Three events:

The Democratic leadership's capitulation on FISA, delayed until after the primaries by Pelosi, Reid et al. A friendly nod to the large corporate donors who traditionally control the Democratic Party, but timed not to anger Obama's new-style small donor base prematurely. The leadership wants to harness Obama's charisma to their own ends.

Obama's rejection of the public financing system for Presidential elections, and his not-believable claim he did it because the system was broken. Obama is lying, and that will bother the very base he expects to continue to provide in excess of the $84 million public financing would provide.

A dip in Obama's small-donor-style contributions in May, the last month of the primaries--he spent more than he took in.

Adding it up, Obama is not simply shaping a more centrist message for the general by agreeing to FISA, he's paying off old political debts and inevitably setting up new ones.

It's a moral and strategic error. With John McCain willing to accept public financing, it did not have to be this way. It is an error that will haunt his presidency.

This story of how the Democrats joined Republicans to gut the Fourth Amendment has to be one of the leading suppressed stories of our time.

That the Democratic candidate, who ran on a civil liberties platform, immediately capitulated to Bushism upon securing the nomination should be front-page, above-the-fold, top-of-screen.

That the sole identifiable motivation of Obama and the Democratic leadership is to attract big-money donations, when Obama ran against those special interests, makes the lack of coverage look like collusion between the news and business side of the major media.

Obama's capitulation was a poor campaign move, particularly as it comes joined with his rejection of campaign financing, increased efforts to court large donors at expensive galas, and his integration of the Clinton finance machine.

In fact, this triangulation has Clinton stink all over it.

But, I'm not sure Obama's decision to sell off his civil liberties platform makes political sense, even at a high asking price. Certainly the capitulation doesn't pay in the short run--even the established media will have to cover his Senate vote on this building drama.

I'd like to encourage everyone to call Senator Feingold's office and ask him to fillibuster this bill. Maybe Feingold will do what Obama promised to do, and make for an unavoidable story line.

In the long run, I suppose the money of big donors like the telecoms is probably more important than small donor voters like us. But Obama could have won handily with public financing and without putting his principles on the auction block. At this point, I think he has set in motion an inevitable drift away from his small donor base, as the patriots who supported him grow disgusted at the same old Bush-Clinton political machinations. He will need money, and it will come from some of the same corrupt big pockets who own Bush, McCain, and the Clintons.

Obama has maybe a week to fix this damage, and I think it is possible. He is already positioning himself to be "shocked, shocked" at telecom immunity. He'll have to deftly transform that shock into a no vote, if not a fillibuster, to the entire bill.

Otherwise, he's just Bush/Clinton Five.

Civil lawsuits against the telecoms are the only means we may ever have to know the full extent of federal government spying.

I get the feeling this administration was up to more than just "sifting" for terrorists, and the Democratic leadership was likely complicit.

And far less sexist to boot.

I hate her sometimes when she's right, and often find her wide of the mark.

But I would hate even more to see her caustic satires muffled by the jealous police of political correctness.

I find it interesting that readers here apparently prefer the ever-pompous and never-edited Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman to the creative and succinct Maureen Dowd.

While Krugman and Friedman constantly condescend to their readers, Dowd is sitting next to you on the couch, sharing the popcorn, and saying what we're not supposed to say.

It amazes me that Clinton supporters who defended Clinton's Atwater strategy and blatantly racist comments go holier-than-thou toward Dowd's often spot-on references to pop culture sexist constructs.

He can head for the center all he wants. I understand the game to get elected. And sure, he's always been pragmatic.

I'd also point out that the center on many issues is headed left--on the war, the environment, etc etc. So "center" isn't the right-wing hell it used to be.

But I don't understand his decision to sell off the Fourth Amendment just to increase his campaign contributions from big donors.

I took down my Obama poster this week, and I've noticed a lot of other folks have too. He'll still likely get our votes, but not our money, our time, our energy, our passion. He could well lose my crucial swing state come November.

Dumb. Just dumb.