Keith Olberman has a piece on dailykos today that helps to put Obama's position on FISA into perspective. After consulting with John Dean, whom, he extensively argues, is one of our nation's most brilliant people, he writes,

<blockquote>John said his reading of the revised FISA stature suggested it was so poorly constructed (or maybe so sublimely constructed) that it clearly did not preclude future criminal prosecution of the telecoms - it only stopped civil suits.</blockquote>

Keith thinks that Obama is crazy like a fox in this situation. Perhaps the harsh critics of Obama should work harder at making the distinction between pursuing one's values crazy like a fox and capitulating.

Here's what Obama said about the FISA bill.

<blockquote>It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence-collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to dealy. So I support the compromise but do so with a firm pledge that, as president, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the insprectors general and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives--and the liberty--of the American people.</blockquote>

Break it down. Any problem with the first sentence? Do Netroots folks have a counter that speaks to the urgency of having appropriate collection tools and how those tools can be put in place quicker than this bill provides while derailing this bill?

Regarding the remainder of the above quote, do critics of Obama's position have any doubt that he will fulfil his progressive destiny regarding immunity? He can't do that now. He does not have the votes.

Really, folks. I don't see any sense in the he's-broken-faith crowd. I don't see any political expedience in Obama's position. He means what he said about the urgency of installing collection tools. 

If Netroots' folks focus is on prosecuting Bush and Big Business, perhaps, then their reaction at least makes a bit of sense. But not really. After all, Obama has said that his justice department will pursue all reasonable prosecutions against Bush Administration officials. The Telecom industry can be handled with much less fuss. Just disalow subsequent egregious activities when Obama gets in. The principle of protecting the fourth amendment can be fulfilled by prosecuting Bush. That ought to be enough. There's no political expedience. His position is practical; it's about what's possible, not what's expedient. What Netroots wants is not.  

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.