"Netroots' all out attack ought to give the Right comfort. More importantly, it gives Netroots' leaders comfort. They maintain their position with their followers."

Both very good points. I think thhere is some ego and self-centeredness here, as in "how dare you defy us!" or "we will NOT be taken for granted". It's in some ways mostly about them. Otherwise, they might have made a big push behind the scenes instead of going on MSNBC to lambast Obama (which actually makes cooperation less likely).

All I can say is that they are helping the GOP. Dems sure know how to screw up a good thing. Obama screwed up, yes, but so has netroots.

I think there is an interesting contrast here with the black community. Black intellectuals and leaders may not be happy with everything Obama says and does. But they cut him some slack, knowing that the country is mostly white and doesn't support their views on many issues. Would people love to see Obama march in NY for Sean Bell or down at the Jena Six? Sure. But people like Sharpton and Cornel West have been talking to Obama quietly behind the scenes. They can't demand 100% from him and they know it. That's reality. I am impressed with the sense of discipline there which I am not seeing in the netroots community right now. I'm mystified that people in netroots assume that the GOP will not being attacking Obama fiercely over FISA and that American voters are very knowledgable and lockstep with progressives on civil liberites issues.

The very fact that I hear people pining for Edwards or Kucinich shows me that these people don't want to win, don't want to really change things, don't want to try to appeal to middle America and tackle the bigger issues. It's more about them and their quixotic ideological battles.

Here, argue with Barak Obama:

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.

-Barak Obama

This is well said.

There are a lot of people who are most upset by the immunity part. I guess a lot of people want their pound of flesh. You have to remebr this is also the wing of the party that wants the central metaphor of the campaign (and I suppose of governing) to be "fighting".

I am not so interested in fighting other Americans (and certainly those in my same party), and I think we have to acknowledge that we use immunity in many contexts, including for crimes far more serious than eavesdropping.

I haven't heard a huge discussion on the actual techniques or procedures that are now allowed under this legislation, and that some think endanger the 4th Amendment. I think this would be more productive.

What I think we need to do is step back and examine what harm we are discussing.

18,000 people a year die because of inadequate health care due to lack of coverage (Instit. of Medicine); about 16,000 people are murdered every year; millions are in danger of losing their homes; billions of dollars and far too many lives are being wasted in Iraq. The harm in these cases from not changing policy is all too apparent. How should I think about FISA in this context?

Well, there's one very easy counter to the urgency argument: It's phony. if it were so important, then the Bush administration would have agreed to a bill with more judicial oversight and without telecom immunity. Obviously not that urgent. I'd live with old FISA until next year rather than give up judicial oversight and the telecom suits now.

Preach
Great post. I agree with all you said. We have to stop knee-jerk reactons to this matter. As a true "liberal" I hate what has happened to the Constitution and we need to have the abuses corrected. To do that we must elect Barack Obama.
The low information voters who are not even paying attention now will vote for McSame if we give the rethugs a chance to frighten them.
I trust Barack Obama, he is one of us, we must keep our eye on the prize.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,then they fight you, then you win."
---Mahatma Gandhi

What gives the right comfort is that Obama has capitulated while cowering in fear of the big, bad Republicans. If he really believes the bullshit he has in his statement on the bill then he shouldn't be President at all. But which is it going to be? The Obama people argue on one hand that he's winking and nodding and that he really doesn't mean this stuff, on the other they argue as above that he really means it and it isn't just politics, it's sincere. Oy!

In the first place, it's not a compromise, it's a capitulation. The fact that Obama can call it a compromise is evidence that he's dissembling, never mind that his position is directly opposite the one he took before.

It seems that as Obama becomes closer to becoming president, he becomes more and more cautious about doing or saying anything that might cause him problems. As he does this, he becomes less and less the candidate that appealed to me in the first place.

I also now have grave doubts about Obama's judgement as illustrated by his speaking out against the Irag War as a state senator.

His current actions indicate that had he been in the Senate at the time, he would have voted to authorize military force, just as Hillary Clinton and most Democratic senators did. Certainly the issue of Iraq's WMD was a more open question than the benefits of the FISA bill, and the consequences of being wrong were much greater than now.

Saying that "I'll try to remove retroactive immunity, but if I can't, I'll vote for the bill anyway" is hardly a courageous stance. Who can take his opposition to immunity seriously with a statement like that?

For those who are excusing Senator Obama's position on this, I ask that you ask yourself what your reaction would be had his statement been made by Arlen Spector?

Netroots' all out attack ought to give the Right comfort. More importantly, it gives Netroots' leaders comfort. They maintain their position with their followers. Perhaps they, not Obama, are the expedient ones in this tempest. They should be taking the high road and explaining more carefully what Obama's position means rather than fanning the flames of ideological purity.

Absolutely, 100% in agreement.

Hear hear! Bravo! Brilliant post!

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.

What a bizarre idea, right? Anyway, this was written by some idealistic folks shortly after a dust up with some autocrat by the name of George. They seemed to think it was particularly relevant because George the autocrat wanted to conduct war and used warrantless searches as part of his oppressive rule. They were pretty sure that it could be applied in war times, even during revolutions. Silly, huh?

Let's just make him vote against the FISA bill. Let's give the rethugs a good big national security club to bash him with.
snark
We need to win in Nov. period.
Any other outcome is not acceptable.
We can not afford 4 more years of the same.

How many of you have read FISA? Do you know how long it was around? It was around way before Bush and it always allowed unwarranted searches and seizures. Always - that's the point of the statute.

Where the problem lies is Bush - he totally ignored the statute. He had a duty after he authorized unwarranted taps to make a report to the FISA court so they could rubber stamp it - cause that's what they've always done. For a long time.

He ignored the law and violated our rights not through the unwarranted wiretaps - but through not reporting on them after the fact to the FISA court. That's where he violated the law and our rights.

But it is not the statute that is in question here - it existed before this happened and it will continue to exist. No matter what happens with the current bill, there will be a FISA statute.

There has been one for at least 20 years, IIRC when it was passed. I need to recheck.

This is exactly what the Obama campaign needs. He will not lose the votes of the netroots because they cannot vote for McCain. This election will be decided by the independents and they want to see a candidate take some positions that irritate their base. It is now Obama 1 - McCain 0 on standing up to the base of your party since you won the nomination.