Do you have a new stalker here at salon?

http://letters.salon.com/2f5a41e1af8889095aafd9e7bd1518c4/author/

@L.W.M.

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.

-- The Reality Kid

I think I'll be okay. I'm not afraid of much at my age, except getting too old to fuck and not dying quick.

Adnoto,

You are a a small minded, petty and angry fool with delusions of grandeur.

Best of luck with that.

"Thank you for contacting Obama for America about proposed legislation to give phone companies legal immunity for past wiretapping. Senator Obama has opposed this legislation and stood with Senator Dodd, cosponsoring his amendment to remove this special interest provision from the bill that came before the Senate.

Senator Obama believes strongly in accountability, and when he is President, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, Senator Obama will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom."

The Obama supporters in this thread are mostly saying, "Hey Glenn, you have a point."

Why? Because, unlike Koppelman, and Walsh, Glenn actually researches everything he writes, and applies his critical thinking skills in a manner which the other two are incapable of.

He is, in fact, so thorough, that rarely have I read anything of his and felt that I had something further to contribute, other than, right on! Well, and also, why didn't Mr. Constitution, Ron Paul, vote for impeachment? But let's table that for now.

My point is that we strong Obama supporters get called all kinds of names like Obamabot, kool-aid drinker, etcetera, etcetera. Most of us aren't, we just don't like sloppy writing and Republican talking points dressed up as edgy left wing analysis.

During the last election his campaign was running commercials saying how opposed to the "death tax" he is. Christ, this is just f'ing retarded that Obama is endorsing this guy. He is for all the stuff Obama is supposed to be against.

Does Obama want to have the sort of Congress that Jimmy Carter had? The one that tears your presidency to shreds and then turns around and acts to facilitate the subsequent presidency of a right-wing ideologue?

A further point - it seems pretty likely to me that Barrow wins this race regardless (Thomas seems to have little support outside Savannah). If he wins and partially credits that to President Obama campaigning for him, that makes him that much more likely to vote for important pieces of legislation that Obama might propose than he would be if Obama remains neutral.

This is a really great point, and you're actually selling your point short. There is an important historical example to back it up:

In 2006, Barack Obama endorsed Joe Lieberman in his primary. And he didn't just endorse him, but he went to Connecticut and campaigned for him, heaping lavish praise on him. Just as you predict will happen with Barrow, Lieberman has been so grateful to Obama ever since, and has done nothing but praise him and support him back.

So I think you make a great point.

Also, if Barack Obama is President, one of the things he'll really need is to make sure to have Democrats who run around talking about how he wants to cut and run in Iraq and impose Liberal policies on America. That's really helpful.

Finally, your assumptions about who can get elected in conservative districts is false. As Joan McCarter points out at Daily Kos today, Nancy Boyda is a first-time Rep. representing a very conservative district in Kansas. She has been outspoken in her opposition to telecom amnesty and FISA, and her approval rating is 68%. Bill Foster just won Denny Hastert's district doing the same thing.

...and emailed Harry Reid's "Southern Nevada Director" to register my displeasure with the looming FISA capitulation.

The first was very non-responsive and even dismissive, merely saying something to the effect that the Democratic leadership and Obama are reviewing the legislation, blah blah blah, but not committing to doing anything to actually block it. Not an encouraging sign, and I let the guy know that if Obama doesn't meaningfully try to block this bill from passing, it will be very hard for me to enthusiastically support him.

The second was a bit more encouraging, not so much because there was any more substance, but because I found the tone and attitude of the person that I spoke to more satisfying. He noted that they've been getting a lot of calls from people strongly opposed to this bill and urging Obama to do what he can to oppose and block it. He did not, though, say what he's prepared to actually do to block it. I told him that if the senator is really opposed to this bill, he will use the special status that he now possesses to do what he can to block it, and thus put the lie to accusations or fears that he's all talk, no action (I used more diplomatic words than this, but my meaning was quite clear). I added that if he does successfully block this bill, he will have asserted his power in a way that no mere speech could. The guy I spoke to sounded very sympathetic, and appeared to agree with me on both the principle and politics of the matter.

I don't know if Obama can actually block this, in reality, if the push to pass it is strong enough (and it appears to be). If he tries and fails, he will look (and be) weak, and both earn the enmity of some of his fellow Democrats and open himself up to GOP accusations of being "weak on terror". If he tries and succeeds, he will look (and be strong), but still experience these other blowback effects for his efforts (all the more so if he will have succeeded). And if he does nothing to meaningfully pass it, he avoids all of this, but in the process ends up looking weak to progressives and other opponents of this bill. As with everything this explosive, there are political calculations, that I'm sure that Obama has been and continues to weigh.

Here's the thing, though. If he refuses to meaningfully try to block this bill, he not only looks weak, he IS weak, or at least cowardly and calculating, and will have shown himself to have run from an important fight to take cover and avoid risking adverse consequences. Not good. And if he decides to do the right thing, he stands a very good chance of succeeding, and in thus doing not only doing the right thing, but winning a major political victory that helps consolidate and assert his power as a real, and not just potential thing (but which comes with various negative consequences to him, as I described). And if he tries to block it and fails, he looks (and is) weak, and also has those negative consequences to deal with.

So should he do this only if he thinks that he can succeed, or also if he's not sure if he can? And even if he thinks that he can succeed, is it worth the negative consequences that would follow from it? In my opinion, he should do this even if he's not sure of success, and despite these negative consequences, so long as he does this smartly (which is how he tends to do things), so that if he succeeds, he minimizes the blowback, and even if he fails, he doesn't look weak. That's what smart, tough and effective politicians do--take calculated risks to do good things, when they have a decent chance of succeeding (and even when they don't), and do so in the smartest and most effective way that they can, and then deal with whatever consequences ensue. Is Obama such a politician? We may soon find out.

Personally, I'm not holding my breath--he's shown himself to be a lot more politically cautious and even conservative than we'd hope he would be--but would love to be pleasantly surprised. I can't think of a better way for him to not only do the right thing, but forcefully assert his new power and let everyone know who's in charge now (or should be in charge next year).

What say you, Senator Obama? Will you do the right AND smart thing? Or are you just another "all talk, no action" Democrat, of the Pelosi, Hoyer and Reid school?