Slashdot Mirror

they just want DRM so we can't post embarrassing video on youtube

If true, that's interesting, because it's pretty much the opposite of what his platform says -- doesn't sound like a "transparent democracy" to me.

me@LiMac:~$ lynx -head -dump http://www.barackobama.com/
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:35:02 GMT
Server: PWS/1.3.22
X-Px: ht dal-btn-n15
ETag: "74ea62-af3-48b339d1"
Content-Length: 1220
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Encoding: gzip
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Last-Modified: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:01:37 GMT
Cache-Control: max-age=1446
Expires: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:59:08 GMT
Connection: close

me@LiMac:~$ lynx -head -dump http://www.johnmccain.com/
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 106909
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Location: http://www.johnmccain.com/Home.htm
Last-Modified: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:35:41 GMT
Accept-Ranges: bytes
ETag: W/"18c861ab137c91:280"
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:35:59 GMT
Connection: close

You can also try: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Most signs point to the fact that McCain hates Linux, not Obama.

me@LiMac:~$ lynx -head -dump http://www.barackobama.com/
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:35:02 GMT
Server: PWS/1.3.22
X-Px: ht dal-btn-n15
ETag: "74ea62-af3-48b339d1"
Content-Length: 1220
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Encoding: gzip
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Last-Modified: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:01:37 GMT
Cache-Control: max-age=1446
Expires: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:59:08 GMT
Connection: close

me@LiMac:~$ lynx -head -dump http://www.johnmccain.com/
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 106909
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Location: http://www.johnmccain.com/Home.htm
Last-Modified: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:35:41 GMT
Accept-Ranges: bytes
ETag: W/"18c861ab137c91:280"
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:35:59 GMT
Connection: close

You can also try: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Most signs point to the fact that McCain hates Linux, not Obama.

FWIW, here's the relevant section from the Obama website:

Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. He will work with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle class families from tax increases or benefit cuts. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, he would ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.

Despite the many smears of his opponents, Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he is considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now and is similar to the rate increases floated by John McCainâ(TM)s close adviser Senator Lindsey Graham and that McCain has previously said he âoecouldâ support.

I can't believe you honestly believe there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats despite all evidence to the contrary.

Tell me ONE law, ONE goal, ONE ambition of the Obama/Biden ticket that will make "safety override freedom every time".

Too easy. Try another.

Have the Democrats got us out of Iraq after pledging to do so? NO!
Have the Democrats passed any laws that increased our freedoms? NO!
Have the Democrats ever passed any laws that increased freedom? NO!

Voting either Repulcrat or Democan is voting for politics-as-usual and no change, no matter what pretty-boy Obama says. When's the last time you saw a politician come through with a campaign promise on policy?

About the only thing that Obama will do that McCain won't is raise our taxes. Otherwise they're identical.

But I still fail to even grasp what Obama's plan is? All I've heard is that he wants alternative energy, but no nuclear, no drilling and to inflate my tires.

It always amazes me to hear stuff like that. The Obama plan is not hard to find:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

That's a nice lyric from The Who but there are actual real differences between Obama & Bush. He seems to list specifics of a planned removal from Iraq:

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 â" more than 7 years after the war began.

I think what's lacking when it comes to candidates is there's no accountability. I like to see goals listed out that are achievable, realistic & measurable. But when they are elected and these goals melt away or the politician is so deluded the think they're achieving these goals, I just cringe.

It happens to every politician every election for every position. You're right in saying that everyone's tired of failed promises. But there are some larger issues that Obama has (at least for now) claimed definite goals for. I'm not an Obama supporter but I can find his plans for removal from Iraq for better or for worse.

If Obama can't deliver $2 billion to NASA, I'll be pissed. This may be political pandering (in fact, I'll guarantee it is) but I really don't care. I would like to see more money devoted to NASA and our progress to human proliferation through space.

The odds are high that if elected he'll never follow his Iraq plans or he'll alter them or claim there's new data that makes it impossible ... but what can I do but vote for the candidate that at least (for now) is saying what I want my Commander in Chief to say?

Obama's stated position is a 16 month timetable for withdrawal of the main forces.

Which he has, in recent months, repeatedly stated will depend entirely on whether we can do so without leaving Iraq in a state of chaos.

Whether there is a "timetable" is irrelevant, because with both McCain and Obama, the timetable is "as soon as we can without threatening Iraq's security."

Obama says 16 months, but by Obama's own admission, that is the same thing as saying "as soon as possible," which is what McCain says.

[McCain] started suggesting expedited withdrawal as a possible option after Maliki's announcement undermined his "100 years if necessary" position.

McCain never had such a position. This is a persistent lie, and it's sad. He did not say 100 years "if necessary," he said 100 years "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Then why has Obama adopted so many of McCain's positions, including on Iraq?

Do you have sources for this, or are you just making it up? Obama's stated position is a 16 month timetable for withdrawal of the main forces. He has had this proposal for months, and it was endorsed by Maliki when Obama visited Iraq before angry noises from Washington forced him to backpedal. McCain's Iraq page has no such timetable, although he started suggesting expedited withdrawal as a possible option after Maliki's announcement undermined his "100 years if necessary" position.

I took a look around the different campaign sites it's clear McCain is EVIL!
Links at McCain site:
johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=3d8ee2ad-d7f2-4f3d-ad9f-ffe1b41ca178

Links a Obamas Site:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Clearly, McCain is using a Microsoft server and Obama is using mod_rewrite or similar technology... Probably a rather none-evil technology...

Also at validator.w3.org:
McCain has: 124 Errors, 44 warning(s)
Obama has: 8 Errors
I'd say this proofs McCain is evil!

Obama (and all political candidates) has the same bullet points format about issues on his site. Obama also has an activity tracking system so supporters can earn points for helping out his campaign.

I guess I don't see why McCain (or any other politician) encouraging his supporters to spread his message on the internet is indicative of a nefarious plot worthy of criticism and expose`.

This is a non-story.

Obama (and all political candidates) has the same bullet points format about issues on his site. Obama also has an activity tracking system so supporters can earn points for helping out his campaign.

I guess I don't see why McCain (or any other politician) encouraging his supporters to spread his message on the internet is indicative of a nefarious plot worthy of criticism and expose`.

This is a non-story.

McCain and Obama on geek issues. This also covers candidates who have been eliminated from the race.

Isn't this kind of ignoring the Elephant in the room?

According to obama's page, he still thinks the information age will be about "selling bits" as if theyre property.

So now you have a real gamble..

elect someone who is incompetent with tech and hope he either ignores it or utterly fails in the mass initiative against freedom of the internet and consumer rights.

-OR-

elect someone who has shown remarkable savvy and grasp of technology, and has sold out to the DMCA.

Protect American Intellectual Property Abroad: The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that in 2005, more than nine of every 10 DVDs sold in China were illegal copies. The U.S. Trade Representative said 80 percent of all counterfeit products seized at U.S. borders still come from China. Barack Obama will work to ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards [HELLO ACTA] that allow our technologies to compete everywhere.
Protect Intellectual Property at Home: Intellectual property is to the digital age what physical goods were to the industrial age. [No DMCA reform in our time! hello new "drug war"]Barack Obama believes we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.

Obama is much smarter than McCain, however.

Oh really? I take it you haven't read Obama's Blueprint for <strike>America</strike> change. He thinks the solution for everything is more government spending AND more government handouts. I hope your future children want mandatory service in Peace Corps. Obama will leave a wide mess behind if his changes take place.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Oh, and by the way, Obama has the the same thing, only better, I'd say, as it tracks how well you're doing in all aspects of helping his campaign (hosting events, making phone calls, etc) as opposed to just how well you're doing posting on the Internet.

Here you go: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

My, that was HARD.

Of course, that's not what you were talking about, since you went the strawman route. But that's the exact equivalent of what McCain's doing, and it's been there for ages.

John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan that will destroy millions of good American jobs, ensure our neighboring nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices continuing on their existing successful path, and bring relief to Chinese consumers. Click to learn how the McCain Economic Plan will help bring reform, prosperity and peace to America. Read More...

Gee, you are so right. Obama has absolutely nothing else to say about energy. Maybe he should have a plan based on lots of tax credits. After all, that would be nice and socialist.

I agree with all of what you are saying and I've railed against single-issue voters in the past. I can't bring myself to get over this FISA vote though. Beyond telecom immunity this bill guts the FISA court and gives the Executive carte blanche to wiretap without warrants or judicial oversight. Do you talk to anyone overseas on the telephone? Your calls could be monitored at any time without a warrant thanks to this bill. You as an American citizen have effectively had your right against unreasonable search and seizure taken away from you just because you want to communicate with someone outside of our borders.

Obama swore an oath to defend the Constitution when elected to the Senate. He has now violated that oath. Why should I believe he will take the Presidential Oath seriously? Call me a sentimentalist but I believe that such oaths should be taken seriously. They remind all of us (from the person serving on a jury or testifying as a witness all the way up to the POTUS) that we are a nation of laws and that no one person is above those laws.

Ironically enough Obama's own statement on this issue explains my concerns far more eloquently then I can: "It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses."

Indeed. Who knew that giving retroactive immunity for past violations of the law would weaken the deterrent effect of the law? His own statement provides ample justification for opposing this law -- yet he supported it anyway? WTF?

Barackobama.com doesn't even have a robots.txt file.

Has anyone else noticed a change in Obama through this year? It seems like he has been taking the same speech classes that every other politician has been taken that make him sound mildly retarded to me. He used to speak eloquently and quickly, whereas now he puts long pauses in run-on sentences. It seems many times like he is ending a sentence in all ways only have him continue on his thought. Listen to his Speech on Patriotism for instance. The first 23 seconds is one long run-on sentence:

And on a spring morning ... in April of 1775, ... a simple band of colonists, ... farmers and merchants, ... blacksmiths and printers, ... men and boys, ... they left their home .. and their families in Lexington and Concord ... to take up arms against the tyranny ... of an empire.

As is the next 18 seconds:

The odds against them were long, ... and the risks were enormous, ... for even if they survived ... that particular battle, any ultimate failure ... would bring charges of treason ... and death by hanging ... and yet they took that chance.

Who is writing his speeches? They drive me CRAZY! Maybe he has always done this, but not to this extent.

Why not this?

On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists left their homes and families to take up arms against the tyranny of an empire. The odds against them were long and the risks were enormous. Even if they survived that battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason and death by hanging. Yet they took that chance.

The whole thing should take under 20 seconds to speak, not 40.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary Direct link to the comments forwarded to me by a friend.

Maybe it's hard to tell the two of them apart since Obama started compromising his core values in order to "move to the center"?
--
Obama '08

I'm so confused right now...

Please go look at

http://my.barackobama.com/

It's Obama's "Snopes".

---

Obama is a liberal
Obama will raise taxes on those making $225k & up (and I think $90k & Up)
That means a lot of powerful wealthy people are going to be doing a lot of despicable things to try and keep him from being elected. For them the Bush years have been great. The top 1% has gotten tax cuts so great that the top 5% shows tax cuts even tho taxes are up on the top 2-5%.
There are a lot of VALID reasons to oppose Obama because he IS a liberal. Or you can oppose him because he is socially liberal.

McCain is a conservative. I would have supported him but I saw a very clear moment in 2005 when he said, "I want to be president and I'm going to play ball with the wealthy and the corporations and the military industrial complex". He flipped on several key issues at that point and became Bush-3. I don't want to wait around 2-3 years until he reverts to being the McCain that I supported while the country goes deeper into debt and gets into a couple more pointless wars.

There are a lot of VALID reasons to oppose Obama because he IS a neo-con republican now. Or you can oppose him because is socially conservative.

Both candidates are going to be screwed as first term presidents by a vicious bear market akin to 1968-1980.

But do the decency to go to each man's site and read up on them. Clinton & Their ilk will create a lot of lies about McCain. Whisper campaigns. Play up how he divorced his first wife. Etc. Karl Rove and his ilk will create a lot of lies about Obama. Play up "Hussein". Plant whisper campaigns that he is a muslim. Etc.

If you really are a christian, shouldn't you be moral and ethical and really find out the truth about Obama rather than listening to gossip and lies? This is a man tha said he got down on his knees and accepted Jesus Christ when he was doing community work almost 30 years ago. He's been going to christian churches for all that time. And suddenly he's islamic? Bullshit.

I don't believe my self but I think it is more the dogma of christianity than the good works. Some of the dogma is silly but the basic meme is kind and moral.

Anyway... CHECK THE FACTS on BOTH men. Both are decent intelligent men. I'm going to vote Obama because he inspires me. He makes me believe in America as the shining beacon on the hill- that country where anyone can be president. The country that is tough as nails and a scrappy fighter but basically decent, honest, and fair.

I think I see how they felt about Kennedy. I sure hope Obama is elected and doesn't screw it all up with some stupid tragic flaw.

Perhaps you want to actually read what the man has to say about it:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once Iâ(TM)m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics,

I support the FISA amendment. It's a good compromise. Read the thing before judging.

Obama's own statement explaining why he supports it suggests otherwise:

"I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses."

Indeed. We've now set a precedent for the Executive Branch to violate the law and not be held to account. Nobody is going to be held accountable for past violations of FISA -- not the current administration, not the telecommunications companies, not the intelligence agencies, nobody. Given all that I'd really like to hear Obama explain why future administrations are going to follow the restrictions contained in this FISA bill?

This is a dark day.

For more details, this blog post contains what Barack Obama had to say about his vote on the FISA bill (sorry, I couldn't find the original): http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/fib/gGxfss.

It came as a pretty big shock to me when I saw his vote on the bill while still retaining some hope. I came to /. to read about it, and you guys really brought my spirits down much further. A day passed, I read his comment, analyzed it, talked it over with others, and, although it's one tough blow, I don't believe that he is failing to retain his principles. I watched him at a rally in Ohio during the primary season, and, even then, he stress that we needed certain security measures against terrorism and specifically supported FISA.

Yeah, I know that I despise the telecom immunity, but there's a whole lot more to the guy than just that. Watch his interview at Google, actually look for things without freaking out at the first sight of something you dislike. Yeah, it's against the normal flow of /. to actually be optimistic and not complain about something, but I do have hope that some people actually see things without the black cloud of impending doom constantly looming over.

In the end, it still is politics, no matter how noble a candidate seems. Yeah, I've browsed quite a bit of Obama's policies at great detail, and even if he epically failed me on this specific issue, there's still others I see. So, I still have some hope left that even with this blunder, there will be a positive outcome if Obama gets elected.

Tell him so.

Well, Obama did offer an explanation:

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

...

When citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue.... Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

Maybe it's not what you want to hear, but it sounds like he felt the compromise was acceptable.

Spread the word: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/henrycase/gGxDHM Do not vote for Barack Obama.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the phone. This is very unfair to Obama. This was a tough call for him. You talk about him like he's a spineless ninny. The reality is that he actually THINKS and is willing to change his mind when he thinks it is best for the country. Take a look at his statement on the issue: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary He was unhappy with the way it was drafted ("I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power."). Senate bills are not this cut-and-dry, guys. The quote from the OP article above is very biased. There were good things about the amendment and bad things about the amendment. The quote makes it sounds like the bill only supported further violations of privacy and, frankly, that is a complete load of sh*t. Just look at the Wikipedia article that summarizes the amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008 Obama didn't want to lose the good things in this amendment by voting against it for the bad things. If this amendment had not passed and the Democratic core had actually won their protest against it, we all would have been open to even greater violations of our privacy because, without the amendment being passed today, we would have lost important surveillance orders this summer.

Obama's website talks about some of the details of the plan... Obama on the War in Iraq He mentions bringing out 1 to 2 combat brigades per month but keeping some troops there to react to any attempts from Al Qaeda to set up a permanent base, etc.

It is illegal to sell your vote, but not illegal to buy your vote.

It might not be broadband by YOUR standard, but by INDUSTRY standard and textbook definition

Interestingly enough, Obama wants to redefine the government's definition of broadband to be more in line with mine:

Redefine "broadband:" The Federal Communications Commission today defines "broadband" as an astonishingly low 200 kbps. This distorts federal policy and hamstrings efforts to broaden broadband access. Obama will define "broadband" for purposes of national policy at speeds demanded by 21st century business and communications.

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

If the best you can find is a single quote that Obama apologized for as soon as it was shown how it sounded out-of-context, he's not doing so bad -- McCain says things offensive to people on the Democratic side of the aisle pretty much constantly (and without apology at all).

Obama was trying to explain to a group of rich Californians that the reason rural Pennsylvaniants traditionally vote on Republican wedge issues (and express bitterness towards said Californian elite) is that they don't believe that anyone who claims they're going to change things economically are ever going to follow through -- and that history has justified those beliefs. The point being made wasn't that guns or religion are bad things or products of bitterness, but that they're what people fall back on as issues to vote on when they don't believe that either candidate is going to make a real difference in their day-to-day lives... but that if they could be convinced that a candidate really did support an economic plan that would help them personally, the traditional wedge issues wouldn't be in the way. The goal was to point out that when folks fell back to voting on things they cared about aside from economic issues, they did so for genuine reasons -- trying to humanize a Republican-leaning voting block that an audience of rich Democrats would typically consider The Enemy; unfortunately, in trying to make that point, he misspoke badly.

Claiming this single out-of-context quote represents a tendency towards use of anti-religion rhetoric is inconsistent with the rest of his record -- he has called openly for religious language to be more widely accepted in the political arena, is willing to discuss abortion in moral terms (which quite a lot of Democrats aren't willing to consider at all), and has written and spoken extensively on the topic.

So -- the goal wasn't to stir up hatred or fear; the goal was to explain (in answer to a question at a fundraiser) how he could garner some traditionally-Republican votes. Unfortunately, it came out about as badly has could have happened, and his opponents (including his Democratic primary opponent) jumped on it hard... raising the doubt we have now.

The "Get FISA Right" group has moved up from #5 to #4:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group?show=members
7297 members as of now, and still growing!

There's a lot more information about the Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right my.barackobama.com campaign on the Get FISA right wiki. Check it out, and please join the group! Mike Stark's Will Obama feel the sting of social networking? on OpenLeft gives some great context on the campaign. And there's a Facebook group too. Are we web 2.0 or what?

Odd... I just joined the group, and according to the full member list, I'm being counted three times. I wonder if this is a bug with their membership system or if everyone sees themselves three times and it's just a bug with the display code.

...if you weren't reading his books or listening to his speeches (as opposed to the sound bites), I suppose you could miss it. The "new kind of politics" he discusses isn't a change in what he as a Democrat supports; the change is in how he goes about supporting it.

If you've been paying attention to American politics lately, you'll notice that you've got the Left and the Right, and they pretty much hate each other. The Left paints the Right as being a bunch of religious war-mongering nutjobs who hate people having freedoms their religion proscribes, and the Right paints the Left as being a bunch of new-age peacenick nutjobs with no regard for personal accountability who hate their religion.

The 'change' Obama speaks of isn't in terms of what he votes for, but how he gets support for it. No more using religion as a wedge -- or trying to avoid it altogether. No more using fear to try to drive votes ("but the terrrorists will get you!"). Read A Call To Renewal, and appreciate how its message different from the way Democratic politicians have behaved in the past. Obama is promising a presidency which is serious about the "uniter, not a divider" thing, even while still effectively backing the Democrats' agenda -- by coaching that agenda in terms that speak to more than just the Democratic base. For someone young enough to have never seen American politics that aren't divisive, that's genuine change.

The 'hope' Obama speaks of is getting past all this petty divisiveness and reversing the actions which have destroyed our reputation in the world. Except for the getting-past-the-divisiveness part, that's something all Democrats want to do. This is neither unrealistic or poorly defined.

So there you are -- real promises and expectations, described by 'hope' this and 'change' that.

If you're an Obama supporter, here's a group that is trying to pressure him to stand on principle: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA No matter whom you support, contact Obama's campaign, Senate office and other Senators: http://get-fisa-right.wetpaint.com/page/What+else+you+can+do

Check out Senator Obama - Please Vote Against FISA. on my.barackobama.com

People like to point at all the Congressional "recesses" as vacation time for lazy congressmembers. Some probably do fly on corporate jets to Scotland to play golf with strippers, but most of them spend the time flying back to their home district (or state, for senators) and meet with local people to work on their constituents' issues. Sure, those people are primarily local corporate types and other rich/powerful people who live, work or happen to pass through their home office neighborhood. But they're working, and that's the time they're listening to people outside Washington DC.

This bill, with its evil FISA telco amnesty in it, is not a sure thing. It was supposed to sail through last year, and this delay marks the third time it's failed to get installed as law. There are many ways it can die in the Senate, which has many rules letting individual senators kill a bill. So this is an excellent time to call, fax, snail mail, and just physically visit a senator, especially if they're yours, to explain how the Fourth of July is a good time for them to decide to defend the Constitution. Almost all of them will be marching in a parade during the holiday as if they're some kind of patriot or something. You can stand along the route with a big sign saying "NO FISA TELCO AMNESTY!", or print out the bill, mingle in the parade and try to hand it to them saying "read it first, then vote against it when you see that FISA telco amnesty ruins the Constitution". Look at their website for their appearance schedule, and make it hard for them to pretend they love our country while they're busy screwing it over.

Do it while you can, as secretly wiretapping you is only the first step in stealing the rest of your rights.

You can use Obama's contact form to send a comment asking him to vote against FISA telco amnesty.

Here's a list of some senators worth calling, because they're not totally in bed with Bush in every way, and so might not go along with this travesty. See if you can talk them, or their staffers, into doing the right thing, or at least not helping do the wrong thing. Remeber, the telcos will also get to hear you, and they should know they're not really getting away with it.

Bayh (202) 224-5623
Carper (202) 224-2441
Obama (202) 224-2854
Inouye (202) 224-3934
Johnson (202) 224-5842
Landrieu (202)224-5824
McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Mikulski (202) 224-4654
Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
Clinton (202) 224-4451
Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
Pryor (202) 224-2353
Salazar (202) 224-5852
Specter (202) 224-4254
Feinstein (202) 224-3841
Webb (202) 224-4024
Warner (202) 224-2023
Snowe (202) 224-5344
Collins (202) 224-2523
Sununu (202) 224-2841
Stevens (202) 224-3004
Byrd (202) 224-3954
Lincoln (202)224-4843
Reid (202) 224-3542
Coleman (202) 224-5641
Durbin (202) 224-2152
Smith (202) 224-
Stabenow (202) 224-4822
Kohl (202) 224-5653
Leahy (202) 224-4242
Schumer (202) 224-6542

Yeah. It's a pretty shitty thing to do, although, with all the people saying things like "McCain WANTS troops to be in Iraq for 100 years", it's not surprising.

He's trying to manipulate google, sure, but in a more legit way than doing this: warmongering douchebag. The guy in the article is simply promoting 9 specific articles about McCain and suggesting that others link those articles as well to make sure they climb the search results. It's not that different from just passing the links around and telling people to make sure everyone they know reads them. Whereas doing this charming imposter doesn't just get more people to go to a link; it makes a clear association between that link and a phrase denigrating the object of the link.

Yet he's just another politician. In fact, I think his campaign has been the most calculatingly PR-driven of the bunch. The man doesn't even have a platform (yes, I've read his website), just a bunch of slogans involving abstract nouns.

Abstract nouns like "network neutrality"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet

Or "review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#modern-communications

Or "a credit card rating system," and "Prohibit Interest on Fees"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards

Or "exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#bankruptcy

How about "new Teacher Service Scholarship"? Or "American Opportunity Tax Credit"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#teachers

I think it strains credibility to say he "doesn't even have a platform." Or to claim that you've read his website.

People say Obama's a great orator, too, but I don't even see that.

That's fine.

Honestly, I think they just think "black man = good speaker"

Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, yeah, people find certain famous ministers, MLK in particular, inspiring, but I'd be willing to lay down serious money that a decent poll on a significant set of the US population would *not* show a general perception of black males being better public speakers than white males.

I'd be very interested to be pointed to information to the contrary.

I feel reasonably confident that I know what I would be voting for if I voted for McCain.

If my acquaintances who've worked in the senate are any indication, you probably don't. Several of them went in with respect for him, and found that when the cameras are off, he's a very different person. At minimum vindictive and tyranical, and quite possibly unstable.

This is commentary from senate staffers who worked for *Republicans*, not democrats.

Of course, this is a random guy on the internet saying stuff, and there's no way to verify it really, unless you have access to acquaintances in the same circles, or until somebody there risks upsetting their position in that circle by standing up and saying something about it.

For a comparison: When I saw Wesley Clark a few years earlier (when he was running for president), he gave a speech in which he outlined specific policy objectives, and reserved time at the end to answer questions. He understood what he was talking about!

I like Wesley Clark, and everything I've seen leads me to believe think he'd be a good choice in the White House, and I don't doubt he understands some policy domains (particularly the obvious foreign and military ones) far better than Obama does.

Obama has his own domains of policy expertise, however -- community economic development in particular -- and I think he's shown he knows how to pick people with real knowledge in underlying domains (see, for example, his choice of tech advisor vs McCain... and MIT prof vs an industry lawyer).

he need (1) for a Palestinian state, and (2) to engage the Palestinians. Yet recently at AIPAC, he swore he would not talk to HAMAS (exactly contradicting his previous promises of engagement) and that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"

The AIPAC speech was a disaster, I think necessarily because Obama simultaneously doesn't want to abandon the Jewish constituency (and to some extent, zionist Christians) to McCain,

Yet he's just another politician. In fact, I think his campaign has been the most calculatingly PR-driven of the bunch. The man doesn't even have a platform (yes, I've read his website), just a bunch of slogans involving abstract nouns.

Abstract nouns like "network neutrality"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet

Or "review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#modern-communications

Or "a credit card rating system," and "Prohibit Interest on Fees"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards

Or "exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#bankruptcy

How about "new Teacher Service Scholarship"? Or "American Opportunity Tax Credit"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#teachers

I think it strains credibility to say he "doesn't even have a platform." Or to claim that you've read his website.

People say Obama's a great orator, too, but I don't even see that.

That's fine.

Honestly, I think they just think "black man = good speaker"

Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, yeah, people find certain famous ministers, MLK in particular, inspiring, but I'd be willing to lay down serious money that a decent poll on a significant set of the US population would *not* show a general perception of black males being better public speakers than white males.

I'd be very interested to be pointed to information to the contrary.

I feel reasonably confident that I know what I would be voting for if I voted for McCain.

If my acquaintances who've worked in the senate are any indication, you probably don't. Several of them went in with respect for him, and found that when the cameras are off, he's a very different person. At minimum vindictive and tyranical, and quite possibly unstable.

This is commentary from senate staffers who worked for *Republicans*, not democrats.

Of course, this is a random guy on the internet saying stuff, and there's no way to verify it really, unless you have access to acquaintances in the same circles, or until somebody there risks upsetting their position in that circle by standing up and saying something about it.

For a comparison: When I saw Wesley Clark a few years earlier (when he was running for president), he gave a speech in which he outlined specific policy objectives, and reserved time at the end to answer questions. He understood what he was talking about!

I like Wesley Clark, and everything I've seen leads me to believe think he'd be a good choice in the White House, and I don't doubt he understands some policy domains (particularly the obvious foreign and military ones) far better than Obama does.

Obama has his own domains of policy expertise, however -- community economic development in particular -- and I think he's shown he knows how to pick people with real knowledge in underlying domains (see, for example, his choice of tech advisor vs McCain... and MIT prof vs an industry lawyer).

he need (1) for a Palestinian state, and (2) to engage the Palestinians. Yet recently at AIPAC, he swore he would not talk to HAMAS (exactly contradicting his previous promises of engagement) and that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"

The AIPAC speech was a disaster, I think necessarily because Obama simultaneously doesn't want to abandon the Jewish constituency (and to some extent, zionist Christians) to McCain,

Yet he's just another politician. In fact, I think his campaign has been the most calculatingly PR-driven of the bunch. The man doesn't even have a platform (yes, I've read his website), just a bunch of slogans involving abstract nouns.

Abstract nouns like "network neutrality"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet

Or "review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#modern-communications

Or "a credit card rating system," and "Prohibit Interest on Fees"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards

Or "exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#bankruptcy

How about "new Teacher Service Scholarship"? Or "American Opportunity Tax Credit"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#teachers

I think it strains credibility to say he "doesn't even have a platform." Or to claim that you've read his website.

People say Obama's a great orator, too, but I don't even see that.

That's fine.

Honestly, I think they just think "black man = good speaker"

Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, yeah, people find certain famous ministers, MLK in particular, inspiring, but I'd be willing to lay down serious money that a decent poll on a significant set of the US population would *not* show a general perception of black males being better public speakers than white males.

I'd be very interested to be pointed to information to the contrary.

I feel reasonably confident that I know what I would be voting for if I voted for McCain.

If my acquaintances who've worked in the senate are any indication, you probably don't. Several of them went in with respect for him, and found that when the cameras are off, he's a very different person. At minimum vindictive and tyranical, and quite possibly unstable.

This is commentary from senate staffers who worked for *Republicans*, not democrats.

Of course, this is a random guy on the internet saying stuff, and there's no way to verify it really, unless you have access to acquaintances in the same circles, or until somebody there risks upsetting their position in that circle by standing up and saying something about it.

For a comparison: When I saw Wesley Clark a few years earlier (when he was running for president), he gave a speech in which he outlined specific policy objectives, and reserved time at the end to answer questions. He understood what he was talking about!

I like Wesley Clark, and everything I've seen leads me to believe think he'd be a good choice in the White House, and I don't doubt he understands some policy domains (particularly the obvious foreign and military ones) far better than Obama does.

Obama has his own domains of policy expertise, however -- community economic development in particular -- and I think he's shown he knows how to pick people with real knowledge in underlying domains (see, for example, his choice of tech advisor vs McCain... and MIT prof vs an industry lawyer).

he need (1) for a Palestinian state, and (2) to engage the Palestinians. Yet recently at AIPAC, he swore he would not talk to HAMAS (exactly contradicting his previous promises of engagement) and that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"

The AIPAC speech was a disaster, I think necessarily because Obama simultaneously doesn't want to abandon the Jewish constituency (and to some extent, zionist Christians) to McCain,

Yet he's just another politician. In fact, I think his campaign has been the most calculatingly PR-driven of the bunch. The man doesn't even have a platform (yes, I've read his website), just a bunch of slogans involving abstract nouns.

Abstract nouns like "network neutrality"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet

Or "review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#modern-communications

Or "a credit card rating system," and "Prohibit Interest on Fees"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards

Or "exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#bankruptcy

How about "new Teacher Service Scholarship"? Or "American Opportunity Tax Credit"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#teachers

I think it strains credibility to say he "doesn't even have a platform." Or to claim that you've read his website.

People say Obama's a great orator, too, but I don't even see that.

That's fine.

Honestly, I think they just think "black man = good speaker"

Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, yeah, people find certain famous ministers, MLK in particular, inspiring, but I'd be willing to lay down serious money that a decent poll on a significant set of the US population would *not* show a general perception of black males being better public speakers than white males.

I'd be very interested to be pointed to information to the contrary.

I feel reasonably confident that I know what I would be voting for if I voted for McCain.

If my acquaintances who've worked in the senate are any indication, you probably don't. Several of them went in with respect for him, and found that when the cameras are off, he's a very different person. At minimum vindictive and tyranical, and quite possibly unstable.

This is commentary from senate staffers who worked for *Republicans*, not democrats.

Of course, this is a random guy on the internet saying stuff, and there's no way to verify it really, unless you have access to acquaintances in the same circles, or until somebody there risks upsetting their position in that circle by standing up and saying something about it.

For a comparison: When I saw Wesley Clark a few years earlier (when he was running for president), he gave a speech in which he outlined specific policy objectives, and reserved time at the end to answer questions. He understood what he was talking about!

I like Wesley Clark, and everything I've seen leads me to believe think he'd be a good choice in the White House, and I don't doubt he understands some policy domains (particularly the obvious foreign and military ones) far better than Obama does.

Obama has his own domains of policy expertise, however -- community economic development in particular -- and I think he's shown he knows how to pick people with real knowledge in underlying domains (see, for example, his choice of tech advisor vs McCain... and MIT prof vs an industry lawyer).

he need (1) for a Palestinian state, and (2) to engage the Palestinians. Yet recently at AIPAC, he swore he would not talk to HAMAS (exactly contradicting his previous promises of engagement) and that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"

The AIPAC speech was a disaster, I think necessarily because Obama simultaneously doesn't want to abandon the Jewish constituency (and to some extent, zionist Christians) to McCain,

Yet he's just another politician. In fact, I think his campaign has been the most calculatingly PR-driven of the bunch. The man doesn't even have a platform (yes, I've read his website), just a bunch of slogans involving abstract nouns.

Abstract nouns like "network neutrality"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet

Or "review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#modern-communications

Or "a credit card rating system," and "Prohibit Interest on Fees"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards

Or "exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#bankruptcy

How about "new Teacher Service Scholarship"? Or "American Opportunity Tax Credit"?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#teachers

I think it strains credibility to say he "doesn't even have a platform." Or to claim that you've read his website.

People say Obama's a great orator, too, but I don't even see that.

That's fine.

Honestly, I think they just think "black man = good speaker"

Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, yeah, people find certain famous ministers, MLK in particular, inspiring, but I'd be willing to lay down serious money that a decent poll on a significant set of the US population would *not* show a general perception of black males being better public speakers than white males.

I'd be very interested to be pointed to information to the contrary.

I feel reasonably confident that I know what I would be voting for if I voted for McCain.

If my acquaintances who've worked in the senate are any indication, you probably don't. Several of them went in with respect for him, and found that when the cameras are off, he's a very different person. At minimum vindictive and tyranical, and quite possibly unstable.

This is commentary from senate staffers who worked for *Republicans*, not democrats.

Of course, this is a random guy on the internet saying stuff, and there's no way to verify it really, unless you have access to acquaintances in the same circles, or until somebody there risks upsetting their position in that circle by standing up and saying something about it.

For a comparison: When I saw Wesley Clark a few years earlier (when he was running for president), he gave a speech in which he outlined specific policy objectives, and reserved time at the end to answer questions. He understood what he was talking about!

I like Wesley Clark, and everything I've seen leads me to believe think he'd be a good choice in the White House, and I don't doubt he understands some policy domains (particularly the obvious foreign and military ones) far better than Obama does.

Obama has his own domains of policy expertise, however -- community economic development in particular -- and I think he's shown he knows how to pick people with real knowledge in underlying domains (see, for example, his choice of tech advisor vs McCain... and MIT prof vs an industry lawyer).

he need (1) for a Palestinian state, and (2) to engage the Palestinians. Yet recently at AIPAC, he swore he would not talk to HAMAS (exactly contradicting his previous promises of engagement) and that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"

The AIPAC speech was a disaster, I think necessarily because Obama simultaneously doesn't want to abandon the Jewish constituency (and to some extent, zionist Christians) to McCain,

What the hell are you talking about? Public financing means using taxpayer money to pay for his campaign. Since he has opted out, it means every dollar of his campaign finances is donated by private citizens. It does not somehow magically lift the 2300 dollar cap that a private citizen can donate.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/independencefeature