Comments on: Shame on you, Barack

By: clintoncheney08

clintoncheney08 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:41:34 +0000

To me seeing Obama as the lesser of two evils isn’t acceptable. “Lesser of two evils” is a cynical and defeatist way to go about politics, and sometimes it’s better to have the greater of two evils if only to bring about radical reform. Lesser of two evils isn’t going to cut it this year.

So I reject the Greenwald assertion. Either Obama is the real deal, or honestly I don’t give a shit one way or the other. I believed he was the real deal, and I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. If it turns out he doesn’t have a good reason for this, or it’s more than just a miscalculation and symptomatic of a larger trend, well, then fuck him. And fuck our government – I’m moving to Europe as soon as I can do so in style. But for now, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he’s not going to handle every issue perfectly and sometimes he’s going to go along with things I don’t agree with.

By: Jonah

Jonah — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:49:43 +0000

Money quote from today's Glenn Greenwald column: It isn't that difficult to keep the following two thoughts in one's head at the same time -- though it seems to be for many people: (1) What Barack Obama is doing on Issue X is wrong, indefensible and worthy of extreme criticism; (2) I support Barack Obama for President because he's a better choice than John McCain.

By: Jonah

Jonah — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:20:12 +0000

It bothers and worries me that Obama is willing to sell out on this to get elected. So what, he’s going to be a bastion of good judgment the minute he takes office? Presidents in office are often perfectly happy to do things for political means too. I’m not sold.

The bigger issue for me goes way beyond Obama. The Dems hold the majority in Congress. The FISA amendment is obviously a sham that gives the government the right to spy on us without a warrant any time it wants. What sane person votes in favor of this? Someone who’s taken big bucks from telco lobbyists, someone who covers for his political allies, someone who foolishly values “not looking weak” over good sense, when it fact caving on the issue is the weakest, most cowardly approach he can possibly take. It’s bad form on everyone’s part.

“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
–Ben Franklin

By: clintoncheney08

clintoncheney08 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:03:09 +0000

I think you’re overreacting. I agree that the phone companies should be held liable for breaking the law, but it’s not an issue of the utmost importance. You pick your battles sometimes, and this is one he might have felt better off letting go for purposes of the general election. The other issue is his refusal to visit some mosques (after all, he’s been to plenty of synagogues), but come on, that’s a perfect photo op for the right wing to deliver to its base. If you’re Obama, you’re trying to get elected, and at that point, we can judge him by his actions. But I think it’s a bit overblown to expect him to stop being a politiican while he’s running for president. It’s not like he’s race-baiter or swift-boating anyone – he’s just making a calculation.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a slippery slope where all our liberties will be cast aside for political convenience. I’m glad the blogosphere is up in arms about it so Obama has that feedback, but it’s not really changing my opinion of him.