@ 9:01. `um the neon- "leadership" and the media-stars seem to imitate the high school lily kids who stunk.

B.O. may have called then nurds?

B.O. despised being humiliated?

B.O. will bow and toil for them?

B.O. will now cower and slave?

Heh heh heh...and my email application just labeled their auto-response as "junk"...

Recurring to Obama's statement:

“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

I can see where Glenn views this as "embracing" the "rancid" way of thinking which claims that "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe."

But I think Glenn's mistaken here.

Obama isn't accepting Bush's way of thinking so much as he's accepting that Bush as an honest person. Obama's position in The Audacity of Hope is that he disagrees with the Republicans but tries to see issues from their point of view and frame policies that speak to their interests and perspectives. Unlike Glenn, Obama does not view the Bush administration as a criminal enterprise that's trying to leverage 9-11 into a radical hollowing out of our legal and Constitutional framework. Consequently, Obama doesn't think of compromise as "caving," "capitulation," or embracing a "rancid" way of thinking. Obama thinks of this and other issues in terms of compromising with people whom he's morally obligated to respect and he rejects the kind of moral condemnations of conservatives that Glenn formulates with so much rhetorical power.

I agree with Glenn on the substance of the issue and I certainly view the Bush administration as a dangerous, renegade, and criminal government.

But, for better or worse, Obama is just being Obama when he supports the current surveillance bill. His views are a lot closer to Steny Hoyer and Diane Feinstein than they are to Glenn Greenwald's. And it's time that people became more realistic about that.

Everything you know is wrong.

I just read the Time magazine article linked earlier by alohaboy. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

There's almost no relationship between the Time magazine article and what we know to be true. This has been the case throughout the FISA struggle, throughout the MSM: they have a rigid narrative of what this is all about, they all share the same one, and NOTHING shakes them from it.

The "Constitution" is simply not an issue, never even mentioned (unless a nameless blogger-critic or DFH brings it up). Lawlessness by the Bush regime? Nope. Warrantless domestic surveillance? Rarely.

The big deal, repeated over and over again, is that the FISA law is "old" -- from 1978, you know -- and badly needed "updating". The Compromise has done that. YAY!

It's another world altogether. But that is the information, the only information, the MSM delivers to the masses.

Read it for yerself, it's short:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6da9as

Is Obama just another pretty face, or does he have some fight in him? After the pandering at AIPAC, and now the capitulation on FISA, I'm beginning to wonder.

Hey, Barack, just a little reminder that Wall Street, the corporate elite, the neo-cons and their countless friends in the Media aren't going to surrender their privleges, or their war agenda to your sweet reason.

Are you ready to take a stand, or are you another Bill Clinton, who talked a good game, but sold out to anyone with the power and the money ? (See Nafta, Media consolidation, Iran Regime change, the end of welfare, etc etc)

Good post. My own position on this one is that FULL immunity is non-negotiable. I will not give money or time to any candidate who backs the measure. I have been especially disheartened with Obama's weak stance on this one (never mind the Democratic leadership).

The bottom line is that a full accounting of the administrations activities need to be made -- and a red line needs to be drawn in the sand here so that future administrations and companies like the telecoms think twice before engaging in illegal activity in violation of fundamental Constitutional principles.

If that can be achieved through some qualified immunity (e.g. a cap on potential claims) -- then so be it. However, at this stage it's hard to see how a full reckoning will come about without litigation. It's easy to see how there will be no reckoning if the telecoms receive full retroactive immunity.

I hope Obama changes his mind and votes against this piece of garbage. It would be such a disappointment to those of us as arguing for him as the high road candidate who will stand against the tide of politically convenient flag waving legislation.

"McCain, if he is unsuitable, can be held in check by a Democratic Congress, and in four years competent Democratic leadership can take over."

Whatever it is that you're smoking, I want some.

Thanks for the laugh.

Now there is clear evidence that there is no real change coming, at least not what they expected and fantasized about. Now there is clear evidence that Obama, far from being superhuman, is just another corrupt, lying, sniveling politician that would sell his soul, their souls, and the souls of their mothers in order to obtain power.

How to deal with that? Why, with massive rationalizations of course.

A LOT of people are sorting out their cognitive dissonance the wrong way and rather than accepting that gutting the Bill of Rights is anathema and inexcusable, they are rationalizing it into being a good thing(tm). -- tempus

Yes they are doing that but all that proves is that they don't know or refuse to acknowledge what the problem is in the first place. They are so focused on whether a democrat is good or bad, thinking that it will make a difference, that they have blinded themselves to seeing and focusing their efforts on the root cause of our problems. People can rationalize all they like. People can (and will) go back and forth forever on "should I or shouldn't I vote for this democrat" and it won't matter one wit. It won't matter because they are trying to bring about change by working within the rules of a gamed system that cannot be defeated by the normal means that the gamed system itself supplies.

We are sitting at a crossroads where people can either take the red pill and understand/accept the truth and try to bring about change themselves or, they can take the blue pill and continue on believing that, even in the gamed system they are participating in, candidate X is better than candidate y and therefore will bring about change and fight for them when the time comes.

It's red pill or blue pill. Most people have chosen the blue pill.