"One out of four female Clinton supporters insist that they will vote for John McCain. Why?"

Did it ever cross your mind that maybe these people who HRC brought IN to the party?

All of the women I know who say they are voting for McCain after supporting Senator Clinton were left leaning Republicans. Voters who saw in HRC the preceived "toughness" of some Republicans (at least in their minds) and certainly progressive on social issues. These are people who HRC brought into the Dem fold, at least for a short time.

Very nice post, and I recommended it - but I do want to take umbrage with one little thing, because I think that it's important to understand just why some of us are so freaked out about FISA:

INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY (bottom line, security of our country is the primary goal)

This notion has somehow found its way into the canon of American dogma, and it lies at the very heart at the horrific direction that our country has taken since 9/11 (actually, since Nixon). The Republicans are freakin' brilliant at shouting down any heretic who might challenge it - and once they got it installed as dogma, they have managed to use it a bludgeon in order to appropriate the corridors of power in order to satisfy their own craven ambition and personal circumstances. Just look at the last 8 years, and you'll see what a horrifically dangerous and un-American concept it really is.

No, "security of our country" is not the primary point. American lives, and our country itself, are not inherently better, more valuable, or more worth protecting than anyone else's. Our government does not rest on the presumption that individual safety, or even group protection, somehow trumps fundamental notions such as freedom and liberty (not to mention human concerns such as decency and morality).

FISA is just another brick in the wall. A whole lot of folks seem to think that it's no big deal that Bush and Co. managed to get the telcos to engage in illegal and un-American activity - who cares if any random email that you might have sent over the last decade or so got shunted off to a back room at the NSA for "mining" (which, by the way, is a horrifically inefficient and ineffective form of law enforcement). Isn't that their job, to keep us safe?

Well, sorry folks, but the kind of security that you seek does not exist. Dashing towards totalitarianism will not keep you safe - in fact, it increases your risk by orders of magnitude (ask the Germans, Italians, Japanese, ex-Soviets, etc.).

Some of us look to an Upcoming Obama administration to begin to rectify this horrific meme. We need to know that he'll evince the same kind of courage in destroying this hoary chestnut that he has in going after other destructive frames that have dominated our country for far, far too long.

That's what the FISA fight is really about. For some of us, it's a much bigger concern than who gets to live in the White House for the next 4 years...

Obama did NOT tell a former Clinton supporter that other Clinton supporter’s need to “get over it”.told a former Clinton supporter that other Clinton supporter’s need to “get over it.” Stop repeating this inflammatory falsehood.

I agree and disagree with this whole post.

"If you had envisioned him as some sort of left-wing Messiah….you’re probably not nearly as disappointed now as you are going to be."

Obama promoted himself as the change candidate who condemned immunity until after he secured the nomination. Since he secured the nomination...surprise!... the FISA bill showed up, then he flipped on FISA. I guess you could call that change. ;) Nonetheless, he may be making the best move for the greater good. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt thus far, but others who donated and voted for Obama's change have every right to feel differently. I haven't heard any calls for a left-wing Messiah; I see only voters who seek a president that means what he says who are trying to understand what just happened.

"Senator Obama shows a real understanding that he is running for an office that represents more than any single branch of the Democratic Party."

Then he'll understand why some people are upset about this, he'll appreciate the importance of diverse views and he'll deal with it effectively. (have some hope)

"(Keep in mind that if you have a 401K, you probably have stock in those same companies & it’s your retirement that is going to be hurt by a multi-billion dollar class action suit.)"

Do you really think we should encourage companies we invest in to think they are above the law? Think they'll work for the greater good you talk about? Think they'll hand over the profits to you when they have the go ahead to do as they please?

"INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY (bottom line, security of our country is the primary goal)"

What kind of security? There are some kinds of security that will be at the bottom of our priority list if we know what is good for us. If you have to give up democracy to security, what's that type of security worth? The majority in Iraq had more domestic tranquility and a type of "security" while brutal Saddam was in power...yep, he had the country totally under control...no terrorists in that country, except him.(Our war and occupation was not the answer to security, either)

"Those who refuse to compromise hold a higher moral ground but seldom political office."

Sure. And some who comprommise the wrong things do not hold political office, either. Politics may be the art of the possible, but some leaders have the vision to see and implement possibilities that others do not. (Think George Washington, Gandi, Martin Luther King)

And compromise always sounds good, but is a tricky concept. Is it real compromise if the pharmaceutical companies expect billions (more) taxpayer dollars just to let go of the absurdly unfair deal they lobbied for, whereby American tax payers have to pay more for drugs than anybody else on earth?

"...“get over it” because the stakes are even higher than they were in 2000."

People would not be paying such close attention if they were not aware of how high the stakes are right now. The stakes would not be so high so many voters had not checked out for so long and expected our democracy of the people to run itself. That vaccume we left was filled by many who don't care about the greater good or our country, which leads back to the high stakes of this election. So what's wrong with a full-on public discourse?

Bush's "you're with us or against us" attitude was designed to stifle a public discussion about the war. I think that--and the media-- created an lag time of public understanding that may have plenty to do with why he was elected twice.

And we have a First Amendment right to free speech because the founders believed that open discussion and the airing of opinions on all sides would lead to the best ideas. Discussions and complaints about Obama might just give Obama--and the rest of us--better ideas and strategies.

Since the electorate is paying attention--unlike the recent past--I don't think we have to worry that our history of bad decisions will repeat itself this time around. I'm hopeful about that as long as nobody tries to stifle dissent or discourse.

"This has been an unsettling week for many of the most “progressive” followers of Senator Obama. They have listened to the right condemn him for his refusal to join in public campaign finance, they have been horrified by his support of the FISA bill, he ruffled the feathers of the Congressional Black Caucus and reportedly told a former Clinton supporter that other Clinton supporter’s need to “get over it”. Now they wonder if he’s “really who they thought he was” or “he’s just a typical politician”."

Why so unsettling? People need to have stronger nerves, a little more resillience, and a longer perspective. If you think this week is hard, wait til we try getting health care through the House and Senate.

The one great thing about Obama is his steady calm. We need that too. Don't change your view suddenly because some blogger says this or that. The sky is not falling. Don't obsess about a single issue. We have many big issues and big problems to face.

Does anyone think that the civil rights activists had it easy in the 60s? They got beaten up, arrested, and it took years of death threats and setbacks before they succeeded. I think our task is a lot easier today but we can admire their fortitude and steady perseverance.

Big picture + patience + persistance = success.

His change of view on the FISA bill is a great example. Which is more important? Punishing the companies who followed the government’s request after the attacks of 9/11 or ensuring that the Presidency CANNOT wiretap without over-site in the future?

What the hell are you talking about? The government could not wiretap before, they just broke the law. Obviously no law can prevent people from breaking the law.

And this new law makes it easier, not more difficult for the president to wiretap without a warrant.

It seems like a lot of Obama supporters are willing to swallow the bullshit being thrown out when it comes to FISA. Punishing the telecoms won't make any American less safe, on the other hand, if the program really is necessary, then demanding retroactive immunity is putting the financial safety of the phone companies above the real safety of the American people.

If there was a real risk, no politician would be willing to do that, which is how we know it isn't a real risk.

What the hell are you talking about? The government could not wiretap before, they just broke the law. Obviously no law can prevent people from breaking the law.

Ok, you're wrong - 100%. The FISA statue was written and passed expressly to allow the executive to authorize unwarranted wire taps and other seizures. The requirement was, under the original statute, for the executive to present evidence after the fact to the FISA court and get their approval.

The whole point of the goddamn statute was to authorize unwarranted searches, dumbass.

Read it.

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.

Jim N. suggests that Americans "get over it" because: "bottom line, security of our country is the primary goal" (since when?) and: "We as a people need to remember the importance of compromise", which means we should all be happy to go along with the idea of compromising our Fourth Amendment rights completely out of existence, nor should we complain about it -- because the only thing that is really important is that Obama win 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.

HusseinTenaX:

Obviously you have your head up your ass.

And obviously you have yours way upside Obama's ass.

If Democrats had immediately sent a unified message on our rejection and total outrage on this piece of shit FISA bill, rather than quickly making up a lot of excuses, and harping on how wise it is for Obama to go along for "electability reasons", maybe Democrats would know they'd better vote against, rather than for, this f**king travesty.

elect Obama president, get the fuckers out of the White House. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes and we have them dead to rights on that.

What makes you think they have the balls to do anything about Bushco's war crimes? They've been eagerly giving up every opportunity they've had to punish anyone in this administration for their many crimes and impeachable offenses.

But not to worry, I'm still voting for Obama, also. I'd never vote for a Neocon Fascist Authoritarian like McSame. I'm just not all that excited about the idea of going to vote for Obama in November as I once was.

Do we want the ability to continue to protect our country from attacks in the future or is our desire to financially punish the corporate entities who failed our trust more important? (Keep in mind that if you have a 401K, you probably have stock in those same companies & it’s your retirement that is going to be hurt by a multi-billion dollar class action suit.)

Spoken like a true republican. Are you serious? So now we shouldn't take corporations to task because we may have some portion of our 401k invested in them? God forbid it may loose value for 6 months - that may really mean something 25 years from now when I retire. By that reasoning I shouldn't care if people are unfairly denied healthcare coverage or that people are being financially raped by the oil companies since I might profit from that too.