From Obama speech on floor (regarding voting for Patriot Act Reauthorization aka. permanent Patriot Act Forever)

Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S.2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization (Feb. 2006)

Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.

The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

So, you vote in the name of bipartisan whatever to throw away MY FREEDOMS because the otherside wouldn't play in your reindeer games. Bravo, Obama. Can I have my civil liberties back yet? Or how long does your bipartisan experiment have to go on?

Fine words butter no parsnips.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

thanks for the link. I was on the fence, but that posting really sold me. I think he gets it. He's definitely got my vote.

Similarly [Obama writes in his autobiography] "When Democrats rush up to me at events and insist that we live in the worst of political times, that a creeping fascism is closing its grip around our throats, I may mention the internment of Japanese Americans under FDR, the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams, or 100 years of lynching under several dozen administrations as having possibly been worse, and suggest we all take a deep breath."

Ah yeah shoor... we all need to unite for deep breathing exercises. I'm sure that somewhere back around 1942 some fella or another was informing Japanese Americans not to over respire at the possibilities stalking them, but rather, take a deep breath, because, yooo knooo, things could be worse... like the Alien Sedition Acts under John Adams, and stuff...

The "emotional center"

Over at the KOs I found a link to an essay John Hockenberry wrote titled "You Don't Unbderstand Our Audience" about his experience working for NBC News... The link to the full essay is here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_...

In it, Hockenberry writes:

This was one in a series of lessons I learned about how television news had lost its most basic journalistic instincts in its search for the audience-driven sweet spot, the "emotional center" of the American people. Gone was the mission of using technology to veer out onto the edge of American understanding in order to introduce something fundamentally new into the national debate. The informational edge was perilous, it was unpredictable, and it required the news audience to be willing to learn something it did not already know. Stories from the edge were not typically reassuring about the future. In this sense they were like actual news, unpredictable flashes from the unknown. On the other hand, the coveted emotional center was reliable, it was predictable, and its story lines could be duplicated over and over. It reassured the audience by telling it what it already knew rather than challenging it to learn. This explains why TV news voices all use similar cadences, why all anchors seem to sound alike, why reporters in the field all use the identical tone of urgency no matter whether the story is about the devastating aftermath of an earthquake or someone's lost kitty.

Appeals to that "emotional center" is what Obama is relying on, if you ask me. And that is what his pr/media handlers are telling him. Stories with a populist edge or unpredictable flashes are not wanted. Obama is reassuring the audience by telling it what it wants to hear (hope) - and the future (hope and change) - without the unpredictable complexities of the unknown. And duplicating that story over and over. No messy appeals to "angry" populist rhetoric (economic and so forth) wanted. And so on. Obama is running for the job of head anchorman (without all that I'm sick and tired and not gonna take it anymore stuff). Mr. Familiar Cadence. Mr "Emotional Center". Certainly the Village will embrace such familiar tones. Don't worry, be happy! This might also possibly explain the Drudge ads (afterall: Drudge rules the Village World).

Just sayin'.

*

i have called obama the "emotional's" candidate. for people for whom politics is an emotional exercize, and not a thinking one. and there are a lot of americans like that, because a lot of americans watch teevee. the newz is just like any other program. it's designed to bring consumers to the product various corporations want to sell them, and make them love. obama understands this, and is only trying to be the product his sponsors want him to be. hillary and edwards and the rest are at least doing more then just emote.

people who love uncomplicated emotional sweets like "hope" as a plan will vote for obama. because the only part where i disagree with your analysis is that he's not running for head anchorman, he's running for primetime bohunk on the feelgood pop hit dramedy that everyone's talking about at the watercooler.

...and if i can toss in another chicago moment: faculty at chicago are pretty arrogant, it's clear he picked that up somewhere and it stuck. the whole "take a deep breath" line reminds me of several i heard in my more breathless conversations with faculty about politics. you've got to stay Cool and levelheaded about politics and history and "moment," such is the dignity of a true Scholar.

and only him, so this will be my last for today until we get some results. but this is a terrific piece on "why not obama" and the blogosphere. boo is the best:

I feel like writing this now, before any caucus or primary results, while my feelings are uninfluenced by events that right now remain uncertain. I don't think the mainstream media or the people that work inside the Beltway really understand the blogosphere at all. We may not fully understand them either, but we have a better grasp of what makes them tick than they have of what makes us tick. We're fighters. Fighting is pretty much all we do.
This whole movement was born of a vacuum. The primary vacuum was in the media. We discovered in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq that the media was not only shutting out our voices, but they were distorting the facts, and the facts were, therefore, going unrebutted. And we discovered that we could publish our voices just as easily as the New York Times could publish the lies of William Safire, Judith Miller, or Dick Cheney. We discovered that we could factcheck the articles appearing in the papers and the warmongers appearing on our television.

We found a truth deficit and set out to provide the truth that was lacking. For those of us that have been doing this for years, we are steeped in this contrast between what is reported and what is true. We know who the liars are. We know who the lazy reporters are. And we know who has been battling with us (Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd) and who has not (Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford). We now have comrades-in-arms...people that we have been standing with day after day after day. And we have enemies that have undermined our mission at every opportunity.

I'm sitting here listening to a speech Barack Obama made yesterday in Coralville, Iowa. He's saying all the right things. Here's an example (paraphrased): 'If you have been steeped in the common wisdom of Washington DC that says it is a good idea to invade Iraq, you can't be the best person going forward to question and change our foreign policy.' And that is exactly right. That explains so clearly what it means to have been in the fight on the side of the blogosphere versus what it means to have been on the sidelines within the consultancies of the Capitol. But Obama hasn't really embraced us. He's gone his own way. And that explains why, in the end, the blogosphere broke heavily for John Edwards.

No, I don't mean people turned their back on Obama because he didn't pay the proper respect to the blogosphere. That isn't what happened. Obama didn't embrace our way of doing things. Worse, he began to use rhetoric we had spent energy to debunk. He went even further. He tossed aside one of our central insights...an insight won through hard experience: we cannot compromise with the Republican Party...we must smash them.

Perhaps because his wife is such an avid reader of blogs, Edwards' campaign tapped right into our zeitgeist. He came out with our insight front and center. You want Edwards' message? Here it is: 'Fuck David Broder, fuck Joe Klein, fuck Chris Matthews, fuck FOX News, fuck Tim Russert, fuck Mitch McConnell, fuck Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Defense. We don't need them. They won't negotiate in good faith. They're stacking the deck against us. And we can beat them by telling the truth and getting organized.' That's Edwards' message, and that is the message we have internalized both through our successes and our failures.

What's funny is that Obama is saying many of the same things, in his own way. The policy differences between Edwards and Obama are minimal. But Obama's tone deaf to the blogosphere. And, as a result, the blogosphere didn't trust him. Take Armando:

...we do not criticize Obama's political style on aesthetic grounds; we criticize his style because we think it will not work to actually EFFECT CHANGE. We believe that despite his being touted as the change candidate, his political style is the one LEAST likely to achieve progressive policy change.
His 'style' will be ineffective. Why did so many of us conclude this? It's because we have watched Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi try to negotiate with the Republicans (in the minority, the majority, no matter) and it does not work. We have watched the Dems talk tough and then back down time and time again. We're done with conciliation and we don't believe bipartisanship is possible without first crushing the Republican Party down to a stump.

Ironically, Obama might be the perfect candidate to the kind of crushing victories this November that will make true bipartisanship possible again. I definitely think that is a possibility. In fact, I feel his chances are strong enough that I can't endorse Edwards over Obama. I do hope Edwards wins in Iowa, but not necessarily because I think I prefer him to Obama. More than anything, I want Edwards' style to be vindicated. I want partisanship and combativeness to be rewarded. And I want Clinton/Lieberman/Ford/Carper/Carville/Begala/Penn to lose.

In any case, this the best I can do to express why the blogosphere went for Edwards. None of the candidates were going far enough on policy, but at least Edwards was representing our fighting natures. And that, in the end, was decisive.

Boo speaks for me in this regard, and taken with the open left list above: obama just isn't ready for progressive prime time.

in the general, i will vote against what i don't want. this means i will work for and pull a level for [x] any democrat running.

in the primary, i advocate (like anyone cares) for what i do want. even if i don't expect to get it. that means i support those who will bring progressive policy, or at least try.

i believe edwards is that person. so if you're in iowa, go to the caucus today and make a good choice.

He just wants to be President, that's all.

...for the rest of us

After the 2004 convention, I thought Obama was someone to watch. After that Kos diary, I thought he was a total clueless prick.

Consider the context for that diary. People were rightfully angry that the nomination of John Roberts wouldn't be filibustered--such as when Pat Leahy said he would vote for Roberts--Obama came over to Kos to wag his finger and lecture:

"I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option."

Standing up for principle is "quixotic." He was more fucking concerned with the Court of Public Opinion than the future of the Supreme Court.

Not long after that post, here's what he had to say:

“One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me?” he tells me. “And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect.”

Asshole.

Then this year was the revelation that initally, Obama considered supporting John Roberts because he "liked his intellect." Obama had to be talked out of that position out of consideration for his political future. The fact that he was unwilling to consider the consequences of that vote told me that he isn't a keen observer of politics - especially as practiced by the modern-day GOP since he still seems to think that we can all just get along.

Denying to articulate and hold the Republicans accountable for their actions, he looks weak, more and more like just another Democrat who brings a knife to a gunfight.

"Mr Obama's Neighborhood"... Oh, snap!

I like the idea of appealing to a soft, creamy emotional center, though. That's got potential!

Great taste! Less filling!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Dang.

talk about dissing the base. heh, even as i suppose it's been a long time since Orange Satanfest has felt surprising to me....

but still...that's just dramatically unconcerned with the blogosphere base opinion, innit? c'mon, blog readers- do you reall want to support a guy who says that about Your Leader's house?

snicker.

.... I wonder if the man's studied some Strauss, and decided to be all about the creamy, emotional center because the low information voters he wants to slide away from the GOP don't know no better.

It seems like he wants the charasma and polish Clinton was expert at, because Hillary's been too battered during and after Clinton's terms to actually pull that sort of careless warmth off. At least she acknowledges her enemies (her personal ones, at least), instead of wishing a bipartisan unicorn will whisk them away.

Whenever Barry refers to "folks" it makes me queasy.

The arrogant prick can't disguise his contempt and condescension for all of us dummies (not great intellects like himself and, maybe, Michelle), so even if he wasn't a Roveian put-up, he would still turn my stomach. He is like Joe L., only worse.

I'm not talking about substance here -- only the arrogance and patronizing style. Deign to run, indeed.

When you refer to fellow citizens using a pejorative like "folks" (Bushie uses this word frequently too), the implication is that "folks" don't actually matter to you. The implication is that all that matters is getting over.

If he's the ultimate nominee, I'll either sit it out or go for McCain. At least I can tell what direction he's coming from, and, more importantly, I think he has respect -- not contempt -- for other people.

So his finger-wagging diary at The Great Orange Satan plus the dismissive quote makes sense. But it's more than just Obama's cool relationship to the blogosphere. His position is he doesn't need them at all, period.

Chris Bowers

[Obama] is also, as both Matt and Jerome have noted several times, building his own, in-house activist movement instead of working with the existing progressive movement. And so, even though he is clearly at least the second favorite in the progressive blogosphere, if he wins, it will be in spite of the progressive blogosphere, rather than because of it.

from the guy who built it.

Duh. There were so many warning flags. I tried to "nice it to death." Sigh.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

We discovered that we could factcheck the articles appearing in the papers and the warmongers appearing on our television.

How did you discover prior to the war that the aluminum tubes for instance were meant for shortrange missiles and not centrifuges? I found out by reading my then local Knight Ridder (now McClatchy) paper the Philadelphia Inquirer. Point being while the blogosphere is an excellent place to come for opinion it sorely lacks real reporting that even now only Josh Marshall and TPM seems to be addressing.

If you saw Bill Moyer's episode on KR's reporting during the build up to the war they came up with scoops debunking the Admin's case that were mostly ignored because they didn't have the access inside the Pentagon and the WH that the big boys at NYT and WaPo had with Rummy and Cheney's minions. Of necessity they had to work further down the food chain and to their surprise they found many sources like the scientists at Oak Ridge who denied what was being stovepiped to the top and disseminated from there.

Much of what we know now about the utter disregard for the truth and common sense that goes on inside this administration hasn't come to light thru congressional investigations which Repubs refused to hold thru 2006 or thru the blogosphere. Some of it is so blatantly obvious like the Iraq fiasco and FEMA's Katrina failure that it couldn't be ignored. But most of the digging still comes from investigative reporting done by real news organizations with real reporters like the McClatchy writers or Hersh. Those reporters never would have been able to pry open some of those doors without the cooperation of disgusted professionals at State or CIA. So let's not pat ourselves on the back too much. Without good reporters a lot will go unreported and unless the blogosphere finds a way to finance their work without good newspapers there are no reporters. I think the Big Orange Satan ought to hire a few and open a DC news bureau for starters.

http://dayofshame.blogspot.com/2007/02/p...

and

http://dayofshame.blogspot.com/2007/02/t...

Fair enough. I'd say that the blogosphere was performing an integrative and analytical function that the Beltway was unwilling to. Certainly we immediately amplified the aluminum tubes story; I remember playing whackamole with all that.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

The pushback I get from the fan base is that "storyline" doesn't mean that Obama thinks is not true, just that it's a storyline that the American people don't believe.

A little PoMo for me, so I give it a C+... I'm just tired of playing whack-a-pony on this one.

If Edwards is in it, with no press coverage and a lot less money, I'd say that means his message really resonates. Just a little pre-spin. I hope he wins, because that's best for the party and progressive policy outcomes.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

The big bad VRWC ain't what it used to be and regardless killing off the last vestiges of it won't be accomplished by imitating it. The opposite of love
isn't hate, it's indifference. Obama wants to make the American people indifferent to Republican arguments not hate their fellow countrymen.

I really don't know where to begin with that comment, markg8. I don't see how it's responsive to what I'm saying, I'm not sure who's advocating imitation or hate, and I think to diminish ("big, bad") those who are concerned about the institutional power of the Conservative Movement are, well, suicidally naive. Let's remember, for example, that one reason Gore isn't even an option as a candidate is because the Village ruled him out.

Can you try again? Thanks.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

He apparently has done everything else to destroy the progressive movement.

No wonder nobody takes the blogsphere very seriously and you always back the losing horse.

The one-sidedness of the attacks and the shabby evidence is just a joke. You all are stuck in this room building up a fever pitch and nobody outside of your sphere cares. The reality is you have no substance. the same media that you mak fun of, as sloppy as it is, does a 10x better job of making a compelling case for their point. When

Are you really so afraid to post the entire paragraph lest people get some context as to what he was saying

""" think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country."""

btw - my idis actually kind of randomly close to Obama's and is in fact kind of my name.

This one might get ugly for HRC.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...

The 2006 midterms notwithstanding, where we helped propagate the Foleygate, Haggardgate, and Macacagate stories — and that Iraq thing — helping swing the vote. Even if you don't think we had any impact whatsoever, you think we were betting on the wrong horse?

And though Bush-kissing Lieberman won re-election (with help from Obama and the Republican Party, one should add), he lost the Democratic nomination thanks hugely to the blogosphere. Let me guess, you think Holy Joe was the right horse there, too.

Well said. Funny, isn't it -- as I keep mentioning over at Big Orange -- how fast the whole unity thing dissolves, isn't it? Not for people like Kristol, or Sullivan, or Brooks, or Broder, or Will, of course. Just for progressives. Odd that. I wonder why it is?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

and leaving comments? just wondering.

as educational techniques go, i can tell you that insulting people, and making an 'argument' about the qualities of your candidate by telling those people that they aren't worth taking seriously...not so effective.

Could it be? From the Fan Base? Say it's not so! What about "unity"?!?!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I don't think you get whre I'm coming from, and that's fair enough.

I am a fairly critical reader, and lean very hard left. I do not browse the blogsphere, but mind you as a democrat am appreciative of the beating blogs have given the GOP though I have observed anecdotally.

I came to this blog via a Paul K. link and because I could not understand his assault on Obama. I generally enjoy how much Krugman supports his thinking with some fair and strong evidence. So he points here and what i see is some increadibly lazy thinking and some hapahazzard conclusions drawn from out of context quotes.

There may be more to the history of the "obama is using conservative talking points" frenzy going on, but i simply don't see it. Every time i click on these so-called sources they are a joke.

That said. Can't stand Joe L. the backing a losing horse comment comes from not recognizing the difference between supporting a candidate and pissing in the wind trying to bring down one. Reality is that it is rare that someone who campaigns from the far left or far right will be elected President. Maybe re-elected with the strength of incumbency, but not elected.

Oh well...i guess my dip in the blogsphere only has about another week before work heats up, and i join the regular world where you have to actually support accusation and conclusions with real facts or you look the fool.

And as I said to an angry Obama-ite on DU:

"What I'd give for your candidate to be that partisan!"

"... increadibly lazy thinking", "hapahazzard conclusions..."

Nice work on the "unity" thing, too. But then, the Obama fan base is funny that way.

But why do I even bother?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Obama talking-rightwing-talking-points references on and linked by this site in the past week.

Not sure why it's a joke to you. He is running foursquare against the belief that today's GOP is running the country into the ground, and for good measure he ratifies Republican memes about Democrats needing to "get religion" and the so-called Social Security crisis and "trial lawyers."

We don't want to tear him down. We just him to join us in the reality-based community and oppose what should be opposed.

Amazing how ABC coverage of Iowa fits this "narrative" so well.

ABC affiliate in Iowa

From the vantage point of the Democrats' gurus, the campaign comes down to a clash between Joe Trippi's angry passion (the Edwards campaign), Mark Penn's poll-tested numbers (Clinton), and David Axelrod's soaring vision (Obama).

Who comes up with these talking points. Clinton is the poll smoker, Edwards is violent YEEEEEEAAAAAGGH, Obama has some soaring idealism which transcends politics.

in intertubular speak, that is? (do you even get those jokes?)

you say:

I do not browse the blogsphere, but mind you as a democrat am appreciative of the beating blogs have given the GOP though I have observed anecdotally.

and yet you know all about what happens, who says and does what, and who matters, here in the blogosphere?

your lack of argumentative sophistication just proves my point about obama supporters. you think you live in the "real world" and that what goes on in the blogosphere is completely devoid of understanding of how "politics really works." but you know, you could not be more wrong.

bloggers, (if i may say so, like me) are more connected to what actually happens, and how decisions in campaigns are actually made, than you will likely ever know. why? not because i spell better than you (i don't), but because i actually spend 000s of hours every month, doing nothing else but exchanging information with paid, professional, political operatives and activists.

such as: journalists. "journalists." CoSs (you know what that stands for, i take it). consultants. lobbyists. analysts. think tank writers. activists. voter registration workers. campaign volunteers. poll workers. foreign correspondents. academics and specialists in the areas of policy under discussion.

that's a list of the people i've spoken with this month. or a list of jobs i've held, you pick.

what about you?

i really thank you for your contribution here, but it sounds to me like you know...nothing at all, when it comes to the blogosphere you've deigned to grace with your attention. really, we'll be fine without you, and you can ignore us as you always have. i'm sure you don't need any help at all understanding how our leaderz are chosen, now do you? go on and believe that this whole blogging thing is a flash in the pan, you can sit over there with the buggy whip and burning cross salesmen.