My beef isn't with people who disagree with Obama's decision, or who criticize the decision. My beef is with those who week to create a negative narrative about Obama from that decision, or who take their criticism of him and lose all sense of proportion, going way beyond what's reasonable given that he has but one vote in the Senate. Steny Hoyer did this deal, and Nancy Pelosi supported it.
FISA hasn't passed the Senate yet. I agree that it seems likely to pass without telco immunity, but until it does pass, and Obama votes for it, it seems that a more intelligent investment of resources would be rallying people behind the efforts to stop the legislation, or at least the telco immunity provisions.
To that at end, whatever the merits of the argument that supporting the FISA deal is a sellout, making that argument won't win any votes. Perhaps if all the energy that has been spent focusing on Obama were instead focused on a money bomb against FISA (without supporting Ron Paul or his candidates), and advancing cogent arguments against its passage, more good would be accomplished.
I've seen people argue that Obama's move was a Sista Souljah moment. Without disputing that his viewpointn is at odds with many of his supporters, I don't see much evidence if any to show that he took this position precisely because it would be at odds with his supporters. Remember, when Bill Clinton slammed Sista Souljah, what he was really doing was publicly humiliating Jesse Jackson to send a message to white voters that he wasn't captive to African-Americans. (Somehow Bill Clinton made it seem courageous to stand up to someone who was talking about murdering police officers.)
Anyone who thinks Obama is inevitable should remember that so was Hillary Clinton. I do think there are big differences and that Obama is in a much stronger position than she was, but it's also worth remembering that while he was done well in most polls, spectacularly well in some, for 3 straight days the Gallup tracking poll has had the race tied.
More FISA thoughts
My beef isn't with people who disagree with Obama's decision, or who criticize the decision. My beef is with those who week to create a negative narrative about Obama from that decision, or who take their criticism of him and lose all sense of proportion, going way beyond what's reasonable given that he has but one vote in the Senate. Steny Hoyer did this deal, and Nancy Pelosi supported it.
FISA hasn't passed the Senate yet. I agree that it seems likely to pass without telco immunity, but until it does pass, and Obama votes for it, it seems that a more intelligent investment of resources would be rallying people behind the efforts to stop the legislation, or at least the telco immunity provisions.
To that at end, whatever the merits of the argument that supporting the FISA deal is a sellout, making that argument won't win any votes. Perhaps if all the energy that has been spent focusing on Obama were instead focused on a money bomb against FISA (without supporting Ron Paul or his candidates), and advancing cogent arguments against its passage, more good would be accomplished.
I've seen people argue that Obama's move was a Sista Souljah moment. Without disputing that his viewpointn is at odds with many of his supporters, I don't see much evidence if any to show that he took this position precisely because it would be at odds with his supporters. Remember, when Bill Clinton slammed Sista Souljah, what he was really doing was publicly humiliating Jesse Jackson to send a message to white voters that he wasn't captive to African-Americans. (Somehow Bill Clinton made it seem courageous to stand up to someone who was talking about murdering police officers.)
Anyone who thinks Obama is inevitable should remember that so was Hillary Clinton. I do think there are big differences and that Obama is in a much stronger position than she was, but it's also worth remembering that while he was done well in most polls, spectacularly well in some, for 3 straight days the Gallup tracking poll has had the race tied.