Not sure where you got the impression that I'm saying this. What I'm saying is that there are other, better ways to focus our attention than getting hung up on an issue like this.

Bademus,

I have not been peeved by a political decision more than the apparent telecom immunity cave, and I have expressed that openly on this forum. That said, we must come to terms with political reality.

Before we pass excessively harsh judgment on Obama, those of us heartbroken over the FISA cave-in need to consider the following reality.

Unlike recent Democratic nominees for the White House, Obama did not win the necessary primary-elected pledged delegates to seize the nomination and is therefore at the mercy of the superdelegates to carry him over in Denver. Many of these superdelegates came from redder and purpler parts of the country and support the current FISA bill. Legislators such as McCaskill and Barrows were early backers of Obama during the now forgotten, hard-fought, primary. Obama's current position on the issue is indeed more easily explained in terms of internal party politics and support consolidation and loyalty. After being blasted two weeks ago with headlines asserting that Obama was the de facto leader of the Democratic party, we may be overlooking certain serious limitations to his current influence over the party.

We are upset that as a politician he returns support to these superdelegates, many of whom are targeted by the liberal blogosphere, but we forget that without their support, we do not have our dream candidate. Obama's tepid FISA position could very well be out of a compromise with superdelegates who initially backed him even before his nomination was at all certain. We may dislike these superdelegates such as Barrows, but there is no Obama nomination without them. Had he secured enough pledged delegates, he certainly would be less at the mercy of the interests of these superdelegates.

This, I fear, is a political reality we must grasp before we pass harsh judgment on Obama. He may not take money from lobbyists, but, because of this unusual primary season, he will be the nominee only because he receives the support of other elected officials who are betrothed to the special interests. This is lamentable, but it is also reality.

I shall also add that Obama is willing to lose goodwill for the sake of loyalty. This may be a flaw of sorts but it is an undeniable trait of his, whether it was for Lieberman (for which he now pays) or for Barrows (for whom he has faced heat from anti-war liberals, yours truly included), Obama is willing to spend political capital on those who have supported him. Ultimately, although this involves policy sacrifices, we are the beneficiaries of these alliances, if our tantrums over short-term setbacks do not spite our long terms aspirations. Ultimately, Obama's change message is not and has never been about policy details; it is about synthesis and unity in order to end the stalemate and divisions that are holding us back from together addressing the crises our nation and our planet are currently facing.

As a staunch American royalist, I insist that Obama grant the telcom's immunity so that we can finally have a king.

That is why we have a judicial branch. Why pick a fight over this legislation that will ultimately not be able to do any harm if the right people are sitting on the Supreme Court.

In this context, that sounds an ad hominem argument. Or ad infantilem, anyway.

However, I totally agree with Allsburg.

If we win -- when we win -- it's going to be a difficult transition for the left, because we've been mobilized for eight years by the horrors of the Bush administration. Many of us now feel, understandably, that exposing and prosecuting Bush is Job One.

But it's no longer Job One. As we move forward, it's going to be important to think proactively, and define our *own* priorities. We'll need to keep our eyed focused on our common future, rather than the Bush era. Speaking as a historian (of sorts), I can assure you that the historians will take care of burying Bush. Their verdict is not in any doubt.

I humbly add: Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

And...a...bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!

C'mon guys, we're on a roll now...

What the hell is up with Billy Glad not talking to me because I don't use my "real name"?? This is the most arrogant, marginalizing thing I think he's ever said. What have I done to him to deserve this kind of treatment??

I believe Profiles in Courage was ghost written.

... and one that is as honest and carefully considered as his required a lot of deep contemplation into his own soul...

Yet even Obama has acknowledged the limits of memoir. In a new introduction to the reissued edition of "Dreams," he noted that the dangers of writing an autobiography included "the temptation to color events in ways favorable to the writer ... [and] selective lapses of memory." He added: "I can't say that I've avoided all, or any, of these hazards successfully."

I haven't read his books and don't care to because all of these politicians' books are just different versions of "A Charge to Keep". I'm more interested in what a candidate does when he can no longer slide by on 'hope for change' and has to take actual positions on issues.

allsburg is acting out his avatar. He's too young to endure much cognitive dissonance. Has to resolve it. It doesn't matter if he convinces us or not, as long as he convinces himself.

surlawda is exactly right. Please, people, don't forget the telecomm immunity, as horrible as it was, wasn't the main fold. The main problem was the move to now make LEGAL the spying that Bush has been doing illegally over the past 7 years. It's the difference between breaking the law through ignoring the 4th amendment and making a law which effectively and officially renders the 4th amendment impotent. In other words, it's worse than Bush.

Because they don't, as even most Republican voters would agree. The fact is that very many good ideas for this country are independent of political affiliation, and can be agreed upon by a supermajority of the population. Wouldn't it be great to make some real progress with some of these issues, rather than getting bogged down in the controversial ones? Like good education legislation that isn't either trying to shove condoms or vouchers down our throats?

No I don't what? Point out that Obama caved on telecom immunity and that immunizing telecoms who broke the law is a big deal? If you don't think it's a big deal and an even bigger deal that Obama flipflopped on the issue, you're welcome to that view. But don't tell me it's okay because it's more important to elect Obama because he represents some new kind of politics when he's so plainly pursuing the old kind. Qwest sent the DOJ to the FISA court and they say they got punished for it by the Bush administration. What's your message to them? Sorry. We're making an omelette here?

There's a lot of rhetoric flying around a little loosely on this issue. Remember: any law that *actually* conflicted with the 4th Amendment could be struck down (sooner or later) by the Supreme Court. So if you really, truly think this law is unconstitutional, you ought to be working to make sure John McCain doesn't appoint the next few justices.

In fact, I don't believe this revision of FISA is unconstitutional. It's targeted at foreign nationals, and it allows judicial review to make sure that it *remains* targeted at foreign nationals. It may or may not be a good law, but it doesn't override the 4th Amendment.

You frame this argument like what I would expect from a neocon, only from a liberal perspective.

Everything is Absolutes Truths and Last Stands and Over My Dead Body ultimatums. You are aware we accomplish exactly zero with that sort of strategy, right? That the history of drastic change has been premised on a single idea - disparate groups of people who set aside their differences in pursuit of a higher goal.

You need to lay down your anger for "repugs" and realize that the average republican voter does in fact want the same things we do. That's why they voted for Barack in the primary. They know who he is and what he will do as president. They laid aside their anger and hurt and embarrassment for being fooled by the neocons, and yet you just can't let yours go.

You need to separate your fellow citizen from those amoral bastards who have been misrepresenting them just as many democratic incumbents have been disrespecting us. It might also be helpful to understand that we will need to deprogram republicans before we can shift this country to the left. President Obama is perhaps our last, best chance of completing this necessary first step to evolving our country beyond partisan battles.

Just because compromise involves some amount of capitulation today, doesn't mean that is the way it will be with Barack in the Oval Office and larger majority in Congress. Not to mention Obamicans pushing the GOP reps to be more progressive.

We have a real chance here if you can put your anger aside long enough to be strategic and tactical in your efforts.

Disagree, by all means. I disagree

Basically, it is about ignoring this specific legislation, then and now, in the interests of a larger goal and bigger issues.

It also is about understanding that a good chunk of American voters - right or wrong - think we need these tools to prevent further attacks. Convincing them otherwise will be a multi-generational effort, not a tactic used in a pivotal general election.

It is also seeing that the legislation has existed since 1978. It has been updated and debated in every decade. This update actually closes some technology loopholes that didn't exist during the last update, which is why Barack supports it. He also understands that a case which is summarily dismissed will never have a discovery phase. The Supreme Court has already upheld similar 4th Amendment violations (sobriety checkpoints, airport security, etc.) as being necessary to maintain domestic order and security. It is likely they would rule the same way on this one for national security reasons alone, if not for other reasons such as protections in place for the concerns you express.

The reason I have come to these conclusions is through a deep study of American history and through my own personal experiences. I have come to acknowledge certain facts about America. We have been violating the Constitution six ways from Sunday since it was written. We wrote a Constitutional violation into the original document with the Three-Fifths Clause. We are a blood-thirsty and ruthless people, under democrats and republicans alike, who will violate the Constitution at a moments notice for a greater or more pressing cause. Sometime ethical and moral causes. Sometimes not so much.

Not a single president in the list of 43 white men has managed to get through a single term in office without violating the Constitution using existing precedent and existing laws. That allows me to take a slightly different view of how to change the tendency of a nation to violate their founding documents for whatever reason.

What I would like to see is not some meaningless stand on tweaking complex laws or in providing immunity for something that they are already immune to. I want Barack to begin the deprogramming process that has allowed America to become a place where a majority of its citizens are willing to compromise certain rights for illusions of security based on lies and poor international diplomacy.

Barack needs to get elected before he can change the national narrative. See my General Quarters, General Quarters - All Hands On Deck blog from today.

Now is not the time to settle old scores with republicans or to play Don Quixote with fringe issues. When I say fringe, that is not to imply that this issue is not important and or shouldn't be on our list of Important & Progressive things To Do in 2009.

It is important and should be on that list for President Obama to address.

But democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama needs to get a chunk of conservative votes (both republican and independent) for a governing mandate and this issue has a totally different meaning to them. He has to negotiate this in a way the a good portion of frightened Americans don't think he is naive. That is a fine line to walk.

For me, he has earned the benefit of the doubt on his general election strategy. I think that he has captured so many republican votes is an indication that he knows what he is doing. Based on his history and his writing, it isn't a stretch for me to believe he will be as progressive and as bold as American voters allow him to be.

My two cents for the penny they are worth these days.

Allsburg/Urbinato 2042!

(My relative inexperience, at only 35 years of age, will be countered by your 885 years of experience.)