I am so upset with not only Barak Obama but all the Democrats.

First let me say, I am a Democrat. Not because I believe in socialism but because I hate the politics of oil, corporate welfare, and, let's face it, the Republicans have not shown themselves to be the fiscally conservative party most argue them to be. Additionally, I hate the war, the current administration's foreign policy, and the domestic security policies.

I'll be frank, I don't have any real ideas for an alternative domestic security policy, but I voted Democratic in the last election, was proud the Dems won the House, and was looking forward to a national dialog on alternatives.

However, no dialog has occured and no change has come. The Dems vote for every Bush bill for which he asks, including war funding and the latest domestic eavesdropping plan with retro-immunity for the TelCos. I simply don't understand why the Dems are not putting up a fight. Remember when Newt and Dole were on the 'tube with golf bags over their shoulders when the Republicans didn't want to approve Clinton's budget? Yes, they lost that fight, but they fought! A majority of the American voters were behind Clinton, at that time, but now they are behind the House, not the administration. Where are the Dems alternative ideas and plans? My gosh, how can we support these people who do nothing to stop the madness?

Along comes Obama...I sure think he said he would filibuster any attempt to provide retro-immunity for the TelCos and I sure think he said he would vote against the eavesdropping domestic security goals of the Bush administration, but he just recently voted for the bill, which included the retro-immunity!!!

I just don't get it and am almost in tears that, just after giving him the nomination thinking he would stand for principle more than would Hillary, who I thought would cave to her typically incorrect perceptions of prevailing political winds, he flips on something that was adamantly a component of his platform.

Does this mean we have to vote for Nader?

Howard Dean and the DNC gave you exactly what they want.

Now,he is turning out to be another butt boy.Blame Howie and his gang along with the fowl mouthed Obama supporters who drug out every right wing slander they could about Hillary.

Now,you have what they want,and you are unhappy? Excuse me for not feeling sorry for you!

In case you wonder why I am so blut to you,this is how I feel about all the Rock Star followers.This is not just you.

We tried to warn all of you.

Oh the humanity!!!!! "Sen. Barack Obama suggesting that his plan for withdrawal from Iraq isn't set in stone and he reserves the right to "continue to refine" his policies after meeting with commanders on the ground."

The LAST thing we need 'round here, are leaders whose views aren't set in stone and who reserve the right to refine their positions. After all...we've had enough of that kind of thing with Li'l George! I mean....we probably would've been out of Iraq years ago, if George weren't so inclined toward the constant refinement of his positions!

the hope heads adopted the plan like the cons did when they took over in 2000....ABC ,......anything but clinton

too bad my fellow dems felt the NEED to disembowel the clintons so obama could win the nomination

and yes maryanne....we DID try to warn them

Spreadsheet...

I don't see this as a withdrawal from Iraq issue, but is the Patriot Act, Baby. Aren't you upset for flip'n on his promise? I mean simply flip'n so blatantly and so quickly? I'm just asking...

on this one! For of course, if one takes the original poster's fears AND specific allusion to Hillary seriously, the "warnings" posted by the Hillarians can't be of much solace. It's curious that these two Hillarians, in their zeal to mount an attack on Obama, are apparently so oblivious to this contradiction!

MaryAnne...

I certainly appreciate your passion; I really do. I am at a point where I wish we could pencil Hillary in just to send a message to Barak that his flip'n won't be tolerated. My concern is, however, none of them are any better. I don't think Hillary would stand on any principles nor does it seem Barak will. To be frank, the only one of the bunch that seems to stand on principle is Bush; too bad I completely disagree with every of his principles.

okay, ThisSucks, it's obvious you're a poser like the other two pretend Dems in this thread.

send Hillary $$.

don't be cheap, ya hear?

on AirAmerica? I'm David Bender. Well, I'm not REALLY David Bender, but if I were on the radio I'd sound pretty much like him. And, when people with your (perfectly legitimate) concerns calls in, he makes the very real and I think, incontrovertible case that one of only two men will be president in 2009. Either Obama will be president or McCain will be president. In light of that, no matter how concerned you may be with any specific thing Obama is currently saying or doing, can you come even close to making the case for yourself that McCain would be the better alternative?

In addition, I would suggest that you think in terms of the word, "mandate". Obama can win with 50%+1, or he can win with 60%. The latter scenario, a mandate, would allow him to affect a heckuva lot more principle and progress, than would the former. And....he sure as HELL can't affect much tangible principle and progress if he loses! His FISA vote did not affect the outcome one way or the other. And, I think it's fair to assume that he chose his vote political-strategically, meaning that his campaign calculated it as an electoral plus for him. And again....think "mandate".

This:

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 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.

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, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

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. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

<link>

You might want to put your comments there. I don't disagree with you - I share your concern, but he is paying attention.

spreadsheet:

on this one! For of course, if one takes the original poster's fears AND specific allusion to Hillary seriously, the "warnings" posted by the Hillarians can't be of much solace. It's curious that these two Hillarians, in their zeal to mount an attack on Obama, are apparently so oblivious to this contradiction!

I am not a "Hillarian." I switched to independent when I saw what Dean and Brazile and the DNC were doing to my party.

You call it,Compromise<" I call it lying.I have heard enough of the Obama switcheroos in the last month.

Campaign Finance,getting out of Iraq. Is the Children learning Spanish?His latest excuse of what he said.

The man is a fraud and you swallow it.I choose not to!

Reports out of the Obama campaign are that they're staying awake nights, worrying about all the people who would never vote for him, now coming out and saying that they would never vote for him. But then I guess...when ya take nothin' from nothin', you're left with a big ol' zero!

McCain is the PRESUMED nominee because Ron Paul has NOT conceeded. Ron Paul rEVOLution is busy with McCain for now, but we see OBOMBA for the lying sack of crap he is. WORSE THAN BUSH!!!!!!!

He's a far sight better than McCain.

For me, he addresses the key ingredients:

• stop fucking around in the Middle East when we don't have to.
• move as rapidly as possible to implement alternative energy sources.
• give young people opportunity and access to the higher education they will need for a very challenging century.

I don't see any of that coming from McCain. As to the topic at hand - McCain didn't even vote - in fact he hasn't voted on much in quite a while so there's not much of a record. I personally think the man's a dangerous lunatic. I can see how that works for you.