The Clintonistas tell me she is a force to be reckoned with in the Democratic Party. Why doesn't she use her considerable power to kill the FISA bill? It would take the pressure off Obama.
Agreed.. That is the irony here. Everyone one of these Clinton fans who are so "shocked" that Obama is staking the middle ground on this or any other issue (yes I think he is on the right path to victory and I support him) fail to realize that Clinton would never take a more left position. In fact if she was the nominee, you could bet she would be moving even farther right..
Neither she, nor her supporters ever portrayed her as the champion of the left. But many Obama supporters did. So it was expected of her.
On an other note, Clinton cannot go against FISA now. People will see this as her trying to undermine Obama. If she doesn't she is used as an excuse for Obama not taking a stand against FISA. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
Then you are on the same side as me.. Don't expect anything more from him on FISA then you would of your first choice.. Hillary.. Barrack is trying to build a coalition. by it's definition coalitions are diverse but must be "centerred" to be strong. I think his postion on FISA allows him to disarm a "national security" argument on the right, and his faith based initiatives postion allows him to build supporters on from the center-right... As to him being a champion of the left.. hello??? Iraq War..
I will expect more from him on FISA, because he is our nominee, not Hillary. I will do anything possible to get our nominee to work for the issue important to us.
Iraq war is not a litmus test for being a champion of the left. He said it when he was not in a position to act. Now he is. So we ask him to take a stance on issues important to the left. Apparently I am not alone in this, over 10500 people have joined this group on mybarackobama.
His being our nominee doesn't give him any more power in the Senate, where this fight is taking place.
So this FISA bill is a relative evil. If a Senator portrayed herself as a centrist then it is a good bill and if another Senator portrayed himself as a leftist it is a bad bill? That is not a very convincing argument.
It's not about the bill. It's about the candidate. The bill is bad, no matter who the nominee is. But right now, Obama is the nominee. His support or lack of it matters more than any one else's.
One commenter just today portrayed her as a champion of the left.
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/7/2/11 39/80374/45#45
You could also look at everything architek has ever written.
There was a weird split amongst Clinton supporters. Some insisted she was the true progressive rather than the empty-suit Obama who was a secret front for corporate interests, while others insisted that Obama was a McGovernite latte-sipper too far left to be elected.
You do have a valid point - it would be a big mistake for her to undermine Obama on FISA.
Agree that there is a divide among Clinton supporters about how progressive she is, but the prevailing view was that Clinton was "Bush/McCain lite" (that's what most posters on left blogs called her anyway).
But Clinton is not the topic of the discussion now. She lost. Obama is out nominee now and he is the natural target for any petitions or criticisms.
