"The so-called "compromise" bill that was passed in the House today with regards to the revision of long-standing American surveillance law is nothing more than a perverse capitulation to the demands of the hard right cabal that has hijacked the Grand Old Party. As I am a liberal Democrat, the Obama campaign can be almost certain to receive my vote (and the votes of those who, like me, are far to the left end of the spectrum on most issues), but that doesn't give future President Obama the right to trample on my ideals while spouting feel-good rhetoric about massive waves of change. The Senator from Illinois says that he will do his best to "closely monitor the program" of unconstitutional spying if he is elected, so does this mean that Barack Obama believes, like Bush and company, that the President has the power to eavesdrop on domestic communications without a warrant, and to demand that large corporations break the law with no consequences? This bill is a travesty; it codifies into the law of the land Nixon's infamous misapprehension that "when the President does it, it's not illegal." Senator Obama's campaign may win a few extra votes in swing states because of his support of this preposterous imposition on the privacy rights of Americans, but he is on the brink of losing the essence of his political meme: that he represents real changes to the workings of Washington, and that he has the courage to stand up to the powerful even when it might hurt him in the polls.

P.S.: You can still have my vote, but you cannot have my money. I suspect I am not the only Democrat who feels this way at the moment. Senator Obama will have to work very hard to regain the full support of Democratic voters who believe in the spirit of the Bill of Rights."

I think this is the kind of thing a to which a politician like Obama might be sensitive; an insinuation that at heart he is "just another corrupt politician," but without a nonsensical overreach such as, "I'm voting for McCain because of this." It seems to me that making the "power of the purse" claim is more effective than making a "ballot box" claim, because the latter is obviously a bluff. I urge anyone concerned about the FISA issue to let Obama know he doesn't have a free ride with "high-information voters" just because he is a Democrat.

He is a Democrat isn't he? What are you implying?

The implication is he is more of the same. Not change. Not a "better" Democrat. I hope I'm wrong.

I am guessing you are a youngster right?

You would be wrong.

You just don't understand...

You got that right. I don't understand why a Democratic-controlled Congress would need to surrender to Bush, the Republicans, and the Telecoms at this time.

One step forward and two steps back...

And you'll always be in retreat. But this legislation does set us back to the Nixon age.

"Given the grave threats that we face. "

I think that by "we", Obama is referring to his campaign. It makes more sense then...

...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!!!√121!!!!!!!

You stand accused of not understanding "war strategy to any degree because you simply lack the experience necessary to carry on this debate."

How do you plead? Were you ever "in the Gulf a few times"?

While the ad's are great they're really just a wrist slap. Why don't we throw our collective weight behind Cindy? She will be on the ballot against Pelosi and maybe the good people of San Francisco have had enough now.

The money I was going to send to Jerry McNerny is now going to Cindy.

Why didn't Sheehan post that message on DailyKos herself? That's right, she got banned from there when she made it clear that she was going to challenge Pelosi. Why was she banned? Because, you guessed it, she was challenging a Democrat and DailyKos is all about the superduper duper strategy of "ELECTING DEMOCRATS" and Sheehan can't be rocking the boat!

http://cindysheehan.dailykos.com/

-- Chris Sinnard

I haven't followed the link and I know nothing about the Sheehan situation but I completely believe that. Kos is as establishment enabling as they come. I know it will rub LWM's ego the wrong way but Kos is probably the de facto leader of the more and better democrats crowd. I still check out the member diaries from time to time though. There are still some left-libertarians over there trying to fight through the bullshit.

That's a damn good ad. It might scare a few white folks, but any such white folks in DC are already Republicans.

You're right about Obama, Glenn. This is a major disappointment and I wish Obama, with all the political capital he's gained from his recent political triumph over senator Clinton, he would spend some of it in making sure the Democrats maintain the one victory they've had since they came to "power" in 2006.

Every time the Democrats do something like this (and that's pretty much all the time), I'm just reminded of a quote from The Big Lebowski:

"Say what you will about National Socialism, dude. At least it's an ethos."

This is your show, but theater or not, seems to me you're letting him off the hook by letting him skate on his announcement re: working the bill on the senate side. I still think this represents an opening, something could be done with it.

The Senator's support for the FISA capitulation is disappointing.

His assurances that when President he'll watch the issue closely smacks of "trust me." It also misses the point of a "government of laws not of men (or women)". Even if I might trust a President Obama (and in this I don't much trust anyone short of God herself), what about the next one?

It's almost certainly the case that Hoyer secured Obama's support for the bill before unveiling it.

-Glenn

I completely agree with this.

What is very curious is how many Dems split off the "Party Position" in the vote. Allegedly it was the Blue Dogs who wanted this. There are not 100+ Blue Dogs in the House. I'm trying to grasp the political points Nancy and Hoyer were making by leading so much of the Party into voting for this. You would think strategically they would let the Republicans and the Blue Dogs vote for this in enough numbers to pass, while the rest tried to wrap themselves in the moral fiction of having voted against it. Wash, rinse and repeate in the Senate.

What do Nancy and Hoyer gain by politically in voting for this, along with the rest of the non-Blue Dogs? Is this to retain Blue Dogs votes come time for the current Leadership votes in the new Congress? Is there any buzz that Leadership's positions are at risk after the election, and that those Blue Dogs votes are important to them? And by not hanging the Blue Dogs out by themselves as Bushies on this one, and giving them the fallback of "a significant number of Democrats voted for this compromise", they buy off their support?

Again... I don't get their votes. Leadership doesn't have to vote for it to keep the Telecom contributions coming. Those guys know how the game works - Nancy and Hoyer did their job by simply letting it come to vote rather than burying it in committee until next year.

John