in 2000 when he was running against bush. I didn't want Magoo as president, but I wanted him to hurt bush's chances; I could see that he would be horrible in any position of real authority.
Now the Kos community is blasting Obama because he says he'll vote for FISA, though he'll fight to get telecom immunity removed from the bill. Hmm, sounds like triangulation to me.. Where is Obama going with this?
So many people are obsessed with seeing bush/cheney punished for their crimes that they bristle at the thought of compromising on anything that makes their day of reckoning uncertain. The reality of the situation is this: since the early 90's when the ESCHALON system was established, the US Government has had the ability to sift through all communications for phrases and words that might 'indicate' terrorist activities. Indeed, there is evidence that this data mining has been going on--illegally--for over 10 years.
But no one is up in arms about putting Bill Clinton in jail for this [I'm not]. No, we are all triangulating, giving Clinton a pass because he probably wasn't going after us [his political allies], while no one puts it past bush to abuse power [I do not put it past him, in fact, I'm certain he has broken many laws]. Just as I triangulated by sending Magoo $100 eight years ago, Obama seems to be triangulating on FISA now: he'll vote yes on the bill, but will fight to strip out immunity.
So, how do any of us know what Obama might do if the immunity provision is not struck down? Might he THEN pivot and vote 'no', having staked out a pro-security position, in-line with the majority of his caucus? Might his calculation here be buying him room to manuever? Might he be positioning himself as a moderate, willing to compromise, who can later provide cover to other Democrats who might also like to strike the immunity provisions but who can't stomach outright rejection of FISA?
I have no idea if this is his calculation, but considering how he has handled other issues, such legerdemain would not surprise me. But if Obama folds like a cheap umbrella on telecom immunity by not fighting it tooth and nail, I will be disappointed. However, I will not threaten him with withholding support. I don't expect Obama to spend the next 2 weeks explaining why he couldn't get his own Congressional caucus to follow him, if that is how things turn out. Senators Boxer, Feingold, Dodd--they can afford to fight and lose; no one expects them to be the Leader of their Party [though in their own ways they are all leaders]. Obama, by assuming the nomination, will be held to a different standard, and he will be judged MUCH WORSE should he lose in November than if he loses right now on FISA telecom immunity.
Why don't we support him in his effort to do the right thing rather than spew vitriol his way because he MIGHT not do the right thing in the end.