So he's either the next coming or he's selling us out?

I agree with Glenn Greenwald on the issue, but I'm not as outraged as he is. Just disappointed. My main concern at this point, with regard to Obama, is that it not signal pure political expediency as a way of operating.

I already knew Obama was a politician -- how could he get to where he was and not be? Moreover, that he's a politician with great skills is obviously a good thing. It means he can get something done as President. He won't be neutered.

I also know he's human and will make the occasional misstep.

So. Is Obama's position on the FISA bill a misstep? Is it a political calculation but NOT one that signals triangulation as far as the eye can see? Or is it a betrayal?

I'm hopeful for that second choice and see no reason why it shouldn't be that. But I think it's too soon to know for sure.

So the final question is: Can we live with the disappointment of not getting to see Obama lead the Dems into battle on this issue? Of course we can.

Quote: "Senators must vote on extreemly complicated legislation and weigh the pros and cons of that legislation. If he weighs the merrits of this bill and thinks that the pros out weigh giving civil immunity to the telecoms and you disagree then explain why you disagree."

Here's the problem with invoking this general truism for the FISA bill: This is not a bill that has some good parts and some bad parts. The only arguably "good" part to voting for it is political expediency. And that makes people nervous because of the concern that core principles might, as some future point, be jettisoned for political expediency too. (See under: Bush and Clinton as well.)

Also, when you start infringing on Constitutional rights, that begins to "feel" uncomfortably close to jettisoning principle.

That said, it may be that the differences between the proposed FISA setup and the previous/current setup (excluding the telecom immunity part) aren't different enough to warrant planting one's flag on this issue, at least when put up against the political calculation.

But, because this is all taking place in the general vicinity of core Constitutional rights, people are understandably nervous.

In addition, Obama's comment that he, as President, would ensure no excesses adds to that worry, at least a bit, because it "sounds like" he's saying saying: Don't worry about the executive taking over some powers that belong to the judiciary because I, as President, can be trusted not to overstep. So you have a separation of powers issue there -- and one that Obama, as a former constitutional law professor, must surely be aware of. So that was a political statement.

Anyway, that's where the concerns come from, and I think they're understandable. But I also agree that tipping over the chessboard at this point and claiming Obama has betrayed us is as stupid as it is perplexing.

This freight train of neglect and disregard for civil liberties cannot be stopped overnight. Obama is doing the right thing by not stnding in front of it like a fool. Get him ELECTED. That is job 1. Job no. 2 is undoing the last 8 years. Cannot do this with a Repug Congress and McSame in office. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Quote: "Obama's hunger for power has long been apparent to people who did not drink the koolaid"

Oh, stop. You don't run for President unless you want power. You want to call it a "hunger"? Fine. It's a hunger. This is a non-issue.

So whom do you support? And be sure to name someone not hungry for power.

AJM, that is plain nuts. I voted for Hillary in Florida but frankly I liked both candidates. I thought Hillary did more to damage Obama while Hillary's problem was the beating from the press particularly MSNBC with Matthews and Olbermanm.

You are particularly foolish if you allow the primary fight to vote for McCain who was bad on most of the issues even before he flip flopped to toe the Bush line on tax cuts, ANWR, oil drilling and torture.

Considering the disgraceful way Bush attacked him in 2000 by saying McCain adopted a black child out of wedlock, was the fag candidate, had a psychotic temper and was brainwashed POW, McCain sacrificed every principle he has to accept Bush's support. It did not even matter when Bush called his wife a drug addict and that McCain gave her VD.

If I took the type of personal attacks McCain did in 2000, it would be a cold day in hell beforre I would hug the man that did that to me.
The Hillary and Obama campaign is nothing like the war Republicans unleashed on eath other as well a stheir Democratic opponents. The John Kerry with a sun tan remark by Grover Norquist is Romper Room compared with what will be released on Obama in 2008.

Dayo:

Olbermann is not a journalist, he's a commentator. If you want to criticize him for being intellectually inconsistent (which he hasn't been, if you listen closely to what he said) that's one thing. But he's not a journalist.

His program is a commentary program presenting certain point of view, just like O'Reilly, Hannity, Dobbs, Van Susteren, and Fox and Friends are commentators with a certain point of view. It just so happens that all of the other viewpoints are hard right wing, and Keith's is left wing.

Do we really need this right wing gibberish? The post presents no information, no analysis, not even a fresh opinion, just a little stale bile: Obama is selling us out! It's clearly part of a systematic effort by right wingers to distract and demoralize progressive bloggers.

Bush has done at least half a dozen things far worse than the illegal wiretapping: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, institutionalization of torture, outing Plame, invading Iraq, rendition, ignoring the warnings about al Qaeda and 9/11, failing to capture bin Laden, and so on. All of these things have atually concretely hurt people, in total, hundreds of thousands of them. This sky-is-falling alarmism over the FISA bill is ridiculous. Bush has been doing this for 7 years!

The sky is falling! The govt. is filling the box cars to take us to their secret concentration camps!

FISA or not, in the long haul, the two parties' candidates are not so important.

What is important is the political culture that comes into power in Washington and outliers of federal power in the rest of the country when one of the parties gains the White House.

We are talking Cabinet, AG's, Article III nominations, appointees at all levels of the government bureaucracy.

It effects everything, from whether you see a creationist book at the Grand Canyon NP bookstore, to what cases the local USAG prosecutes. It effects everything; and only a bit of it is at the express will of the sitting President.

So Obama is fine, Clinton is fine, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, or Dennis, would all have been fine.

Its not the FISA issue that determines whether we will vote for Obama. It is the democratic political culture that we want to see dominant again and shaping the nations affairs. Obama is at the head, yes. But its so much bigger than one man.

Or one issue.