In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all.

I don't understand why this is worthy of note. After all, its only been for the last 48 hours that the fauxgressive blogosphere finally acknowledged that Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic party -- and only because real progressives kept demanding that Obama take a stand, and calling out the fauxgressives who have been blaming it all on Hoyer, et. al.

If there is one good thing that can come from this week's horrific embrace by Obama and our bipartisan political establishment of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, perhaps it will be that the illusions of "lily-ness" about Barack Obama can finally fade away and be replaced by a more realistic perception of what he is, what his limits are, and the reasons why he merits real scrutiny, criticism and checks -- like everyone else pursuing political power does.

glenn, could you stop by my place... I accidentally stepped on an open tube of toothpaste, and you seem to think that I can get it all back into the tube...

I mean, seriously -- while you were out race-boating the Clintons, and wetting your pants over "the greatest speech about race relations EVAH", there were a whole lot of us who HAD DONE what you are finally telling us to do -- and that's why we were supporting Hillary Clinton.

Oh, and here's a clue for you Glenn -- there is a reason why Pelosi, Reid Rockefeller etc are supporting Obama -- they know that when all the facts come out about the illegal spying, THEY will be implicated in it.

This isn't about a "campaign strategy", nor is it about "wanting power" -- its good old Chicago-style political corruption.... Obama agreed to protect Pelosi et al from being exposed in exchange for their greasing the skids to his nomination.

And you still want us to support Obama? No Thanks -- if you had an ounce of integrity, you'd be jumping on the PUMA bandwagon, and insisting that the Democratic Party dump Obama. Instead, you mouth the exact same platitudes about how evil the GOP is....

http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2006/03/ring-of-gyges-and-temptation-of-frodo.html

That's what I was getting at with my Ring of Gyges comment.

up until yesterday:

I wrote the Obama campaign and stated until I see some leadership and a true willingness to enact "CHANGE" my future donations will go to Act Blue.

Robert Etzler

San Francisco

Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who has championed campaign finance reform, said in a statement Thursday that Obama's decision was a "mistake. This is not a good decision. While the current public financing system for the presidential primaries is broken, the system for the general election is not."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=764180

If Saint Russ can talk about Saint Barack--whom he endorsed just two weeks ago--in this manner, I think it must be OK for us little people to do it as well.

Saint Russ will likely be banging on Saint Barack's door, if Barack makes it in, in order to make some real progress in campaign finance reform. But he criticises Barack publicly anyway, perhaps believing that Barack is an adult, can handle it, and might even appreciate it.

Glenn, I think you'll agree this will now be a long fight. Assuming we lose this one in the Senate, I can only think of a couple ways to win in the near term.

One would be getting the Supreme Court to overturn the law. I assume the first hurdle is standing. If I don't know I was secretly spied on, I cannot challenge the law enabling the spying in court. What are our chances here?

Another easy win, ironically, might be to get Obama elected. If the law has a sunset provision, Obama would be a safer interim custodian of this tool of tyranny, and ultimately might be encouraged to allow the law to expire. (I'm voting for Obama, but I don't love this one either.) Does the law have a sunset provision?

If these are our best chances for near-term success, we must plan for the long term. History shows that most people do not share the reverence constitutional scholars have for abstract principles. They only become interested in the abstract loss of rights when concrete abuses surface.

Instead of waiting passively for this eventuality, we should prepare the ground by educating people about what abuses to expect. Many people look at this and say, hey, I'm not talking to overseas terrorists, so why should I care? I think we need to brainstorm some abuse scenarios and see which ones would cause concern. It would be very useful to get supporters of the new law on record responding to specific hypotheticals by saying, oh, no, this law wouldn't allow that! You must be paranoid to think our government could ever do that!...etc. Then, when it inevitably does, we'll have their words to resurrect and we will all know that we have gone beyond the pale.

So to sum up, Glenn, can we get it overturned? Will it sunset? And can you offer some abuse scenarios?

Well said. I second your positions.

For : Little Brother- I didn’t intend on coming across on yesterday’s thread with a ”parents know best” tone, although I think you are correct that I did. I get frustrated when commenters say they are through with Obama, when they should have known that he is a politician playing on a field and in a game that he had no part in creating. I agree with all the criticism that Glenn has thrown his way. I want him to be the kind of president that I would be proud to call my president. We should put all the pressure we can on him so that when he is president, he will not take us for granted and he will show he is doing all he can to live up to the change president he is promising us.

If he turns out to be the same as most Dems in the 210th congress, then I will be very disappointed. I will continue to help him get elected, and elect other Dems on his coattails that could represent me far better than the incumbent Repug, because the chances for a turn around are significantly greater than they are for McSame.