8 ms·

Related - here's a video of Candidate Obama debating President Obama on government surveillance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8 http://www.youtube.c

Related - here's a video of Candidate Obama debating President Obama on government surveillance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

MisterWebz 13y ago
This kind of shows the amount of power the people behind the scenes have on Obama.
- corin_ 13y ago
  Hypothetical other explanations: 1.) Obama always had the same views, but was lying to get elected 2.) Obama changed his mind, a possibility for any person on any topic 3.) Becoming president gave Obama new information which changed his mind, and which would change the mind of anyone elected president 4.) His opinions stayed the same, but now that he's president it's in his best interests to take this stance, which it wasn't before There's more than one possible cause here, and possibly more than one of them are the case. Despite the fact that it's much easier to blame external influences.
  - leifaffles 13y ago
    I agree. It'd be great if we could just ask him, but I don't know if I've ever heard him say something that wasn't manipulative and to his perceived political advantage.
  - ZoFreX 13y ago
    I think this advice to Kissinger really drives home what option #3 looks like - http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...
  - nano111 13y ago
    5) They spied on Obama, and now are blackmailing him
  - adventured 13y ago
    N) The kind of power Obama now possesses has corrupted him, amplifying existing character flaws and revealing an inner despot.
- miles 13y ago
  This kind of shows the amount of power the people behind the scenes have on Obama. No, this shows how willing Obama is to cave. We needed a Sam Adams or Lincoln or MLK and instead we got a Benedict Arnold.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    It may be partly that he saw the Bush unilateralism and wanted more consensus-based governance. The problem being that, in the executive bubble, where most of seats and nearly all of the money is held by the military-industrial complex, that's the consensus you will get.
    - kunai 13y ago
      The more pressing problem is that many tough solutions aren't solved by committee, they're solved by leadership and expertise, a point where Congress fails, the executive branch fails, and where the roots of government (e.g. Constitution) start to fail under the stress of lobbying and corruption.
  - zanny 13y ago
    Well, neither the RNC or DMC would nominate a Lincoln or MLK but love their Arnolds.
- zokier 13y ago
  Speaking of people behind the scenes, who are those two people standing with Obama in the San Jose conference?
- mikevm 13y ago
  Your post implies that Obama has been forced to go along with this surveillance program, so it wasn't directly his fault. Being a liberal myself, I'm shocked to see how much Obama has been getting the benefit of the doubt by liberals on all the crap that has been happening lately. The same liberals that qwew quick to criticize and blame Bush on everything, and never extend him the same courtesy.
tommi 13y ago
Thanks for sharing. The 6 year difference is huge, it's almost like there are two completely different persons talking.
- keithwarren 13y ago
  I can only imagine that what he saw when the curtain got pulled back and he started receiving the PDB shocked him to the core. This is a pretty radical swing on a fundamental issue, there has to be a root cause for the change.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    Well the NSA head did say that dozens of terrorist acts had been thwarted with the help of the phone records. Which could means that there are potentially hundreds/thousands of active terrorist investigations. Given that any one could be the next Boston Marathon, 9/11 or perhaps on an even bigger scale like polluting water sources or dirty bombs using material from poorly secured Pakistan/Russian nuclear sites. If you were receiving daily updates outlining the creative and more sinister ways terrorists were planning attacks perhaps you might come to the conclusion that the US is out of its depth and needs every tool at its disposal.
    - adventured 13y ago
      The NSA's claims are laughable. These clowns couldn't catch the bumbling Boston bombers, who were about as unprofessional as terrorists get. And there was no shortage of arrows pointing to them.
      - GhotiFish 13y ago
        good luck finding those glowing red neon signs when they're floating somewhere in the middle of the ocean. We generate quiet a bit of data, us humans.
    - fokov 13y ago
      > dozens of terrorist acts Which ones were real or could have actually pulled anything off? The underwear bomber? The guy that locked his keys in the car? Or the ones the FBI convinces others to attempt? The NSA has been doing this for a long time and have missed things like the Boston bombing while there was plenty of evidence that required further observance. Just looking at some of his public photos, it was apparent to me that he probably should be observed. Those didn't even require these new legal means. Don't you think if they did successfully stop a really major terrorist attack either Bush or Obama would have ran with it in the open? If it happened in 2008, Obama probably wouldn't have been elected because people would have loved to see these new [horrible] laws stop 9/11 part 2. Bush would have said something like "We told you we needed this and we were right. Without these laws we wouldn't have been able to catch them. These laws saved thousands of lives today and will continue to do so in the future." However, here we are and nothing major has been found. Now they have the potential for political blackmail that can stop all sorts of challenges to the establishment. One thing many people agree is that Congress sucks and both parties are out of touch with us. They will use these legal means in order to hold onto their power. I do not trust them in the least. Also, if they can do this, why can't we attach live camera and microphones to all of them? Why can't we make all of their emails public? They want this access to us, why can't we have it for them?
mkolodny 13y ago
You can tell that Obama doesn't believe in what he's saying in 2013. There's just so much hesitation in his words. In 2007, he believed in what he said - that security is not an excuse to violate the civil liberties of the people. There was so much conviction in his words. That conviction just isn't there anymore. I'd follow 2007 Obama anywhere, but 2013 Obama is severely lacking.
- icambron 13y ago
  2007 Obama lead us precisely here.
- gojomo 13y ago
  Too bad 2013 Obama sent 2007 Obama to some secret prison somewhere. (A Guantanamo of the mind?)
  - pyre 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_candidate
    - gojomo 13y ago
      True story: after writing this 2002 blogpost -- http://www.openp2p.com/pub/wlg/2448 http://www.openp2p.com/pub/wlg/2448 -- a researcher preparing material for the 2004 remake of 'Manchurian Candidate' contacted me by email looking for more background material.
- fossuser 13y ago
  The problem is that both candidate Obama, you and I are arguing from a point of massive ignorance. From what's been leaked I find the idea that all digital communication is monitored on everyone and everything disturbing. As Snowden mentioned in his interview this is a powerful thing for a government to have and can become dangerous. It's something the public should be involved in deciding where and if that line is drawn. It's a catch-22. The information necessary to fully appreciate what's going on is classified and the only way to understand the argument completely is to get a high level clearance which then prevents you from making any arguments about it. Daniel Ellsberg wrote something really interesting about the effects this can have on the cleared vs. uncleared: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber... From what's available I can't imagine a situation where the cost of this type of massive internet surveillance outweighs whatever benefit. While I can appreciate the necessity of secrets - I wish we could know the truth.
kristiandupont 13y ago
This reminds me of this video showing a similar change for George Bush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvknGT8W5jA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvknGT8W5jA -- maybe the case is simply that being the president leaves you in a position where you have to consider so many different interests and so many people try to influence you that being steadfast becomes impossible?
danenania 13y ago
Everyone's asking what changed him? What changed his mind? But I think the simplest answer is that he hasn't changed very much. Obama is and always has been a gifted political opportunist. In 2007 he found it politically expedient to oppose Bush's surveillance programs. In 2013 he finds it politically expedient to oversee programs that are orders of magnitude broader and more intrusive. The man does not have principles. He never had them.
- cheald 13y ago
  Hey now, be fair. "Look out for Number One" is a principle!
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

Related - here's a video of Candidate Obama debating President Obama on government surveillance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

MisterWebz 13y ago

This kind of shows the amount of power the people behind the scenes have on Obama.

corin_ 13y ago
Hypothetical other explanations: 1.) Obama always had the same views, but was lying to get elected 2.) Obama changed his mind, a possibility for any person on any topic 3.) Becoming president gave Obama new information which changed his mind, and which would change the mind of anyone elected president 4.) His opinions stayed the same, but now that he's president it's in his best interests to take this stance, which it wasn't before There's more than one possible cause here, and possibly more than one of them are the case. Despite the fact that it's much easier to blame external influences.
- leifaffles 13y ago
  I agree. It'd be great if we could just ask him, but I don't know if I've ever heard him say something that wasn't manipulative and to his perceived political advantage.
- ZoFreX 13y ago
  I think this advice to Kissinger really drives home what option #3 looks like - http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...
- nano111 13y ago
  5) They spied on Obama, and now are blackmailing him
- adventured 13y ago
  N) The kind of power Obama now possesses has corrupted him, amplifying existing character flaws and revealing an inner despot.
miles 13y ago
This kind of shows the amount of power the people behind the scenes have on Obama. No, this shows how willing Obama is to cave. We needed a Sam Adams or Lincoln or MLK and instead we got a Benedict Arnold.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  It may be partly that he saw the Bush unilateralism and wanted more consensus-based governance. The problem being that, in the executive bubble, where most of seats and nearly all of the money is held by the military-industrial complex, that's the consensus you will get.
  - kunai 13y ago
    The more pressing problem is that many tough solutions aren't solved by committee, they're solved by leadership and expertise, a point where Congress fails, the executive branch fails, and where the roots of government (e.g. Constitution) start to fail under the stress of lobbying and corruption.
- zanny 13y ago
  Well, neither the RNC or DMC would nominate a Lincoln or MLK but love their Arnolds.
zokier 13y ago
Speaking of people behind the scenes, who are those two people standing with Obama in the San Jose conference?
mikevm 13y ago
Your post implies that Obama has been forced to go along with this surveillance program, so it wasn't directly his fault. Being a liberal myself, I'm shocked to see how much Obama has been getting the benefit of the doubt by liberals on all the crap that has been happening lately. The same liberals that qwew quick to criticize and blame Bush on everything, and never extend him the same courtesy.

tommi 13y ago

Thanks for sharing. The 6 year difference is huge, it's almost like there are two completely different persons talking.

keithwarren 13y ago
I can only imagine that what he saw when the curtain got pulled back and he started receiving the PDB shocked him to the core. This is a pretty radical swing on a fundamental issue, there has to be a root cause for the change.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Well the NSA head did say that dozens of terrorist acts had been thwarted with the help of the phone records. Which could means that there are potentially hundreds/thousands of active terrorist investigations. Given that any one could be the next Boston Marathon, 9/11 or perhaps on an even bigger scale like polluting water sources or dirty bombs using material from poorly secured Pakistan/Russian nuclear sites. If you were receiving daily updates outlining the creative and more sinister ways terrorists were planning attacks perhaps you might come to the conclusion that the US is out of its depth and needs every tool at its disposal.
  - adventured 13y ago
    The NSA's claims are laughable. These clowns couldn't catch the bumbling Boston bombers, who were about as unprofessional as terrorists get. And there was no shortage of arrows pointing to them.
    - GhotiFish 13y ago
      good luck finding those glowing red neon signs when they're floating somewhere in the middle of the ocean. We generate quiet a bit of data, us humans.
  - fokov 13y ago
    > dozens of terrorist acts Which ones were real or could have actually pulled anything off? The underwear bomber? The guy that locked his keys in the car? Or the ones the FBI convinces others to attempt? The NSA has been doing this for a long time and have missed things like the Boston bombing while there was plenty of evidence that required further observance. Just looking at some of his public photos, it was apparent to me that he probably should be observed. Those didn't even require these new legal means. Don't you think if they did successfully stop a really major terrorist attack either Bush or Obama would have ran with it in the open? If it happened in 2008, Obama probably wouldn't have been elected because people would have loved to see these new [horrible] laws stop 9/11 part 2. Bush would have said something like "We told you we needed this and we were right. Without these laws we wouldn't have been able to catch them. These laws saved thousands of lives today and will continue to do so in the future." However, here we are and nothing major has been found. Now they have the potential for political blackmail that can stop all sorts of challenges to the establishment. One thing many people agree is that Congress sucks and both parties are out of touch with us. They will use these legal means in order to hold onto their power. I do not trust them in the least. Also, if they can do this, why can't we attach live camera and microphones to all of them? Why can't we make all of their emails public? They want this access to us, why can't we have it for them?

mkolodny 13y ago

You can tell that Obama doesn't believe in what he's saying in 2013. There's just so much hesitation in his words. In 2007, he believed in what he said - that security is not an excuse to violate the civil liberties of the people. There was so much conviction in his words. That conviction just isn't there anymore. I'd follow 2007 Obama anywhere, but 2013 Obama is severely lacking.

icambron 13y ago
2007 Obama lead us precisely here.
gojomo 13y ago
Too bad 2013 Obama sent 2007 Obama to some secret prison somewhere. (A Guantanamo of the mind?)
- pyre 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_candidate
  - gojomo 13y ago
    True story: after writing this 2002 blogpost -- http://www.openp2p.com/pub/wlg/2448 http://www.openp2p.com/pub/wlg/2448 -- a researcher preparing material for the 2004 remake of 'Manchurian Candidate' contacted me by email looking for more background material.
fossuser 13y ago
The problem is that both candidate Obama, you and I are arguing from a point of massive ignorance. From what's been leaked I find the idea that all digital communication is monitored on everyone and everything disturbing. As Snowden mentioned in his interview this is a powerful thing for a government to have and can become dangerous. It's something the public should be involved in deciding where and if that line is drawn. It's a catch-22. The information necessary to fully appreciate what's going on is classified and the only way to understand the argument completely is to get a high level clearance which then prevents you from making any arguments about it. Daniel Ellsberg wrote something really interesting about the effects this can have on the cleared vs. uncleared: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber... From what's available I can't imagine a situation where the cost of this type of massive internet surveillance outweighs whatever benefit. While I can appreciate the necessity of secrets - I wish we could know the truth.

kristiandupont 13y ago

This reminds me of this video showing a similar change for George Bush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvknGT8W5jA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvknGT8W5jA -- maybe the case is simply that being the president leaves you in a position where you have to consider so many different interests and so many people try to influence you that being steadfast becomes impossible?

danenania 13y ago

Everyone's asking what changed him? What changed his mind? But I think the simplest answer is that he hasn't changed very much. Obama is and always has been a gifted political opportunist. In 2007 he found it politically expedient to oppose Bush's surveillance programs. In 2013 he finds it politically expedient to oversee programs that are orders of magnitude broader and more intrusive. The man does not have principles. He never had them.

cheald 13y ago
Hey now, be fair. "Look out for Number One" is a principle!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]