I don't write many diaries here anymore. Why bother?
I see the diary on the rec list that rationalizes the Justice Dept. action seeking to dismiss a civil lawsuit on the grounds of sovereign immunity. Fine. But, to me, the implied gist of the diary seems to imply that Obama is really against immunity, but the government's lawyers are just doing their duty as lawyers. That Obama cannot prevent this virtually ministerial task.
However, Obama voted FOR immunity. He was once against such immunity. If he would have stayed true to his principles, rather than doing what was expedient for political purposes, then the argument in the diary cited might carry more weight. In fact, the government is upholding his position, which some of us believe is an affront to the Constitution, including Turley, Greenwald, among others.
Yes, maybe, as some here frequently allege, I am just narrow minded and blind and think I am better than others, simply because I am civil and because I have always believed Obama is just another politician, tied to the system from the start. However, that does not mean I am a McCain supporter or a Freeper or a troll, which is a standard reply that comes from a segment of Obama supporters. In fact, I come from the Left!
In any event, for representation purposes, I cite an article from 2006 another comment, one from well before he ever ran, to provide my orientation, which I have never hidden at this site:
Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine
Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama’s senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation’s manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a "leadership PAC," a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians’ campaigns—and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.
I raise this for one purpose only. Besides FISA, I can look at the funding for the war issue, campaign finance reform and the stealth lobbying ties from the start of the campaign, the unitary president decisions so far, the recent change on health care mandates and on being a New Democrat, on how the people with the poorest judgment on Iraq are now at the very top of his Administration, not to mention the bankers who drove the economy into the ground.
I guess that is enough to illustrate how politics seems, in my view, to take precedence in the Obama world, despite the claims to the contrary. I consider this most cynical. Bill Clinton was excoriated for the very same thing.
So please, will some of you ardent supporters provide some principled stands where Obama has gone to the mat? In truth, I have a hard time identifying any at this time. Which leads me to the conclusion that it's not about a "new" type of politics, but one that is built on marketing and seeks to perpetuate the broken system, where the economic woes provide the clearest evidence of how broken and corrupt it is.
To conclude, I voted for Obama, but I will fight for the principles of change, and speak out against what I believe is wrong, whether Democratic or Republican. I do it with respect, something lacking too much around here. But I am a liberal and a progressive, and believe that the way we treat and speak to each other says a lot about who we really are. That is why I can distinguish myself from the behavior exhibited by the other side. I wish I could say the same for others, but I have had the displeasure to read too many of their overly personal, gratuitous remarks.
UPDATE: Some of the regulars are out in force. Yeah, I am calling for impeachment. Give me a break! I appreciate the reasoned responses. I am still waiting for an example of principle over politics!