Panic is premature. Anger is entirely justified.

Yeah. Interesting. This and his endorsement of the guy in GA.

We have this image of Obama. He's not quite living up to our idealized image. Some of us, as "supporters" feel betrayed, because he's not quite living up to the image.

I think we need to be realistic here. I'm not thrilled about this FISA bill, but I'm willing to wait and see what happens with it and I don't expect for Obama to single handedly "fix" it for us.

I called my Rep's office yesterday and I'll call my senators on Monday.

With regard to Obama, yes, I was disappointed with the statement he put out today, but, like you, Phoebe Fay, I say we wait this out and see what happens. He's promised to fight the immunity clause. How hard will he fight? Will others join his fight? Will they be successful?

All those questions need to be answered before we ratchet from disappointment (anger?) to outrage.

Also, John Dean was on Countdown tonight. He asserted that his read of the bill indicated that the amnesty portion applied to only civil suits and that criminal suits may still be possible.

Is it possible that Obama knows more than we do?

My hope is that today he speaks softly but that next week he pulls out the big stick. We shall see.

Phoebe Fay (is that like Fairy Phoebe?) - the impression I get is the many of the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing people are terribly upset that it's no longer all about them. When they were the at the center of Obama's attention, everything was great. Now that the focus has shifted to the US electorate as a whole, they feel unloved and betrayed. A bit like an older sibling when a new baby arrives.

The bunnycat is wise and speaks the truth. This is a fine balancing act. One thing is certain though - without the balancing, if Obama only gets the votes of people who voted for him in the primaries, he has zero chance of becoming the next president.

I posted this on another thread, but I'm reposting because it's something for people to consider.

When Jimmy Carter ran for office, he allowed white segregationists in the South to believe that he was one of them. He talked about how he would invite George Wallace to speak at the statehouse, paid visits to segregationist leaders who subsequently endorsed him, and had kind things to say about Lester Maddox, who was running for Lieutenant Governor at the time. Their support helped to get Carter elected in a landslide. At his inauguration, Carter thanked his racist supporters by saying:

The time for racial discrimination is over. No poor rural white or black person should ever have to bear the additional burden of being deprived of the opportunity of an education, a job or simple justice.

Don't believe for a second that Barack Obama hasn't studied past successful election strategies. He knows what he's doing even if you don't.

Agreed Phoebes - a really well thought out and reasoned post. I am hopeful that the huge outcry this has started will inspire Obama to vote against this bill and I hope that the Democratic senators as a whole will stand with him in a show of unity.

Obama's in a tough place since he is the non-politician politician who ran as someone who wanted to change the way things were done in Washington. He set high expectations for himself and yes we deserve the right to be disappointed and angry when he doesn't meet those expectations. But let's not forget that one vote - even this vote - does not make the man.

I don't blame Obama for this - I emailed the Speaker and told her what I think.

I told her she'd broken every promise the Democrats had made to us to get elected. Told her the DSCCC and the DNC have a lot of nerve asking me for money when they have let us down like this.

But this isn't Obama's fault, for all love.

I have to say, though I oppose immunity, I don't see why this is such an important issue to everyone.

- What's done is done. What we need are laws to keep it from happening again. Punishing the telecoms would accomplish little.

- While I think that their response was craven, I can sympathize with the telecoms to an extent. When the President tells you in a time of war that the info is needed for national security and that it's legal, I can image that it would be quite difficult to say no.

The points do not absolve the telecoms and do not offer an argument for giving them immunity, but they suggest to me that the question of immunity is not the most significant issue on the table. I happen to believe that the overall bill should not be defeated because of the immunity issue. You may disagree with me, but am I a coward who has betrayed my principles for the sake of political expediency?

Maybe, just maybe, Obama feels the same way. He doesn't believe that the telecoms should have immunity but doesn't believe that this is an issue that merits a major battle. Just because Obama is progressive and you are progressive doesn't mean that he believes everything that you do, so the fact that he takes a position that you disagree with does not entail that he has abandoned his principles. (That's a collective you--not addressed to Phoebe, with whom I agree.)

Excellent post and recommended.

Obama seems to have a record of nuanced voting; his 'present' votes in the state legislature are good examples. Let us remember that he is still a Senator, and not yet President. It's messy to run for POTUS as a Senator.

I don't know what you think you're getting with Obama, but this shows me loud and clear that he's no different from Hillary, Steny Hoyer, Joe Lieberman and all the DLC warmongers who'd sell us to the devil to win an election.

I saw you on Fox News in 1999, in fake dreads, a tie-dye, and a "Nader 2000" button, braying that Al Gore would be no better than George Bush as Shaun Hannity nodded gleefully.

You were an idiot then. You're worse now.

libgirl wrote:

This bill does NOT immunize Bush. Not at all. Never. Past, present, future, ever. I challenge you to present a cite which shows immunization for George Bush in this bill. It immunizes Telecoms. It also does not grant wiretapping authority without oversight.

Sorry, but you're wrong. It does immunize Bush.
From Glen Greenwald's blog on Salon.com:

In the course of criticizing the “compromise” bill, Andrew Sullivan wrote yesterday that he’s “not as livid as” I am because “at least the White House appears to have conceded that the Congress has the final say on what is and what is not legal in eavesdropping.” But that’s actually not true, and that really underscores the key point here. This whole controversy began because George Bush, in December of 2005, got caught breaking our spying laws for years. He did so because he embraced a radical and un-American theory that asserted he has the power to break all of our laws provided such lawbreaking is, in his view, related to “defense of the nation.” That lawbreaking theory is at the heart of virtually every major controversy of the last seven years, and it remains entirely in tact and preserved: At the meeting [with the DOJ], Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, “is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence. This scandal began by revelations that the President broke the law — committed felonies — when spying on our calls and emails without warrants, because he believes he has the power to break the law. The scandal all but concluded yesterday, with the Democratic Congress (a) protecting the President, (b) permanently blocking the lawsuits which would have revealed what he did and would have ruled that he broke the law, and (c) legalizing the very illegal spying regime that he secretly ordered in 2001. Only in the twisted world of Washington can that be described as a “compromise.”

As for the president's expanded ability to authorize wiretapping without oversight, this is what Caroline Fredrickson of the ACLU has to say on the subject of the new warrantless eavesdropping provisions included in this bill:

This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans' communications. The court review is mere window-dressing –- all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole –- "exigent" circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all.

Good Post and Sensible Responses. Some sanity at last.