I can see why those hoping for better from this administration are disappointed to see their hopes dashed, but...surprised? When Obama betrayed his declaration that he would not vote for a revised FISA bill that provided retroactive immunity to the telecoms for their illegal evesdropping on behalf of the Bush administration, he revealed clearly that he would not stand on principle on tough matters of policy dispute. I don't know if he really doesn't have any principles and his words to the contrary are mere rhetoric, or whether he has principles but no spine to fight for them. Either way, as someone else here has said, he will lose his supporters on the "left," (sic), and he will not gain any on the right, as he will be seen rightly by both as, at best, feckless, and, at worst, treacherous.

Obama should heed his own words that today's problems are too grave for "politics as usual," that he would "rather do the right thing and serve one term than the wrong thing and serve two," and decide he will fight for the rule of law, a return to Constitutional guidelines, and a repudiation of Bush's lawless policies. I don't expect this, as I think Obama has convinced himself--or he is temperamentally compelled to believe--that ready compromise is the best course to pursue. I don't abjure compromise in all cases, but it must be a serious compromise, fought over and soberly formulated...not the easy cave-in that seems to be Obama's practice.

(Obama's vote FOR the terrible new FISA bill is what scotched my reluctant willingness to vote for him. I voted for Ralph Nader...again.)

Well, I suppose it's in one's own interpretation of reactions to this decision, but I see surprise conveyed overtly or innately in some of the pained responses here, as in some of the speculation that "perhaps this low level beaurucrat wasn't speaking for Obama," for example, as well as elsewhere on the web. Digby at HULLABALOO said, "This is really disappointing. And it makes me wonder if I was punk'd after all." This, to me, reveals some degree of surprise.

I'M one of those people who live and work in Manhattan and I have no problems with my iPhone service. I do find that getting email on the iPhone can be slow if I have Wi Fi turned on; once I switch to 3G the email comes through just fine. I don't use text messaging, although I would like to...I just refuse to pay usurious rates for data transfer that costs nothing. My call quality is fine, and I have had only two dropped calls that I can think of...both of with the same (iPhone-using) friend and both after we had been on the phone for nearly an hour. (So, I don't know whether the dropped calls were on my iPhone or his.)

I've been very happy so far. I must admit though, I don't use my iPhone as my primary phone as I always prefer talking on a land line. If I'm at home or work, I use the available land lines, reserving the iPhone for times when I'm in transition between land lines.

(I find the iPhone to be a supremely satisfying gadget, but I must admit to feeling attracted to the upcoming Palm Pre. Not that I would abandon my iPhone, but the Pre is the first competitor that has turned my head from the point of view of industrial design. I think it's beautiful and it appears as if it fits very nicely in the hand. However, I don't, as many iPhone users seem to be, desirous of a physical keyboard, which the Pre features. I find iPhone's touchscreen keyboard quite handy to use. I'm curious what the Pre's user satisfaction will be once it's out.)

The Fox anchor either doesn't know--or chooses not to acknowledge in the discussion--that much of the supposedly "extravagant" (sic) compensation allegedly received by the union autoworkers is comprised of not just their salaries but also their benefits, including their health insurance. If, in discussing the compensation received by workers in any specific field, we included not just their base pay but their ancillary benefits, we would still see great differences of scale in respective fields of employment, but we would at least be comparing apples to apples.

The mayor's passionate, forthright and articulation of the reality of the unequal sacrifices expected of working people, who are supposedly expecting too much to be able to feed and clothe their families and to be able to provide them with health care, while the incompetents and crooks who are paid king's ransoms beyond the dreams of any of history's kings and who fly to Washington to beg for more billions, is stirring. Bravo to him. The Fox anchor deserves to be pilloried for his snide, contemptuous dismissal of the Mayor's substantive remarks.