Tuesday for Change is your weekly reminder that to get change, to elect Barack Obama, we must do our part to help.
End the Iraq War. Fix the Economy. Save the Supreme Court. Donate today.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Donate here to Sen. Obama.
As soon as he forcefully and actively leads in the defeat of the FISA bill.
I know. That has been really bothering me too.
Yes, Obama’s FISA position is a problem (Johnathan Turley on Countdown the other night put the final nail in that coffin), but I long ago resolved that if Obama wasn’t perfect, neither was FDR (internment camps) or JFK (Bay of Pigs, Marilyn), and he has so much going for him that he can fall on his face for 2 years and I’ll still consider us ahead of the game with him in the Oval Office. Imagine! A fundamentally honest, highly intelligent and worldly President! I still dare hope.
rAmen, bozo
yeah, i can’t donate to him any more. might vote for him, but no more money. all in one week, he does nothing but stand by while the 4th ammendment is gutted, and he tells us that he will fully fund the faith-based initiatives…. yeah, not so much for me any more. all those lattes I’ve been sacrificing so that i can send money to politicians…. well, i’ll be drinking more lattes in the near future.
Yeah. As soon as we change the Fourth Amendment back.
I’m with Sean. Get me my 4th amendment back and he can have money.
Oh, yes, by all means donate to the constitutional lawyer who voted with the GOP to shield Bushco from future prosecution over it’s violation of the 4th amendment and warrantless wiretaps (targeting not terrorists but many civil rights and environmental groups).
Donate to the man who thinks that eviscerating the Constitution and pissing on the rule of law by pushing through legislation that enshrines the idea that it’s legal if the President says so.
Donate to the visionary agent of “change” who flat out lied when he said in no uncertain terms that he would oppose any bill that included immunity and would support any attempt to filibuster such a bill and today not only voted for the bill but also voted for cloture (killing any hope for a filibuster).
“Do you swear to uphold and defend the Constitution?”
I can’t wait until Obama lies with a straight face on that one.
As bad as the FISA cave was, and is, we still have to go with Obama. There’s much else to recommend him, and most of the other ‘flip flop’ charges are as bogus as, sadly, the FISA issue is not.
I’d say a few weeks should pass before the spigot is opened again; just enough to make them sweat over it. A month long post-FISA dip might do them a world of good.
Jeez, tough room.
we still have to go with Obama
No, we don’t. There is NO requirement that you have to vote for someone you find lacking.
It’s a mindset I just cannot understand. It is self-defeating and plays directly into not making the change everyone claims they want.
“a few weeks should pass before the spigot is opened again” ?? WTF?
Seriously, do you think the lesson learned by spineless politicians (I’m looking at you, Barack) will be “I’d better stop being an idiot and actually do what is popular (and has the added benefit of being right)”? Not a chance. Lesson he’ll learn: I can do whatever I want. Oh, they may pout a bit for a couple of weeks but in the end the sheep will keep giving me more money.”
Duros: Jeez, tough room.
Abso-frakin-lutely. It ought to be.
It is self-defeating and plays directly into not making the change everyone claims they want.
If you can think of some way to build a third party other than from the ground up, I’ll get behind it. Until then, it strikes me as much more self-defeating to cast a protest vote for someone who has no chance. On the other hand, I don’t live in a battleground state.
“I want to cut his nuts off.”
Sen Jesee Jackson.
LMAO.
JK
If you don’t vote for the better candidate, you effectively vote for the other guy.
If you don’t vote for the better candidate, you effectively vote for the other guy.
I get that. I do. But I don’t want to vote for a candidate who’s pitch basically boils down to “Well, I’m not as bad as he is.”
Fact is, if people abandoned this mindless “I have to vote for one of the two main parties, they are the only ones with a chance.” (or more accurately, vote against) insanity and actually voted FOR a candidate/party they actually LIKED, then a third party candidate would have a real chance.
Gather America in a room, tell them it’s non binding and ask them who they would actually like to see as President. Hillary would get a LOT of votes. Romney would get a bunch, as would Huckabee and Paul and even Gore. I actually think there is a very good chance several would get more than McCain.
They should vote that way in the real thing. THAT would be a real change.
Sean,
I’m with you in your anger and frustration over Obama’s FISA bill vote. It’s been bothering me for days.
I will probably still vote for Obama, but that’s only because I always vote. I (now) see him as the lesser of the two evils (there really are only two choices at this point). The problem for Obama is that most people aren’t nerds of politics and they don’t feel required to vote at every election. Obama’s strength has been his ability to get previously apathetic and uninvolved people inspired and to the polls. After his vote on Wednesday, do you think young and hopeful people are going to feel inspired to back him in large numbers?
I’m feeling doubtful.
Gather America in a room, tell them it’s non binding and ask them who they would actually like to see as President.
We did this. It was called the primaries.
No, we don’t. There is NO requirement that you have to vote for someone you find lacking.
Look, Sean, I get what you’re saying, but you need to see the bigger picture. Am I going to agree with everything Barack does or says? No, of course not. But do I think he is going to let the Constitution remain watered down after he’s elected? No, I don’t. (Sorry to sound like Rumsfeld here, asking and answering my own questions.)
I don’t fully understand the FISA bill, or why so many Democrats would go along with it (my Senator included), but, I gotta say this and for the first time ever, I trust Obama’s judgment. Whatever happened this week will not stand for long.
And while I don’t think Obama engages in Schaudenfreude, it would be interesting to see the right wingers heads go all ’splodey when a Democratic President has the same powers as the current crew.
After his vote on Wednesday, do you think young and hopeful people are going to feel inspired to back him in large numbers?
I’m doubtful that the young and hopeful know what FISA is, so no, I don’t think it will discourage them too much.
I’m doubtful that the young and hopeful know what FISA is, so no, I don’t think it will discourage them too much.
You speak the truth. Relative youth is a huge draw for young’ins, as is (let’s just admit it) ethnicity. But if I had to rank Sen. Obama’s positions in order of interest to the liberal college sector at least at the university I’m attending, it’d be-
1) Iraq War.
2) Drilling v. fuel standards and conservation. (i.e. Energy)
3) Universal (or near, at least) health care.
4) Ending (or at least softening) the era of pighead diplomacy.
5) Education funding.
Somewhere down around 48 or 49) FISA.
*Testing my gravatar picture, because the bloody thing didn’t work.*
OW: We did this. It was called the primaries.
Yes, but all the people who voted for someone other than Obama or McCain no longer (supposedly) have those choices, do they?
What if the primaries WERE the general election would get closer to what I’d like to see voters doing.
What if the primaries WERE the general election would get closer to what I’d like to see voters doing.
I’m trying to envision a situation where it’s mathematically possible to lose the primary but win the general. In other words, the primaries already by nature produce the candidates with the best chance of winning in November (although this may be less true for the Democrats, since they use a primary system different from the general).
You’d have to build a broad electoral coalition to co-opt support from your rivals anyway, so even if there were five candidates they’d still have to upset their respective bases once in a while.
“OW: We did this. It was called the primaries.”
um, sadly, no. this idea is called runoff or preferential voting and we don’t have it and we should; it would go a long way to making America the actual home of the free and a better democracy. but of course will never happen because of American exceptionalism in that people think our way is the best way. it isn’t. hasn’t been. will not be as long as we have this belief in American exceptionalism, constantly stoked by the conservatives and the media and the ignorant rubes among whom we live.
(the primary system is a broken system, everyone knows it, but nobody seemed to care until the Clintons came along…. funny, they didn’t complain when Bill won using that system….)
but i ramble…..
I disagree. I’d rather not elect a President of the United States with 24% of the vote simply because the field of 18 got less than that.
This isn’t American Idol, people. Look how well that shit works out. Where’s your Taylor Hicks now, Scarecrow?
I mean seriously, you could be looking at President Ron Paul.
Or a President George Bush…DOH!
The problem some have with our system is that it’s weighted toward electing relative centrists. Or at least candidates who claim to be centrists before they’re elected.
Although, in a Westminister system a coalition of wingnuts and sane types typically gets behind either the center-right or center-left government. In that way I don’t see how we’re that much different than parliamentary republics – our coalitions (labor, farm and urban Democrats, religious and fiscal conservative Republicans) are under the umbrella of a large party. One might say that the heart of republicanism (small r) is horse-trading.
I gave to some Democratic candidates in 2004 and 2006, and with monthly contributions to the DNC a couple years until sometime in 2007. I stopped contributing when it became clear the Dems in Congress still meekly followed the dictates of a lame-duck [then] thirty-three-perncenter. I don’t understand how Obama doesn’t get this one. Sure, he’s better than McCcain. So he gets my vote, but I am seeing fewer and fewer reasons to expect much.