What do YOU propose we do to force the Democratic Party to stop shitting on it's base and take it seriously? Obviously they have not and they do not. Why is that, do you think?

I think Obama could have won this argument had the senior Dem leadership in Congress not caved.

Respectfully, I think you’re being very naïve if you believe that the Democrats in Congress did this without advance approval from Obama.

Look. I think Glenn said everything that needs to be said. But let's get one thing straight: I have, in all my time on these letter boards, not seen a single instance of the starry-eyed Obama worship that you are all railing against. I have, on the other hand seen plenty of inane "McObama" and "might as well stay home" statements, not to mention some of the Hilary trolls in their death throes somehow expecting us to believe that she would have behaved differently in this case. It solely in response to THESE idiocies that I have made my qualified defense of Obama. Let me repeat - NO ONE thinks he's perfect, and the "Obamabot" seems to me to be nothing more than a straw man that cynical Democrats use to make themselves feel better and give them more credibility in the eyes of their Republican and Independent friends - "oh, I'm not like those Obamabots - I know he's corrupt too."

Why the hell are we even still arguing? Do Democrats just love to squabble? One person says "Well, it's true that X, but don't forget that Y" and the other says "Even though that Y, we must keep in mind that X" and the two go at each other's throats. So let's just state the facts that we're in agreement on: A) This bill is bad and we should continue efforts to oppose it, and B) It is still imperative that we elect Obama over McCain. I haven't seen any of the Obama defenders arguing that we should just keep quiet about the bill or stop efforts such as Glenn's fundraising. I haven't even seen anyone arguing about the plan to oust the Blue Dogs, even though we recognize that this might allow the Republicans to pick up a couple of seats. They are the main culprits behind this after all. Where I draw the line and say 'shut up' is when people start throwing little tantrums to the effect of allowing McCain to win just to spite everyone.

Three events:

The Democratic leadership's capitulation on FISA, delayed until after the primaries by Pelosi, Reid et al. A friendly nod to the large corporate donors who traditionally control the Democratic Party, but timed not to anger Obama's new-style small donor base prematurely. The leadership wants to harness Obama's charisma to their own ends.

Obama's rejection of the public financing system for Presidential elections, and his not-believable claim he did it because the system was broken. Obama is lying, and that will bother the very base he expects to continue to provide in excess of the $84 million public financing would provide.

A dip in Obama's small-donor-style contributions in May, the last month of the primaries--he spent more than he took in.

Adding it up, Obama is not simply shaping a more centrist message for the general by agreeing to FISA, he's paying off old political debts and inevitably setting up new ones.

It's a moral and strategic error. With John McCain willing to accept public financing, it did not have to be this way. It is an error that will haunt his presidency.

Glen is issue orientated,always has been...to the angst of many of us.

Identifying myself as an ardent Obama supporter who is deeply dismayed by the senator's position on this.

I warned him that while Obama has established a store of credit with me, that credit is conditional and that Obama needs to explain his position to the satisfaction of his most ardent supporters if we wishes to retain that support.

as one commenter ironically noted yesterday, at the very least, Obama is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court Judges who will rule that the bill Obama supports is patently unconstitutional.

Besides being a lottery ticket approach to government, I am not sure if it is true.

Why would Obama pick a Supreme Court judge who would overturn the bipartisan cornerstone of the modern war on terror?

Why would Obama endanger the criminal prosecutions of terror suspects by appointing a Supreme Court judge who would unravel the legal underpinnings of the system designed to bring the "war on terror" under a legal umbrella? Even if by some accident or miracle Obama did appoint a person like this, the senate is not going to approve this person.

Does anyone think that it will be good for the fourth amendment, good for the constitution and good for the country if terrorists convicted in a court of law under an Obama administration are freed by a supreme court ruling because the government unconstitutionally collected evidence against them?

If something like this happened I believe the fourth amendment would be in serious danger of being completely dismantled. Either by amendment or mass social acquiescence. If we are really going to try and bring the "war on terror" under the law, it must be done right and with the utmost care. This bullshit of passing whatever laws congress wants in the "war on terror" and letting the supreme court sort it out is going to destroy the country and the constitution. If the congress, the executive and the courts can't come up with a workable system, the people will get tired and I think they will blame the constitution and the courts not the executive and the legislature. Maybe that is the point.

We really aren't going to have many tries to get this right.

I haven't seen any of the Obama defenders arguing that we should just keep quiet about the bill or stop efforts such as Glenn's fundraising. I haven't even seen anyone arguing about the plan to oust the Blue Dogs, even though we recognize that this might allow the Republicans to pick up a couple of seats. They are the main culprits behind this after all. Where I draw the line and say 'shut up' is when people start throwing little tantrums to the effect of allowing McCain to win just to spite everyone.

I love how you claim that the idea of the uncritically supportive Obama supporter is Pure Myth, and then write a whole, long comment in which you say everything except something that is critical of Obama.

What do you think about his support for this bill?