GG wrote:

"Obama is a politician running for political office, driven by all the standard, pedestrian impulses of most other people who seek and crave political power. It's nothing more or less than that, and it is just as imperative today as it was yesterday that the sickly right-wing faction be permanently removed from power and that there is never any such thing as the John McCain Administration (as one commenter ironically noted yesterday, at the very least, Obama is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rule that the bill Obama supports is patently unconstitutional)."

Is it so imperative that there never be a McCain administration that we do not hold Obama to account in, by far, the most effective way possible - by denying him our vote, and making that intention clear to his campaign, if he does change course on telecom immunity, other Constitutional issues, or whatever other important policy matters we deem fit, as voters, to hold important?

In other words, after GG's long, excellent explication of why Obama's about-face on telecom immunity is wrong and why Obama should be heavily criticized for it and why no leader or candidate should be unquestioningly supported, is the above quote tantamount to weasel-out words for why our bark shouldn't have a bite?

I've seen, in many venues, the McCain-Supreme-Court fear argument for getting Obama elected at all costs, and I'm sick of it. Is that what this quote represents?

Right now, on dailykos, out of the 8 recommended diaries, 4 are tacitly defending Obama on capitulating over telcom amnesty. One diary is a brief show of support for Ted Kennedy, who was against amnesty, but is otherwise not critical of Obama. The other two diaries are about the Iraq war and Amtrak.

They don't come out and say "you idiots, this glorious bill is protecting us from GRAVE DANGERS," they simply dismiss the critics as hysterical, overreacting purists. Obama made a "pragmatic decision in the middle of a campaign," we're told. They also seem to believe that this position "deprives the GOP of an issue in November," probably in the same way that John Kerry's service in Vietnam deprived the GOP of making an issue of his foreign policy experience, or how voting for the AUMF deprived them of an issue in 2002.

The main section of the page is littered with polls, charts, and graphs all dedicated to Getting Democrats Elected, with a few posts either critical of Obama or highlighting anti-amnesty candidates.

Glenn, in addition to targeting proponents of amnesty and the shitty FISA compromise, do you think it would be appropriate to show this slimy shift in politics on the left towards sacrificing the Constitution to protect their Candidate? Not through ads or anything that would require money, and not through simply calling them out in blog posts. I'm thinking something more graphic, something that can show at a glance how political collectives typified by the group of apologists currently on the recommended diary list of dailykos can be so craven as to completely change their tone literally in a span of a few days - all to benefit.. well, whomever that benefits.

It is ultimately of little importance what Kit Bond says to belittle Democrats, when they they themselves are belittling and bullying each other into supporting authoritarian republicans on the most important issues of the day.

Obama has fightthesmears.com, maybe we need fighttheamnesty.com?

Is that the justification for support, that FISA is restored as the exclusive means to perform surveillance, is just insulting to our intelligence.

One thing Obama has not done much of so far is treat the American people like rubes. That's what he's doing here.

From the days when any Democrat would have been an improvement on the current administration - to the present, when no Democrat is good enough, some are even worse than Bush! I'm having too much fun watching this. Obama will probably be the next president. Better make the best of it.

Pluk, if you were disparaging Obama's pragmatism but were planning to vote for Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, I might take your moaning and groaning seriously.

But since you hold up Hillary as the sine qua non of principled purity, I'm too busy laughing to take you seriously.

The fact that all three candidates went to AIPAC to swear allegiance to Israel, human rights abuses, perpetual war in the Middle East, etc., and the fact that Obama took Jerusalem off the table in any peace talk about the occupied territories showed how powerful Israel is in its influence over our foreign policy. Hillary sold out to the neocons a long, long time ago, and after the campaign she ran, I am not sure if she sold out so much as joined the mindset she shared anyway. Now I am still watching Obama to see if he is selling out or if he is playing the game in order to make a difference long term. In a game of chess, you don't kamikaze your way to checkmate. FISA and AIPAC may seem like two completely different issues, but they are interrelated insofar as our willingness, mindlessly, to support bodies (textual or special interest) that are immoral, dictatorial, and completely at odds with our founding principals. Look, we torture, maintain foreign prisons, keep people imprisoned for years without due process, make preemptive strikes, invade and occupy, bomb and maim. Obama has to work within this already established system. I am not defending his succumbing to the system--but I do understand where he is coming from. Look at the level of our political discourse. The vast majority of the voters vote on whether or not they want to have a beer with the candidate. That's where we are at.

I think we should be directing the vast majority of our wrath at people who are less vulnerable--like Rahm Emmanuel (a hardcore Zionist) and Pelosi and Reid. Those are the Democratic representatives who we should be holding accountable because they had the power to band together and redefine the narrative. Picking on Obama, while valid in this instance, seems misdirected. The man is in the fight of his life here, against the likes of people who are hung up on his using the word "sweetie" or his Muslim background. The fact that he is even standing is astonishing, especially in this climate. Anyway, yesterday was a tough day for me, but not as tough as when seeing Obama in front of AIPAC. But, again, I also understand where he is coming from. Why Pelosi and Emmanuel folded so spectacularly, however, is completely beyond me.

Glenn, your articles are marvelously informative, and I learned a lot more about the nuances of FISA from what you have posted here than from anywhere else on the interweb. Glenn for President, y'all (or editor of Salon at the very least)!