Barack Obama tapped his sizeable grassroots network on Saturday, coordinating over 4,000 "Unite for Change" meetups across the country through the campaign's social networking portal, MyBo. At the same time, however, other supporters worked furiously over the weekend to organize a new MyBo campaign to protest and pressure Obama. Many activists are outraged by the Senator's recent announcement that he will back a controversial bill to grant the Executive more spying powers and immunize telephone companies accused of illegal surveillance. Both efforts demonstrate how Obama's national network, which broke fundraising records and turned the first term Senator into an unlikely presidential nominee, can respond to top-down edicts and spring into action for self-organized protests.

Since launching last week, the protest group, "Senator Obama Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right," swelled to one of the ten largest campaign groups on Sunday. (FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which the Democratic Congress is poised to amend under White House pressure.) It is the largest group of its kind on MyBo, which focuses on local networking, official campaign events, and constituency groups like "Women for Obama." It looks like the group grew through the Obama network, with a few web mentions on liberal sites such as OpenLeft and TPM, and it urges Obama to reject the "politics of fear" and lead Democrats to oppose the White House bill. Blogger Mike Stark says the effort demonstrates the kind of civic engagement and "open government" that Obama espouses, even if it delivers the "sting of social networking" pushback during a tight campaign.

One Democratic Internet consultant predicted that Obama's reaction could reveal his commitment to meaningful engagement with supporters. "How Obama responds will tell us a great deal about both his willingness to listen to input from his supporters and what influence the MyBarackObama community has on the campaign itself," said the operative, who wished to remain anonymous while working on another campaign. "In the meantime, this is a huge opportunity for Obama's supporters to organize around an issue, not just the candidate, and take action beyond using their credit card."

There's no way to know whether the criticism resonates with the hardcore activists who gathered at Saturday's official events. The 4,000 meetups, which drew guests from MyBo and local networks offline, generated overwhelming interest. Though barely covered by the mainstream media, the gatherings suggest another edge for Obama's Internet organizing. The campaign reported over 200 events in the pivotal state of Ohio alone, where middle-aged voters like Cheryl Wright, of Boardman, hosted students and neighbors in her living room. Back in bluer territory, Patrick Callahan, a 31-year-old Brooklyn educator, drew about 35 people to a meetup barbeque. He said about half of the guests were his friends, and half were strangers who found him through MyBo. In a completely anecdotal sample, one attendee told me that Obama's surveillance stance was disappointing, while several others said they had not heard of the issue. Callahan, who learned of the "Unite for Change" meetups from a campaign email, said he was willing to throw open his home to strangers because he backed Obama's positions on education and foreign policy, while McCain wants to stay "in Iraq for at least the next 100 years."

Obama's official events obviously beat the MyBo protests by several orders of magnitude, and the campaign deserves credit for hosting the very technology people are using to organize and pressure the candidate. Obama won the nomination by blending the practical and the ideal -- riding the financial juggernaut of Internet politics and promising a new, interactive civil society along the way. He made people feel good, and connected, and they showered his long-shot campaign with money, energy and adulation. Their votes are already in the bag, in general election calculus, but their work, enthusiasm and contributions to any larger "movement" are not guaranteed. Just as the campaign worked to mobilize so many supporters this weekend, it may have to reengage supporters concerned about Obama's recent drift. He could answer their arguments with a direct video explaining his vision for restoring the rule of the law and constitutional rights. Granting more unchecked surveillance power to the Executive and sidelining judicial oversight is a staggering affirmation of Bush's approach, especially coming from the candidate of change. If Obama is going to stand by that failed policy, he should at least explain his thinking in depth. It might even get more hits than a fundraising video.

Comments (43)

1. http://nationofcriminals.com/crimes/a_brief_history_government_surveilla nce

   Posted by criminalnation at 06/30/2008 @ 02:13am

2. For more info on the "Senator Obama Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right" campaign, please check out the wiki at http://get-fisa-right.wetpaint.com/

   Posted by JonPincus at 06/30/2008 @ 02:14am

3. It's time for the people to stand together, and to ask Senator Obama to stand with us, against telecom immunity. I believe he will do this, if enough of us join together to ask him.

   In just three days, almost 4,000 Obama supporters have combined their voices in asking that our candidate not support immunity for the telecom companies who illegally aided Bush's domestic spying program.

   This is now the eighth biggest group on mybarackobama.com, and climbing.

   For more information on exactly what we need to do:

   http://realitycatcher-alapoet.blogspot.com/2008/06/open-letter-to-senato r-obama-please.html

   http://www.realitycatcher.com

   Posted by alapoet at 06/30/2008 @ 02:21am

4. just the fact that this group is allowed to exist on mybo is great. I also think he will respond, and whether his response will be to everybody's satisfaction or not, just the fact that this direct interaction is happening should be a cause for optimism.

   Posted by Yell Fire at 06/30/2008 @ 02:52am

5. If you're signed on to the US imperial project abroad, as Obama has made more or less clear that he is, then you have to support fascist measures at home, as the 2 are now inseperable.

   Obama just puts a more human face on the long decline of the US republic, inasmuch as he is certainly a change in style & comestics, while the substance remains the same.

   Posted by sloper at 06/30/2008 @ 04:18am

6. Jeremiah Wright -- National Press Club -- 28 April, 2008

   'We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.'

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/30/2008 @ 09:24am

7. Now aren't these musings the height of naivete:

   "One Democratic Internet consultant predicted that Obama's reaction could reveal his commitment to meaningful engagement with supporters. "How Obama responds will tell us a great deal about both his willingness to listen to input from his supporters and what influence the MyBarackObama community has on the campaign itself," said the operative, who wished to remain anonymous while working on another campaign."

   How in heaven's name do politicians typically respond to input from supporters? I mean really! They use them, that's how they respond. Anyone stupid enough to believe that they have some kind of hold on a politician, particularly after the politician's immediate goals have been reached - in this case the Democratic nomination - simply because they've allowed themselves to be dehumanized by the politician's campaign apparatus, needs to change emetics. Obama had already assessed the risks before announcing support for the FISA obscenity and irrevocably fixed his course of action. How utterly imbecilic it is to hear now of efforts to pressure him. How long have progressives been pressuring Democratic politicians for changes without results anyway? A hundred years. The answer does lie in pressure, it lies in voting for someone else, Nader in this instance. Catch on, please, catch on.

   Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 09:36am

8. Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 09:36am

   So...what is Ralph's view on abortion? And do you agree with it?

   Posted by Mask at 06/30/2008 @ 10:18am

9. Wow! I thought we'd have to wait for the Obama administration to begin before facing this sort of crisis. It's our duty as citizens to hold Obama accountable to the people and their values. (Clearly, any such attempts with Bush-Cheney were futile.)

   Is he practicing the same triangulation that he condemned in Clinton?

   While he won't lose my vote because I will not help McCain by not voting, he will lose my financial support if he continues to drift away from supporting the constitutional rights of people.

   He's already gone over on gun control. The 2nd amendment supports gun ownership by "the people," not "people." Those who wrote it knew the difference even if the USSC and Obama don't.

   Posted by adr at 06/30/2008 @ 11:15am

10. If this works to change Obama's perspective and then continues to work after this it signals a new method of running politics. Yes this can just be him responding in political form. But if this proves successful and thn continues to prove successful it is going to be an impressive thing to see a President who actually listens directly to the people.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2008 @ 12:19pm

11. what a useless issue. Obama's stance on something that means absolutely nothing to you, the reader of the nation.com, was going to sway your vote? Really? How would telecom immunity change your life? All those feds tapping your lines are really going to care that you cheat on your wife? We all know we have to vote for him. Let him do what he gotta do to get those who don't know that yet. RE-lax.

    Posted by ohreally at 06/30/2008 @ 1:09pm

12. "If this works to change Obama's perspective and then continues to work after this it signals a new method of running politics. Yes this can just be him responding in political form."

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2008 @ 12:19pm

    IF!? C3, you know better than most that Obama has no choice but to change his tone and perspective. He can't win on a left-leaning agenda. If I were you, I'd start worrying about all the Clinton operatives invading the Obama camp. Understand they are going to force him to the center.

    It's 1:24pm

    Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 1:24pm

13. Obama is now being pressured by Corporate Democrats so it is perfectly fair for Labor Democrats to pressure him. You do need to know the person you are supporting. Hope is good, but facts are better.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/30/2008 @ 3:28pm

14. IF!? C3, you know better than most that Obama has no choice but to change his tone and perspective. He can't win on a left-leaning agenda. If I were you, I'd start worrying about all the Clinton operatives invading the Obama camp. Understand they are going to force him to the center.

    It's 1:24pm

    Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 1:24pm

    This is very true and I think that is part of the reason WHY he is tacking toward center. I think Clinton has something to do with it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2008 @ 5:03pm

15. Obama has made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that he OPPOSES telecom immunity and OPPOSES lack of judicial oversight of wiretaps.

    Obama is a leader in the senate in stripping telecom immunity from the bill and strengthening judicial oversight. Unfortunately, some progressives have simply misread his position on this issue and are doing there own thing.

    That being said, I think MyBo is wonderful way to engage the type of bottom-up citizen democracy that Obama envisions. MyBo is an amazing grass-roots organizing tool, and should be used as a model for wider democratic efforts AFTER the election.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 5:15pm

16. Obama is by most estimates way ahead in the electoral college race. The only real way to pressure a politician into going along with your agenda is to either buy him or force him to change by turning his base against him. As the left of outgunned by the right/center in terms of cash, that leaves turning the base. This is exactly what they're trying to do on MyBo of course, and I fully endorse it. It would be awesome if it grew into a movement working against Obama's right ward swing and rallying his base full fledged against him. Force the guy to tack back to the policy proposals of his primaries, which were winning him such great support. Giving people an inspired reason to vote for him, while simultaniously running a negative campaign against McCain seems like a decent route to victory to me.

    Long as Obama controls the left, and McCain does not control the right, Obama is at a huge advantage. His only concern is painting McCain in a way that makes him look enough like McBush for him to have much sway with the center or the independents, while avoiding being pounded on by the MSM.

    Posted by shadow master at 06/30/2008 @ 5:39pm

17. A response to a few things..

    to the people saying they will still vote for him after this. You are lost and don't deserve representation. The first rule of effective negotiation is being willing to walk away. Vote for the greens or the libertarians, or vote republican and bear the pain in the understanding that you do this to try to slap the democratic party awake.

    second.. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE.

    if you consider the fourth amendment to be left wing you are lost, and you're definitely not an American.

    The "center" as people (helped by fox news) call it is nothing more than a convenient relabeling of the extreme ding-bat right.

    I grew up in a conservative, centerist household and i'm being called "ultra-liberal"?

    What is ultra-liberal about wanting the government the hell out of my life, wanting there to be as few agencies as possible, and wanting the few agencies which do exist to keep centralized corporate power out of my life as well?

    Last time I checked that was center-right!

    Posted by plasmacutter at 06/30/2008 @ 6:15pm

18. Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 6:05pm

    "So, lowell, what is Ralph's position on abortion?"

    A fair question to ask of me, Maskbetta? Nader favors abortion to my knowledge, and for that reason I could never vote for him. Baldwin, the Constitutional Party candidate, opposes both the war and abortion but seek an end to the UN and social security, positions I can't support in conscience either. So I'll be sitting it out this time yet again. But few will follow the path I've chosen for myself, of course, and will vote for someone anyway. In the interest of inflicting the least damage possible on humanity, I'm encouraging those that purpose to vote and that see themselves as "progressive" to cast theirs for Nader and those that purpose to vote and that see themselves as "conservative" to cast theirs for Baldwin. Its the least offensive configuration I can manage such being the available choices.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 6:28pm

19. >>> I'm encouraging those that purpose to vote and that see themselves as "progressive" to cast theirs for Nader and those that purpose to vote and that see themselves as "conservative" to cast theirs for Baldwin. Its the least offensive configuration I can manage such being the available choices.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 6:28pm<<<

    But since you are posting this nonsense on progressive boards like The Nation, not conservative ones, the effect of your actions is electing John (McSame) McCain. This wouldn't be a bad choice for you personally as a pro-life booster with three "liberal" justices about to retire, but you obviously want to keep that aspect of your campaign quiet.

    You are using Nader's campaign to push the pro-life agenda because you know more votes for Nader means less votes for Obama and a likely McCain win in November.

    I just hope progressives are not stupid enough to be influenced by so-called Nader supporters like you.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 7:20pm

20. Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 7:20pm

    "But since you are posting this nonsense on progressive boards like The Nation, not conservative ones, the effect of your actions is electing John (McSame) McCain. This wouldn't be a bad choice for you personally as a pro-life booster with three "liberal" justices about to retire, but you obviously want to keep that aspect of your campaign quiet."

    Oh, goodness, I've been quite open about my opposition to murder, here and elsewhere, Metteyya. And on "conservatives" boards I've been equally outspoken about my opposition to the war and capital punishment. And I would hardly consider the simple expression of an opinion about either a "campaign". Additionally, I view the nomination of any supreme court justice to be fraught with difficulty. The confirmation of a suitable partner for Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter so as to protect the republic comes at the risk of the wanton destruction of literally millons of human lives, while the confirmation of a similar partner for Scalia, Thomas and Roberts so as to save these lives comes at risk of dictatorship. A system which presents this kind of moral dilema to citizens has reached the end of its useful life, Metteyya, and should be laid to rest in my view. For me, its non-participation and for those lacking good sense enough to avoid the franchise, its a question of encouraging their doing as little harm as possible, hence the Nadar and Baldwin endorsements. I know that this reasoning might be a bit of a challenge for you, but you're much younger than I am and, in time, you may come to grasp the genius of it all. As it is in so many things, patience is the key here, Metteyya.

    "You are using Nader's campaign to push the pro-life agenda because you know more votes for Nader means less votes for Obama and a likely McCain win in November.

    I just hope progressives are not stupid enough to be influenced by so-called Nader supporters like you."

    Now if this assertion were true, how would it be that I could explain myself to the McCain supporters who charge me with similarly encouraging an Obama victory on conservative boards? While I'll admit to a certain lack of well wishing when it comes to both system candidates, I think you do me a grave injustice in envisioning my antipathy as lacking in balance.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 8:55pm

21. Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 8:14pm

    "You JUST ADMITTED that you're encouraging "progressives to vote for Nader"....but YOU won't vote for Nader???

    So, you're essentially demanding that progressives throw the election to McCain who WOULD support an abortion position that would be closer to yours?"

    I know, Maskbeta, on the surface the whole thing seems the most outrageous calculation, almost as though some sordid fraternity chap were plying his date with booze. But I think if you'll read what I've posted above to Metteyya, a certain calm will descend and the needed understanding follow.

    "So....why should any progressive follow your advice...and further a conservative agenda...like yours???"

    Well, first of all, there isn't a conservative agenda as I've been painstaking to explained above. So apart from the irresistible logic I guess were left with the fact that I'm good looking.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 9:13pm

22. "Obama is a leader in the senate in stripping telecom immunity from the bill and strengthening judicial oversight. Unfortunately, some progressives have simply misread his position on this issue and are doing there own thing."

    Except that he hasn't indicated if he will vote against the bill if telecom immunity is still in there. Further, that fact that he otherwise praises a bill that almost does away with judicial oversight refutes your position.

    The idea that Obama shouldn't have his feet held to the fire by progressives is an irresponsible position.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/30/2008 @ 10:50pm

23. Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 9:16pm

    "We have only YOUR WORD that those posts on conservative boards exist"

    Yup, my word, that'll just have to do for you, ace.

    "Again, you have ADMITTED that YOU won't vote for Nader, are "pro-life", and the obvious implication is that your push to get "progressives to support Nader" is to get McCain elected and enough Supreme Court justices from him to overturn Roe."

    Did you read what I suggested you read above in the post I made to Metteyya, or is it that you can't read, or don't want to read, Maskbeta? Some rather pointed advice: If you lack the depth to grasp a carefully explained concept, never, ever, make demands on the person providing it to account to you simply because you're slow. At best that's arrogant, and at worse its dishonest. No, what you do instead is politely ask for carification and hope for an answer that you can manage. That's the situation you're in with me right now, got it, chief?

    Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 11:10pm

24. to see if we can sue them for letting govt listen into terrorists phone and data messages..."

    Of course, we have no way of knowing if they were actually doing that or eavesdropping on innocent people because the administration ignored any idea of judicial oversight.

    "You favor eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, which now covers only the first $102,000. A Chicago police officer married to a Chicago public-school teacher, each with 20 years on the job, have a household income of $147,501, so you would take another $5,642 from them. Are they undertaxed? Are they too rich?"

    Let's not pretend that they are typical incomes for police officers and teachers. Or that your concern is with long-serving public servants.

    Regarding the judicial questions--comparing trying to have a real world knowledge of the effects of a judicial issue is hardly comparable to Scott v. Sandford--an overused comparison by you right-wing types. The point is that it is relevant when determining, for example, what is a "reasonable" restriction on abortion, or what a plaintiff would be expected to know in a rights suit.

    "When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should 'give up their profits'?"

    Well most pharmaceutical innovations are minor variants on preexisting drugs or medications that they then push doctors to overprescribe. They'll have plenty of money for research if they spend less on pushing antidepressants on anyone who is simply having a bad week.

    "How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?"

    Obama's statements were more geared to his sink-or-swim to homeowners who were subject to predatory lending practices.

    "You say this will not 'distort' economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?"

    The point is that there is no basis for taxing capital gains at a lower rate than any other income.

    "Are you aware that 20 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains in 2006 had incomes of less than $50,000?"

    And what exactly were their capital gains? How many of the people with incomes of less than $50,000 actually had capital gains? Again, you claim concern for the middle-class when this issue primarily affects the rich.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/30/2008 @ 11:10pm

25. Obama is very conflicted.

    Yesterday he defended General Petraeus in his speech on patriotism, but back some months ago when he was trying to actually run and win as a progressive, he joined only a handful of other Senators in refusing to condemn the Moveon.org ad about "General Betray Us".

    As Paul Krugman noted in the Times, Obama is turning into Clinton and risks losing his mandate.

    Also noteworthy is how he is backing off his support for withdrawal from Iraq. Read George Parker's piece in The New Yorker in which he identifies yet another approaching pivot, this time towards adopting essentially McCain's position on the War!

    He needs to be sent a message. Not only with our voices but with our wallets. No more money for Obama until he starts listening.

    Posted by pete kent at 07/01/2008 @ 09:29am

26. Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 11:10pm

    No, lowell....see, here's the point-

    You're either an idiotic schemer or very bad liar.

    No mass movement of conservatives is going to go Chuck Baldwin. Despite dislike, even loathing of McCain...fear and hatred of Obama will get them to turn out to the polls and vote for him.

    HOWEVER, as shown in 2000 (and our own CRABWALK and others here), there are enough "purists" on the Left who might turn out for Nader.

    The upshot being that your "plan" ONLY draws support from Obama and helps McCain....while doing nothing to draw support from McCain and help Obama with this "I'm telling conservative blogs to vote Chuck Baldwin" stuff.

    Plus, don't you think the progressives should be a BIT suspicious of an admitted right-winger like yourself and his..."friendly advice"?!?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 07/01/2008 @ 09:32am

27. Mr. John Lowell -

    Please go away. There is a serious election going on this year. Nobody has time for your silly games.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 10:09am

28. Posted by Maskbeta at 07/01/2008 @ 09:36am

    At first, I thought you were just a little slow. Now I'd wonder if the slowness isn't exacerbated by an incipient paranoid personality disorder. You think and project the motivations of others exactly as Joe Stalin used to, chief. If you weren't so utterly meaningless you'd be dangerous. Oh, and by the way, vote Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/01/2008 @ 10:44am

29. Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 10:09am |

    It that what it is, hman32, a serious election? I really hadn't noticed. I mean the adult take on things this time is that its a travesty. Sure you're old enough to post here?

    Posted by john lowell at 07/01/2008 @ 10:57am

30. By all historical measurements Senator Obama should win this years Presidential election. His biggest obstacle will be reigning in the far left like the idiot who wrote this article.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 07/01/2008 @ 11:07am

31. I admit to having been bemused by the reaction Obama has garnered. "Change." What a unique concept. Let's see if I can remember other Presidents who ran under that banner.

    Oh yes: George Bush Bill Clinton Ronald Reagan Jimmy Carter Richard Nixon(What a stretch.) John Kennedy

    I was born during Truman and couldn't think of anything besides being Roy Rogers during Ike.

    I still will probably vote for Obama though. I am an incredibly thoughtful person who has reached to following conclusion:

    My wife pretty much does what Oprah says.

    I pretty much do what my wife says.

    What America needs is more sophisticated voters like me.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/01/2008 @ 12:41pm

32. Last time I checked that was center-right!

    Posted by plasmacutter at 06/30/2008 @ 6:15pm

    Well put, but you had better check when the last time you checked where center right was. This country has shifted so damn far to the right that Bush senior, Ronald Reagan and Nixon appear to be bleeding heart liberals compared to the bible thumping John Birchers we have now running the GOP including John McIdiot who is now against everything he stood for 4 years ago.

    I used to consider myself a pretty much middle of the road person who leaned a little to the left, but not too much because I didn't have a problem with the death penalty nor did I think that we needed to halt all industries to protect a mosquito or owl from becoming extinct. But now, I am a considered a leftest, commie, who hates America and wants the terrorists to win according to idiots like Liverlips, Ponti and the rest of the fools cut from the same cloth of stupidity.

    The U.S. is like the Titanic. We could stop ourselves from sinking, but we are a country of fools hell bent on the same course which is the bottom of the ocean.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/01/2008 @ 12:42pm

33. The U.S. is like the Titanic. We could stop ourselves from sinking.... Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/01/2008 @ 12:42pm

    Correction. I meant to say that we could stop ourselves from sinking unlike the Titanic, but we are a country of fools hell bent on the same course which is the bottom of the ocean...lead by our military industrial complex which controls the GOP like puppets on a string.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/01/2008 @ 12:49pm

34. >>>The idea that Obama shouldn't have his feet held to the fire by progressives is an irresponsible position.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/30/2008 @ 10:50pm <<<

    You are jumping the gun by attacking Obama "prior to" the election and potentially jeopardizing Obama's chances by driving progressives to the Nader camp. THIS IS IRRESPONSIBLE, as it means 4-8 years of more of the same fleecing of America by Republicans for the benefit of a handful of companies while the average American is stuck with the bill for generations.

    THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/01/2008 @ 1:01pm

35. It isn't irresponsible. Ultimately, it's Obama's actions that run the risk of driving progressives into the Nader camp. He is the one who is making all these centrists noises in the run-up to the general election.

    The idea that he should be immune to criticism prior to the general election is a position that only an Obama-bot would take.

    I'd suggest that YOU think before you write, but I know that 'bots only do as their programmed to do.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/01/2008 @ 1:20pm

36. Y'all are funny! So full of self-righteousness. So earnest. So intense.

    Let me know the last demo candidate the won the White House by following the agenda of the far left of the dims.

    Theses cats all start out catering to the wild-eyed and malleable left of the party. Anit-capitalism, anti-gun, anti-war, pro-education union, pro-labor union, pro-taxes.

    The raise vast sums of money through the net-roots, win the nomination and then go through the "I said during the primary campaign, but what I really meant was…" exercise in order to move to the center. The far left wigs out, the center is intrigued, and the polling numbers of "likely voters move". Get a grip. Obama's doin' what he has to do to become Clintonesque and win. Triangulate, baby, triangulate.

    Posted by KyBoy at 07/01/2008 @ 2:18pm

37. Triangulate, baby, triangulate.

    Posted by KyBoy at 07/01/2008 @ 2:18pm

    You are unfortunately correct. But here's what some of us on the left see. We see W not catering at all to anyone on the left. We don't see McIdiot pandering to the left. So, we see both McCain and Obama courting a bunch of dipshit bible thumping morons (about 28% give or take about 2%) of the voting population.

    So, it doesn't matter what the other 72% think I guess, just the nutcase bible thumpers right? Basically once Obama received the nod from the dem party, he turned morphed into Hillary Clinton. Now, she's still a sight better than McIdiot, but still, what won Obama the nomination was the fact that he stood for democratic ideals where Hillary was leaning more to the rethug position. What point is there in picking a nominee if they are going to turn out to be republicans? Might as well vote for Nader if that's the case.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/01/2008 @ 3:30pm

38. METTEYA -

    Earlier this year, way back when John Edwards was still in the race, I cautioned you during the debate on who was a "true progressive" to wait to see Obama come 2010. That it was likely he was not going to "usher in the new era of progressive" politics like you claimed.

    Looks like we did not even need to get through 2008 to see the truth.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 3:42pm

39. Call it "Barack-lash" http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18846167477

    Posted by michaeln at 07/01/2008 @ 7:07pm

40. What I'd like to know is

    Will Obama call for the House Democrats to

    Hold Impeachment Hearings Before the Election?

    Obama is a Lawyer who is an expert on the Constitution so Why isn't he coming out in support of holding Bush and Cheney accountable?

    Posted by JohnHKennedy at 07/02/2008 @ 09:23am

41. Attention to all Obama supporters who have opened their eyes or have become disillusioned: now is the time for you to come over to the side for Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich! Both will follow the constitution and protect your civil liberties without worrying about political gain. Both are men of principal and have the voting record to back it up (they both opposed the Protect America Act and the FISA bill). Don't feel like you have to settle for the lesser of two evils!

    http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1909/ http://fusionassembly.org/

    Posted by bandito at 07/02/2008 @ 12:27pm

42. It's important to gauge O'B's response to supporters anger at FISA flip, I agree with contamination of Clinton triangulating strategy and look back to survey serious, longlasting damage done to the Democratic party by the Clinton presidency. I'll not contribute until telecom immunity is resolved, my $ will go to support Feingold, Dodd and Leahy's effort to strip immunity from FISA and continue to urge Barack to reconsider his position-screw the right-wing MSM, he'll always lose with them anyway.

    Posted by longrun at 07/02/2008 @ 12:47pm

43. The problem is that Obama's hand is in AT&T's pocket. AT&T has contributed significantly to his campaign.

    Sorry, folks--but this candidate has already been bought.

    Posted by ErutNevda at 07/02/2008 @ 12:51pm