I don't like a trick you are doing with language on this, Glenn. I support and applaud almost every detail of how you are presenting FISA, but your trick about "necessity" has that quality that I can't stand in mainstream politicians. They find a nice semantic or logical twist and just tuck it in their arguments for extra WHAM.

Obama is sucking hard on FISA. I'm a big supporter of him, but one who has consistently believed that Obama will only make a significant difference if he is forced to by us. That's why he is breath of fresh air to me- because there is a 4% chance that he can be shaped. That's the highest I've seen in a president in a long time.

But Glenn, it simply isn't true that Obama is saying that telecom amnesty is necessary to protect our country. Yes, you are right in the twisty way that sophisticated people can be right, but you know that you are doing exactly the kind of thing that you love deconstructing in mainstream politicians.

Look, I agree with you that Obama is ridiculous to say that FISA is necessary for our protection. He should be criticized strongly for this, I believe. And no matter what he really believes about telecom amnesty, he says he thinks it is wrong. It should not be hard to hold these two thoughts in one's mind:

#1. We need X in order to get to Missouri and that's where I want to be badly.

#2. Unfortunately, X requires listening to the music of Y, which makes me sick.

For you to claim that the above statements mean that the speaker believes Y’s music is an intrinsic component of getting to Missouri, is beyond lazy. In order to go to my favorite movie theatre, I have to pass this gross garbage dump. Yes, that's right, I just implied that passing the dump is part of the reason I love the theatre! Please.

Why does this little thing bug me? Because I love how you don't let politicians and political journalists get away with this sort of twist and I'd feel like a hypocrite if I accepted it in your writing. Like the Obama supporters who won't allow Obama to receive the same criticisms that they love applying to others. And hey, for those who see this kind of point as pointless and silly, that's how glenn's long and detailed posts appear to those who disagree with this fundamental premise. My premise here is simply that I would like to Glenn avoid the kind of arugument that those other types relish in making. Plus, I think it hurts arguement to throw something in that people can justifably point to as shoddy and, at worst, insincere thinking.

But I am often fairly stupid, so I'm more than ready to see the error of my logic on implication of Obama's comments. Did Obama really say that the telecom amnesty is functioning to protect us? Or was he saying that he wants the bill (stupid as that is) and is willing to accept telecom amnesty? I have to admit that I haven't studied this as intelligently or deeply as you have.

The change really does keep the power of your article rolling for me. Thanks for all the FISA information.

I get your point, but I think the Obama quote from his website that you mention actually is the most honest thing Obama has to say in relation to FISA.

I guess there is a 2% chance that in Obama we would get a democrat who will throw all convential caution to the wind and do the unthinkable. He needs us, desperately. He needs an increasingly strong movement of critical yet strong supporters to let him know what they absolutely expect from him. Without that, he has nothing expect himself. He's a decent guy. But he's also part of the party and this fact should set our expectations. He has to count on something radical in us to make the changes that most everybody would like to see. I think.

I imagine that women who are still very angry about the primary are not all that different from people who are still very angry at Bill Clinton; we can all sympathize. Maybe the women will start getting over the primary at the exact same pace as folks stop being so offened by Bill.