Certainly he’s disappointed many of his supporters.   As I said, while I more or less expected it, I felt a distinct thrill of disappointment when I read his statement.  While I realize that liberal Dems tend to tack to the right once they know they’ve got the nod, it seems a bit…previous.  We haven’t even had the convention yet.

Atrios named him Wanker of the Day; at TPM Greg Sargent called it a ‘downer.’  Yep.

The problem is, Obama can’t win if he looks ’soft’ on terrorism because the Dems have let the Republicans own the whole national security issue and define the requirements. I guess it’s too much to hope that the Dems would wrest the issue away from the right and challenge the Bush administration’s (and the nation’s) assumptions about the most effective way to fight it. Why did the left let this issue become the right’s sole property? I see it as a stunning failure of imagination as well as a failure in courage and leadership.

Realistically, it’s probably too much to expect him to take this on single-handedly right as he’s initiating his campaign for the general election. Isn’t it? I am too cynical — or, as I prefer to frame it, ‘pragmatic’ — to expect him to push a progressive platform while he’s trying to beat McCain and yet….I can’t help feeling that Edwards would have repudiated this terrible legislation. But isn’t that precisely why people said that Edwards could never win in the general? And Obama never really presented himself as an Edwards sort of progressive.

Bear in mind I don’t feel particularly inclined to defend him — he was never my choice for presumptive nominee. I am trying to understand the thinking behind this decision and to spin it in a way I can stomach.

Anyway, other bloggers’ reactions follow:

At Balkinization, Jack Balkin discusses why ‘Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill (But He Won’t Come Out and Say It).’ Balkin brings up some points that are worth considering. Setting aside telecom immunity, what about the powers the bill gives to the executive?  

Barrack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country. Moreover, he will be the beneficiary of Democratic-controlled Congress, and he wants to get some important legislation passed in his first two years in office.

Given these facts, why in the world would Obama oppose the current FISA compromise bill?…  Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive, and he can institute internal checks within the Executive Branch that can keep it from violating civil liberties as he understands them. And not to put too fine a point on it, once he becomes president, he will likely see civil liberties issues from a different perspective anyway.

So, in short, from Obama’s perspective, what’s not to like?….

Obama’s supporters should be pressing him less on the immunity provisions and more on the first part of the bill which completely rewrites FISA. Because, if he becomes president, he’ll be the one applying and enforcing its provisions.  (Balkinization)

This is a good point:  even if Obama succeeded in getting the immunity provisions out, shouldn’t we be concerned about the remaining provisions?  Are these powers we want the executive branch — even if Obama is the executive — to have?  How much do you trust Obama?  That much?

At Hullabaloo, dday wrote:

We live in a bipartisan surveillance state.

Dday doesn’t have much faith that Obama’s promise to ‘work to remove telecom immunity’ from the bill will actually result in the removal of telecom immunity:

"Work to remove" telecom immunity should be rewritten to "maybe show up to vote on some amendment that will surely be struck down and then whimper away." What a colossal failure of leadership. (Hullabaloo)

At Salon, Glenn Greenwald agrees that this is an empty promise.

He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the "compromise." Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states….

Nobody should be fooled by Obama’s vow to work to remove telecom amnesty from this bill. Harry Reid is already acknowledging that this "effort" is likely to fail and is just pure political theater: Reid said: "Probably we can’t take that out of the bill, but I’m going to try." The article continued: "Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to ‘express their views.’" …[T]his whole separate vote they’ll have in the Senate on whether to remove amnesty is principally designed to enable Obama, once he votes to enact this bill, to say: "Well, I tried to get immunity out, and when I couldn’t, I decided to support the compromise." It’s almost certainly the case that Hoyer secured Obama’s support for the bill before unveiling it.

Either way, Obama — if amnesty isn’t removed — is going to vote for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, and his statement today all but sealed the fate of this bill. There is no point in sugarcoating that…. (Salon)

Chris at Booman Tribune, discussing both the Dems’ capitulation and Obama’s endorsement,  speaks of ‘the slack-jawed horror that so many of us are feeling tonight.’

If you’ve ever heard Barack Obama’s standard stump speech, you’ve heard him say something about ending the mindset that took us to war. One could be forgiven if today’s statement from Obama on the Fisa bill made one question whether or not he really knows what that mindset looks like. Or that if he does, if he really has any interest in changing it….

What is the thinking here? That if we break down and give them everything they want, this one last time, that they will finally be satisfied? Strength through capitulation? That worked out so well in 2002….

Behave like Republicans all you like. Vote to legitimize tyranny and lawlessness. Capitulate to every demand, no matter how unreasonable, and they will not be satisfied. They will never be satisfied. Not until the whole atmosphere is disinfected from the taint of liberty, justice and equality….

Cernig at Newshoggers writes:

If anyone asks…, remind them that I said, repeatedly, that we all must keep asking the damn question: Will you, if elected, pledge to roll back the Bush vision of total Presidential executive power? To keep asking it over and over until each candidate was so committed to one answer that they couldn’t back out of their answer without destroying their own credibility. And we didn’t…. I wanted so badly to believe it could be different.

It’s not. Obama (or Hillary, had she won the nomination) would still be better than the trainwreck continuation of the Bush years that McCain represents, but it’s a difference of a small degree, not of kind.

Paul Krugman worries about what this development might herald regarding Obama’s position on other issues of concern to Democrats. ‘Not a good sign,’ he says.

My biggest concern about an Obama administration is that, in the end, he won’t make universal health care a priority. My second biggest concern is that “Unity” means never having to say you’re sorry: that in the name of putting past partisanship behind us, the next
administration will sweep the abuses of the past 8 years under the rug, the same way Bill Clinton did in 1993; the result of that decision was that the very same people responsible for Iran-Contra showed up subverting our democracy all over again.

At My DD, Todd Beeton reminds the progressive blogosphere — who surprised him and me by its embrace of Obama’s rhetoric —  that Obama ‘has never really proven himself among the bolder, more progressive senators.’ 

We’ve all been told over and over for the last year that Barack Obama is the change we’ve been waiting for and has a unique ability to
reach across the aisle and forge consensus. OK, Senator, now’s the time to demonstrate that ability.

Senator Obama himself has told us many times that this is not about him, that change comes through building a movement and this is about us, coming together to make the change we want. Well, the movement is here waiting to back you, Senator.

We’ve done our part, now you do yours.

Ron Chusid at Liberal Values was a bit more upbeat because, he says, he never bought into the Obama image in the first place.

This was somewhat disappointing but not a terrible shock. One reason I supported Obama was because out of the choices available among viable candidates I believed he will do the best with regards to civil liberties. That has not changed….

I remain hopeful that we will see a major improvement in civil liberties once Obama is elected. In any event, there is little doubt that he will be better than George Bush or John McCain.

….I have never been under any illusions that either he will be right on all matters or that he is not a politician. You have to be a pretty sharp politician to get as far as Obama has. My suspicion is that this is Obama the politician speaking today, motivated by a reluctance to appear weak on fighting terrorism.

I tend to agree with this.

But at The Sideshow, Avedon Carol is disgusted:

Is it too late for all the superdelegates to throw their votes to Edwards and cause a floor fight?

On the other hand, at Blue Girl, Red State, Warren Street feels a little ‘jilted’ by Obama’s running to the center, but points out, ‘There’s no cover on the side of Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd–there are too many McCains, Grahams, Liebermans, McConnells and Bonds out there who will hammer him for being weak on defense.’  Street speculates that we’ll see FISA reined in big-time if Obama actually gets elected.

I guarantee you one thing–if there’s a Democrat in the White House on January 21, 2009, this legislation will come up again. This is not the end of it,
not by a longshot.

No Republican is ever going to sit idly by and let a Democratic President have this kind of power. We will see every possible limitation on Presidential power reintroduced into our lexicon should that happen.

I wonder.  I know I’ve already said this, but but  as Balkin points out, telecom immunity isn’t the only problem with FISA.   We need to be concerned as well with thepower that the revised ‘compromise’ FISA gives to the executive.  Do we want even Barack Obama to wield this much power?

Anyway — via Gavin at  Sadly, No! — here’s action you can take about telecom immunity if you’re longing to take action.

CROSS-POSTED AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS