I doubt you're reading these by now, but I figured that I should admit I was one of the people who made the mistake of thinking that telecom amnesty was the only significant problem with the new bill. I had gotten that impression from reading your recent posts, but that's my own fault. So I'll happily revise my position and agree with you in light of everything you point out here.

I do think my point about the 'Obamabot' myth still stands. Every campaign cycle there is a new meme that can be mindlessly invoked by uttering a catchy little word. We already saw this happen with 'appeasement'. 'Obamabot' is just another installment in this series, cooked up by bitter Hilary supporters and based on crude stereotypes about the young, urban, and educated. It's not so much that I think it will hurt his electability as that I think it cheapens our political discourse.

Glenn says:

Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does ... ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

Oh my yes and how many times have I said some version of that? Just the other day, in a comment at TPM, someone wondered how the Dems could support this bill. I said in response [edited]:

Because they don't see a downside. They see this as taking FISA off the table as something that could be used to accuse them of being "soft on terrorism" while expecting that the people who are now objecting will, come November, vote for them anyway because "god forbid the GOPpers should win." It is cynical in the extreme, but it has worked so far: How many of us are still intending to not vote for Dems because of their failure to stop the war?

Unhappily, though, Glenn then backs away from the meaning of his own words, adopting the hoary and often misleading "two extremes, both bad" framework in which the author, whoever they are, invariably sits in the moderate and presumably reasonable middle, in this case by suggesting that the criticism is valid but rejecting Obama's candidacy because of it isn't.

The problem is, candidates don't care if we criticize them; they only care if we'll give them money and vote for them. Put another way, they only care about our criticism to the degree it affects their ability to get or stay elected - that is, to the degree it has consequences. Saying, as Glenn essentially does, that we can and should criticize Obama for his stand on this heinous bill but it should not ultimately affect our voting for him enables exactly the ability of the campaign to "ignore you and your political interests" the he decried.

For me, this is a deal-breaker and yes, I think it is that important, and yes, I have so informed my representatives in Congress regarding them and the Obama campaign regarding him. In Obama's case, if he does not at minimum appear in the Senate to vote in favor of stripping immunity and then against final passage (regardless of the outcome on immunity), I will not work on his campaign, I will not contribute to his campaign, and I will not vote for him.

Here's a note I just wrote to Obama from his senate web site. http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

I suggest that everybody who opposes what he's doing go and write a letter there too. Here's what I wrote:

I was terribly disappointed to hear that you are supporting the new FISA bill. The wiretapping extensions seem wrong, and in violation of the 4th amendment. But the real travesty is the granting of immunity to telccommunications companies. These companies appear to have broken the law, along with the Bush administration. If this is the case, they should be held to account. The granting of immunity will (1) help Bush and co. hide their illegal activities, and (2) send a message that if you do what the president tells you, you cannot get into trouble, even if what he tells you to do is illegal. Such excuses were ruled out in Nuremberg.

I understand that you might not want to speak out fervently against the bill, or that you cannot filibuster it. But voting for the bill will certainly dishearten your supporters, and damage your campaign much more than voting against it.

There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument ...

I'm as disappointed as you at Obama's betrayal, but there is every reason to "destroy the FISA framework", even if that isn't politically acceptable either.

FISA created secret courts, hearing secret evidence, decided by judges appointed by the executive, without review, appeal, or even a public acknowledgement of the "probable cause" grounds for domestic wiretaps. It is a complete abrogation of the Constitution and the rule of law.

The only "FISA" rule that should be adopted by Congress is that no agent of the United States may infringe on the privacy of any domestic [national or international] communication, without a showing of probable cause to believe that a specific person is actually engaged in the commission of a crime.

Period.

(That probably won't happen in my lifetime.)

God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

__________________________________

I earlier mentioned Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer, unfortunately diminished, shopworn, and clichéd because its simplicity proved ideal for the non-denominational Christian commercial dimwitted piety market. It's become the text to carve or glue to the Praying Hands knockoff.

But it seems to me that it is the organizing principle of the moderate, centrist politician. It expresses exactly the principle of the orthodox political strategist. Here, "God" is the candidate.

Alas! the devil's in the details, such that it's hard to say whether the inspiration for the prayer was divine, or diabolical.

It's beyond question that Obama has energized a large constituency with signs and wonders of change in certain domains-- first of all, in the radical overhaul of campaigning and fundraising; in this area, there is real bottom-up participation and (I gather) an enthusiastic conviction that Obama is indeed an innovative agent of Change.

And there are certainly changes in campaign tactics; I've heard Obama fans exulting at how Obama fouls off one wingnut bean ball after the other, instead of standing there and getting plunked like previous Dem candidates. He'll wear out the pitchers, then swing for the fences! And, for a change, this one isn't to good to show flying spikes, or run full-tilt into the catcher. Go, Obama!

So the candidate and the campaign are certainly generating Changes that are felt like the Sun in "Here Comes the Sun", emanating from inside the campaign organization.

But how does this reconcile with the Unchanging mendacity, duplicity, hypocrisy, and prevarication that even a Reform Candidate by another name reserves the right to employ as needed-- when crowded by circumstances, as Twain often put it?

I muse thus because I just reviewed a laughably asinine response to a comment about Obama's strange new mock-Presidential Seal at HuffPo. I was struck by a comment in that thread from a businesslike Democratic pragmatist, who unsentimentally argued that the realpolitik is that Obama is wisely exploiting the frustrated civil-libertarians in his base in order to put his bona fides as a Staunch Defender of Homeland Security and Unremitting Foe of Terrorists beyond question.

So, whatever we may think or feel about it is "objectively" irrelevant.

The commenter felt that anyone who understood the first thing about politics would pick up the play, and not get their undergarments in such a twist. If you don't understand how the game is played, keep yer yaps shut!

It's like the Cop Show cliché where the cops beat the hell out of the undercover mole when they bust the gang, so it'll look good. It makes for a good collar, and safeguards the mole from reprisal-- a win/win outcome! What's a few bruises or a broken rib?

In this analogy, civil-libertarians are the mole. Obama is the cop who beats us up. All in a day's work; gotta take one for the team sometimes.

You may call this what you like, but it is most certainly not Change I Can Believe In.