I just went to his website and sent him a comment about this, urging him to block its passage.

I am change I can believe in.

Obama has no reason to keep his word on this issue, because those who disapprove are certainly not going to vote for McCain. In fact, Obama could reneg on a multitude of issues, and still not be in danger of losing votes.

As you said, "Are these reasons to vote for his opponent, hell no". Obama knows this, so why would he care what you think?

"And although Barack will be much better than McCain ..."

The FISA issue, which he could stop dead in its tracks, is the only thing I could think of that could conceivably get me to vote for him but I don't imagine I'll have to give that a second thought.

Obama Explicitly said that limiting 527 groups was a big part of taking public financing. As of 2 weeks ago, McCain said he had no intention of limiting such groups. The Obama camp said that this was one of the major reasons for not taking public financing.

As for Telecom Immunity, It's inexcusable.

Good post, Norm. I'm thinking we might want to start writing Michelle...maybe she is a moral driving force for Obama? (I'm only half being facetious)

I am change I can believe in.

I love this :)

From the always well spoken Greenwald Over at Salon.com

The excuse that Obama's support for this bill is politically shrewd is -- even if accurate -- neither a defense of what he did nor a reason to refrain from loudly criticizing him for it. Actually, it's the opposite. It's precisely because Obama is calculating that he can -- without real consequence -- trample upon the political values of those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that it's necessary to do what one can to change that calculus. Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests. Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion -- neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it -- and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. That's precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it's shifted to a new Leader. What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it. What's more, as a Constitutional Law Professor, he knows full well what a radical perversion of our Constitution this bill is, and yet he's supporting it anyway. Anyone who sugarcoats or justifies that is doing a real disservice to their claimed political values and to the truth.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Obama has no reason to keep his word on this issue, because those who disapprove are certainly not going to vote for McCain.

I agree with Norm in thinking that of course it would be over the top to take this one issue and use it to claim that "Obama is no better than John McCain." So voting for John McCain is, for me, not a possibility. I do, however, regard this as different by orders of magnitude than most other policy issues because it is not about proposals which, whatever the consequences their enactment, would be unlikely to undermine basic rights rights and protections. What is at issue with the recent House bill are, transparently, violations of the U.S. Constitution. Barack could reverse himself on any number of issues from Iraq to healthcare, and although I would be outraged, I would probably still vote for him. But for a well-informed constitutional law professor and Congressman who has taken an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution and law to enable this bill may be beyond the pail for me.

So I am considering, but not yet decided: perhaps a politican who cannot do so is not worthy of my vote-- so I'll sit it out, and encourage all those I know to do likewise.

There have to be consequences, serious consequences, for playing politics with the Constitution. As Greenwald puts the point about congresspersons (although not, at least not directly, Barack's presidential bit)

But whether true or false, this "justification" [that Congressional Democrats need to win more swing districts] is precisely why I believe so fervently that the only option we have to battle against continuous assaults on core constitutional and civil liberties is to target the very seats that the Democratic leadership constantly points to in order to justify their behavior. What the Democratic leadership is saying is quite clear: we will continue to trample on the Constitution and support endless expansions of the surveillance state because that is how we'll win in swing districts and expand our Congressional majority...The only objective of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer is to have a 50-seat majority rather than a 35-seat majority, and if enabling the Bush administration's lawbreaking and demolishing core constitutional protections can assist somewhat with that goal, then that it what they will do. That's what they are saying all but explicitly here.

Until that calculus changes, their behavior never will. That's why it is so vital to target and defeat selected Democrats in Congress who are enabling these unconstitutional and lawless assaults. Democratic leaders need to learn that this strategy won't work. Right now, they think there is no price to pay from doing things like giving telecoms amnesty and destroying the Fourth Amendment, because those who oppose that won't do anything other than continue to support them. If they start losing seats when they engage in that behavior rather than gaining them -- if people who want to defend the Constitution and impose limits on the lawless Surveillance State work together to destroy this risk-benefit calculus by punishing them rather than rewarding them when they do things like this -- only then will they stop doing it.

If, as a result of their destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law, they see that they lose seats -- that John Barrow and Chris Carney are removed from Congress and Steny Hoyer's standing in his district is severely compromised and that list of targets continues to grow -- then they'll conclude that they can't build their Vast and Glorious Democratic Majority by dismantling the Constitution and waging war on civil liberties. The Democratic Party in Congress is enslaved to the goal of winning more "swing districts" by supporting extremist measures -- such as the FISA "compromise" -- that please the right-wing. They need to learn that they won't benefit, but will suffer, when they do that.

[Emphases are Greenwald's not mine]

Obama should incorporate a shredded Constitution into his Audacious Shield of Hopeful Audacity:

http://tinyurl.com/6qwyya

Sitting it out, voting for McCain - I'm sorry but this just strikes me as inane.

You are all up in arms that Obama isn't voting against a bill that wouldn't even be there if it weren't for the Republicans. Get down on Obama for what he's doing - yes - but - using that to prevent a Democrat from getting in? You do remember the lies leading us into war, the dismissal of the lives lost!, the extreme amount of money spent on this war which is not being supported by a war tax - in fact - they are trying to cut more taxes for the wealthy, the refusal of any sort of government transparency or accountability not to mention the laws that started all this in the first place.

AND this is where you are choosing to draw the line in the sand? The fewer people voting, the better that is for the Republicans - not to mention people actually voting for McCain who has NO straight talk left he has become such a puppet.

As far as the seats, there has been a push for Blue America candidates - to get in the better Democratic candidates and get rid of the wimpy ones like when they ran Ned Lamont against Lieberman and Paul Hackett who was then forced by the Democratic party to drop out. These are men that the Democratic party has not stood behind. I agree entirely with getting better Dems in. You can get involved in that on down with tyranny or crooks and liars.

Flip-flop on public financing: meh. I don't think any of us really believed that pledge back when he made it, what's more, most of us were taking him to task for even suggesting it: throw away hundreds of millions--is he insane?!

But the FISA bill is WHOLE OTHER MATTER. This fucking bill is gawdawful, and this is really WAY beyond the pale, as suggested above.

To be fair: I can't see Clinton taking a very different position on this Norm, given the sense we get of her wanting an empowered executive, and given her hawkishness on Iran even into and through the primaries (as this bill is allegedly about spying in order to find terrorists in our midsts).

Our only hope is the short term damage of this will be more akin to the McCarthy era: we will course correct. We must start by giving our Dem leaders a huge god damn ear full.

Here is a post about the Democrats to get rid of.. http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-hope-you-didnt-miss-that-hoyer-and.html

"The FISA issue, which [Obama] could stop dead in its tracks"

Please explain, when all of the Republicans (save three) and half the Democrats are for it.

And did people just sort of forget Obama and McCain's opinions on last week's Supreme Court ruling on Habeas Corpus? Or do we have the attention span of gnats?

Oh, for the love of god(small g)...

First of all Norm...

Motivated Reasoning, ( devaluing criticism and overvaluing arguments in favor of of a position we wish to believe is true) it is a sort of flip side of Confirmation Bias ( looking only at the evidence that supports a specific point of view).

The primary argument that was been made was that Obama is better then Clinton. You devalue reason by changing the argument to being about whether or not Obama is perfect. He is not, every Obama supporter you have had post on this site will concede that as fact. Where is Hillary, and where would she be if she had to win a general election a few months from now.

Secondly

"And although Barack will be much better than McCain ..."

I'm not convinced of that either, different to be sure, better ... questionable.

Unless Obama is both evil and stupid, or you believe there is a special place in heaven for you after Armageddon, you probably ought to vote democratic this time round. They will likely fuck shit up, but your odds of being poor and/or dead are significantly less.

Thirdly... http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml

Fourth, Jill..

As much as conservative Dems raise my ire, many of the districts listed are conservative. You can have a republican that caucuses with the republicans or a conservative dem that caucuses with the dems but votes against us on many issues. Good is not really an option. Altmire for instance, is a democrat in Rick Santorums old congressional district. The fact that the man isn't a rabid neo-con is incredible.

Certainly we need to educate those conservatives on reality so that hopefully one day they will elect someone that appreciates liberty before security, but in the mean time we need to take what I can get.

Similarly, as disappointing as it is for Obama not to take a stronger stance on this, if I was advising him and he was facing a vote he could not win and would lose general election votes for...

I would tell him not to make a fight out of it and fix things next year.

Now, I think perhaps, if that is the calculation they have made that they is underestimated the reaction they will get from the left. As evident with the insanity here.

That said, I think dems see this as the republicans last chance to demagogue on security in this election cycle and taking it away gives them a near certain victory in the fall.

RedSeven - I appreciate your look at the big picture.

I just wanted to clarify a little of the Blue America process (which I put in regarding Glenn Greenwald's column.) There is a real grassroots movement to support the better candidates. They collect donations and help fund those races. Part of that is also identifying the "Vichy Democrats." Obviously this is not going to happen quickly but, Democrats need to focus on local politics the same way the Republicans have. And, you're right - in some areas, it's just not going to happen (maybe it's not even appropriate for it to happen in order to represent the local constituency) but, it's a great movement to improve the quality of Democratic representation. And, if you followed what happened to Paul Hackett, you know it does need this grassroots push.

There is a real grassroots movement to support the better candidates.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a great idea to have an organization that does for progressive candidates what the DLC does for conservatives, but they are doing it wrong.

You don't target conservative dems, you target dems more conservative then their districts.

And you target middle of the road republicans with well educated constituencies.

2006 was a year of real progressive victories. Emanuel and others are quick to point out the moderate dems they got elected, but there was a big crop of liberals that got elected because they actually said what they thought about the war.

A few more elections like that would be nice.

I actually have butterflies in my stomach about the FISA bill. I won't waste time preaching to the choir, I'll simply add my voice to a growing chorus:

Don't let me down, Mr. Obama. My faith in humanity is hanging by a thread.

Norm,

For all the criticism you've leveled at Keith Olbermann, I think you owe him a gold star for his handling of the telecom/wiretapping issue. His interview with Jonathan Hurley is absolutely first rate in several respects: (1) Hurley is a Constitutional scholar, not a celebrity who can be dismissed as a whining lefty. (2) Hurley speaks clearly, completely devoid of jargon or hyperbole, and does a masterful job of exposing the FISA compromise as the capitulation it is. Hurley's delivery is completely calm and deliberate - irrefutable actually.

All that's missing on Olbermann's part, to be fair, is any mention of Obama's position - which is currently nothing less than weak and vacillating.

I wrote a nice e-mail to Obama expressing my concern over his opaque position on the FISA bill and got a nice fund raising response back. It's made me wonder if it's even worth voting, but I was for Edwards. When I e-mailed him at lest a human was kind enough to send me a link to his position on the issue at hand.

We are all guilty of motivated reasoning. Examine Hillary Clinton's endless litany of contradictions, fabrications and slimy tactics with something approaching objectivity.

There are still too many Republican's in Congress to restore the Constitution. it's another reason why Impeachment is just jerking-off. Until we have both Capitol Hill and the White House controlled by the opposition none of the last 12 years of conservative mischief can be reversed.

My hope, and I realize that there is no evidence for it, is that once the Dems actually have power they will stand up on their hind legs and say...Now lets examine the mysteries of the Bush Administration, shall we? Forget impeachment: drag CITIZEN Bush in to federal court when he can't pardon himself or have a Republican successor do it.

fp

And although Barack will be much better than McCain,

Do you mean "although Barack will be much better than John," or "although Obama will be much better than McCain?" This is really getting tedious.

I actually have butterflies in my stomach about the FISA bill. I won't waste time preaching to the choir, I'll simply add my voice to a growing chorus: Don't let me down, Mr. Obama. My faith in humanity is hanging by a thread.

Zaphod,

It is going to be all right, everything will be all right, the struggle will be finished. All you have to do is win the victory over yourself. Learn to love Big Brother.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a great idea to have an organization that does for progressive candidates what the DLC does for conservatives, but they are doing it wrong. You don't target conservative dems, you target dems more conservative then their districts. And you target middle of the road republicans with well educated constituencies. 2006 was a year of real progressive victories. Emanuel and others are quick to point out the moderate dems they got elected, but there was a big crop of liberals that got elected because they actually said what they thought about the war. A few more elections like that would be nice.

Ummmm....yeah. That's what Blue America was working on. They raised awareness for the truly independent candidates which included a nice little commercial they tailored for each of them with Rickie Lee Jones singing (Down with Tyranny is Howie Klein who used to run Sire records), FireDogLake hosted meet the candidates, and the sites did fundraising to their ability. I've included a link to the round-up statement explaining the thinking and showing they did manage to raise a total of $544,000 which is not a lot in the big world but a lot in the world of small donors on a few liberal sites. BTW, Rahm Emanuel got on board late in the game, was not a friend to the real cause and basically took credit for Howard Dean's work. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/10/blue-america-shareholders-report-howd-we-do/#more-11888

If you have any suggestions, I'm sure they'd be happy to hear them.

Until we have both Capitol Hill and the White House controlled by the opposition none of the last 12 years of conservative mischief can be reversed.

Horsehockey. All members of Congress have been letting things ride for the past 12 years. They could have done something, they chose not to. The reason most members are in Congress is to get a seat on the apple cart, and all the perks that come with it. Once on, they of course aren't going to upset it. It's 1st century Roman senate all over again, and we know how that turned out. Bush's attitude suggests he would have no qualms heading the empire.

Horsehockey. All members of Congress have been letting things ride for the past 12 years

This is because the majority of the members of Congress are conservative. Even though the so-called Democrats have a majority, many of these Democrats are Bluedog conservative Democrats.

Until Americans vote more progressives into office, the Congress will remain basically conservative. And in an environment where most members of Congress are conservative, the progressives have to succumb to and be submissive to the conservatives.

This is because the majority of the members of Congress are conservative. Even though the so-called Democrats have a majority, many of these Democrats are Bluedog conservative Democrats.

As the indomitable Glenn Greenwald today noted in response to a question on a new Faux News poll (for what it is worth):

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Congress is doing? (June 17-18, 2008)

percentages:(Approve,Disapprove,Don't know)

Democrats: (18, 71, 13)

Republicans: (23, 64, 13)

Independents: (15, 74, 11)

Total: (19, 69, 13)

G.G.'s comment:

The Democratic Congress is more popular with Republicans than with Democrats. I really wonder if this is the first time in modern American history when a Congress is more popular among the opposition party than among the party that putatively controls it. And this was taken before the FISA vote...

Greenwald's emphasis

:

So the majority of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing? How many of those same Americans are familiar with those individual Congressmen/women and understand all of the nuances?

How many of those same Americans are familiar with those individual Congressmen/women and understand all of the nuances?

Very few, I'm sure. My Congressman is a bluedog Democrat, but in my Texas district, if he were anything else, we'd have a full-fledged Republican - of that I have absolutely no doubt. If the GOP had anyone to run against him who wasn't a complete jackass here, his job would be in jeopardy. He is the only one of seven Democrats to survive DeLay's redistricting the state (remember that circus?). He is one of the few Democrats who holds office where I live (the district attorney is a Democrat who leaves his party affiliation off his campaign posters).

Amazing coincidence: My bluedog Democratic Congressman was just singled out by Nancy Pelosi as her selection among Democrats in the House for Obama's short list.

Don't know what happened there; try again.

OK, I didn't think it was possible for me to get any more upset over this issue. Then I learn, via a link at Greenwald, that the telecom companies were party to the negotiations involving their own immunity.