Five bucks says Obama won’t call out Reyes. E-mail me and I’ll take your cyberbet.

Yeah, but what if Obama wants the power to spy on people, too?

You want Obama, who just barely survived a close race against Hillary Clinton, to now start calling out his fellow Senators, some of whom helped to put him over the top when he most needed it? What on God's Green Earth makes you think that's a great idea? The last thing Obama needs to do now is start picking personal fights in the Senate when he's still got to consolidate his position as the party's leader while still dealing with Clinton. You don't do that by playing stupid legislative games that will only divide your supporters.

To make an analogy, it's like telling a newly nominated Abraham Lincoln to start leading a fight to amend the Fugitive Slave Law in 1860, which was of course a vile law - but doing that would have made it impossible to appeal to those voters in places like downstate Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, which Lincoln had to have to win the election. Fight, yes. But don't pick fights that not only are pointless (Bush will veto the bill anyway), but will just unnecessarily piss people off.

Sheesh. Just when I thought we'd pushed that one far enough back in the calendar that they'd never get to it before the election.

Damned straight, it's time for the big O to show some leadership. Perfect opportunity for him to show he means what he says.

I'm with David W. Obama can gut the stupid law after he takes office. Hey, he can evicerate it using a "signing statement." Poetic justice.

Honeymoon? Wouldn't his violate the principle that he and his campaign are supposed to give Hillary "her space," give her time to come to reality? I'm sure it would be labeled "arrogant" until she blesses his nomination.

Re gutting the law afterwards, doesn't having it passed set an awful example and possibly a precedent that might come back to bite us? And where's the backlash going to come from? Not the voters.

Actually, Sen. Obama better prepare himself to revisit his long-standing, well-documented and underplayed relationship with Illinois political operative Tony Rezko.

15 minutes ago, a Chicago federal jury just Rezko guilty on 16 of the 24 counts against him in his political corruption and racketeering trial. This can't help but invite further and far more probing media scrutiny into the significant role he played in both the political career and personal life of our now-prospective Democratic nominee.

What campaign have you been following, dday?

Obama has always positioned himself as "the kind of Democrat" who wants to seek "common ground" with the Republicans.

This deal IS exactly the kind of "change" Obama campaigned on. More compromised, less "divisive."

You didn't think he was a progressive, did you?

He certainly never claimed to be, and his advisors and moderate establishment backs (Daschle among others) should have given you a clue.

"Honeymoon?"

He can call her up and get her to sign on as the first step.

This whole FISA debate is similar to the Social Security 'crisis' of 2005. The correct course of action is the one the Democrats took then: it ain't broke, so don't fix it.

The current FISA law may require some tinkering at the margins, but by and large it gives law enforcement everything it needs. You can have your wiretaps, but you must obtain a warrant by showing probable cause --- and it even answers the 'ticking bomb' scenario by allowing the warrant application to be made up to 72 hours after the wiretap is put in place.

Like Social Security, the correct course of action for the Democrats is to support the status quo. Any kind of 'compromise' legislation is a victory for the Republicans. And I agree that anyone who claims to be a leader in the Democratic party, especially the new standard bearer, needs to send out that message loud and clear.

I'm sorry to not give him a honeymoon after the primary victory but events on the ground are moving quickly.

No honeymoons. Push him now. Push him the day after he wins in November. When did we ever get the idea that politicians deserve honeymoons? That's just crazy.

Why can't Obama just call up the major Democrats like Rockefeller---all of whom are supporting the cave-in and immunity---and tell them NOT to support it?

Got a dollar says he ain't got the guts.

How's this for getting to work?

If only Hillary would have tried some moves like this instead of going after Obama all the time.

I certainly hope we see a chain of Dems pulling Lieby by the hand into a corner every time he dares to show his face in the Senate from now on, or until he shows some party discipline. Lieby, you got to be a Senator by convincing people you were going to be a Democrat- so act like one.

Mary,
Did it ever occur to you that the folks on the senate intel committee might actually have a reason for supporting telecom immunity based upon the data/information that they have seen?
Could be that if/when Obama is prez, he just might reverse his position on this.

Who says Obama has the power to end this? In what alternate reality of the Democratic party does any one Democrat have this kind of power? And if any one does, wouldn't it be Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker and essentially "direct report" of these reps who are straying from the party line? Obama's got bigger fish to fry, I'd say, and is in a particularly precarious position within the party at the moment. He's not about to go start picking intramural fights.

"Did it ever occur to you that the folks on the senate intel committee might actually have a reason for supporting telecom immunity based upon the data/information that they have seen?"

I'm sure they have a reason - probably that their names are directly or indirectly attached to really bad stuff and they fear discovery.

I'll understand if Obama weighs the political cost and decides he wants to tackle the war/healthcare/Cheney's legacy first, assuming that he does start to show clear leadership at some point, but I'm skeptical there's a _good_ reason behind the FISA stuff.

Sorry gang, but the correct Constitutional remedy is not legislating Bush out of his position on illegal wiretapping, it is something called I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T. And the sooner the better!

At least before Ehud Ohlmert, who is as corrupt as Bush, talks numbnuts into attacking Iran.

Not a chance.

FISA would actually be a good place for Hillary to step up to the plate. If she wants the VP spot, this is an opportunity to show she can take the heat of that position. Democrats are always reasonably afraid to advocate for far-left positions like, gasp, ending a war or stopping government spying. And rightly so, since not enough of us left leaning liberals reward them for sticking their necks out. It’s really the one place where the people need to lead, and we’ve failed our leaders miserably.

But in this case, the national sentiment is coming around. She’s got more seniority in the senate than Obama, and if her supporters are looking for someone to fight for us, here’s an excellent place to show leadership between now and August.

Rilke's right. Don't want the next Prez to continue to abuse signing statements.

And, Obama can do something more direct than "calling out" Reyes.

He can filibuster this in the senate.

What is all this executive power in a "time of war"? We have an occupation in Iraq and a difficult stuggle to preserve Afghanistan but these are not wars that threaten us. There is a real terrorist threat in these times, but it's not World War III.

Has there been a declaration of war? Does a description such as :"war on terror", or "war on drugs" confer wartime powers?

homer www.altara.blogspot.com