You just don't seem to be able to stop making personal attacks. Why is that?

Memo to Ripper McCord: I'm going to say whatever I want to say. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it. This is a public forum.

So acknowledging reality has now become equivalent to helping John McCain. Isn't the Bush Administration supposed to be where people think like that?

The reality is that Obama supports dismantling the fourth amendment, even though it would be politically far easier to support Washington's Constitution than to advocate unconditionally meeting with Ahmadinejad. The truth - and it's to Obama's credit - is that he is willing to take principled stands that are difficult politically. But he either doesn't care enough about the fourth amendment to oppose the FISA capitulation, or he actually thinks this is the right thing to do. Either way, protecting the Constitution isn't something to "get over."

Just to be very clear, I strongly support Obama. But we can't let "winning the GE" become the Democrats' equivalent to "winning the war on terrorism." We can't justify Obama's stance on FISA because of electability, since it has no real relation to electability. Just as we can't let the Republicans justify the continuing presence in Iraq on the basis of terrorism, since it doesn't help fight terrorism. Words like "terrorism," and to a lesser extent "electability," are powerful, because they do represent very real threats and opportunities. And that's why clever political consultants attach those words to completely unrelated issues. We shouldn't unquestioningly support anything Obama does because someone says the magic word "electability."

Temper, temper boys and girls. There's room here for all of us to express ourselves. You don't have to agree - in fact part of the purpose of this whole thing is to communicate our sometimes divergent views, not just to all say the same thing.

Billy, Ripper - all of us - we have a purpose here. But you just wasted most of a thread bickering and, although it is very entertaining in a train wreck sort of way, I think we have a presidential election to win, and going after each other isn't really very encouraging, assuming we all want the same thing. And if we don't, and some of us want McCain to win, then it makes more sense to become that nation divided that Lincoln warned us of. I'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume we just have a bit of frustration going.

And, yes, there are important issues at stake, to be sure. But, really, whether we agree with everything Obama does or not... whether we understand every decision he makes or not (or what information he (a Senator) has that we don't), he's our only real hope for this coming cycle, and even if he does have flaws or takes positions that seem contradictory at times, I, for one, think he's a hell of a candidate, and will make a great president. Not a perfect one. Not always the most left-wing radical one. But one who can think, listen, express and take informed action. Something we haven't had for some time now.

The other side will do everything they can to cast doubt on him, but we all know there is no alternative this time around. So I hope we will support him, discuss the issues with civility, and keep some - yes, I'll use the word - unity, of purpose.

And on a personal note, I've found value in both of your posts, Ripper and Billy, at different times. I like to listen (read) different points of view, even if I don't always agree or don't always like the way they are expressed. What I don't like is empty nastiness without any content whatsoever, or out and out lies.

Ok. That's my bit. Smile. There's another day a-comin'.

Three words: quixotic ideological battle.

I'm not happy wih Obama's choice, but it's too late now. I hope Reid and Feingold and the rest can kill this puppy off.

In the meantime, give the O guy a break. He's in an election with a nasty enemy which will use this against him. And believe it or not, Middle America is not made of Netroots people with FISA fever. If it was such a winner at the ballot box, pols would be falling over each other to block immunity with no fear of being blamed for future terrorist attacks.

What is that thing Voltaire said? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Hey Ripper, do you have paypal? I want to buy you a beer.

If you do a simple google search, you will see that the Dems got a lot better press going against FISA for the past year than when they at times (Seante then, House now) caved on it. So goign againts the FISA bill is not goign to cost anyone an election against Republicans.

If the rationale is that they will attack Obama on national security, then here's news: they will anyway, and now also hit him as a flip flopper.

I like Obama. I will vote for him in November. But he hurt himself on this, and showed bad judgement in pursuit of the middle. FISA, with or without immunity, is a bad bill. Just plan wrong. And he hurt his support among his strongest supporters, who clearly can help deliver him a win.Unfortunately, if he doesn't support it now, he just adds to a flip flipping image. Either way he has made his path harder with his actions re: FISA so far.

And I really don't want a candidate of any stripe who will give up on key civil liberties just to try and win the white house. If Obama loses, this bill give a lot of latitude for Crazy McSame to do a lot of damage.

And if he wins, I don't believe he or Congress will rush the overturning of this bill if it is law.

Obama if he supports this bill = Good President
Obama if he doesn't = Better president

Isn't this the exact thing that Obama ran against Senator Clinton on? That even though he wasn't a senator at the time, he would have voted against the Use of Force Resolution in 2002? That he would never have been cowed by the Republican charges of being soft on national security ... In fact, this Obama told us made him "Right on Day One".

Of course, he wasn't a Senator then and never had to actually cast that vote and as we now see, it was all a lot of empty bluster because now that he is a Senator he's all about national security and going slow so that the Republicans don't call him names.

This is the kind of lying, spineless, candidate our party has nominated? We deserve what we get and I'm through being calm and not rocking the boat so that our candidates can save face in front of their Republican counterparts. If he's not about Change We Can Trust then say that, don't lie your way to a nomination.

One of the central fallacies pushed by Obama supporters is that all his centrism, failures of nerve and honesty and pandering positions are aberrations and that come inauguration day, Obama will be reborn as some sort of guru of goo-goo good government.

Good grief, how often do electeds veer left after election? How ofter do they veer right? How many are more progressive after they are elected?

There is NO evidence that OBama will be a better president than he is a candidate, but there is ample evidence that after election he will be worse.

One of the serious problems with having candidates triangulate their way to whatever office it is they're tyring to get to is this: How does one ever distinguish, in trying to pick someone to vote for, what parts of their stances are real, and which are artificial?

This is why all of this Machiavellian scheming to "just win elections" makes so many of the people feel as if their choices are a kind of gambling-related sport, to choose the lesser rogue.

So, how about we actually tell the fucking truth, expect our candidate to do the same, and let the fucking 'strategists' work on making that sound as good as is reasonably possible, instead of trying to lie our way into offices.

And, remember, if they'll lie to us (and we're on their side, remember) they'll lie to anybody. And if they will, why would we trust them?

The only way that the telecoms will ever be made to face the music for illegally going along with Bush's illegal violation of the Fourth Amendment, is if the Senate Democrats, all of them -- including Obama, vote against this bill.

Democrats who vote for this bill are, to quote Glen Greenwald:

(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.

All this totally aside from the provision for telecom immunity. With immunity, the telecoms will never have to face civil liability. Of this Greenwald notes:

In fact, it doesn't seem to be through sloppiness or neglect -- but rather through deliberate intent -- that the bill only immunizes telecoms from civil, not criminal, liability (the key telecom section, 802(a), provides that "a civil action may not lie or be maintained against any person providing assistance to the intelligence community" where the bill's conditions are met). There are likely many reasons for confining immunity to civil liability -- including the heightened difficulty of proving criminal intent and, most importantly, the fact that Bush, on his way out, can pardon telecoms from criminal but not civil liability. So it's far from certain that Obama -- even if he did have a Secret Plan criminally to prosecute telecoms once in office -- would even be able to do so. If Bush pardons everyone connected to his illegal spying program, as many have speculated he might, then Obama's Secret Plan -- even if it existed -- would be instantaneously extinguished. That's why these telecom lawsuits are the only real avenue left to ensure accountability and obtain a legal ruling on what was done.

There will be no do overs here folks. Democrats either protect the rule of law and the Constitution NOW, or they don't.

Destroying the Fourth Amendment has come in three stages. The first stage was in allowing huge amounts of our personal info to be stored on government (as well as commerical) databases, which have been completely accessible to government agencies without warrants. The second stage was the Second installment of the Patriot Act which negated FISA by removing the separation between foreign intelligence and law enforcement.
This new FISA bill truly is the final blow.

Wave goodbye to:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ripper McCord suggests that Americans "get the hell over it" because this right pales in comparison to Obama winning the election in November.

As a longtime Obama supporter, I am thoroughly disgusted with his excuses, and with all of the excuses being trotted out by Democrats in blogs like this one.
I'm afraid I will not get over seeing the final nail being driven into the Fourth Amendment's coffin by Democrats. I will not get over it to bolster the fascistic, authoritarian wishes of the GOP, and I will not get over it to win an election for a Democrat who is refusing to stand up and fight to protect our Constitutional rights.

I am voting for Obama but i am not going to back down on his wrong headed view of FISA. What good is electing a Progressive who governs like a Republican on civil liberties?