It is Good to see the cooler heads are checking in. I hope people are listening. Yesterday was a bummer, to say the least.

Thank you for a very thought provoking post.

Rec'd. The statement yesterday rubbed me the wrong way, but this guy and his team keep surprising me with their foresight and ability to plan. Wait and watch.

I meant to type, NOT the only offensive thing.

The only thing I would add is that governing is a long-term process. You voting for (or against) Obama is short-term.

It may a short-term plus to have the progressives cheering because he took "their" principled stand. But as someone looking ahead to at least 4 years in the White House, it is smarter to think about -- plan -- how FISA would be used in an Obama administration. I'll take long-term for $500...

We've had eight years of short-term thinking and all it's gotten us is stuck in Iraq, an economy in shambles and, well, you know what state we're in...

Thanks for sharing your insight, Steve.

Let me also repost something: This FISA immunity from civil suits is a very minor issue.

1. Bush will certainly grant immunity to telecom executives from criminal charges. Bush and the telecoms will certainly claim a national security exemption from telling the whole truth in civil trials.

2. If the telecoms lose the civil suits, they will have to pay cash penalties that they will then pass on to their customers.

3. The main benefit coming from no immunity is the opportunity to find out what really happened. We can do that with hearings and Justice Department probes in 2009, assuming we don't throw out baby Obama with dirty Bush water.

4. There are far, far more important issues damaging our constitution: habeas corpus, the politicization of the Justice Department, torture, White House crimes regarding Iraq (like leaking and lying), and the politicization of the intelligence agencies. Whether or not telecoms get punished is irrelevant. They spied already. We don't want them spying any more. Tying the hands of future presidents is more productive.

Time to realize that Obama can't possibly satisfy every single one of us. The intersection of our wants is empty.

There won't be time for recriminations later. Later means the lawsuits get thrown out. It means that the telecoms get away with knowingly breaking laws that are decades old and that their victims get no compensation whatsoever. It also effectively guts the 4th Amendment for the Internet age.

I agree with you that Obama should not be "dead" to any Democratic voter over this. But Obama should be put on notice. Don't try to minimize how badly he sold us out.

Good post. We need to step back and look at the whole picture.

I know that I don't know the whole story here. I'm not happy with what I've heard so far, but frankly, what we've heard isn't much. It's one statement and a hell of a lot of speculation (mixed with a fair amount of projection).

I also know that I don't know all the details of the bill, and I don't have time to research it extensively. It's tempting, actually, to throw myself into and spend hours figuring out the nuance. But I can't. I've got too many responsibilities to my own work and family. (Hell, I shouldn't even be posting here!)

I'm going to reserve final judgment until we see exactly how the whole thing plays out. I hope at that time we'll get a fuller statement from Obama. I'm not advocating blind faith, just a better focused picture.

Ready to Blow a Gasket takes umbrage.

Reading comprehension time: far, far more important issues damaging our constitution does not say or imply that granting telecom immunity is not related to the constitution. Don't put words in my mouth.

This issue is our Constitution! is hyperbole. It's a part of our constitution, a small part.

What is our most fundamental right? The right to vote. Without that right all our other rights cannot be enforced. That's why politicization of the Justice Department leading to voting abuses is more important than whether the White House knew which cell phones signaled which other cell phones. Two hundred million cell phones, ten calls a day, five years is 3,650,000,000,000 calls. This haystack is too monstrously big for even the NSA's best data mining software. Get real. Our own constitutional rights have hardly been affected (with probability 1 for almost everyone).

I understand there are principles. Yet the spying has already occurred and cannot be undone in this universe. What is most important is that it not happen again. That's why immunity is small potatoes. Prosecute Bush in 2009. Now that would be a deterrent.

He was dead to me long before because all the indications were that he was prone to this sort of collapse.

Please remember that Obama opposed impeachment from the beginnning.

I agree AND if you feel this FISA bill granting immunity is wrong then please take some responsbility and do something about it yourself. I am disappointed in the democratic leaders for thinking that this compromise is a good thing. I think it is bad enough that the congress will not take up impeachment but actively granting this immunity adds insult to injury. I have already written to most senators and intend to communicate with every senator about this. I am not going to place all of the responsbility on anyone else including senator Obama. Without people making their voices heard the congress will do whatever it wants. They have not done anything to convince me that this is a good deal for america. We have been asked to 'take it' repeatedly and this is another case of 'sticking it to' the american people. Fellow americans civil liberties have been voilated and they deserve to be able to have their day in court and the congress should not intervene. If they were smart and wanted to do what's best for our country they would own up to their illegal activity and try to reach a compromis with the injured parties. This whole thing makes absolutely no sense to me. If there are others who were complicit in breaking the law who happen to be democrats then they need to be held accountable to. I am completely disappointed in congress and that includes Senator Obama. He says he will try hard to get the immunity removed. Reid immediatlely stated that he would try to get a vote for that but he didn't believe it would pass. Only a storm on inquiry, outrage, and making our voices heard will give power to the members of the senate that can make this change in the bill. It has worked in the past so I suggest that we do it again. If they really believe in this compromise then they should be selling it to us, explaining why, otherwise WE should do what we can to get immunity removed or Kill the bill.

Okay, ;et me see if I understand this. Obama NOW backs the FISA bill because it works to his political advantage? So, where did CHANGE, HOPE and a DIFFERENT leadership come into being? Sounds like the name should now be Obama Bush.

I'm not in favor of the FISA compromise, and I think the telecomm companies need to be held accountable. I strongly support Obama for President, although don't agree with every single thing he's ever said or done. I hope he does, actually, try to strip the immunity provision out, and maybe he'll succeed - who knows. I do like the fact that he encourages citizens to be involved, and believe that he supports the efforts of many of us (myself included) who have written letters, sent faxes, etc. on this issue and others to our various Congressional leaders. He supports our right and obligation to keep the pressure on, including keeping the pressure on him. Still, I want to see him elected before too much pressure is applied since no amount of citizen lobbying is going to make McCain do the right thing.

As far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, if the new law is challenged and found to violate Fourth Amendment rights, it will be struck down by the courts (assuming the judges on the courts are inclined to support the Constitution). I guess the most important thing in all this is making sure that someone is appointing decent judges. And that someone would be Obama.

Bottom line here as in so many things is that it is up to US to push the politicians -- and there are all too many in the Congress who will otherwise be bought or scared into voting the wrong way. WE THE PEOPLE are the power behind the throne WHEN WE DECIDE TO ACT LIKE IT TOGETHER.

And right now, we should be sending a BLIZZARD OF CALLS, LETTERS, EMAILS AND PERSONAL VISITS to SENATORS if we want to head this thing off. If we can't do that and expect Obama to do it all, we deserve what we keep getting.

Obama then just becomes our latest excuse for why things aren't working so good.

If Obama tries to fight this, it becomes a "national security" issue for McCain and the GOP to hammer him on -- to the exclusion of everything else. It plays right into the GOP's perceived strength on national security. If he keeps his cool and lets the situation start to play out, he can keep focusing attention on McCain's weaknesses. Remember that once elected, he can do a lot more than he can do now. Frankly, I think he's playing this the right way for the moment we're in.

I wish everyone hadn't gotten all freaked out by this. Remember that Obama is a multi-dimensional person. We don't know what he's thinking on this, what strategy he might have. Unlike Bush's one-dimensional, black-and-white "you're for us or against us" kind of thinking. Obama is a constitutional law expert. I trust him to know what he's doing. I just really believe there's a lot more going on here than meets the eye. And I, for one, am not ready to abandon the best hope this country has just because of what we think might be going on. This is one issue.

Just to join NC Steve in encouraging a little perspective here. Despite the heat and fire, the immunity part of the bill is honetly not that important:

1) There is no Constitutional right to get money damages from a private entity that invaded your privacy at the behest of lawful authority.

2) If the 'authority' told the private entity to do something that invaded your privacy in a way that wasn't lawful, then there is already a law (42 USC 1983) that allows you to collect money damages **from the government** for that constitutional violation (granted, only a token amount) and also any other real damages that you can prove.

3) Even if the telecoms are not given immunity, there is no guarantee that they would ever pay damages. They have the right to argue that they relied on government officials who were acting with apparent authority. That's a strong defense and one that would most likely take the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court before a penny was paid out.

and - here is the really important part --

4) The Supreme Court just voted by a one-person majority, 5-4, to recognize the ancient common law and solidly Constitutional (main part, not any sort of amendment) of habeas corpus!!! Now. some conservative judges still do not accept that there is a right to privacy implicit in the 4th amendment -- but no one can deny that the Constitution clearly obliges our government to honor the privilege of habeas corpus.

So - answer honestly. What is more important to you: that computerized records of your phone calls and conversations maybe be amassed with millions of other such records by bureaucrats somewhere --- or --- that you could be imprisoned and have no avenue for petitioning a court to require your custodians to justify their keeping you imprisoned??

Four justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court do not respect habeas corpus or recognize that it applies to *anyone* that our government imprisons. The Republican candidate for president agrees with them - vehemently. And the five justices who thankfully are able to read the Constitution and understand what it says are a lot older than the other four.

So there is one person, Barack Obama, who is standing between the citizens of this country and a 5-4 decision in the other direction on something as ancient and established and expressly recognized in the Constitution as habeas corpus. If that can be tossed aside so easily, then the best, toughest FISA bill that anyone could draft or dream of or even the "implied" right of privacy of the 4th Amandment won't mean diddly-squat.

I know everyone seems awfully upset about the surveillance provisions of the FISA bill (undoubtedly important) and the immunity provisions (which I'm not convinced mean anything real) ................. but why are more people not absolutely shaking in their boots about that 5-4 habeas corpus decision and McCain's strong endorsement of the dissent??? It's absolutely terrifying me.

I trust Obama to do the best he can re: the version of the bill that gets passed and, more importantly, not to abuse the power it does give when he's president. But far more important than that, I trust him not to blithely skip over those words about habeas corpus in Article I of the Constitution, or to appoint judges who would do such a thing.