But they're both cops, and they're both taking stands that lead us down the road to an authoritarian, surveillance, security-is-all state. The differences between them are substantial, yes, but in the long run Obama, if what we've seen on FISA is any indication, is taking us in the same direction as McCain. He'll just take it a little more slowly, subtly, make us love that undeniably slippery slope, convince us that we need it.

And the presidents who come after him? They'll just take authoritarianism a little further, and further, now that it's been institutionalized. I know this particular power is supposed to expire in 2012 (?), but if a popular president claims he still needs that power, or its offspring, what Congress is going to have the courage to deny him? Congress and courage are not exactly on speaking terms these days, and its "progressive" Democratic leaders give us no reason to hope they will reconcile anytime soon.

In his updates - some of which amount to caveats - Glenn has a point when he notes the "progressive" - or at least not regressive - aspects of Obama's record and campaign. I mean, almost no politician is all bad; most average out neutral in the long run, some better than others. But sometimes neutral isn't enough, and these are dangerous times for our democracy.

Like Glenn in his original post, I'm looking at what Obama does, not what he says, and given what he's done on FISA, that's inarguably a wise view. He says he's against immunity for the telecoms, but he's voting for it, and in the process he's voting for broad new domestic spying powers for the president. And I don't recall hearing him say much about that.

Why not? Does he think those powers are something he might want to use some day? Maybe expand them a bit? And in the interim we're supposed to be assured by his promises to be good, that we can trust him?

Well, I don't trust any politician. No one should. The kind of psyche that drives a person to seek the greatest power over the planet and all its inhabitants that humankind has ever known should raise a big, red flag for everyone who will be subject to his power and failings. A politician as charismatic and eloquent as Obama, one with as many "good points" as he, has to be mistrusted even more, especially when he's already displaying a pronounced tendency to pander and to contradict his own statements and promises. The "lesser of the evils" is still evil.

We're as free only as far as our Constitution is allowed to free us. The Constitution - its intent and its execution - is paramount to the United States, far more important than any war or social dispute or tax policy or economic stress, because without it we have no Land of the Free. It's that simple. Obama has done an about-face, an ominous one that promises nothing but harm to what's left of our democracy.

Like I said before, I live in a safe state so I don't have to vote for the guy. I'll depend on those in swing states to choke off their very justified apprehension and bestow this incredible power on him, and then we'll all have to do whatever we can to take away those sweeping powers of domestic surveillance. I fear the die is cast, but then I tend toward catastrophic thoughts.

This is a letter I sent to the LA Times about Nancy Soderberg's op-ed claiming that under the new FISA law the government would have to show probable cause to get a warrant when the reality is just the opposite. This letter will not be published because I call Soderberg a liar. How do I know if she knows the wording of the new FISA bill? Well, how could she not? She's connected, she's experienced, and she's writing about it, which fact assumes she must have researched the topic. Maybe Joe Blow wouldn't know he's writing falsehoods, but Soderberg surely does, and thus she's an outright liar.

Nancy Soderberg’s op-ed is a study in falsehood by omission and commission. She omitted the fact that the telecoms knew they were violating the law when they spied on Americans for President Bush. FISA language is crystal-clear, and telecom lawyers cannot claim innocence, nor that the president trumps the law. They are certainly to blame for collaborating in “the abuse of presidential power.”

Soderberg outright lied when she wrote that “(t)he government would have to show probable cause” to get a FISA court warrant to spy on American citizens. That is a lie. The opposite is true: All the government would have to do is say it has probable cause, and it would not have to offer proof of any kind; indeed it could withhold evidence of probable cause. With her background, Soderberg must know this, yet still she tried to hide the truth. That is the definition of a lie.

It seems to me that this law is prime meat for a challenge to its constitutionality. How obvious can it be? Taking away the 4th Amendment power of the courts to rule on probable cause for search warrants, "supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."?

What court could possibly uphold that blatant breach of the Separation of Powers, that attack upon the Judiciary by the Executive and Legislative branches (well, except for the Supremes)? I'd think any judge with any knowledge of the Constitution would look at that and shudder. Are the ACLU and EFF preparing to sue immediately, ask for an injunction? I hope so.