I agree that changing positions on an issue like telecom immunity, while dressed up as a move to the centre or pro-national security by the MSM, has the effect of projecting weakness for Obama the candidate. Strength comes first and foremost in being able to project the appearance of resilience in times of uncertainty and to communicate a clear and constant message that can be heard through the commotion.

But it's not like Obama or his team are now suddenly clueless about what got them to where they are. Nor do I believe the notion that he's just a craven politician following mindless advisers.

I think that in the US, there are two very different constituencies that politicians must serve, and they often, if not always have different demands that result in compromises that are reinterpreted as moves towards some popular political centre. That first constituency is the actual voting public, first in the nominating process and second in the election. A candidate is sold to the public, marketed to the public. A brand is developed, shaped, tested and then promoted with millions of dollars of communications in every conceivable format. To this constituency, Obama's message has resonated, marginally more so than Clinton's, and the GOP's message has by and large failed.

I think of the second constituency by its representation, it's lobbyists. The second constituency, consisting largely of the investment class, is not "one person, one vote"; it's members' influence are proportional capital and the capacity to communicate messages to segments of the public. Obama's groundbreaking fund raising apparatus has given him more independence from this second constituency than any other candidate in modern history. But he will remain forced to pass muster with this constituency to have any reasonable expectation to: a) get elected and b)if elected, be able to deal with real issues instead of having to put out fires that were started specifically to distract and weaken his political influence.

While I think his assessment of the telecom immunity measure was mistaken and it was a battle he need not have given up so readily, I do think that it would be nearly impossible to antagonize the telecom sector and have a productive first term. And it's not just the telecoms: the health insurance industry, pharmaceuticals, big oil, defence--these are industries that an American politician cannot just fuck with even with overwhelming popular support.

I'm not saying that caving into big lobbyists is always the right move or the smart move, but that to think it is the result of outdated Beltway thinking or some blundering strategic move toward a centre that patently does not exist, is mistaken.

At the same time, I think it could be more productive to oppose moves like Obama's telecom immunity flip-flop by making sure that the telecoms themselves get as much bad press if not more. Where are the ads comparing them to all the other war criminals who were "just following orders"? Where are columns that compare the complicity of today's corporations with Bush's war on terror to those of the past? Sure you can find some ads in good British stand up comedy (link at sig) or the odd foreign written best-seller like the Shock Doctrine. But I don't think it's enough.

As important as it is to keep the Democrats on a righteous path, it will remain equally important to clearly identify and prioritize who are the common enemies. Doing the former without the latter leads people, who aren't being as rational as they could be, to think criticism is rejection. People are angry and want to vent that energy at someone or something. The telecoms, with their shit service and shit rates, eagerly lining up to spy on Americans for a juicy fee--that's a target. And so are the senators and congressmen who take their money. And so is the legislation that flows from that unholy union.

my suspicions as well but let's see how it plays out. one thing: i like to consider myself a political realist and probably lean more center/left than many salon bloggers, mr. greenwald included. thus, if obama chooses an old white guy i don't have a huge problem it with so long as the guy's voting record is largely liberal (i'm thinking a biden or dodd off the top of my head). but guys like webb and nunn are largely republicans dressed in donkey suits. don't get me wrong. it's nice to have webb on our side, i was glad to see him defeat allen, and he seems generally likeable. that said, i don't want him a "heartbeat away" in a democrat's presidency.

funny, a week or two ago i saw an article on this site positing an obama/hegel ticket. now hey, i largely like chuck hegel as well (as republicans go), and as a politican, he strikes me as guy of some integrity when it comes to his positions. but again, do we really need to nominate a republican as our veep to win the election? i think it's ridiculous, and moreover, potentially dangerous if something were to happen to the head honcho.

anyway, tracking to the center is not always a bad thing, but too often the democrats either a) do it to a fault, and/or b) do it when it's unnecessary. and let's face it, such compromising would be a lot easier to swallow if we knew those on the other side of the aisle would do it in like fashion -- something history has proven is not the case.

I live in Chris Murphy's district, and it was Chris' courage and staunch stand against Johnson's fear mongering that helped him win the election, and it will cause him to win reelection as well. His courage in the face of fear mongering.

I supported Obama during the primary, much to my chagrin now. I had pledged money to support him, and I refuse to honor that pledge because of his actions on FISA. It is sad to see that the support of millions of people have been for naught.

It is clear that Obama intends to keep the status quo on presidential power. And why not? Who would not want to be president with the amount of power GWB has acquired for the position?

This is because the Democrats are spineless and refuse to prosecute Cheney or Bush for their anti-constitutional actions and lack of oversight. So Obama is being given a huge gift by Bush...and who would look a gift horse in the mouth?