have you actually listened to MSM coverage lately? What you claim about fawning was true for a few weekds at the beginning of the primaries. After passing through a neutral phase, most coverage of Obama has been acidly negative.
He is scrutinized and questioned and second-guessed like no other candidate in my memory. In addition to the help progressives and Hillary fans give, the MSM are largely responsible for Obama's trouble in maintaining a lead.
Even NPR, the bastion of what you (falsely) perceive as liberal bias, has turned against him.

Speaking of being pragmatic, I don't think the FISA bill should be excluded from such sonsiderations.

The biggest cudgel Republican use aginst Democrats is national securiyy. It's not fair, and it's a big lie, but too large a sector of the public have swallowd this talking point to ignore – especially in the middle of an election. Had Obama voted against the bill, McCain and freinds would have been all over Obama about it from now on. Obama, pragmatically, removed one talking point from McCain's arsenal.

Hillary's 'no' vote and her explanatory statement are facetious. Were she the candidate, she would have done exactly the same. IMO, she would have done so with fewer reservations, judging from her previous hawkish and pro-executive power voting record. Hillary is a savvy politician who is always pro Hillary, above all else, and this case is no different..

What troubles me about the executive powers granted in the FISA bill, are not the powers, per se (in an emegency, they might be necessary). What troubles me are executive powers without oversight. I think there needs to be institutional, ongoing oversight, not dependent on irregular congressional hearings.
That's something that can be rectified, and that's something that advocates should focus on AS SOON AS OBAMA IS SWORN IN. .I'm not even waiting for Nov., I've been contacting the Obama website and all my congressional representatives for about a week now.
It's private, and if enough people do it, we might well be heard. If not, a hullaballoo can always be raised at a propitious time..

I think telcom immunity should be handled in the same way. Like the question of impeachment, it shouldn't be about punishemnt but, pragamtically,about prevention- for the sake of the future.

FISA, like all laws, can be modified, reformed or replaced. Like Obama says, about negotiations with Iran, it should be done at a time of the Dem's pragamtic choosing
————————————

I hope some of the 'progrssives' jerk their heads out of clouds and learn something about how to succeed instead of justt dream and whine, before it's too late.
/

…by a SisterSoljah moment

Can we retire this cliche yet? Or can we at least use it in an appropriately? Gutting the 4th Amendment and the Rule of Law aren't the same as insulting a sh*tty no-name rapper.

This isn't even the God-awful bankruptcy bill, where the CC companies poured hundreds thousands of dollars into coffers, and threatened to finance opposition candidates against those who didn't support it.

Where did the political pressure come from then? Unless, of course, you accept that maybe, perhaps, the majority on Congress actually did think these actions were necessary.

Otherwise, you have to subscribe to the notion that a large portion of Congressional Democrats decided to rise up in mass and provide political protection to Bush. That is highly unlikely, IMO.

Hahahaha… this is why Obama's move was a brilliant political stroke.

With one vote Senator Obama: (1) undercut the traditional GOP attack line that Democrats aren't serious on defence; (2) rendered the centrist voters more comfortable with an Obama candidacy by a SisterSoljah moment; (3) the Progressive nutroots are totally in the bag (so screw them).

As with Jesse Jackson wacko insult . . . the louder the Nutroots scream on this issue, the more it helps Obama with the vast majority of the American voting public.

This election is between “Obama” and “Not-Obama”…and the fact that many polls do not show him totally dominant despite blanket MSM fawning over Obama…suggests Obama needs to placate this vast American centre.

If Obama can do this, he has the Presidency.
I would ask folks to recall: In 2004 Kerry had the full backing of the Nutroots…ahem Progressives…and had a lock on the Black vote, Berkeley, and the youth vote. He was smoked by Bush.

Lesson for Obama: One cannot win the Presidency by pandering to the Progressives.

Three major things happened yesterday:
1) The entire Congress gutted the 4th Amendment and the idea of equal treatment under the law
2) Bush reclaimed another executive power abused by Richard Nixon and his predecessors
3) Obama lost his luster

Kudos to Hillary for voting against this bill, but it's too little too late. If preventing this bill from passing was a priority for her, she sure didn't show it.

I have more thoughts about the passing of this bill at Why We Worry.