Is Obama Selling Out on FISA bill?

Is Obama being a shrewd pol or selling out civil liberties?

That's the question raised by Glenn Greenwald's tough new column taking Obama to task for supporting the bogus "compromise" bill condemned by the ACLU, the New York Times and most of the liberal blogosphere.
Greenwald takes on his fellow bloggers as well:

In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible -- and deeply unprincipled -- support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it's our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything -- including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law -- because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

The ACLU specifically identifies the ways in which this bill destroys meaningful limits on the President's power to spy on our international calls and emails. Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it "fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power." Rep. Rush Holt -- who was actually denied time to speak by bill-supporter Silvestre Reyes only to be given time by bill-opponent John Conyers -- condemned the bill because it vests the power to decide who are the "bad guys" in the very people who do the spying.

This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.

Moveon.org is also launching an email campaign urging Obama to keep his word on supporting a filibuster to block telecom immunity:

Dear MoveOn member:

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."2 Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."3

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: [phone]

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here.

These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving "immunity" to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it's done, it can't be undone. That's why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.

Supporters of today's deal say it doesn't guarantee immunityâ€"it just kicks the issue to a court to decide. But that's deceptive. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out:
"It gives [Bush's] attorney general the power to decide if cases against telecommunications companies will proceed. The AG only has to certify to the FISA court that the company didn't spy or did so with a permission slip from the president. A note from the president is not a legal defense. Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a 'permission slip' from the president is not court review."5

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit group working with the ACLU to hold these companies accountable, adds, "whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called 'compromise' on immunity for phone companies that broke the law is anything but a compromise...no matter how they spin it, this is still immunity, period."6

President Bush and the phone companies know that the facts are against them. A judge appointed by President Bush's father already wrote one opinion finding that "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."7

But we'll never know how far their illegal actions went unless we fight back now. Can you tell Barack Obama you're counting on him to keep his word and block any compromise that gives immunity to lawbreaking phone companies? Obama's presidential campaign: [phone]

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here.

Thanks for all you do,
â€"Nita, Adam G., Patrick, Ilyse, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Saturday, June 21, 2008

Sources:

1. "George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 19, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html
2. "Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the FISA Deal," Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, June 19, 2008
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm
3. "Obama Backing FISA 'Compromise," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, June 20, 2008
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_backing_fisa_compromise.php

4. "Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, October 24, 2007
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php
5. "Facts on the Senator Kit Bond's (R-Mo.) FISA Proposal," June 13, 2008
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35652res20080613.html
6. "Prepared Statement of Eff Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston on Immunity 'Compromise,'" Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 18, 2008
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/EFF_bankston.pdf
7. "Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 17, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/hoyer/index.html

There's nothing significant for Obama to gain in the general election if he ends up going along with the bill, and much to lose in terms of his reputation for integrity and keeping his word, so it's important to keep pressure on him to oppose the new bill, especially if it contains any telecom-favoring provision.

UPDATE: Here's Obama's rationalization for supporting the current bill, while claiming he'll work to strip it of the telecom immunity provision. What's not clear in this statement or some of the blog commentary is what he'll do regarding the measure if the telecom provision stays in. Some highlights:

It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

Unfortunately, though, the thrust of his comments is that he will support the bill as written, even though he'll support -- how, he doesn't say -- efforts to remove the telecom provision, perhaps after it's already become law:

"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 delay. 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 Inspectors 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."

Sadly, we expected more from Obama than this position on critical civil liberties legislation. That's why it's important to call his campaign to urge him to follow up on his promise to back a filibuster against the telecom immunity provision. Obama's presidential campaign phone: [phone]. Let him know you'd like him to stand up against the Bush administration on this issue, showing the sort of strength that can resonate with voters in the general election.

Comments

[elizaW]

To believe that "the only important thing is getting Obama into the Oval Office" is to willingly assume the role of slave. We have already seen ample evidence of Obama as "Fast Eddie" and if you don't think that more flip flops and lies will emerge in the coming months then you are not only a slave you are a blind slave. The most important thing is not being afraid to look at what is. The "audacity of hope" is a manipulation technique to keep you from using your reason to make informed decisions. It's amazing that so many people brag about how they won't let their kids watch too much TV because it dulls the mind but those same parents willingly watch hours of Obama TV, which not only dulls the mind but could end up dulling America. Or worse.

[tc399]

Unless Obama delivers on blocking this bill, I will vote for McCain, who is senile at best. But I'd rather lose it all at once and get right to the business of restoring the Constitution than have politicians chip it away piecemeal hoping no one will notice. We DO notice. Obama got our support by promising to restore the Constitution. He had better do it.

[ForwardtoYesterday]

Oh, that makes sense.

WTF is wrong with everyone here? is this just the latest variation on the Taylor Marsh/No Quarter movement? If so, you guys should really be ashamed of yourselves or just fucking join the Republicans.

I strongly suspect this has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution and everything to do with a desire to take your revenge on the party that, you believe, spurned you.

[tommybones]

Obviously you haven't bothered to read the numerous cogent criticism of Obama's position and how it relates to the Constitution. The idea that those criticism have "nothing to do with the constitution" is idiotic.

[Binea]

you could always threaten to vote for - Barr.
Better yet..write in Ron Paul...that might light a fire under them.

[BadCompany]

Yeah, write in wRong Paul (R-TX).
He voted "not present" on the telecom bill.
Leadership in action.

[reasonlives]

I believe Rep. Paul was literally "not present". It wasnt a vote, he was not there. Granted, it would have been better to vote against it, but obviously it wouldnt have changed anything. Plus, no one is confused about his stand on these matters, as he has always consistently and forcefully opposed the Patriot Act and its spinoffs, and has made constitutional governance the cornerstone of his campaign.
Obama, through a FILIBUSTER (with Dodd, Feingold ect) and with his authority and prestige as Dem nominee and likely NEXT PRESIDENT, could on the other hand, actually effect the passage or defeat of this law, especially in regard to retroactive absolute IMMUNITY for the telecoms, as he PROMISED to do so when seaking civil libertarian support in the primaries.

[dzoner]

And perhaps it is more than prudent, under the cirsumstances, to remove a VERY compelling reason for Bush to start a war with Iran. For Bush, personally, even the MOST compelling reason.

If Bush, as reported, violated FISA BEFORE 9-11, he is in serious legal jeopardy and lord knows what other laws they broke PRE 9-11 that might come to light in a criminal investigation of the FISA violation.

You get the point here? GEORGE BUSH, his very own self, is acutely aware that if the republicans lose control of the White House, HE is at actual risk of indictment, conviction and incarceration on FISA AND what might follow from a full investigation into it.

That fact, besides being true, is surely, surely, surely being pounded into Bush's brain by Cheney and his crew who are even more vulnerable and politically expendable than Bush.

George Bush MUST have a republican secede him in the White House and will do whatever it takes to make it happen, up to and including starting a war with Iran, a false flag terrorist attack on US soil and/or declaring a natonal emergency and invoking the associated powers. This would create chaos in the US and around the world, and chaos is a very fertile ground for the utterly ruthless and powerful to create further mischief and mayhem.

So what would you do if you were Obama in this situation?

[JRandomPoster]

So, at what point do we say "No more"?

Each "compromise", each unconstitutional deal weakens the fabric of our democracy.

Your view is pragmatic in the short term, perhaps. But remember, it was a short term appeasement to take impeachment off the table, and there was nothing given in return as far as I can tell.

[dzoner]

My view is pragmatic in the short term AND the long term. If McCain becomes president it ALL goes down the drain and the entire administration walks free.

UNTIL Barack raises his hand and takes that oath, the danger to this country is extreme and very very real. It is getting to THAT point that is Baracks FIRST concern, because if that does not happen, this country is finished and so are we.

Progressives and lefties need to clue in to what the situation looks like to BARACK and the very real danger Bush and Cheney will be right up to the point in time they are officially the EX president and vice president.

[Kahni]

"George Bush MUST have a republican secede him in the White House and will do whatever it takes to make it happen, up to and including..."

How about up to and including more backroom deals with enough Dems so that O has to go with the flow or swim alone? O wasn't the only Dem who voted 'yes'.

[antworks]

There is a lot of validity in what you are saying. But, these politicians have shown not one shred of courage in taking on this man's administration to address these issues. What to make you believe that electing a democrat will change that? When the democrats took control of the House and specifically the House Judiciary Committee, that should have signaled that a wide ranging investigation of this criminal administration would commence! But, it did not. Mr. Conyors has hinted at doing some type of investigations, but nothing has transpired. Granted (to Mr. Conyors, i.e.) the administration has stonewalled them on almost every request for documents and information in the
Judiciary's atempt to find the truth. Bush has delayed their request, refused to present officials before them and simply stonewalled (to waste time until January 20, 2009). Someone needs to get some balls and do something and not just talk about it.

[JRandomPoster]

I'll still vote for Obama. But as of today, I have called his campaign office, and unsubscribed from the mailing list (which allows one to leave a message about why one is unsubscribing).

Here is the message I left when removing my name from the mailing list:

Dear Senator Obama:

I have supported you with the time and money that I have available to me, having come to believe that you are the candidate of hope and change.

All this changed with your acceptance of the FISA bill. More than any government program at this point, I believe that restoring our constitution and changing the entrenched, self serving power structures that have developed during the last few decades is the most important thing that you could bring to the Presidency.

Until such time as you restore my faith in your ability to restore our constitutional republic, I will no longer be donating time or money to your campaign.

Sincerely,

A very disappointed supporter

[SpoxLogic]

JRandomPoster, I am sorry you ahd to take it so far. But, maybe you'll reconsider after reading my take on this.

The honest answer is that he needs to do a bit of CYA. Think about it, if he votes against FISA and it doesn't pass - the neocons stage a "terrorist" atack - here in the US or abroad agaisnt US interests and who loses?
If it does pass - the neocons "thwart" possible "terrorist" attacks here in the US or abroad against US interests, and claim it was the new FISA that helped them. But, guess who didn't vote for FISA ?..

Get it now?

[KPinSEA]

So, "politics as usual" from the sure-fire winning guidebooks of Mike Dukakis and Al Gore?

The real disappointment with Obama is that he has so successfully avoided playing by the other guy's (or gal's) rules while campaigning, and the appeal of that really can't be overstated.

A vote for this FISA bill says "Now I'm playing it safe." And that's not what his core wants to hear. It's the best news ever for McCain, though.

[JRandomPoster]

Call me naive, but I refuse to buy into either the idea that "we must give up our rights or the terrorists win" - or the idea that "we must give up our rights or the neocons win".

[Kahni]

Hi Spox

Oh, we "get it." Your turn...

The natural dem/rep ratio is 60:40. That being the case, why would O care what the neo's say about anything? Basing ones voting record on the incredibly remote possibility of a terrorist attack in the next few month is totally caving in to fear. It justifies all the neo's arguments.

[lbrillante]

The entire democratic party is being idiotic in this case. It is bad enough that they will not consider impeachment of this administration for its criminal acts... to actively grant immunity is to be complicit in Bush's crimes. He is wrong to think that anything in the 'compromise' FISA bill makes it worth granting this immunity. They need to be much more agressive in holding his administration accountable but they have rarely even been able to hold it in check. The american people have been trying to believe in the possibility that things will get better. Senator Obama has invited them to do this. The democratic party keeps trying to use the theme 'we can do better' (I've told them that it seems lame to me). PROVE IT!!!

[zbig]

I just saw HBO's 'Recount' and it made me put in perspective what's at stake: these evil doers (Bush, Cheney, the Supreme Court 5) deserve to have Obama as President, just so there'll be someone to piss them off.

[freda]

You had to watch a HBO movie 8 years after to put things in perspective and all you have to say is Obama should be president to piss off repugs.That has got to be one of the most simplistic reasonings I have heard . It hurts my eyes.If that is your contribution do every one a favor and stay home election day. Such bullshit!

[naschkatze]

I've been skimming the blogs to see if there are any updates on what Obama and the Democrats are going to do but haven't found anything new. Does anyone have information?

[rsottong]

On the face of it, I don't understand Sen. Obama's support -- or partial support -- for this "compromise" bill. What I do know is (1) his vote seems to fly in the face of political convenience (it goes against his reform and respect-for-the-law rhetoric and lobs a "See? He's all talk!" softball at McBush), which leads me to believe that there must be higher and more sophisticated thinking behind the decision; and (2) frankly, Sen. Obama has crossed a threshold of trust with me. He has good judgement. I believe that his respect for the law is real. I believe that he works to protect the Constitution -- and that restoring it is a primary objective for an Obama administration.

I'll learn more about this bill, and I'll become as informed as possible about it and Sen. Obama's position ... but someone will have to prove him guilty on this before he loses my trust and support.

[antworks]

What kind of "higher or more sophisticated thinking" can you come up with? This statement (realizing you appear to want to know more about why Mr. Obama has taken this position) seems to say that you may believe politicians are somehow embued some type of intelligence higher than you have.? These are ordinary people that have ordinary lives that just happened to get elected to public office. They are not some type of gods like Zeus. [Having worked five years as a legislative aid in Michigan's House of Representatives taught me that much. They have faults just like you and I. They are not perfect or geniuses.]. in order to "protect the constitution" Americans need someone who understand the difference between right and wrong. This immunity for the telecoms is simply stupid. Bush broke the law and the telecoms assisted him in braking the law. That make them just as guilty as Bush. When is the last time "you" broke the law and the local district attorney let you "slide" and not be charged with a crime, Sir? My point is this. Does the law of the land apply to all of us or just "some" of us?

[sTrainer]

At first - I TOO was disappointed to hear that Sen. Obama was going to support the FISA bill. But I - as A FEW others have done - can see the political necessity of his TEMPORARY (admittedly in the name of political expediency) support of the measure. The Repuglikkkans WILL DO ANYTHING TO STOP OBAMA - UP TO AND INCLUDING A "HOME GROWN" "terrorist act - to PROVE that he does not have the experience on "National Security matters" to be president. And then try to blame it on his opposition to the bill.

(To prove my point - look no further than the TOTAL ACT OF TREASON THEY COMMITTED AGAINST VALERIE PLAME!!)

EVERYONE - let's take a deep breath (at least for w while) - and adopt a "wait and see attitude" - before we abandon the Obama ship!!!

[JRandomPoster]

The problem with "temporary compromise" on civil rights is that once they are gone, they are almost impossible to get back.

[meanguy]

are you kidding? obama could eat his children on the capitol steps and be wildly applauded by his cult...you're stuck with him to the bitter end

[Kahni]

Ok guy, next time try reading the other posts before you make your splendid generalizations.

His "cult" doesn't seem exactly thrilled with this decision. Interestingly enough, many of those telling us to take it easy were not doing much of that on most of his earlier votes.

[tbone99]

Temporary - as in this little ol' war will only last a couple months ...

Where have we heard that before?HMMMM

[emjay1954]

So by supporting the FISA sell out, now Republicans will say, "Oh, I guess we were wrong. Obama IS qualified to be Commander in Chief"? No. Selling our civil liberties to the telecoms will not satisfy the hysterical fear mongers of the right. It will not make anyone vote for Obama who would not have done so otherwise. It will only make us less free.

[Kahni]

Clear as a bell!

Keep saying it, emjay!

[greenchili]

"EVERYONE - let's take a deep breath (at least for w while) - and adopt a "wait and see attitude" - before we abandon the Obama ship!!!".........The bush administration is destroying OUR constitution and you want to "WAIT and SEE?....Haven't you seen enough or did you just fall off the turnip truck today?......It is people like you that has allowed this sh#t to continue......Please, pull your head out of the sand and WAKE UP!!!!!!!.........Jeeeeeeeeeeeeesus christ!

[Lemeritus]

Ditto what greenchili said... just more so.

[nibblybits]

There's a danger in putting all your hopes and dreams in one person, hoping they won't make mistakes, and then sitting back passively complaining when they disappoint you.

Obama isn't going to always vote the way we want. There are going to be some issues in which he will do exactly what we stand against. Or in which he makes a mistake. It's gonna happen. But our democracy is participatory. That means not just jawboning our complaints, but actually doing something about it. Let Obama know that you are against his vote -- then go after the other Dems (or Repubs) who voted for the bill too.

We all know why he is voting for this thing: So that in the future if there is a terrorist attack, he won't be attacked for voting against FISA. Yes, it's political ass covering, but I get it. Better to put pressure on all the people who voted for it, because Obama won't (can't) stand alone in opposition.

[Marcospinelli]

It's kind of boggling to read comments like yours, excusing a politician for caving to B.u.s.h.&C.h.e.n.e.y.'s further destruction to the Constitution, when the last time the colored warning system was used the weekend before the 2004 election?

If you think that there's going to be another "terrorist attack", then don't you think that it's time to get to the bottom of "this terrorist thing"? With REAL investigations, and not the fixed Keane-Hamilton whitewash of 9/11? With OPEN hearings, enough of these closed door operations, where B.u.s.h. and C.h.e.n.e.y. get to hold hands and testify together.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to question the legitimacy of anything that B.u.s.h.-C.h.e.n.e.y. have done these last 8 years to "fight terrorism" when terrorist attacks have increased 100-fold. When the search and apprehension of Bin Laden has been abandoned. When the fortune of the nation has gone into the pockets of B.u.s.h& C.h.e.n.e.y families and friends. And when all of the efforts have resulted in actually creating MORE terrorists and danger for We, the People without securing anything at home. When the "tools" created to protect We, the People from terrorists are being used AGAINST We, the People, for acts not related to terrorism.

[Kahni]

Keep goin' Marco, you're doin' great!

[nibblybits]

Then let me ask you why you are only mentioning Obama among the Dems who disappointed you about this, and not the many other Dems who did. Can you really set a higher standard for Obama than those others?

FISA is a important issue to me as well, and believe me, I think his vote to support immunity and continue eavesdropping is lousy. But I'm also aware that we aren't gonna get everything we want and the world isn't going to instantly bounce back just because Bush is out of office. I'm not saying what Obama did was ok, I'm saying to put pressure on ALL the politicians who voted for it, Dem and Repub, in both houses.

[shep1900]

You know, I had completely forgotten that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney testified _together_.

That was weird. Not "shoot your friend in the face after having a drink or two at lunch" weird, but weird.

[Lemeritus]

"With OPEN hearings...."

But, but, but... what about national security?

What if we were to find out that 19 mostly SAUDI ARABIANS who were on the NO FLY LIST, armed with nothing more sophisticated than BOX CUTTERS, boarded 4 domestic airplanes (which they had learned to FLY BUT NOT LAND) and brought the American Dream to an end in an orgy of fear and warfare?

And what if we found out that our president has been warned and DID NOTHING?

Oh, it's too much to think of, Marcospinelli! No open hearings, I beg you!

[TXfemmom]

The fact of the matter is that this is a BIG thing, and Obama has CAVED on it, and he hasn't even been to the convention and been made the formal candidate yet. If he has caved on this, how can we expect him to have the guts and backbone to take on the other really tough things which are confronting us? I think Obama is just a slick, well-spoken man with little real character. Is he better than McCain, well my toenail clippings are better than McCain, but is Obama just as big a disappointment as has been Pelosi? YES.

[Larry of Corrales]

I guess we're between a rock and a hard place on this. I am very opposed to any of these bills and laws that trample on our constitutional rights and I am no more accepting of Obama doing this than I am of Bush. Our problem now is that we have a choice between McCain, Obama, Barr and Nader. A non-vote or a vote for Nader gives us President McCain. What can be more scary than that. If the Supreme Court is bad now think of what it will be like after a McCain Supreme Court appointment. If you're worried about your constitutional rights being abused, just think about from Crazy John McCain will do to you. A better option is to let Obama know our views at every opportunity. One way is to go to his website and send him a contact email. Another way is to go to http://www.congress.org and write his Senate office.

[bbbear]

After much painful thought I reluctantly tend to agree.. And it occurs to me, maybe Obama knows us all too well...

[CitizenFace]

I'm one of those young Obama supporters, but I'm also a realist.

During the primaries I'd remind myself (and my friends) that Obama, while inspiring, is a presidential candidate and we should maintain skepticism in the face of hope. Watching his speeches, I'd allow myself to get just a wee bit hopeful, and then I'd snap myself back and think, "Sounds good, but I'll believe it when I see it."

Still, that skepticism was not enough to prepare me for the let-down I experienced on Friday. How is it that I feel so disappointed despite all the high-minded skepticism I could muster? I left a shadow of doubt to linger in my mind, but I don't feel any pride in that--I can't get any joy from saying "I thought this might happen."

Some have said that to not vote for Obama because of this is stupid, but the most pressing issue for me in this campaign was always a restoration of balance between the branches of government; transparency in the executive; and generally less corporate toadying in Washington. How would others vote if their most important issue was snatched away--if Obama came out tomorrow and said he wouldn't fix healthcare, or if he changed his mind about leaving Iraq?

If the vote on Friday goes as I fear it will, I'll be very sorry. I want to vote for Obama, really. But his actions on this issue may lead me to change my mind.

[shep1900]

Backing down on his public financing promise bothers me terribly, too. (to say nothing of never taking a difficult stand in the Senate--while others, including the much-decried Senator McCain--have, on many occasions)

I have waited my whole life for a candidate I could genuinely believe in--but, to me, Senator Obama is the most silver-tongued and disappointing of them all. I don't mind someone being a cut-throat politician, but principles _should_ still matter.

There are things more important than winning an election.

The Constitution makes that list.

[meanguy]

shep, badcompany,bbbear,johnalexander, welcome to the REAL WORLD. so your obanmessiah turns out to be a regular politician after all...take a deep breath and get over it...it's not like you weren't warned....spit out the kool-aid and get on with your lives

[BadCompany]

I'm old enough to have been disappointed over and over.
This is the last straw for me.
I'm through with the Dims.
Voting for them hasn't helped us.
It has only helped them.
I don't care about them.

[bbbear]

Yeah, I tend to agree. And it hurts. Yet I'm still hoping he has something up his sleeve and will act decisively in the Senate.. But truly, right now my heart is broken.

[johnalexander100]

I know how you feel. This just goes to show that, the change you want to believe in, is not the change you are going to get! I stood in Portland with 75,000 other people and listened to a man talk about a return to the rule of law. Now all I see is a fool who will throw away all that realy matters for nothing. I feel I wasted my time, my money and the last bit of hope I had that things were going to get better.

[walk0nwalls]

Well you build him up, of course he's gonna fall down some day.

i just didn't expect it to be so soon.

Consider me another one up there with the disappointed masses.

[Soothsayer08]

I agree with one poster, as I just went on the Obama website and told him my views on this bill. More people should flood the website with their comments.

[bbbear]

Since his senate answering machine is full and the # provided by MoveOn won't answer the "Vote" extension, I suspect millions of us have also left emails as well as phone messages.. But so far, nada..Still, I plan to call at least once per day until I get in touch with someone and voice my utter disappointment, even if it takes until Nov.

[shep1900]

The Emperor has no clothes.

I wish he did, but he doesn't--and anyone who followed his career closely in Illinois already knew that. In the end, he is mostly just loyal to his own political fortunes, and only interested in "change," if parroting the phrase all the time can help him get elected. And the only response to "_how_ is this change going to happen?" is an "uh,uh, uh" stutter, and "Well, look, go check our website."

This bill is just one tiny example of the many capitulations, and ends-justify-the-means pandering we're going to see, I'm afraid.

[justShareandbeNice]

I am terribly worried about whether or not Obama is "for real".

However, I am not at all ready to say he is only interested in his "political fortunes" or that he has no plans for some real change.

I am writing his website to complain, and won't give anymore money because of this
FISA thing. But I am still really in a "wait and see" mode. I don't think it is fair to make sweeping statements about his character or intentions based on this.

There is a subtle but important difference between analyzing this FISA issue and coming to the conclusion that Obama is a total fake, and coming to the conclusion that he is very disappointing right now and could be a real let down. I just don't think calling him names is going to help. We need to be very specific in our criticisms.

I do believe that a Democrat who is an enabler to the "evildoers" is almost as bad as the evildoer himself. Example: Hillary Clinton. I was soooooo hoping that Obama would be different.

[shep1900]

What more evidence did you need than 129 "Present" votes? And skipping almost every remotely difficult and challenging vote in the Senate? (Yes, I recognize that "Present" can be used as an arcane strategy for some votes in Illinois, but his own peers--read the archives of the local Chicago papers, for story after story describing an ambitious politician who lacks the courage to take the tough positions and make hard choices--did more than grumble softly about it.)

I'm not looking for a President with a nice, big smile, and the occasional rousing speech. I'm looking for a leader who isn't afraid to be out in front _leading_.