I have sympathy for the pragmatist position. The one that says: the FISA bill is going to pass anyway, so why should Obama oppose it, and risk being labelled "soft on terror"?
After 8 years of George W. Bush, I understand the mentality that political calculations must be made, and apparent capitulations must be tolerated, so that a Democrat can once again win the White House.
But here's where it all goes wrong.
"You know, this election is about trust, and trusting people's word" McCain told a crowd of donors to his campaign. "And unfortunately, apparently, on several items, Sen. Obama's word cannot be trusted."
--John McCain, June 28th, 2008.
When it comes to choosing a President, the number one deciding factor for most Americans is "trust". That may not true for you and me-- political activists who care deeply about certain issues-- but it's true for the masses who barely listen to politics, and for the independents who tend to decide elections.
So in kowtowing to the center/right of American politics, Barack Obama is hurting himself on the single most important metric of the election-- who do you trust more?
In his haste to avoid giving the GOP a "national security" brick to hit him with, he has inadvertently given them a much larger, much more important brick that goes straight to his character.
John Kerry didn't lose the election because he "flip-flopped"-- a good leader will always re-evaluate their position as the facts change. He lost the election because the GOP successfully convinced people that those changes meant he could not be trusted. That he was a weak leader who lacked principles and waffled in the breeze.
Americans will vote for a politician whom they don't always agree with, as long as they believe he has firm principles which he will always stand for.
Strength through the courage of one's convictions. Actions that match words. That's where Barack Obama needs to be right now.
Not straddling both sides of a broken but pragmatic horse.