The worst part of what Sen. Obama is doing regarding the FISA Bill is that his public statements - including this morning's response to the new group (of which I am a member) - are almost completely devoid of meaningful substance.
Indeed, it did not take long for the group members to detect that the only vaguely specific assertion it contained [that the "compromise" (which has the effects of a) in fact blocking both any inquiry into the administration's and the telecoms' wrongdoing and any accountability for it, unless Sen. Obama becomes President AND makes good on his promise to investigate this long after the horse has left the barn - unlike his failure to keep his promise to filibuster telecom immunity, and b) giving much more unconstitutional authority to President Bush) is worthwhile because it makes clear that FISA trumps any claim of overarching executive authority] was flat-out false, since, as Judge Walker so conveniently pointed out in his clear legal analysis, and as anyone can see who has noticed Bush's utter lack of compunction to follow this or any other law, that supposed gain of this "compromise" is no gain at all because it is ALREADY part of the FISA law.
Further transparent is Sen. Obama's pledge to seek stripping telecom immunity from the bill, since (a) anyone who can count votes knows it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of gaining a majority vote, and (b) it is clearly the main reason that Rep. Hoyer and Sen. Rockefeller moved heaven and earth to create this sham monster of a Bill.
Nor, as is apparent from reading the relevant legislation, is anything in this Bill in any way necessary for national security, since there is nothing that even an honest administration can't do under the current legal framework.
All this immediately (a) raises Lincoln's famous statement about being able to fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, (b) cries out for explanation - especially from a man who demonstrably knows how to speak MUCH more directly and substantively, and (c) justifies the most exotic speculation (e.g., the need to protect high Democratic politicians who were in on these violations of the constitution, maybe even including torture as well as wholesale warrantless wiretapping of American Citizens without a shred of anything resembling probably cause; or maybe just cowering fear of standard Republican "anti-patriotic" attack).
As for myself, I can understand (i) if a politician is pushed into a corner by conflicting demands of all sorts, (ii) the need for compromise, (iii) saving a fight for another day, (iv) wanting to find a technical way to defeat what the clear majorities will undoubtedly vote for (but might not with a new Democratic President and stronger majorities in Congress), by kicking the can down the road, or other kinds of stalling, or unacceptable amendments, etc., etc., etc. But what seems unacceptable to me about what Sen. Obama is doing here is not only the gross lack of creativity and flexibility which is otherwise so characteristic of the man, but the fact that, his statements being such patent bullshit - from a man who cannot possibly use the Bushian excuse of being too stupid to understand the patent nature of the lies he is telling, it also therefore raises serious questions about his personal integrity which tend to destroy the central part of his message around which we all have been rallying.
In other words, it is so diametrically opposed to what he has otherwise stood for in this campaign, which has created the energy that has brought the campaign this far, it is the kind of derogation of integrity that can destroy such energy and/or turn it into something unwholesome that has to be hidden by further and bigger lies as time goes on, and, eventually, when those don't work anymore, naked authoritarianism.
I neither mean to nor do yet predict such extremes; and really I am arguing only that: (A) whatever his real purpose, a clearer conscience and greater creativity and vision (which such a talented and otherwise honest politician as Sen. Obama should possess) should have been able to come up with an articulation of his position that was (1) honest, and (2) indicated (without violating necessary confidences) at least what the understandable limitations on his compass were, if not all the details of why those limitations exist and have the force they obviously do; and (B) the failure to make that articulation in this circumstance leads strongly to the conclusion that what we are looking at is a sell-out or betrayal of the strongest kind.
Say it ain’t so.