Yes, a little arcane. Ask the man in the street: FISA what?

Not uninmportant, but I really wish this activism would focus on the biggies: health care, global warming, getting out of iraq to name a few.

The perspicacity and lucidity of this is welcome and impressive. It pays to have such intellectuals around! On the other hand, the frank, earthiness of my kind comment just above also may have its virtues.

Thank you Theda! I very much agree with your post.

Good job, Theda. As I have posted before, FIDA is a non-starter except for the 500-words-before-lunch crowd and Repubs who are trying to wedge us. Full disclosure -- I don't think the Supreme Court has understood the 4th Amendment since, oh, about 1967. But the idea that FISA is a serious intrusion on individual civil liberties is nonsense to anyone who has actually READ the bill - you are much more likely to be struck by lightning or be a victim of a botched credit report, which is actually a subject of federal law - is anybody worked up over this? I thought not. Personally, I think the dot-com FISA group is a front for Repubs and other trolls, and a clever one at that - I'd bet that not 1 in 500 of them ever supported Obama.

If so many of us are against FISA, what are we actually for, in terms of national security? What actions do we favor? Same thing on social issues - not how much of a bozo is this other guy or his plans, but what do we support?

Maybe the blogosphere debate over FISA is just another indication of our lousy economy - since no one has a job anymore, we all have way too much time on our hands and nothing better to do than yak about ephemera on the net. Present company included.

This little problem could easily have been avoided. Obama brought this on himself by committing a gigantically hypocritically flip flop that he didn't need to engage in, in order to win, and the matter can be handledto the satisfaction of all in numerous ways that doesn't make Obama seem to flip back after flopping to the right.

I think the pressure being exherted upon him by his own supporters is a good thing in many ways despite the howls from those who worship him. He's our nominee. He will get the votes of the anti-FISA liberals, but it's an issue that means a lot to an important constituency of his and he has literally asked people to do this. The truth is, throughout the primaries Obama's rhetoric about joining "the movement" has been instructing people that they will need to do this sort of thing once he gets elected. Supporters are just taking the concept for a test drive on FISA.

It is true that FISA is an issue the average guy on the street doesn't know much about or understand well. However, Obama clearly believes that he can just leap to the right on this and other matter blithely ignoring an important part of his base which is, in the estimation of many of his supporters, a massive error, incredibly arrogant and politically foolish. FISA is just one symbolic issue among many where Obama is tacking hard right as seems to be required by the villagers even though that isn't what people voted for in the primaries. Obama needs to have some respect for who got him nominated and in the end it was not Axelrod or anyone with lots of good ideas in Washington: it was the people who actually cast votes for him and the many, many liberals who fueled his money machine online and otherwise---well over 10,000 of them now members of the online group beseeching him to vote against FISA.

The FISA "problem", as it were, can easily be handled by bottling it up or otherwise allowing it to die on the vine in Congress via parliamentary means and that is what should happen. There's plenty of time to orchestrate that which we know very well since it was done previously. No reason it cannot be done again. No reason at all.

There are endless ways this can be made to happen. Reid, Pelosi or both of them can relieve Obama of this pressure individually or separately and that's how this problem should be solved. They created it. They can make it go away.

The leaders never should have allowed this legislation to reach the floor of either chamber. Now that they have foolishly tried to shove this down the throats of the people in return for huge contributions from the telecoms (what a co-inky-dink huh?), they can and should kill it because it clearly is causing Obama a political problem first because he has obviously flip-flopped (the political cover excuses about national security are absurd and false) and second the pressure is boxing him in and making the flip flop a genuine liability. The best way for the issue to go away without making Obama look even more weak and hypcritical is to kill it in parliamentary fashion and make sure it does not resurface.

Pelosi, Hoyer and Emmanuel particularly got the literal payoff they wanted from their corporate constituents in the telecom industry so they'll just have to face them and throw their hands up with a lame excuse about how they couldn't prevent whatever they come up with which is the treatment the Democratic base usually gets and a practice, I might add, that needs to come to a screeching halt. It's time for the rich and powerful interests to find out what it's like to be on the losing end for once. This tactic allows Obama's problem to get solved without any fingerprints of his to be found and liberals are left with no complaint on the issue which allows them to continue to be enthusiastic about the candidate and concentrate on winning in the fall.

Sometimes it is important for citizens to intervene like thise in order to protect their interests. The left is crucial to Obama winning and if he takes them for granted now and flip flops on an important issue to the left such as this, it will only be worse once he's elected. The wealthy and corporate interests never hesitate to flex their muscles. Why is it that so many believe citizens (and in this case an active segment of the netroots) should not do likewise?

There's something two faced about claiming you were "disappointed" while refusing to support the campaign (like Kos). How can you say you are not giving any more money when you never gave any?

Real supporters should have more clout.

So, candidates should pay most attention to the people who give them the most money?

Isn't that a lot like bribery?

I care deeply about the Constitution, you shitbag. If you ask me, it's you FISA freakouts helping the Republicans stomp on us for another four years over an issue of no practical consequence and of whose merits you are mistaken who are the real traitors among us. That's right. Traitor.

Don't use the old rethug crap....Obama has stated he will prosecute ANYONE who violates the Constitution which is why he stated he was against FISA, when they took out immunity for CRIMIANL charges he stated this was an acceptable compromise. He states that the AG will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, as an ordinary citizen we have an uphill battle and years of litigation which does not mean you will win your case.

Personally I would prefer to see these company individuals going to jail, it will hurt more than if they only have to pay a nominal amount to the litigants.

Ding! Ding!
Well-stated.

What many of us don't understand about this issue, is why are you determined that Obama should throw himself on the sword over this bill?

We are not. Glad that I could clear that up for you.

He has no chance to override it in the Senate, and those who argue he does are just not realistic.

And you know this how?

The Democrats from conservative states are going to vote to get reelected no matter how much pressure Reid and Obama put on them.

They are not going to vote for it if it never gets brought up for a vote. That is what the democratic leadership in the Senate is there for - to nip such nonsense in the bud.

The bloggers have made it impossible now for Obama to cave because he would look weak and controlled by the left. Why use a strategy that is counterproductive to your purpose?

I see the sense of what you are saying here, but I would argue that our goals (or at least my goal) here is far more modest than getting Sen Obama to reverse himself in public. I just want to see the bill die. If Obama can be persuaded by the outpouring of support on his website to work against this bill behind the scenes so that it dies a quiet death, that will be enough for me, and I dare say for many of the rest of the members of this group. It is the outcome vis-a-vis the bill itself, not Sen Obama's stand on the bill, that really matters.

It appears that you are using Obama, because these articles would not have appeared in three national papers if your petition had been anywhere else but on HIS website.

What if we are? A leader exists to serve his constituents, not the other way around. I want Obama as my president as much as any of the rest of you want him as yours, but I want him as my president because I think that he can accomplish things for me. I should use Obama and he should be glad to have me using him. To lose sight of that central truth is the first step down the road to dystopia.

What many of us don't understand about this issue, is why are you determined that Obama should throw himself on the sword over this bill?

We are not. Glad that I could clear that up for you.

He has no chance to override it in the Senate, and those who argue he does are just not realistic.

And you know this how?

The Democrats from conservative states are going to vote to get reelected no matter how much pressure Reid and Obama put on them.

They are not going to vote for it if it never gets brought up for a vote. That is what the democratic leadership in the Senate is there for - to nip such nonsense in the bud.

The bloggers have made it impossible now for Obama to cave because he would look weak and controlled by the left. Why use a strategy that is counterproductive to your purpose?

I see the sense of what you are saying here, but I would argue that our goals (or at least my goal) here is far more modest than getting Sen Obama to reverse himself in public. I just want to see the bill die. If Obama can be persuaded by the outpouring of support on his website to work against this bill behind the scenes so that it dies a quiet death, that will be enough for me, and I dare say for many of the rest of the members of this group. It is the outcome vis-a-vis the bill itself, not Sen Obama's stand on the bill, that really matters.

It appears that you are using Obama, because these articles would not have appeared in three national papers if your petition had been anywhere else but on HIS website.

What if we are? A leader exists to serve his constituents, not the other way around. I want Obama as my president as much as any of the rest of you want him as yours, but I want him as my president because I think that he can accomplish things for me. I should use Obama and he should be glad to have me using him. To lose sight of that central truth is the first step down the road to dystopia.