I don't believe Greenwald said, "Let's question Obama's motives." In fact, I'm pretty sure he said his motives don't matter; he's doing the wrong thing.

Oh please, don't always lurch to the logical extreme. The guy is trying to get elected, not please ideological purists. Better to compromise on this issue than give McShame reason to claim that he is a wild man who would endanger national security. You don't like the vote. I don't like the vote. But we both need to understand why he did it. Does anybody seriously believe that a guy who taught constitutional law doesn't understand the issues or would behave in the manner of President Pinocchio?

Trailerville:

Come on, that's no fun! Obamabot stays, as a term to discourage uncritical hero worship among Obama's most extreme and nutty supporters (they give the rest of us a bad name). So will Hillarybot and other terms for the extremists of other supporters.

Funny, I don't hear anyone objecting to "McShame", etc.

Lynn Dee:

I disagree; Greenwald asks Obama followers to question his motives -- specifically, his Core Goodness. As I quoted directly from Greenwald:

there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader

acanuk:

I think it's a bit early in his presidency to draw any conclusions on how history will assess him.

Greenwald is a fucking pussy. A typical leftie pantywaist who favors idealistic whining over winning the election and getting the job done. The Republicans grind guys like Greenwald up and use them for feed on their hog farms.

The reason Democrats lose elections is because they don't know the difference between boxing and baking cakes. This isn't a fucking contest. It'a a life or death situation. If we don't kill them, they'll kill us. Get a clue. These people are not into rules.

Barack Obama is a fighter. I don't CARE if he cheats. I don't CARE if he lies. He can steal, murder babies, kick puppies, burn down the local 7-11. I DON'T CARE. He's a million, billion, gazillion times better than the best Republican in the Universe. FUCK Glenn Greenwald. We're gonna win this thing because we finally have a candidate who's willing to do what it takes to win.

Frankly, I am OK with his decision to opt out of public financing. I believe that I read where EVERY presidential candidate in the last 40 years has take public financing. Obama has capitalized on technology and grass roots sentiment to create a fairly parallel public financing system. What better candidate than the 'change' candidate to opt out of a flawed system to demonstrate that there are alternatives? Since the campaign finance laws limit individual contributions to $2300 and make corporate contributions illegal, there is little room for influence buying (unless you surround yourself with lobbyist like McSame).

I also am comforted by the fact that my entire contribution via www.barackobama.com goes to the candidate of MY choice. In the public system, you have to contribute even before you know who the candidate is let alone what issues are being championed.

Obama08!

Obama's positioning on FISA really makes me wonder whether he would have voted against the AUMF had he been in the Senate in 2002.

I agree with the voices of reason. The whole FISA mess is just the kind of political entanglement that Republicans love to shove up the asses of any Democrat who dares to threaten them. I think Obama is reasonably smart, but far from perfect. And he's walking through a minefield, and every step could blow him up. And the way his own (supposed) supporters will abandon him at every perceived errant step off the pedestal of progressive sainthood is proof of how immensely tenuous his candidacy really is.

Let's face it, he may be up against the most unpopular regime perhaps in our history, a rival candidate who is frighteningly out of touch... and he may have some notable advantages going into this thing, but he also knows that there are mines along his path. The FISA vote is one, and as important as it is to all of us, I would submit one question. How many months does Bush have left in office?

Someone mentioned losing the battle to win the war. I hate it. I want him to go all "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" on them and raise hell. I want him to make an impassioned speech on freedom, justice and our real American values. For real, I do.

But I'm not him. I'm not even qualified to judge him, given what he's already accomplished. However, I have been an elected official, and I can say that it takes some skill to navigate difficult and complex issues - and I never had to deal with anything remotely like what he is facing over the next few months.

And I still believe he'll do all he can as president - which is to say that reality may rain on some of his parade, but he'll try very hard to make our lives better and to improve our world situation, get us out of Bush's war and perhaps repair some of the damage. We put our expectations too high, and we're impatient as hell. Look at a bigger picture instead of the little slice of life the Republicans want you to look at.

I think we should definitely call his office, write him, tell him what we think. If we disagree, we should be vocal about it. But we should not undermine our chances to get him into the White House. We should not lose sight of the stakes in this election or the misery we all experienced over the last 7+ years. McCain would compound the disaster, and quite possibly - believe it or not - make it far worse than anything we've seen to date.

So, I totally agree that we have to expect that Obama is human. He is fallible. And he may take positions that seem contradictory to us. But in the end, I actually think he is serious in his intentions, and a bit more cautious than some of us would prefer. But he's a proven winner and has prevailed against some mighty big odds. Let's support him, let him know what we want, and see what the Dems can do with the Oval Office and both houses. It's gotta be better.

I'm conflicted about the best way for voters to handle their disappointment over Obama's passive approach to FISA. We voters have a chronic habit of enabling our representatives to fail and that has produced abominable results. To repeat: we voters have a chronic habit of enabling our representatives to fail. But for now I'm sticking with Obama based on this reasoning:

I'd be much more impressed if Obama had figured out a creative way to work with Move-on, the DNC, the Democratic leadership, his national spotlight or whatever is at his disposal to do something like educate and mobilize an unprecedented number of voters to demand that representatives remove immunity from FISA.

To do something unprecedented on FISA would be real change and the foregone conclusions some posters have about what we can "realistically" expect of Obama reflect a limited thinking we can no longer afford in this country. We might not always get everything we want, but better to set the bar plenty high and back it up.

That said, there is a circular, catch 22 here: the only way anything will change is if voters are engaged on important issues and promptly hold elected representatives accountable. So it is a great sign that some voters are willing to dole out significant consequences and change their minds about Obama due to his passive approach to FISA. Unfortunately, the candidate most likely to help us make changes may never be able to deliver if not elected.

We've seen loads of irrefutable evidence that we get zilch when we accept endless excuses and set a low bar for our elected representatives. So for those who feel Obama's approach to FISA is inexcusable, making excuses for "the change candidate" till after the election is too much to ask. Remember all those people who thought things would change when the Dems won the majority?

Also, if we set a high bar and back up our candidates so they can succeed, it is more likely they will rise to our expectations. Even if they still don't step up, if we promptly remove them we will make room for more able leaders who love a good challenge and their country. When there is evidence that the essential electorate support will be there to help good leaders succeed, competent leaders will come out of the woodwork. Jobs that consist of daily hypocrisy and kissing you-know-what all day as a few voters whine are just not in high demand by genuine alpha types.

One could argue that holding Obama accountable now could have a positive impact because it would put McCain and our other reps on notice that the voters mean business. One could argue that sometimes big risks are necessary for change.

The circumstantial evidence that reinforces my decision to remain in Obama's camp includes the endorsements he has received from respectable people intimately familiar with the Washington game, like the recent endorsements by Gore and Edwards. It appears a coalition that could help us turn things around has lined up behind Obama. If we are willing to do our jobs as voters, we all might have something to work with, for a change.

I hope I am right to feel that what people call Obama's "eloquence" is just the refreshing sound of some truth coming from very decent, bright soul.

I'm also letting Obama's passive approach to FISA slide for now because Obama has educated voters to some extent, outsmarted all others with his campaign strategy and engaged millions of voters. Those are moves essential to future change.

While I don't believe Obama has moral purity in everything he does I do implicitly and explictly trust him to do the very best he can for our country. Hell, I toyed with Hillary for awhile because of the Clinton's skills at reading what they could, or could not, get done. This doesn't mean I don't think those that care strongly on an issue should shut up. They should raise their voices to the rooftops if they feel its sufficiently important. But for me, well, I completely trust that Obama will do the very best that he believes he can for our country and I think he has exceptional judgment.

I agree with Greenwald. Because so many of Barack's policy positions have been based on political shrewdness rather than practical or moral concerns, I was not an enthusiastic Obama supporter -- until Hillary's grossly dishonest campaign behavior pushed me toward Obama as the lesser of two evils.

But I hold an ember of hope that Barack as president would respond well to demands from the American people for common sense policies and an end to our murderous imperialism.

You aced it.

There are lots of things in this post that I can agree with. But, lets not start predicting how history will judge a potential president that hasn't even taken office yet. Afterall, no one could have predicted history would judge MLK in the manner that it did. He very easily could have been labled a radical, as so many of the civil rights leaders and preachers were.

At this point in his pursuit of the presidency, George Bush was a compassionate conservative, who was going to bring everyone together. So, lets give history the time it deserves!

One thing is clear, John McCain like George Bush is willing to invest dictatorial powers in the executive branch. He pretty much indicated that he is the same as Bush on these matters when he called the recent 5-4 decision regarding Guantanamo "one of the worst in the history of the court". Obama criticized that decision, opening himself up to the usual rightwing attacks, just as he did in opposing amnesty.

Now, you say that opposing amnesty is not enough. He needs to lead a foot-stomping, fist-pounding revolt against the passage of this bill. Where is the filibuster? Where is the press conference calling on the American people to join him with the ghosts of our Founding Fathers at the front in the war for the 4th Amendment? Even if he doesn't have the votes to win that revolt, he must do it anyway as a matter of morality. Perhaps you believe this battle must be won or the American experiment is over. (Or, perhaps you need reminding that the struggle to achieve those principles stated by our founding hypocrite, dreamer, revolutionaries has been going on for a long time in this country and is bigger than this one battle).

When you say that Obama has chosen political expediency over morality, I think that you are taking a very narrow view of morality. When I think about what is moral, I tend to think about all of the consequences. You seem to be thinking that the moral thing to do is always to rage, no matter how impotently, against any and all injustice. I think that is not true. For example, I do not berate my meat eating friends. I persuade by example and by answering questions. If I took the impotent rage approach, I'd be constantly expressing indignation at their choice to eat meat produced in abominably cruel factory farm conditions. Would you say that my abstinence from lecturing at Thanksgiving dinner is "clearly not based on principle"?

The point I'm trying to make is that politically expedient is not necessarily immoral, especially when the political opponent has just called a decision upholding the ancient right of habeas corpus one of the worst in history. IF the political costs are high enough and IF the chances of blocking ultimate passage are low enough and IF the prospects for rolling back the Bush assault in the constitution do not rest on this particular battle THEN Obama has done the moral thing.

Those are of course big IFs and they are open to debate. However, the conclusion that Obama has reached the wrong conclusions about those IFs does not call into question his motivations. We have his entire career to look to in determining whether he shares our values, including our constitutional values. To suggest that those who look to the entirety of the evidence and conclude that Obama is far different from those like McCain and Bush who really are "all too willing to invest near dictatorial powers in the executive branch of federal government" are wholly uncritical and worshipful in their attitude is a bit much.

Now, I know what some are thinking. All of a sudden political calculation can be moral, but weren't Obama supporters the one's that hammered Hillary and Edwards for their calculating votes on the AUMF? That's a good point and there's no doubt that in the to and fro of politics Obama supporters have been more puritan on some issues and more pragmatic on others, just like every other candidate's supporters.

However, even granting that point there is a difference between Obama now on amnesty and the others then on the AUMF. Obama opposed amnesty and voted against it. The others supported the AUMF and voted for it. Obama has criticized Bush, clearly stating that the program was illegal. The others echoed Bush rhetoric on Iraq. Obama's failure on amnesty according to his critics is in not vocally enough opposing it and in not using every last legislative appeal to block it.

I will say that I approve of your broad theme that Obama should not be held above criticism. I disagree that his supporters are any more uncritical than the base supporters of any other candidate. I think that the IFs mentioned above are debatable points and that that kind of criticism is welcome. I disagree that, given the entirety of the evidence and not just this single data point, there is any case to be made whatsoever that Obama's constitutional values, moral principles, or core motivations are anything at all like Bush and McCain's.

I somehow missed all those terrorized citizens protesting in the street, demanding retroactive telecom immunity for their own protection. But according to Jason and certain others, a "compromise" was needed to placate these folks.

Liberty demands constant vigilance. On FISA, both parties -- and Obama, so far -- have struck a blow against liberty. For that, severe criticism is very much warranted.

The split in perspectives here appears to be based on those whose central priority is an Obama victory versus those whose priority is the restoration and protection of our constitutional rights. Both camps, of course, still support the other's priority to a slightly lesser extent.

Count me among the latter group. I wouldn't dream of not voting for Obama, but the winds have for now been taken from my sails. This FISA issue isn't just some pet lefty issue -- it affects the very foundation of our struggling nation.

I thanked my congressman (Rick Larsen) for voting against this travesty, and am begging my senators (Murray and Cantwell) to fight it tooth and nail.

In my view, the Democratic leadership and GOP are pushing something that's profoundly anti-American, and Obama's response thus far has been terribly disappointing. He needs to hear about it.

Oh yes, let's not forget the unveiling of his Friedman-esque economic advisors, as so well detailed by Naomi Klein:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein/print

I am SOOO loving all this.

You people just continue to make my days!

Hee-hee-hee...

It's amusing to see so many people repeating exactly the kind of mindless defense of Obama's cave-in that Greenwald is decrying. Apparently irony really is dead.

Greenwald is decrying a lot of things since his men Edwards, Ron Paul and Huckabee are no longer running.

He has never supported Obama's liberal views.

The reason for all the provocateur shrillness over FISA? He knows how to get the torch and pitchfork libertarian progressives excited.

Legal opinion and the legislative process are wholly two different things.

so vote for mccain then.

that'll make you happy, i'm sure.

Great post, Joe. Sorry the comment thread became so quickly and densely infested with trolls that I don't want to hang out for very long.

There are a few more who ought to show up later, too. Safety in numbers.

But I wanted to let you know I like your writing. :-)

the poster did in suggesting that Obama is as willing as Bush to invest "dictatorial powers" in the executive. Of course, the poster was prepared for that with a little pre-emptive name-calling: e.g., "Obamabot", etc.

Obamabots refers only to the extreme folks -- see my link above to obamamessiah.blogspot.com, for examples -- who give the rest of us Obama supporters a bad name. We all know they're out there, so it does nobody any good to pretend otherwise.