 4:52 AM

WP, please check the fact. The FISA bill was ruled unconstitutional already.

Posted by: peace4world | July 4, 2008 11:34 PM

Instead of hot dogs, beer, and firecrackers, today would be a great day to celebrate by reading the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Both of them are very short but they are the two most effective documents on the planet. Most people have actually never read them. Many people have read the Bill of Rights but never the entire Constitution. Now would be a good time to do so.

Take a pad and pen and, as you read them, jot down the things that we are dealing with today that resulted in the Declaration of Independence and the things in the Constitution that are being violated. You will then have a list of the things that are causing the problems that we are now facing.

It is said that only 5% of a population will fight for their country. At this point, you still don't have to fight. You only have to Google them and vote.

Posted by: Web Smith | July 4, 2008 6:54 PM


Posted by: Marcello Campelo | July 4, 2008 3:35 PM

I respect the disappointment, but I think voting on a single issue is a bad mistake. The issues at stake are many, and FISA is only one. On that list are also Iraq, SC nominees, the integrity of the Justice Dept, and on and on.

Those who reject Obama because of FISA, will elect McCain to determine everything else. If that's what you want,that's your choice. But if later, you are dismayed with McCain's presidential policies, you will only have yourself to blame.
Not voting or write-ins may be a form of protest in your mind, but the result will be a McCain presidency, nevertheless.

Posted by: ausmalaimdota | July 4, 2008 1:43 PM

Obama to supporters:

"Better put some ice on that."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 4, 2008 1:33 PM


If you're getting your news and information from Blogs then it understandable why you're wrong on the issues. I followed your link and was surprised to see your source of information. Please!!! what do you expect a Republican bog to say

Posted by: Blogging for facts??? | July 4, 2008 1:33 PM

Maddogg wrote: "Obama's FISA vote chnaged my my vote for him from likely to maybe. I just do not see how one can cower in the face of terrorist and still be a strong President.?

I understand that alot of people may not be happy with his FISA Vote BUT PLEASE stop voting based on 1 issue.

Maddog you may not like this vote, but what about the war? What about the economy? What about Gas Prices? What about health insurance? What about tax breaks for the rich?

I respect your views on FISA, but there are alot of other issues to think about.

Please don't change your vote based on 1 issue.

Also remember: as a senator he has to vote on the lesser of 2 evils, but as Pres. he can Veto any bill.

Posted by: More than 1 issue | July 4, 2008 1:27 PM

Now, you guys can't say he makes every move to please the electorate. He has proven that he like any other LEADER will make a decision that is not very popular.

I didn't read the bill so I really can't comment on whether someone should have voted for it. I am just opposed to most things that President Bush supports.

Posted by: Onefreeman | July 4, 2008 11:01 AM

Keep in mind that McCain supporters get points for leaving comments on sites like this.

Posted by: howie in seattle | July 4, 2008 10:27 AM

Notice how gleeful the Republicans are over the disagreement between Obama and his supporters? They who have lockstepped behind BushCheney and all their America-busting policies these last seven-plus years?
Obama isn't perfect.
I do and will in the future I'm sure disagree with him on some issues.
But the bottom line is Obama is still absolutely one hundred percent better than Senator "straight-talkin' maverick" whose campaign is run by BushCheney operatives, and I have NO DOUBT that I and most non-Bush-loyalists will still vote for Senator Obama, so save your giddiness for that swell McCain/Lieberman/Romney/Graham ticket, "my friends", and good luck with that.

Posted by: SamBrown | July 4, 2008 10:08 AM

Obama's FISA vote chnaged my my vote for him from likely to maybe. I just do not see how one can cower in the face of terrorist and still be a strong President.

Posted by: Maddogg | July 4, 2008 9:37 AM

The Democratic party is not stuck with Obama yet. The delegates still have to vote at the convention on Aug. 27 in Denver.

Democrats should keep in mind that a few leaders of the extreme left are pledging to help Obama win in November so they can "hold his feet to the fire" after the inauguration and force him to vote yes on their positions.

To read more about how Obama supporters used the power of the internet to trash anyone who has dared criticize their idol in the primary and the current insurgency at, go here:

Posted by: ichief | July 4, 2008 8:55 AM

Love the way the pathetic and desperate Obamafools are trying to defend Barry. Barry made the statement that he would never vote for a bill that gave telecommunication companies retroactive immunity, but know has CHANGED his mind. The same way he changed his mind about Iraq. How long are you sheep going to try to defend the indefensible? Barry is playing you for fools and doing a good job at it.

Posted by: Jack Straw | July 4, 2008 8:31 AM

Unbelievable to read the caterwauling here...compromise is the way our government is supposed to run. That's all he's doing. Besides, I'd rather have a constitutional law teacher in charge of executing the FISA law (which is a legitimate defense measure, after all, where the problem has been in the neo-con execution) than more of the corporate fear-mongering governance we've seen for the last seven+ years.

We seem to have a lot of naive liberals here. Every dem candidate has to run to the left in the primaries to get nominated, but if s/he does not track back to the center in the fall, there is no chance to get elected.

And it's time to end all this flip-flop business. Lot of small minds in the Obama crowd (as in "consistency is the hobgoblin of..."). I want the government to be able to adapt to conditions, and not to blindly follow a course of action long after that course has proved disastrous. After all, that's what we've had for the entire Bush mis-Administration.

Posted by: flarrfan | July 4, 2008 7:44 AM

Obama cheated in order to beat Hillary by veering so far to left in the primaries to get the hardcore vote. Now he is bull sh##ting his way back to the middle.

Obama is a BS artist of epic proportions. He will do and say anything to get elected which is why he won't.

Posted by: Regina | July 4, 2008 7:16 AM

Obama supporters are the biggest bunch of retards since McGovern supporters.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 4, 2008 7:11 AM

obama is moving to the middle and changing his positions to do so. truth is, he will do the things President Bush has done because he can not afford a terrorist attack on American soil.
only dems are voting down bills to protect America. if dems are so for the people, in 2005 a bankruptcy bill was passed with provisions the dems screamed about, with 2 years in control, have the dems overturned the parts of the bankruptcy law they didn't like, no, why, because they are too lazy and really don't give a crap about the American citizen.

Posted by: Dwight | July 4, 2008 5:46 AM

A "deal breaker"?

Perhaps not, but there really isn't a need to rush through a piece of legislation that muddles the Fourth Amendment so thoroughly, especially when its biggest advocates will be out of office in a few months. Legislation this complicated, convoluted, and frankly unnecessary (the current FISA law already gives the executive plenty of opportunities to both protect America and hand over victory after secret victory to abuse its citizens' privacy) can wait to be recrafted--or not--when a new Congress and President take office, since the public doesn't trust the current crop.

The immunity ought to be a deal breaker for Senator Obama. The mush this bill makes of the Fourth Amendment ought to be a deal breaker for Senator Obama.

It's all very nice that Senator Obama hears us and feels our pain.

As pathetic as this is, it will be enough for me if he can get the likes Elliott Abrams, Stephen Hadley, and all the other neo-con gang that can't shoot straight, out (those who are in, and those who look forward to their triumphal return).

But let's not pretend that this is a new kind of politics. This is a sell-out plain and simple.

Posted by: CynicalinIowa | July 4, 2008 4:07 AM

Very deceitful and dodgy reply from Obama, he is basically telling his supporters to cope with his perfidy.

It looks like Obama is deep in the pockets of the telecommunications people, just like Rockefeller. The $40K that Jay Rockefeller took from the telecom people is just the lingerie tip that is showing. There is much more that we may never discover.

Ditto with Obama, he and his artful buddies, Goolsbee and Axelrod, are on a cozy up to the rich, massage and mollify the poor campaign.

I too feel sorry for all the little donors who paid out all the millions that now make Obama so arrogant and over confident to be blowing off his supporters.

The telecoms made a mistake in not clarifying the situation right up front, when they were asked to spy illegally, and for not making Congress give them a mandate.

The answer to that is to make a settlement or deal with the lawsuits of regular people and the civil liberties orgs who are suing them.

Heaven knows, becoz of the Catch 22 secrecy that is wrapped around this entire spying process, the American public and the victims of the spying have markedly constrained recourse, markedly constrained.

Obama hasn't even BEGUN to address the secrecy constraints and he has just signed a waiver on the liability issues. Just waived off the rights of regular people, just like that, becoz Ya see, he has thought about it and stuff happens and that's the way it happens to be, so there.

The ghastly trio of Obama, Axelrod and Goolsbee are out to enslave the American public with public salves and private deals with the very people to whom they said they would bring law and justice and fair play.

What a terrible pity. McCain the flip flopper on torture, the champion of Wendy and Phil Gramm who created Enron and the current housing and credit fiasco, and Obama, cozier upper to the telecoms, war hawks and oilie companies.

What a sad and weird choice.

Next we will hear he is all for an attack on Iran, ya see, he has thought about it, and there are Bound to Be Differences, but he is the boss and what he says, goes.

I think I will just rip up my absentee ballot request. Why bother.


Posted by: MinnieB9 | July 4, 2008 2:54 AM

why the blanket immunity for the bush regime?

what if "off the table" meant "under the table?"

collusion insurance anyone?

Posted by: bloggod | July 4, 2008 2:38 AM

Senator kennedy..what do you think of Senator Obama on this survelliance issue? Are you too willing to sell your soul for an election? No. I thought not. I was going to vote for Obama. Now, I am looking at a write in for Hillary, or a Ralph Nader, or not voting at all. By the way, forget it McCain, you will never get my vote. I am one person that refuses to rationalize Obama's actions, anymore than I will rationalize Bush and Cheneys actions.

Posted by: Narnia | July 4, 2008 1:24 AM

i was one of those small donors who donated repeatedly. i feel betrayed and fooled.

where's the Change?

expanding faith based programs? FISA? gun control? death penalty? foreign policy? i mean if you had said these were your true positions during the primary, many of us would not have donated or supported you.

edwards it seems, may have been the best democratic candidate.

Posted by: max | July 4, 2008 12:54 AM

Barack Obama is a loser. The Democratic Party needs to dump him and get Hillary Clinton back. She's a fighter, she's tough and she has an idea of what the hell is going on (as long as she's not in Bosnia). She's also been around before and knows we know pretty much what she will do. The former Clinton administration inherited a terrible deficit from Bush, a war in Somalia and trouble in Iraq. They handled it the best they could. Rwanda, Sudan and Osama could have been handled better but it became more difficult with a Republican congress and a reluctance to get into battles in Africa. We need Hillary Clinton and don't need someone like Obama. Let him go live in the housing he created during his community development years!

Posted by: Lynn E | July 4, 2008 12:38 AM

Groups that are uncompromising on their prime issues eventually get politicians to do their bidding. How do you think the Christian Right got the party of the rich (i.e. Republicans) to adopt their agenda, or why do you think Obama promised $30B and all of Jerusalem to Israel. Unless progressives make it clear to Obama that they will sit out this election (or vote for Nader), Obama will move his platform to the right, and if he wins, these will become his policies as he aims for re-election.

I voted for Obama in the primaries because I thought that the same internal and external forces that made Hillary cheer-lead for the Iraq war would lead her to bomb Iran, if she became President. There is no way I would ever vote for McCain, who has no clue about the work needed in this country for education, health-care etc. However, if Obama continues his right-ward drift, I may vote for Nader. After all my child and I are safer in our car because of Nader's fights for car safety, and he was one of the visionaries behind consumer advocacy.

Posted by: Syah Qazi | July 3, 2008 11:44 PM

Obama obviously has no core values that can be relied upon by voters ... other than soliciting their money and their votes.

Who knows what Obama will do as President, if elected. He has already backed off of virtually all of his campaign promises from the primaries. Wake up Obama followers. He's not what you were led to believe.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 11:30 PM

Obama's statements on FISA and Iraq are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, I'd prefer to get out of the Middle East completely, but until that happens we will be targetted by islamic militants and that is going to make things like eavesdropping necessary. Regarding Iraq, Obama is only saying he is going to listen to the generals, as any President would. He may or may not take their advice. The war would never of happened had it been up to him and that is what counts.

Posted by: RealChoices | July 3, 2008 11:21 PM

As an Obama supporter, financial donor(1 of those 1.5 million small donation donors) and volunteer (Oh and BTW registered independent for the last 10 years), I continue to be impressed with his campaign and his message. As a long-time voter and political junkie who has always held strong beliefs that defy political stereotyping, I appreciate a candidate that presents a reasoned and nuanced position; Like Obama, I believe that there is a constitutional right for individuals to bear arms, but (like Obama) that does not prevent me from believing that states and communities have the authority to apply restrictions or limitations (bans on assault rifles,background checks for felons and mentally ill, limitations on the number of purchases within a month, restrictions or limitations on concealed weapons permits; I reserve the right to equivocate on the registration issue; There is also clearly a consitutional right to freedom of speech, but there are reasonable limitations (can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't yell I have a bomb on a plane, can't threaten the life of the POTUS or incite violence). As an atheist and strong supporter of separation of church and state, I have no issue with the faith-based program as outlined by Barack Obama with provisions against using federal funds for proselytizing, restrictions against a religious litmus test for hiring or receiving services and accountability and provisions against cronyism.At first glance, I am leery of FISA and telecom civil immunity provisions but I will do my homework and inform myself better re: the reasoning of Obama's position before I make a knee jerk response to it.
Oh and in case you're wondering until about 10 years ago, I was consistently registered as a Democrat. And though, I would vote for a Republican POTUS if I could ever find one who I felt represented the best candidate with the best positions on the issues, I've yet to find that Republican. Oh and BTW, by and large, I think the use of the death penalty should be considered applicable in only a very narrow set of circumstances due to concerns about its permanence should an innocent person be convicted and re: proportionality in sentence of rape vs murder, I also can appreciate the argument in the narrowly defined parameters of violent rape of a child.
I don't think this is a one-issue campaign or a one-issue world;it isn't the economy OR the Iraq war OR national security OR civil liberties OR food and product safety OR infrastructure OR Jobs OR immigration; Its all of these and they are interdependent issues (spending trillions of $$ on an Iraq war that does not increase our national security while we negelct our domestic safety and stability makes us weaker.What I think this political campaign finally speaks to is my long-held belief that you can be a progressive on many issues, a moderate on others and perhaps a conservative on still others without being false.
You can go beyond the simple, knee jerk responses and you can disagree with another without being petty or rude or personal.

Posted by: IntelliWhitFeminiWoman | July 3, 2008 10:33 PM

Very confusing. Obama is flip-flopping regularly, but this seems due more to the immaturity of his prior decisions than to deliberate lying. After he finally thinks the matter through, he adjusts to the best political stance. This is not a change, its good old-fashioned Chicago politics.

Posted by: zaney8 | July 3, 2008 10:19 PM

Obama isn't worth a soldier's life.

Posted by: Ares | July 3, 2008 9:57 PM

Flip Flop, Mcinsane, has flipped floped so much, he doesn't even know which way he is headed, he is so dizzy. He is as stupid as they come, he was last in his class in the military, that's how his stupid Ass got captured.

Posted by: Sheila | July 3, 2008 9:32 PM

Obama is being 100% honest with the public, not sure how you can accuse him of lying. I also disagree with the FISA position, but I accept the fact that I am not going to agree with any one candidate 100%. Overall, Obama is one of the best candidates anyone can hope for for president. It is a very refreshing change.

Posted by: Don | July 3, 2008 8:29 PM

The lying monkey has more tricks up his sleeves. Liar, liar.

Posted by: Childs | July 3, 2008 8:26 PM

lying little jackal, isn't he?

Posted by: Machole | July 3, 2008 7:29 PM

Now I see a beginning of collapse...of that Obama Republic--by its own empty rhetoric with which he has sold false promises. I am so sorry for his small donors....

Posted by: peace4world | July 3, 2008 6:28 PM

It is called flip-flopping or any kind of deceit to win this election.


Samantha Powers was Obama's political foreign advisor until she went to Europe and told the BBC that Obama planned to "revisit the Iraq war" position after his election.


Political advisor (Goolsbe), met with Canadian officials and assured them that Obama's campaign rhetoric about the FTA, was exactly that, political spin.

Does anyone know who Barack Obama is?

One thing we know is the huge gap between his well-rehearsed mojo and any substance.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | July 3, 2008 6:12 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company