Environmentalism is not an upper-income issue, it's not a white issue, it's not a black issue, it's not a South or a North or an East or a West issue. It's an issue that all of us have a stake in - Barack Obama

Contrary to reports of my untimely demise I am still here I just have been having problems coming up with stuff to write about. I've written a lot of diaries on Obama's platform but there is one issue that I have not written about much. And it's a very, very important issue. A little something called our environment. Barack Obama has been a champion of the environment for a long time. In this diary I will take a look at his background on this issue and plans for moving our country and environment forward.

Obama's response to the protest on the FISA "compromise" is horrible.

He's gonna wind up voting for a bill that contains retroactive immunity, despite earlier vows to veto any such bill. What happened to filibuster?

He says the "exclusivity provision" makes clear the idea that FISA is the only method by which the President can spy on Americans - even though the old FISA law already says that.

He talks about overseeing the watchers - but there's no such provision for oversight. In the USA, such oversight is supposed to come from the Courts. Obama seems to think it'll come from the Inspector General's office, or the AG's office. He expects the Exec Branch will investigate itself.

He finishes up with a toothless "promise" (after breaking his earlier promises about FISA, why should we listen now?) to have his AG "review" the surveillance methods under use. Instead of promising to prosecute obviously illegal activity.

I get around the progressive blogosphere and have encountered much consternation against Obama over various issues recently.  He is not fighting FISA at an acceptable level.  He is screwing up by advocating that religion take a role in fighting poverty.  He is trying to hard to "move to the center".  Going further back there were complaints about his AIPAC pandering, his healthcare plan, and a number of other things.  I agree with many of the criticisms.  I understand the concern and outrage.  But Obama is not the problem I see here.

Welcome back for more veep speculation! Last thread we considered the top military veteran candidates to be Obama's v.p. Averaging in those votes yielded the same top 14 average vote-getters overall as the thread before that, so we'll consider them again in today's poll.

I'm still alternating "break-out" polls with the top 14 average vote-getting candidates in these threads' polls, averaging in each day's votes as we go. I'm going to do the top possibilities experienced with foreign policy/national security issues and governors/former governors before cutting 14 names to narrow the field to just two tiers--that's if Obama hasn't decided by then, of course. I'll reset the averages then, too. So that would be three or four more threads away from today.

Please discuss any v.p. candidates in the comments. The correct format would be to simply state their name, unless you have further comments, in which case, "I believe ___ ___ should be Obama's v.p. running mate because..." "Oh my God, where's Johnny/Jane Politician?!" would be a bit alarmist, don't you think? I'm sure they're fine. I'm happy to hear all ideas, and of course I'm no official gatekeeper, so play nice.

(continued below the fold)

I've gotten a million media requests lately to talk about Obama's "move to the center". Exhibit A for that conventional wisdom is Obama's capitulation on FISA.

As I've made clear to those reporters, there's nothing "centrist" about the FISA vote. There's nothing liberal or conservative about protecting the constitution. And given libertarians and liberals are both for keeping the Constitution out of the shredder, it's hard to pretend the issue sits on the simplistic left-right axis.

Bottom line is that Obama wants to cave on FISA not because of "moving to the center" concerns, but because they are afraid of television ads claiming Obama is inviting terrorists over for BBQ. It's the same crappy-style ads that failed miserably in the IL-14 special election (and Foster went on to vote against the FISA capitulation) and have gotten little traction this year. But the Obama campaign thinks that by capitulating, it'll "take the issue off the table", as if Republicans need any excuse to accuse Democrats of being weak on terror.

"Taking the issue off the table" led Democrats to vote for Bush's disastrous tax cuts, and most still lost that year (like Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland). It led them to vote for Bush's disastrous war, yet that didn't stop Republicans from morphing Cleland into Osama Bin Laden. And of course, no matter how they vote on FISA, Republicans will still accuse Democrats of being weak on terror. It's pretty much the only thing they've got left in their toolbox, no matter how ineffective it has become.

But in any case, Obama's FISA capitulation has nothing to do with "moving to the center", and everything with being afraid of the ads Republicans will run.

But don't expect the media to care. Their media narrative has been set. It ain't going anywhere.

It seems that almost every day the media is jumping on some "new" thing Barack Obama said that they perceive is somehow different from what he was saying before.  The problem is that the "new" things are, for the most part, not new at all.  They are the same things he has been saying since the very beginning of the primaries.  They are the same things he has said in stump speech after stump speech across the country.  They are the same things that I personally heard him say at events in May 2007, December 2007, and January 2008.

So, I totally expect this from the media, what bugs me is that there are constantly diaries here about them.  I don't know if these are McCain trolls or what, but it is getting really annoying.  So, I have an idea.  For those people who apparently have no idea what Barack Obama is really about go here.  That is Obama's YouTube page.  It includes everything from ads to speeches to news reports.  You can also go here.  That is the issues section of Barack Obama's website.  There you will find the "Blueprint for Change," which has been part of the campaign since Iowa.

In what has to be the most thin-skinned overreaction by a politician since Napoleon retired to St. Helena, John McCain said earlier this week that Barack Obama should "repudiate" and "cut loose" General Wesley Clark because -- in McCain's mind -- Clark had "smeared" McCain's military service.  In a nutshell, what Clark said about McCain that was so horrible begins with: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war.  He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war."  I'm assuming McCain was okay with that part, but then General Clark had the gall to suggest that McCain's experience as a fighter pilot and POW didn't necessarily qualify him to be President of the United States.

Karl Rove:

Mr. Obama may be overreaching by running ads in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota – states Republicans won by comfortable margins in recent years. It would require a shift of between one-sixth and over one-quarter of the vote to win any of them. Shifts that large rarely happen.

Big shifts do occur – witness West Virginia in 2000, which swung more than 20 points between 1996 (when Bill Clinton carried the state) and 2000 (when George W. Bush did) – but these require sharp contrasts on big issues, not just money. Money may be the mother's milk of politics, in Jesse Unruh's famous phrase, but when running for president, money alone can't buy a candidate love. Cash matters, but being a good candidate and right on the issues matters even more.

Hey Karl, meet your "big shift":

Rasmussen. 7/1. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (4/6 results)

There still aren't enough polls in Montana to generate a Pollster.com composite score, but it's tight. Montana is a changing state, and with a popular Democratic governor who will romp to re-election, a state legislative body that has been adding Democrats, and two Democratic senators, including one who will also romp to reelection this year, this isn't the crimson Red state of Karl Rove's dreams. Perhaps that's why Obama will actually spend 4th of July in the state.

Butte, MT: THE OBAMA FAMILY ATTENDS FREEDOM FEST INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE IN BUTTE

Reason's Dave Weigel speculates as to why Montana is suddenly in play:

Montana's libertarian streak makes it, I think, rocky territory for McCain. This is a state that elected a Democratic senator in 2006 who told voters "I want to repeal the PATRIOT Act." This is a state whose governor gave Homeland Security Michael Chertoff a rhetorical kick in the teeth when he opted out of REAL ID. This is, finally, a state whose Republicans gave Ron Paul a quarter of their primary and caucus votes, and where the balance of power in the state House is held by the Constitution Party. Voila: Another state falls off the Republican map, and McCain will have to scramble and spend money to save it.

And there you have Rove's "sharp contrasts on big issues". Few issues are bigger than freedom, and Democrats are (mostly, when not cowering from fear and capitulating) on the right side of the issue of "freedom".

There was talk about Dems shortening the convention to three days, but now, talk is about doing "something different" on the last night. Could it be this?

What better place to accept the nomination for the most powerful job in the world? Invesco Field at Mile High, the home of the Denver Broncos, can seat 75,000 people. It's just a short walk under I-25 from the Pepsi Center and would be a part of the rumored one-mile square radius security zone.

DenConWatch has heard rumors to this effect as far back as March 2006.

Denver's bid would put most of the convention action at the Pepsi Center, with the final night at Invesco Field.

I am very suprised by that last one. Having the convention in two separate places makes the logistics much harder. You have to build all the infrastructure twice: podium, floor seating, and media facilities. I can't imagine the media will be happy about having to pay for two sets of anchorbooths, wiring, etc. Security is also a nightmare. You have to setup the whole security infrastructure in two separate places. Not to mention the security checkpoint system gets used and worked out the first 2 days, before the big days of Wednesday and Thursday. If you have the final night in a completely new place, it seems to me you're asking for trouble.

And:

However, a source has told me that Dean has been dropping hints that he would like some sort of "public event" to close the convention week, which could, logically, be the nominee acceptance speech. (It could also just be a big rally the next day).

In 2004, I learned about a little trick apparently done at all conventions -- a group would walk in, a single person would collect all their passes, go outside, and bring a new group of people. Lather, rinse, repeat. There were likely three times as many people inside the convention hall for Kerry's speech than at any other time.

So why restrict Obama's historic acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK's "I have a dream" speech to the convention delegates and whoever they can smuggle in? Open that puppy up.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 6/30-7/2. Likely voters. MoE 4% (3/31-4/2 results)

Independents disapprove of George Bush 14/86, so that has a clear effect on Lieberman's approval ratings. He is even less popular with Democrats while more Independents now disapprove of his performance than approve. While Lieberman's approval ratings continue to fall, the matchups with Lamont were largely unaffected compared to a couple of months ago.

Other findings from the poll -- Obama crushes McCain 57-35 in Connecticut, and Lieberman would actually hurt McCain on the ticket in the state. Let's hope McCain picks him.

My biggest fear is that Lieberman retires in 2012. I want him defeated at the ballot box. And until then, this poll, along with yesterday's Q-poll, should go a long way toward dispelling the notion that Lieberman is popular. His loving embrace of Bush and McCain, along with his rabid warmongering, have definitely killed his support at home.

Full crosstabs can be found below the fold.

Race tracker wiki: CT-Sen

Yes; The Hillary wars are over (and I certainly don't want to fight them anymore)! She should be repsected, for what's she's accomplished. But the speculation in the media, and by so many Hillary supporters, continues to push the meme (while many of us in net-roots continue to pull our hair out) that HRC would make Obama's best Vice President. I think it's over.

Well,even the informed citizens of the State of NY (which I am one), in the latest Rasmussen Poll says no to this!

Nearly one out of four voters (23%) in New York would like to see Hillary Clinton go away, and a plurality of unaffiliated voters would prefer she stay in the Senate than serve as Barack Obama's running mate.The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Empire State found that 29% of all New Yorker voters think Clinton should become Barack Obama's running mate while 37% think she should remain a senator.

Half of New York Republicans (50%) would like to see the former Presidential hopeful go away. Among New York Democrats, 42% would like to see Clinton as Obama’s running mate and 42% think she should stay in Senate. A plurality of unaffiliated voters want the former First Lady to remain a senator.

CNN:

With the dust having finally settled after the prolonged Democratic presidential primary, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama locked in a statistical dead heat in the race for the White House.

With just over four months remaining until voters weigh in at the polls, the new survey out Tuesday indicates Obama holds a narrow 5-point advantage among registered voters nationwide over the Arizona senator, 50 percent to 45 percent. That represents little change from a similar poll one month ago, when the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee held a 46-43 percent edge over McCain.

Nate links us to a primer by the National Council on Public Polls that tells us how media should report on polls:

Certainly, if the gap between the two candidates is less than the sampling error margin, you should not say that one candidate is ahead of the other. You can say the race is "close," the race is "roughly even," or there is "little difference between the candidates." But it should not be called a "dead heat" unless the candidates are tied with the same percentages. And it certainly is not a “statistical tie” unless both candidates have the same exact percentages [...]

When the gap between the two candidates is more than the error margin but less than twice the error margin, you should say that Candidate A "is ahead," "has an advantage" or "holds an edge." The story should mention that there is a small possibility that Candidate B is ahead of Candidate A.

Obama is ahead in this poll. There is a chance the poll is wrong, given the 3.5% margin of error, but when the poll says Obama is ahead by five points, it means something, and it's not the same as if the poll was 45-45.

Furthermore, the Pollster.com national poll composite currently has Obama leading 48.5 - 43.9, just shy of the 5-point margin in the latest CNN poll. In other words, chances are that its results are not an outlier.

Of course, CNN desperately wants their dead heat. It's good for ratings.

I agree with mcjoan that this wasn't the best compromise Democrats could get.  At the same time, the FISA compromise wasn't worth a quixiotic fight, either.  At the end of the day, below the fold is what this election is about:

Yes we do.
No matter how center to the left Senator Obama may get, he still gets my vote and then some.

Doesn't it seem like the media performs these random "flips" in objection? I feel so. If McCain commits a gaffe, they all have to work overtime to find some media-created "dirt" on Senator Obama to object to and cause a flurry over("Obama denies young boy fist bump").

In the last few days there was much of discourse among progressives about the Obama campaign's direction towards the center. The healthy critisism, of course, is always helpful. But I am not so sure about calls to withdraw donations to Obama in the midst of GE which popped on this blog. The proponents of this idea are quick to point out that they'll vote for Obama anyway.

But is it enough?    

Where do we stop in expressing our dissatisfaction with Obama or his campaign? Donation withdrawal? Volunteering withdrawal? Registration drive withdrawal? To what end?  

Regular Updates In Case You're Thinking Of Voting In Another One In November

It is hard to ignore it in this campaign.  Race.  

For the first time ever, we have a presumptive nominee who is an African American.  There is no escaping it.  Race.  

Senator Obama delivered nothing short of an inspiring speech about it.  Race.  

But don’t we live in a colorblind society?  Shouldn’t race be inconsequential?    No.  And no.

I just watched the report about those hostages in Columbia being released after five years of captivity. I know this has something to do with McCain's visit, the official story being just a little implausible. I'm going to take it as a good sign for things improving in Central America. Now on with my original wonderful blog.  

The more I watch this campaign suddenly the more hopeful I get. I see both candidates mostly running a straight forward clean campaign talking about things that are possible for America. I'm impressed, as both candidates seem to be staying away from radical proposals that are sure to be endorsed only by fringe partisan groups. Without being specific you can still infer this by looking at the Fundamentalist's dissatisfaction with McCain and the Progressives growing discontent with Barack Obama. Some may call this centrism and then say it means nothing or anything, others may call it realism knowing it will take moderate solutions to get the reforms the country needs.