Is there any evidence that the candidates running for presidency in the general election shouldn't reflect the basic parameters of our current political order? I don't mean "shouldn't" in the moral sense (we all know they SHOULD do the right thing). I mean is there reason to be surprised that Obama is silent on this issue?

Getting mad or frustrated at Obama seems to be a bit crazy. It would be one thing if we had reason to expect a person running for president to come out in the lead on an issue like this. But it's just the opposite and we all know it.

The reason we should be excited about Obama has nothing to do with him reflecting the kind of platform that will really make a difference. If you are going to be excited about getting Obama elected it should just be because you think he is a guy who could sit down at a table with you and really understand (and, ultimately, agree with you on telecom amnisty) your points...and he is a guy who would be influenced by a powerfully growing minority who is organizing at an alarming rate and demanding that our leaders not undermine the constitution.

Obama is only hopeful to the extent that we shape him into the kind of leader we want. He is only hopeful the extent that he can be shaped (slowly but surely) by the people. At this point his silence is simply a reminder that we have lots of work to do.

We have tons of people to admire who already are fighting for the real causes. As a person running for president of this country, Obama simply won't be that kind of person. We can admire (maybe) that he represents a potential for change, but such change is predicated on our organization and commitment, not his. His job is to “fit in” and our job is to change him. Even if we fail to change him, our work can and will change the culture in which our presidential options are generated.

Glenn, I know it sounds like I’m making that silly argument that Obama is doing what is right by remaining silent. Nope. I understand your criticism of those who think his faults are always really part of a larger political strategy towards peace and justice.

I’m just underlining that there is no reason to expect more out of Obama than him being a relatively decent option from within the range our current general-election-pool can offer. That range is always only a function of the activty of the most energetic Americans.

I understand why people are angry at Obama, but it still needs to be pointed out that the anger is misplaced and counter-productive when carried within false and unreasonable presumptions. In that case it tends to create real problems on the ground (in terms of organzing and conversing in manners that make actual changes)

I don’t see any reason to expect Obama to be speaking out against this awful bill. But I can imagine a climate in which he would be one of the first mainstreamers to speak out against it. Your work is a strong example of how this climate is coming about. It would be amazing to have an American president who might be somewhat ready to be shaped by an inspired and active civil society. But I still might write in your name in November...

Not only are your words NOT harsh, but you've shown more restraint than perhaps I deserve. That said, I sincerely hope that what you refer to as the "practical realities of politics" doesn't one day land you in prison.

Mr. Greenwald, some months ago I asked that you hold the feet of the Democrats as close to the fire as you have that of the Republicans (and, for the record, I am not a Republican--or a Democrat).

Thank you for coming down hard on the side of the Constitution. I hope that you inspire others to do so.

How sad that Mr. Obama is showing his true colors so soon, but, alas, such are the ways of Washington. His starry-eyed supporters will learn that valuable lesson soon enough, unfortunately at the expense of the country.

In a post a few pages ago, with respect to Obama, Majorajam wrote -

"But I did think of him as being sensible and as believing that his core positions didn't jeopardize his electability." (emphasis added)

In the phrase I've highlighted, above, I think Majorajam has succinctly captured and expressed something that many are saying, in so many words and in so many different ways.

There are Democratic party supporters who believe, that if Obama was to act based on his core positions or principles, it would jeopardize his electability.

Since the mid-term elections, these supporters have been patiently waiting for the Democratic Party to stop making decisions based on electability and to start taking action based on core principles.

The same oh-so-unpopular core principles that, if revealed too soon, would jeopardize their candidate's electability.

Anyone else see a (perhaps fatal) flaw in this reasoning? Or am I just being too idealistic?

If the people who would be prosecuting you are telling you it's OK, why should you be expected to doubt them? Don't you expect that they, who are charged with seeing that the laws be faithfully executed, would know the legal ramifications and have accounted for them before asking you to supply the information?

This is Verizon and AT&T we're talking about here, not Mom and Pop Telecom. They've got more lawyers than I've got gray hairs (and that's a lot because I've got my share). They know exactly what the law is.

Whatever their reason for cooperating, it was not due to ignorance of the law... and as the old saying goes, that's not an excuse.

But you don't expect his starry-eyed supporters to have a passionate interest in this topic, do you? I don't think Obama's silence will show any "true colors" to anybody other than those of us who never expected him to make this sort of fight.

You say you are sad. By what? I admit it is a rhetorical question. Unless, of course, Obama really has made you sad on this issue. I guess it really is just a question of what we expect.

From what i can tell, Obama's starry-eyed supporters are a much smaller number than the common discourse implies. But they are like that small (proportionally) number of Beatles' fans who actually passed-out upon the site of those guys...Those fans became the "picture" of a Beatle's fan.