Face it, people, FISA was Obama's first big test as Leader of the Democratic Party. Yes, once you sew up the nomination, you are the new Leader of the Democratic Party, in capital letters. So how did Obama react to his first opportunity to lead?
Let us start with something very basic. Once a candidate becomes the Party's nominee for President, he (and perhaps someday, "she") becomes leader of the Party. He is no longer just a Senator. He has even accepted that mantle, taking some actions as the Party leader, including banning money from lobbyists and PACs.
Here on Daily Kos, though, that new leadership is invisible if it means having to criticize Obama. Instead, we see vociferous denunciation of Nancy Pelosi, in You've got to be kidding me, Nancy, where the author writes:
That is completely unacceptable, and stunning that someone who made it all the way to third in line for the Presidency would say something that is so very ignorant.
Excuse me, folks, but isn't Obama pretty much FIRST in line for the Presidency right now, and, given Bush's popularity, doesn't he probably have the biggest soapbox in the country? Why, I ask, wasn't he standing on that box and DEMANDING that people listen?
We also get Telecom Amnesty AND Expanded Eavesdropping Powers: Great Work, Congress!, where the diarist suggests:
send Senators Rockefeller and Bond, and Representatives Hoyer and Blunt, a copy of the Constitution with the Fourth Amendment highlighted.
What? No copy to Obama? Why not? No, he is not the formal leader of the Democratic body of the House or the Senate, but he is the de facto leader of both. He could certainly have spoken loud and long, perhaps even given them cover, allowing them to say "I would like to have done flip, but Obama said do flop and he is our Party's leader." You know, like he did with his "present" vote on abortion in Illinois.
Here is a fun one, Nancy Pelosi is the Benedict Arnold of our time. Never mind that Arnold was a great general and leader before he became a turncoat, and we probably would never have won independence without him (a bit of history most forget). Why are the knives out for Pelosi, but any mention of Obama is non-existent? The diarist writes:
Nancy Pelosi the Benedict Arnold of our time! She is the most low form of Democratic life I have ever seen.. All her words, her promises empty. She has sold the plans of the fort to the King. She has upturned the roots of liberty and placed worms on them that they may wither and die.
Which, pray tell, is worse? A small leader who acts poorly, or a big leader who sits silent and watches it happen?
Hey, don't worry, we're told, because Obama Staff "Literally Reviewing FISA as we speak". Ummm, yeah. For some reason the words "Nero," "fiddling" and "burns" come to mind. What was there to review? Hell, we were blogging the details, the ugly evil details, from our homes and our jobs, while Obama's professional staff was just getting around to "reviewing FISA"?! More important, how did that review work out? Well, if we are to believe a commentor who says he spoke to Obama's office, not so well:
Just got off the phone (9:30 am Friday morning) speaking with BHO's staffer at the 202 number.
From what I gleaned from the staffer, Obama isn't going to do anything. The stance Obama is taking is that he can't do anything until the SENATE vote, because gosh, he's just a Senator.
No, he is not just a Senator. He is our Party's leader. He is the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.
I am going to vote for Obama, support him financially, and even work for him on election day, because he is a Democrat and the other choices are far worse. But this simply reinforces the reservations I have had about him all along, that he is a typical cautious play-both-sides politician wrapped up in better rhetoric. I felt that way years ago, before he was a candidate, when he refused to filibuster Bush's Supreme Court nominees. In fact, I did a quick scratch-out cartoon that day. It is the one at the top of the diary, and it is just as aprapos today.
Obama had his first opportunity to show real leadership on an important issue. He failed.
Barack Obama will be a far better President than John McCain. Unfortunately, I fear that is faint praise indeed.
Bawbie, in the comments, actually makes my point for me (though I don't think she intended to), saying:
Opposing telecom immunity is, unfortunately, a blog boutique issue.
the "mainstream" doesn't know or care anything about it.
Bawbie, you are right. Right now, it is not mainstream and people don't care. But if it WAS mainstream, if people did know Bush broke the law, and that the telecoms were listening to their own private conversations, do you think, just maybe, people might care? So, what do you think is the best way to make that happen? Maybe, just maybe, the single most visible person with the single biggest soapbox in the world right now could speak out?