Suppose for just a minute that the dark-suited powers that REALLY be have -- er, tapes or whatever of -- er, certain compromising utterances or --er, activities on the part of certain --er, politicos. The telecoms themselves might, a la J. Edgar Hoover, be able to say, give us immunity or certain of these items are likely to become part of the public domain. Doubt this? How do you spell, "naive?" Imagine a paparazzo in 1962 with photos of JFK with Marilyn Monroe. Neither dressed. We are so far into the forest of threats, lies, and intimidation I doubt we could tell the KGB from our own guys. Every presidential candidate makes a lot of statements he learns to regret, win or lose. And everybody that close to THE seat of power makes some mistakes or sells certain parts of the farm, just to get that seat. Moreover, show me the candidate who does not get some rotten advice from time to time. Bottom line: it is not up to B. Obama or anybody else to preserve our civil rights. It is solely up to us. Just like everything. Think the "Home Depot" of democracy. I think we might have forgotten.

As the clouds begin to clear: Barack Obama is without doubt the slickest con man to come along in American politics in my lifetime-- and that includes Nixon as well as Bill Clinton. I wondered what it was that creeped me out about Obama, and I can now see that it is his unwaveringly cynical belief that the American public can be made to accept absolutely anything if you say it self assuredly, convinced of your own infallibility, and confidence. No one likes to admit to having been taken, but the gullibility of the public with respect to this Machiavellian, cold-eyed calculator of what buttons must be pushed to advance his cause and just when to push them is beyond belief-- but that is what confidence men are all about. They're not some cartoon character with a thin mustache and a slouched-on hat lounging in a corner playing a game of Three Card Monte, or even an obvious snake oil salesman with 5 o'clock shadowed jowls like Tricky Dick Nixon-- who was an angel compared to this fraud. Con artists look honest and sincere, and really know how to game the system. Nothing, certainly not your good will, stands in the way of such people, who are interested in literally nothing else but their own advancement-- while of course swearing that they have only yours at heart--and who will do or say anything to get ahead. Well, I wish that i had Obama's mailing list, because I could sell the Brooklyn Bridge to each of them. I would not want to be left alone in a room with this guy, let alone turn my back on him as I edged rapidly backwards out the door. Wake up! To let this complete phony and villainous fraud anywhere near the White House would be nothing short of calamitous.

Obama: “We don’t settle for what the cynics tell us we have to accept, because cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom.” This was itself one of the most cynical statements made in the campaign, because at that time he was saying nothing whatsoever in the utterly cynical belief, substantiated so far, that to say nothing is the surest way to get elected: If you project an image of purity and say nothing, then the electorate will project its own purest thoughts on your blank slate. And what could have been more blank than to base your campaign on “Change” - Change from what? and to what? one asked, and receiving no answer one might gullibly assume, “Why from the bad to the good, of course.” What a total phony! Don’t be afraid to call him that. Out loud!

Hume's Ghost: "What really rubbed me the wrong way was how Obama in his statement says essentially trust me with these powers, I'll use them responsibly."

He made a similar "Trust Me" comment during the South Carolina debate that has bothered me ever since. He and Edwards were discussing a trade agreement with Peru supported by Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21demdebate-transcript.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

EDWARDS: And the problem with Peru, Barack, is you are leaving the enforcement of environmental and labor regulations in the hands of George Bush.

I wouldn't trust George Bush to enforce anything, certainly not trade obligations.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right. Ten seconds, go ahead.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Well, the only point I would make is that in a year's time, it'll be me who's enforcing them.

I'm dismayed, disappointed; but what positions did our other (or former) candidates take? It will be interesting to know just how far American democracy has eroded in the thoughts and actions among our other "leaders".

I'm pretty sure that Ron voted, "NO."

Dear X,

It honestly gives me no pleasure to say I told you so.

LiberalArt wrote the following:

"I realize Obama is not the master of his own fate here - he didn't play a part in drafting this bill, he didn’t choose its timing, and he isn’t the prime force moving it along without sufficient discussion and debate to acquaint voters with what this bill truly entails. You could argue that it’s not Obama’s job to explain why it is so critical to waive traditional safeguards in the interest of national security in this particular case. He is certainly not in any kind of position to dictate strategy and tactics to a self-interested Congressional leadership or to alienate "Blue Dog" Democrats if he hopes to be elected.

"I understand that, and so I'm giving Obama a pass. He still gets the benefit of a doubt from me on his "good faith" opposition to unnecessary 4th Amendment erosions and his commitment to a realistic, effective approach to national security.

"For now.

[...]

"I look forward to his illuminating words dispelling my doubtful shadows."

Sorry, LiberalArt, but Obama does NOT deserve "a pass." He deserves thousands and thousands and thousands of phone calls from people demanding that he live up to his previous commitments to fillibuster and vote against ANY FISA bill that contains provisions for telecom amnesty. NO politician deserves "a pass" for colluding with the evisceration of the Constitution, not even Saint Obama, if for no other reason that Obama took this OATH when he became Senator:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Yet he might as well have taken THIS oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will be willing to collude in the destruction the Constitution of the United States if doing so will get me elected President; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to my effort to get elected President; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, but only if they get me elected President. So help me God,"

Obama's newly found support for the FISA bill is a cravan political act lacking any dignity, integrity or courage, nothing more and nothing less. He needs to be held to his prior commitment to vote against ANY FISA bill that contains provisions for telecom amnesty -- and the final bill WILL contain provisions that will guarantee telecom amnesty.

As for your waiting for "his illuminating words dispelling my doubtful shadows:" you'll never get these "words." GUARANTEED.

I'm sorry to have to say this because I have neve before ANYTHING in a letter on Salon.com that might be even remotely considered an insult. But the intellectual naval-gazing and mind-numbing sophistry in a LOT of the letters for this posting by Glenn is truly astounding -- and deeply disturbing. Why don't you all get off your duffs and DO something. Like calling Obama at both his Campaign and his Senate Offices and telling him, repeatedly over the next several days, that you will not tolerate his "AYE" vote on the FISA bill. It will take a whole lot less effort than that which a lot of you pored into writing up incredibly boring, mind-numbing, often unreadable letters, and it might actually accomplish something.

Here are the telephone numbers (again):

Obama Campaign:

(866) 675-2008

bburton@barackobama.com (Email for Obama's spokesperson, Bill Burton

Washington D.C. Senate Office

(202) 224-2854 phone

(202) 228-4260 fax

(202) 228-1404 TDD

The time for ACTION is now, not when people finally realize that they are living in a Third-World-variety police state. Which is EXACTLY where we're heading -- rapidly so.

And who knows -- you might actually save Obama from himself. Despite all his rhetoric about "change," Obama doesn't seem to understand that people crave courage in their politicians, even if it might costs him (or her) votes. It is highly possible that Obama will pay dearly for an "AYE" vote on the current FISA bill, just as Hillary paid dearly for her pro-war vote: it will be viewed as the "flip-flop" it is, it will be viewed as a "flip-flop" on one of his previous "core issues," it will be viewed as the craven political act it is by anyone who sees through Obama's justification for his vote, and enough people on "the Left" (you know, those left-wingnut hippie crazies" who, back in 2002, were actually RIGHT about the fact that the Iraq War would be an unmitigated catastrophe but were labelled and "crazies" and "traitors" for saying so) might actually be so disgusted by Obama's vote that they will sit out the November election or vote for Bob Barr or Ralph Nader, two people who actually care about the Constitution, as a protest vote. Stranger things have happened: and just remember what Nader did to Gore in 2000 -- just in Florida.

I personally never fell under the thrall of Obama's rhetoric and his now-hallow promise to bring "change" to Washington. Right now I see NO point in voting for Obama except that he is far more likely than McCain to nominate as Supreme Court judges people who will declare this FISA bill as the unconstitutional monstrosity it is.