One more reason I can't support Barack Obama

[jeregenest]

Anyone who thinks that having Senator Jay Rockefeller's endorsement at this time proves you obviously are the individual to handle tough matters isn't thinking one bit about that little piece of legislation that Rockefeller put his name on, you know the currently being debated FISA extension act that gives retroactive immunity to the telecoms?

Anyone still want to tell me Barack Obama gives a whit about civil liberties because I'm having trouble seeing it.

Comments

[shiffer.livejournal.com]

You don't have a candidate who gives a **** about civil liberties. You still have to vote for someone.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Yeah but I already voted for the candidate who at least is honest in her disregard for civil liberties.

[telepresence.livejournal.com]

Jere, Rockefeller is a campaign fig leaf to help Obama with one of his weak points: A perception he's insufficiently tough on National Defense/Security issues, it hurts him against Clinton, it hurts him against McCain, it hurts him in red and purple states, it hurts him with lower income voters. And one of the defining messages of Obama's campaign is his intention to work with people with whom he may have one or more policy or ideological disagreements. If you want binary or dogmatic affiliational (that's totally a real word!) purity from Obama, it's not going to happen. At least he's telling everyone ahead of time.

A demonstration of Obama's feelings about FISA telecom immunity would his votes against it (votes that he's getting absolutely ripped for in right wing blog circles, by the way, which should be your hint he's on the proper side of the issue).

Another clue would be the taped confessions law he got passed in the Illinois senate, vs. opposition from, the police union, the state attorney general, and the Governor.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

When you have no real record than associations count. And since he has no real record I just have to looking at the gaping holes of stuff he should have done (and didn't) and stuff he kind of did but then associates with; and then determine he continues to be a candiddate of no susbstance.

If he wants to hold Hilary Clinton responsible for her vote in 2003 than he should account for his record as Chair of the European subcommittee and everything he did not do.

If he wants to say he's against Telecom immunity then he shouldn't be seen embracing Rockefeller. its not a binary issue, its a request for consistency when he hasn't a record to actually be examined for anything even resembling consistency.

Otherwise I just continue to see a strawman, and I'm sick of that.

[jovianconsensus.livejournal.com]

"no real record"

I don't think telepresence was kidding about the Illinois taped confessions law. It's part of his record, and it's real.

[sben.livejournal.com]

Dodd endorsed Obama, too.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I find Obama effectively identical to Clinton in terms of politics, and find them both seriously inferior to Edwards. However, both are also vastly superior to McCain, which puts me on a purely utilitarian footing wrt preferences. It definitely looks like Obama has a significantly better shot at beating McCain than Clinton, which makes me inclined to support Obama.