oh. See. I thought Obama was trying to tell me this:

I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.

***

you see, what Obama says (or writes) is starting to mean less and less to me. That's what happens when deeds are matched against words.

I'm just not cut out to be an adoring sheep.

Thanks so much for taking the time to type up those two excerpts and add such thoughtful commentary to them.

Ironically, over the last few months, I've seen a number of people get lambasted on this site (as trolls or worse), by self-identified Obama supporters, for suggesting that because of his yet unrefined national political image, he serves as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. And to suggest that some might get disappointed, oh boy, to some that was being a real nattering nabob of negativity. That Obama, such a concern troll. :-)

Thanks for the excellent post! I want a president who's smart enough and pragmatic enough to get elected. I look for character and judgment. I've spent a good long time looking at Obama hard. I've read, I've looked, I've listened. I've given this subject a great deal of my attention for many, many months. And I am convinced that he is a good man and that he has character and judgment. I don't demand that he agree with me on every issue. I too am looking for someone who can move the country forward. After all my hard work and study, I have decided that Obama is my candidate and that I feel safe in giving him some slack to function in. I don't really want a candidate who always loses because he has to keep "perfect". Obama is way better than anybody else for this job and he's close enough to perfect for my needs.

You said:

If I see him treading water on FISA or even pushing us further into the depths of constitutional crisis, I will tell him,

"Treading water on FISA"???? Looks to me like he's holding our heads underwater and waterboarding our constitutional rights.

And BTW, many have been trying to "tell him" as you suggest, and a fat lot of good it's done.

Is it a "constitutional crisis" when portions of the Constitution are stripped away, one by one, without a peep of objection from our so-called party leader? Instead we get a "oooh, it's SO bad out there, we've GOT to take away these constitutional rights to keep you SAFE."

Bullshit. Formerly this was bullshit peddled by Republicans. Now the Dems have opened a franchise.

Nicely done!

I think this is a good point. Obama seems to be very much against dogma of any kind. That appeals to me, since I don't like it either. And his popularity shows that there are an awful lot of people out there who are tired of fanatical ideological battles fighting endless year after year.

Here's a news flash: the Bush administration has screwed up our government in countless ways; even as president, Obama won't be able to fix them all, and he surely can't as a candidate and junior senator from Illinois.

What, exactly, is that saying?

Excellent post. Thanks.

I think it would be helpful to many here to take the time to read Obama's books, particularly The Audacity of Hope, to get a better understanding of the man and his thought process. It would also be useful if more understood the dilemma politicians are placed in due to our two-party, winner-take-all electoral system. It's impossible to be a perfect champion of all of the issues required to get to 51 percent of the vote. There are undoubtedly going to be conflicts that the Rovian machinery on the right will exploit to their fullest advantage.

In a parliamentary system with proportional representation, we could expect our representatives to be more unwavering toward our party's objectives. But our objectives would be much narrower and the prime minister would be elected by a coalition of several parties therefore his devotion to each party's platform would also be slightly diminished.

Over the course of the primary campaign, I have identified three issues on which I disagree strongly with Obama. They are nuclear power, the death penalty, and uncritical support for Israel. But after reading his books and following his campaign, I can think of no other political leader that I would trust more to tackle all of the problems we are faced with today. In a representative republic such as ours, I think the best we can ask for is someone whose judgement you fully trust. I may not always agree or support some of the decisions that he will make, but if he becomes president, I will be content that we have the best brains with the strongest character on the job.

It is saying that it is unrealistic to expect Obama to fix anything/ until after he is elected. A junior senator from a medium-sized Midwestern state or the first viable black presidential candidate aren't nearly as powerful as the actual president. Seems a fairly common-sense point to me.

It simply isn't a make or break issue for me. It was a moment of political pragmatism, but given the likely fate of this bill, I don't see the need to start angrily throwing teddy bears against my bedroom door screaming, "I HATE YOU!!!!!!"

I'm voting for Obama for many reasons, but the main one is climate change. It's not the best policy ever, nor is his record impeccably green, but it's certainly the best real chance we have at averting or mitigating the results of all these tipping points I've heard so much about. If Obama cowers - and I mean really cowers (I don't mean pandering to clean coal in coal states, and I don't mean that vote for Cheney's energy bill) on climate change - if he goes back on his own proposal, if the plan he's been laying out is just a rouse...well, then, color me disillusioned. But all this impotent outrage over principle in an instance where it just won't matter shows me what an aviary of parrots the blogosphere can be. A lot of you are much, much older than I am. If you become cynical this quickly after living through decades of politics...just yeesh. Hearts of glass, buds.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come.

My problem, is that Obama has fallen in line with the 2006 Dems. Which makes what he said in January of this year a lie, and his support fairly useless, and wishy washy. Better than McCain, sure, but that's about it.

Hoot, holler, be in love, gush, be in it for the win! Go ahead. I'm not asking you to stop. Cajole, call names, whatever -you are only alienating people who you want to vote for your golden boy who can do no wrong.

The truth is, Obama is the apparent nominee. That gives him a pulpit like few other Dems. He could bargain with the leadership, he could pull more support into the nay category. You know, he could fight this thing like he said he would in January. He could take the stand that he once thought was important. not as important than winning. I get it. For you guys it is all about winning the whitehouse.

I'll vote for him, but I don't feel compelled to campaign for him anymore. Another Pelosi or Reid, that's how I see Obama, unless he proves it wrong, but unfortunately he has proven it right that he may flake on you, if it make winning easier, in his opinion.

but he may do the right thing. There's time. i know I won't be silent. He might fight this thing as he once said he would. He might do something else that seems courageous. Or he may continue down the Pelosi-Reid road, inwhich case, you guys be fanboys. I don't have the spirit like you do.

Raise you pom-poms in the air. i won't be joining you. I'll be int he corner with the other skeptics.