I'm afraid Glenn's right about Obama. I don't see a whole lot of difference here.

Pelosi: But I'm pleased that in Title I, there is enhancement over the existing FISA law. Reaffirmation, I guess that's the word I'd looking for. A reaffirmation that FISA and Title III of the Criminal Code are the authorities under which Americans can be collected upon. It makes an improvement over current law and the Senate bill in terms of how you can collect on Americans overseas.

Obama: After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

Pelosi: It's an improvement over the Senate bill in terms of – the Senate wanted to say, “Okay, we will agree to exclusivity,” which is, in my view, the biggest issue in the bill, that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the President of the United States. They said, “We will agree to exclusivity, but only a narrow collection of things will fall that that category. Under the rest, the President has inherent authority under the Constitution.” That's out. That's out, thank heavens.

Obama: Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people.

Pelosi: And it is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity. It has a strong language in terms of an Inspector General to investigate how the law has been used, is being used, will be used.

Obama: 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.

Pelosi: So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow. We will have a lively debate I'm sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress. It has bipartisan support.... As much as I admire Mr. Murtha, I'm not as enthusiastic about the war part of the bill and will not be supporting it.

Obama: 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.

"If a law that includes immunity and unconstitutional basket warrants is signed, you can rest assured that ACLU lawyers will be in court challenging it as quickly as humanly possible."

2008 Work Plan http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/Workplan2.pdf

They've had plenty of time to think about how they'd approach it.

The Project on Government Oversight released a report in February titled: Inspectors General: Many Lack Essential Tools for Independence

This report does not inspire the confidence in Inspectors General that Pelosi, Hoyer, Obama, et al. seem to have. And lest anyone think the problems in this report are limited to the Bush administration:

Current OMB Deputy Director Clay Johnson III has, on more than one occasion, instructed the IGs that it is their responsibility to get along with agency heads, that they are part of the agency team, and that they should contribute to agency success.

Surprises are to be avoided. With very limited exceptions primarily related to investigations, the OIG should keep the Agency advised of its work and its findings on a timely basis, and strive to provide information helpful to the Agency at the earliest possible stage … OIG and Agency management will work cooperatively in identifying the most important areas of OIG work ...25

That viewpoint is not unique to the current administration. During the Clinton administration, then-OMB Deputy Director Alice Rivlin sent out a memo noting with approval that the IGs had recently adopted a “vision statement” for:

working more closely with agency management and focussing [sic] more work on program outcomes. To put it simply, the IGs have pledged to focus more on whether Federal programs are working (the “big picture”) and less on identifying individual, minor infractions of procedures (the “gotchas”).26

There is a subtlety here that echoes the dual nature of the IG’s existence: While a relationship between agency and IG of pure antagonism surely is not desirable, there are dangers associated with IGs being too closely identified with agency success.

http://www.pogo.org/p/government/go-080228-ig.html

via mcjoan: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/24/pelosi-says-more-debate-on-fisa-would-be-healthy/

“It would be healthy if (the public) heard more about it… even if the resolution is the same,” Pelosi said, when asked by reporters whether she thinks Senate Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, should filibuster the legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as it heads to the Senate floor this week.

I can't say anything about this, because if I did, Glenn would have to ban me.

Glenn, the link you posted goes to a Raw Story article about Strange Bedfellow. This seems to be the link to the full-text WSJ article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121443403835305037.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Click on the link in my sig and then the article it brings up. I got to the entire article that way.