Plastic Man

"Flexibility"

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday that he might “refine” his plans for a phased withdrawal from Iraq after meeting with military commanders there later this summer. But later, he hastily held a second news conference: to emphasize his commitment to withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office...

Mr. Obama has long spoken of consulting with commanders in the field as part of his plan for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but his shift in emphasis in the way he spoke about the situation on Thursday — after weeks in which Republicans and even an outside Iraq policy adviser to the Obama campaign argued against a withdrawal along the lines he had proposed — fueled speculation that he might not be wedded to his timetable...

Unless, of course, it proves more prudent not to do so once he's in office.

Assuming, of course, he has any constituency left once he leaves his constituency:

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.

Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision...

A decision doubtless augmented by the kind of outside advisors [Madeline Albright, your pudgy hands are showing] most likely to think Steny Hoyer their kind of guy.

...During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership...

Now that the Primaries are over, we can drop those silly pretenses and vote just like HHHillary again, right?

Obama takes his base for granted, and is about to lose it.

Democrats have no “leaders”. What we do have is a party structure that’s become addicted to big bucks as much as the Republicans. Where the Republicans have used religion, prejudice, and jingoism to maintain power over the rubes, the Democrats have used rights, populism, and the environment for their support.

Except, they are cheaper dates. Traditionally.

But now most Americans are totally disaffected with the Republicans. The Democrats, including Obama, figure their own base has no choice, so now they pander to the same monied interests that have ruined the Republican reputation with America.

And please, don't tell me about how great HHHillary would have been. Her voting record in the Senate was basically the same as the Unibama's. Except one vote far worse: she supported the Iraq debacle from the beginning and she knew better.

From where I'm sitting it seems like both Clinton and Obama have done an awful lot of pandering to the right wing and the christianists, and Clinton would have done pretty much as Obama is doing now if she'd won the primary.

Avedon says "...you'd almost think he was trying to throw the election." Almost, indeed.

She also tells me...He only became anti-war because he figured out that he had to appeal to the people who he needed to vote for them. He doesn't think he needs to put on a show for those people anymore...

I believe that, Avedon. What I have a hard time believing is that the situation would be improved with Clinton driving.

What I resent is the knowledge that if I don't vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, the country and likely the outside world could go to hell in a thermonuclear handbasket.

The truth is that anyone who doesn't pander to the right will not be allowed to win the election. The question is who the real electors are. Despite what it says on paper and on the TV the real electors are certainly not "all Americans".

To make matters worse, the Obama camp is now actively lying about what their candidate supports. Either that, or the Unibama Oborg don't understand the issues to begin with. Glenn Greenwald, quoting The New york Pravda article about Obama on the FISA issue:

Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.

"This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip," Mr. Craig said. "Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire."

Craig's statement is flat-out false. FISA -- enacted in 1978 and amended many times to accommodate modern communications technology -- has no expiration date. The Protect America Act, which Congress enacted last August to legalize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, had a 6-month sunset provision and thus already expired back in February, restoring FISA as the governing law. Thus, if Congress does nothing now, FISA will continue indefinitely to govern the Government's power to spy on the communications of Americans. It doesn't expire. What Craig said in defense of Obama is just wrong.

This country is in very serious trouble, and needs other alternatives than the Rethuglicans or the “Democrat In Name Only” DINOcrats. I'd settle for a real Democrat, but they seem to have left the building.  ¶ 9:59 PM