I believe the Democratic Party was long ago co-opted as sort of a fake opposition party. The Obama phenomenon is the crux of this development, where we have supposedly "progressive" supporters routinely indulging in the kind of hate-filled, content-free rhetoric commonly thought of as the province of the right wing, all in support of a candidate who displays little more than contempt and condescension toward actual progressives.

They'd have us believe that we just hold our tongues while Obama take the FISA issue off the table, then we'd will magically be granted an advantage in the battle over "real issues." (Because the Bill of Rights and holding Bush accountable aren't really issues.)

The same week, Obama said he didn't think that "mental distress" alone was sufficient justification for a late-term abortion, prompting the president of the National Organization for Women to rebuke him for feeding the perception that women seek abortions because they're "having a bad-hair day." In "The Audacity of Hope," Obama had written that

the willingness of even the most ardent prochoice advocates to accept some restrictions on late-term abortion marks a recognition that a fetus is more than a body part and that society has some interest in its development.

The leading reproductive-rights group, NARal Pro-Choice America, defended him, pointing out that his views are fully consistent with Roe v. Wade. Flip-flop category: nonexistent.

Obama also wrote that "certain faith-based programs" could offer "a uniquely powerful way of solving problems and hence merit carefully tailored support." Yet his recent call for an expansion of President Bush's program came as a shock to some, including the Times, which called the program a violation of the separation of church and state. If it is, it's a minor one, like grants to religiously affiliated colleges; in any event, this isn't a new position for Obama. Flip-flop category: shift of emphasis.

You're right, though: There is very little seriousness in either piece, which should be a telling point as to what TPM thinks of the election in the first place: IT'S ALL ABOUT OBAMA.

4th amendment? Nope.
Supreme Court? Nope.
Death Penalty? Nope.
Iraq War? Nope.
Foreign Policy? Nope (just ask Pakistan).
Gun Control? Nope.
Freedom of Speech? Nope.

Grow up, net rooters: You're going to see more Obama compromises with reality, more shifts to address what the real Democratic base cares about.

I do feel that all of our other woes, the failing economy, the rise in oil prices, the erosion of the constitution and evaporation of our civil liberties can all be traced to the war in Iraq.

But even if this were not so, it is the most glaring example of immorality in contemporary America. People are being killed. People are being tortured. It is a nightmare. This is the issue I care about.

Said Moulitsas: "I'm not ideological at all. I'm just all about winning." Yet there he was blasting Obama on MSNBC last week for his FISA vote, saying he may be one of those "spineless Democrats who are . . . afraid of controversy."

The Constitution is a single issue. Funny how many people died to obtain and preserve what was contained on that "damn piece of paper." Strange that the only requirement contained in the Congressional oath of office is to swear (or affirm) to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States.

What I would give for mainstream writing, commentary and reporting that had some basis in reality...

I am tired of being called stupid because some issues actually matter to me.  And I am tired of people like Powers thinking she can mock the single mother who uses a laundromat in order to - she thinks - prove her point that no one cares about FISA.

single issue people bashing Obama for moving to the middle or voting a certain way on FISA

What drives me crazy about this lazy disparagement is the arrogance of presuming that invividual voters are voting (or will vote) "wrong" unless they -- we, I, you -- don't, en masse, turn our proxy over to some doofus in short pants media or some wrangler in a political party who'll vote "correctly" (whatever that expediently is at the time.)

We are to turn over money and proxy when contacted and let the playahs play.

It would be helpful to STFU except when required to read a pre-scripted outrage to the targets, often whimsically choicen, of the playahs.

Sitting around quietly and respectfully like lumps is preferred to dissenting or disengaging, as that deprives the speechifiers of their rightful golf-claps and ad revenue in their noble climb to the bigger halls of greater influence to fight "the politicians in DC" and the knuckle-dragging "single interest" Straw Tribes.

Lamentably, it still has to be pointed out to these aspiring kingmakers and lever-pullers that it's not their call to make on whether a voter belongs to the Straw-Tribe of "single issue people" and uses his or her franchise that way, or on frivolities like haircuts or skin color, or even because Obama got on their kewlness radar somewhere between the iPhone and rechargeable electric scooter as the Omigod I Totally Want That like Yesterday!!!! status symbol to show off to the other cookie-cut renegades.

I became a post-pie-fight broken record on reproductive rights at Cheetoh HQ out of sheer bloody-mindedness. I was sickened by the knee-jerk Fauxgressive trend to trivialize multi-tiered constitutional issues and basic human rights to flatter the aspirations of influence that "objective" aspiring lever-pullers (all those Stay At Home Mommies and Daddies Who Blogged Against Reproductive Rights) importantly needed to OMIGOD HAVE LIKE YESTERDAY!!!

Hmm, let's see, how to exercise one's choice ...

(a) shunt aside the ongoing battle to protect, affirmatively, several amendments to the Constitution from continual erosion by extra-judicial, extra-procedural persecution and influence (assisted by playing the "refs" in govt and media) or

(b) flatter a handful of "A-List" bloggers' need to do the Crotch-Grab of Victory when This Candidate gets in over That Candidate, and then lemmingly indulge the same bloggers' NetRootz Amnesia when they denounce who they picked as being a traitor to all that was good and decent in society, and demand that supporters grab the rakes and light the pitches and form an ugly (flash)Mob.

Phew, tough one.

Abortion rights, reproductive rights, religious and moral freedom of choice, franchise, privacy, security of the person, dominion of the body --

Geez, are we at the Fourth Amendment already?

The pro-choice "position" could only be labeled extremist on a planet made of orange cheese dust and the de-facto elimination of the FOURTH FREAKIN' AMENDMENT as a centrist thing they temporarily have to adopt or their candidate of the moment won't get media strokes.

Yesterday's Dem the Fauxgressives had to have at all costs was Joe Lieberman -- and Mary Landrieu, and other "Blue Dogs" -- who have worked tirelessly to decalcify the vertebracy of the Dems.

Today's Dem they have to have at any cost and vowing to dissolve Dem backbone more efficiently is Barack Obama.

Me, I'll hang onto "my" issue, thanks.

Now I would agree that it's a bad thing that people don't care (more political engagement is always preferable to less), but it doesn't change the fact that people are voting for different reasons than FISA.

And when you get down to it, FISA is one of those issues for the privileged (and yes, I include myself in that group) to care about. When your main concerns are getting through the month and paying your bills, things like FISA begin to look very abstract and irrelevant. Especially if you don't believe it has any effect on you.

This quote in particular:

Ridiculous: The average American voter can't describe what FISA is.

has it exactly right.

So, I agree that Obama shouldn't have compromised on FISA, but I also see exactly why our side failed to stop it: because the public doesn't care. If you want to stop things like this from happening, you have to do the hard, long-term work of building a public mandate for civil liberties. It's like progressives are trapped in some mindset that if a small group of activists scream loudly enough, that everyone else will instantly see why this important matter of principle is so much more important than everything else going on in the world. It just doesn't work that way.

If an issue doesn't affect people personally, they won't care until they're persuaded why they should care. In the case of global warming, it was Al Gore and a series of high profile events (like Katrina and peak oil) that changed people's outlook. Civil liberties as an issue doesn't have anything like that, and until groups like ACLU figure out that they need to do a better job of educating the public, the movement is always going to be reactive and playing defense.

I don't think she should have called you and your ilk emotionally stunted 5 year-olds or any of the other pejoratives she had for you, but she is in essence correct. You guys are all still beating this dead horse long after the American public moved on.

You mischaracterize at least Powers' perspective. She never claimed to be an expert on FISA, so for you to dismiss her b/c you cliam she doesn't know a damn thing about the bill is irrelevant. She made zero arguments about the bill, and the one thing she did say was that those concerned with liberty should be skeptical of the bill.

I've noticed that is a popular tactic around here. You take a statement or an argument, and instead of addressing the text, you choose to address some spurilous issue or concern. It may work to distract the audience, but it really does absolutely nothing to further the debate.