Sorry to get all up in your grill, but there's a reason this issue is so controversial. Please, in the future do some reading on the issue before spouting off platitudes about "compromise" and such.

Once more, with feeling --

Senator Obama, avatar of responsible government, Democratic presidential nominee and outspoken champion of Change You Can Believe In, did not denounce this horror of a bill. He did not actively oppose it, he has not campaigned against it, he has taken no action whatsoever to challenge it or to stop it.

He has, in fact, told us he thinks the bill is just great, except for one small provision, which he will try to get stripped out in the Senate, maybe, if he can find the time in his busy, busy schedule. But if he cannot succeed in getting that one tiny provision stripped out, or cannot find the time to even make an attempt, well, he'll still vote for the bill, or at least, he won't vote against the bill, because he thinks that for the most part, it's a fabulous bill, a wonderful bill, a tremendous bill, a triumph of bi-partisan compromise.

This bill is odious, it is vile, it is wretched and abominable and atrocious, it is unConstitutional and loathsome and deeply, deeply wrong on every level and in its every facet and potential application. To support it is unconscionable, to fail to oppose it is unacceptable, to equivocate about either, to explain, to rationalize, to apologize, to regret the unfortunate necessity, to hem and to haw, to bluster and bemoan, to whimper and whine, well, that's what we call around these parts frickin' BULLshit, sir.

The issues surrounding this bill are important issues, vital issues, crucial issues. Whether Obama chooses to lead in this matter, or merely to bluster ineffectually while keeping his eyes on the prize, is not a trivial matter. To be concerned about this is not to be foolish or obsessive or overly sensitive, and, lastly, to be angry about this is not to be even remotely irrational. Senator Obama has promised us better behavior than this, and if Senator Obama can't live up to his pledges, then that's a thing.

It's a BIG thing.

You can rationalize, justify, exhort, distort, and apologize for Mr. Obama all you like. In the end, you simply sound as craven as he does, if not quite as articulate in your gutlessness. The FISA bill is a monstrosity; the worthy must oppose it. Those who do not are unworthy. In a world of grey, this is black and white. In a universe of complexity and nuance, this is really that simple.

Thanks. I'm calmer now.

Ironincally, letting FISA revert to status quo ante would have given Republicans election ammunition to demonstrate that Democrats were weak on security

The Democrats can lead. I've seen them do it in the past. We don't always have to be playing reaction politics with the GOP.

Anyways, it's all moot. Already, the "weak on security" meme has run out of gas. It hardly kept Bush in office in 2004, and it certainly didn't help the GOP hang onto any seats in 2006. It's 2008. We're moving beyond "weak on security."

Please look at my "Further down the road" paragraph again. If you think that FISA is capitulation or compromise, think of what will happen in the battles for health care and Social Security, et al.

Appreciated, and yes, sometimes you must throw your opposition a bone to get something bigger done. But FISA is more than a bone to the GOP. It's a NY strip steak.

Health care and Social Security are important issues, and are very dear to me, but basic legal rights and the Constitution are more important. They are what makes America so great. They need to be preserved above all else.

Obama should oppose this bill. It's not going to cost him the Presidency, and I doubt it will hinder later attempts for universal health care and Social Security reform.

We have to consider the possibility that Obama supports FISA as constructed, minus the immunity proviso, so that it will provide him with the tools that he needs as President to address national security issues.

Sorry to get you all riled up again, Customer.

Ready...GO!

Doc: I can understand that this is a really big issue to many netroots progressives-- I am not trying to in any way minimize your concern or commitment. However, our country is an enormous melting pot of citizens who may or may not view the FISA bill with the same outraged fervor.

As a matter of fact, I suspect that many of us are conflicted on this issue, as we are on a myriad of others, due to the reality that we are living in a post-911 world. Most Americans seem willing to give up some civil liberties in order to prevent and/or respond to terrorist threats at home and abroad. That is why Bush and Cheney were able to broaden presidential powers in such abusive ways.

I agree with Pangaea that lack of compromise usually results in gridlock and NO PROGRESS at all being made. Purists from both sides of every issue completely (and, I think selfishly) REFUSE to give, in any way. IMO, progress is only made when centrists are willing to look at each side, acknowledge the positives and negatives, and try to include elements of both. Note I did not say PERFECTION is achieved, only minute degrees of PROGRESS.

For every fire-breathing progressive railing and ranting about the FISA "cave-in, sell-out, woe is me- I'm leaving" debacle, there is an equal number of pro-FISA supporters raving and stamping about saying the bill did not go far enough in the opposite direction.

Presidents are supposed to represent ALL citizens, as much as possible. George Bush has represented only wealthy conservatives. Do we really want the next president to ONLY represent our side in every issue? Would we really want him to ONLY represent women? Men? African-Americans? Whites? Latinos? Asians? Seniors? Rich? Middle-class? Labor Unions? Insurance companies? Lawyers? etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum?

The only person who will march lock-step with every opinion you hold sacred is you. I'll bet that sometimes you even disappoint yourself. I know that I certainly do. Because no one is perfect. We just have to get over it and keep fighting to make those minute, incremental steps toward progress. We benefit from those who worked before us; others will benefit from the successes we achieve. Inch by inch, year after year.

Let's think about what would have happened if a FISA compromise were not reached. If both sides stuck to their guns, nothing would have been accomplished.

2 McCaniac points for this tool

Who cares if nothing is accomplished on this issue? The existing FISA laws are more than sufficient. I'm not actually convinced they need to be updated at all. But, if the government is intent on updating, it would be fine for them to do so in 2009 or however long it takes to update the law without granting telecom immunity.

There's no rush here. Why are we on the timetable set by a lame duck president?

I can't believe how much people get worked up about this whole FISA issue. It really is irrelevant and is an out of date piece of legislation. What it supposedly protects against is countered by other laws passed since its inception. Yes, the ideal behind it is a great one, but the reality is that technology has long surpassed the principle it supposedly protected against. People need to remember that this bill was passed into law about the same time the first mobile phone was being made commercially available, and long before the world wide web, and mass adoption of Internet use, was considered possible.

FISA has become an antiquated dinosaur thanks to the explosion of technology. The intelligence community has the tools to monitor every bit of electronic communication made in this country (and others) and does so on a continual basis. Much of this monitoring is done with the cooperation of other governments and on foreign soil, where laws like FISA don't impact operations. Information is collected, categorized and mined without our consent. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it legal.

Domestically, FISA as been eclipsed by other draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II (PA). The premise that FISA was to protect us against is completely struck down by the PA. Prior to the PA, legislation like FISA made it a requirement that warrants had to be pursued and granted before any monitoring could be done. Thanks to the measures in the PA monitoring can be conducted and warrants granted later, and through a rubber stamp system of compliant judges. Mention the word terror and you've got yourself a warrant. FISA, and pretty well every other law, is superceded by the PA. Why is there no whining about the existence of this legislation?

Frankly, the horse is out of the barn on this one. FISA is useless and needs to be completely rewritten, to deal with the advances in technology since it was adopted. I think there are those in government that recognize this and are willing to let this legislation pass, and then come at it from a different angle and close off all the grey areas with less ambiguous language. I also think they recognize the problems that other legislation has in this regard and that before anything else can be done that the draconian measures, like the PA, need to be dealt with first and foremost. To do this, they need a mandate and a majority. That won't come until after the next election, and only if the people give them the majority they need. In other words, the battle is being lost so the war can be won down the road. We in the electorate must keep the big picture in mind and remember that all issues are interconnected in government and politics. A give here means a take someplace else.

One last comment. Someone made a comment that made me laugh out loud. "Spying is illegal." No, it isn't. Some of the mechanisms of spying are illegal, but in general, spying is very legal and used in almost every industry imaginable. From a government perspective, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars conducting "intelligence" operations, both foreign and domestic. Much of it is completely legal and signed off by our law makers. If anyone thinks that "spying is illegal" they had better get on the blower and talk to their congressman about the nefarious acts being conducted on their behalf by bodies like:

Air Force Intelligence
Army Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Coast Guard Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Energy*
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)*
Department of State*
Department of the Treasury*
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)*
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)*
Marine Corps Intelligence
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)*
National Security Agency (NSA)*
Navy Intelligence

* operates domestically or has domestic operations

That doesn't even include the state and local law enforcement agencies, nor the private contractors used to conduct surveillance and investigative work. We are continually watched and every thing we do is monitored and profiled. Welcome to the 21st century. Orwell is spinning in his grave.

until bi-partisan compromise consists of more than republican date rape, it's just not an issue.

do you honestly believe allowing the WH to sweep under the rug years of blatantly illegal surveillance of american citizens, is a compromise?

sort of like pardoning Nixon...

Many people argue that the issue at stake in this particular case is not the presidential candidate's ability to compromize, but instead much more fundamental rights and principles. This is easy to agree with.

However, what's also at stake right now is the result in the elections in November.

Isn't there a strong reason to believe that Obama's advisors have considered this decision crusial and made this choice based on how they guess the American electorate will react?

The conclusion then, is that tears over Obama's decisions are of no use. What's needed is to change the public opinion. When that's done, any politician interested in their re-election will follow. But first then.