Thanks for your thoughtful response. The issue for me and others is not Obama's intelligence or political astuteness. We understand that success in politics is a process of straining for symmetry, i.e., trying to bring irregular halves together. Obama, his advisors, supporters among the pundit class and in the electorate want to frame the controversy about his reversal on FISA as being indicative of our political naivete or cultish left ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue is about Obama's reversal of position and our concern for the continuing infringement and erosion of our Constitutional protections as citizens of a democratic republic.

We are not comforted or reassured by promises that Obama can more successfully address these concerns once he is elected president. The reality is that once he or anybody is elected president there is no need and seldom, if ever, the desire to address issues that the president and the president's advisors would prefer not to revisit. The press of new and evolving issues and the reelection campaign is what invariably occupies their agenda.

How the Republicans may or not attempt to describe Obama is a legitimate concern. The Republicans, however, are going to scream that Obama is too liberal even if evidence is uncovered that he has been secretly a member of the John Birch Society since his days at Occidental College. The Republicans' view of Obama cannot seriously be offered as an excuse to justify his reversing his position on FISA. Obama and his supporters can try but I can hear the opening bars of Ray Charles' great song “I've News for You” playing in the background. Their story just don't sound true.

David Gergen is quite correct in declaring that Obama will be held to a higher standard than Obama but Gergen was not referring to Obama's supporters or people who will vote for Obama when he made this statement. Those of us who fall into the latter two categories but who object to his current position on FISA are most emphatically not holding him to a higher standard. We are insisting that he adhere to the standards that he swore to uphold last year before he secured the nomination. Our concerns are reasonable, appropriate and keeping in the tradition of protest and dissent that the Bill of Rights was written to protect.

I'm currently reading a scifi book that includes AI (Artificial intelligence) characters and maybe that is why I am smiling so hard about this. Jack: your machine has decided to join the discussion! And it's funny!

I was speaking to Obama's political smartness more than his overall IQ.
Also, I recognize the 24/7 news cycle that Obama has to contend with now vs
what was in place in FDR's time. FDR didn't have to respond to viral
emails and his base lodging instant complaints on a website which makes me
wonder if those “thousands” of attacks on Obama are all part of his base as
the pundits claim or are republicans helping to fuel the fires (i.e. just as
republicans voted for Clinton to create chaos in the primaries).

In bringing up FDR I was trying to remind people that you can make
compromises to get elected and afterwards and still have a successful
Presidency that addresses problems for the greater good of all Americans.
Not to mention that one of Obama's claims is that he can work with both
sides of the aisle and how does he do that by camping out with the far left?

The Republicans are trying to frame him as too liberal and out of the
mainstream. Because of Obama's ethnicity we shouldn't forget he's already
got that to continuously handle. I'm concerned that some think Obama has a
lot more leeway in how he presents himself because he doesn't. David
Gerson said that Obama will be held to a higher standard than McCain.

Angela

However, we're stuck with the military-industrial complex. It's not going anywhere. Hell, what would we do without it? Make weapons/weapon systems on an “as needed” basis?

FDR's policies did not do very much to improve the aggregate lot of black Americans because of the deals and compromises he struck with southern senators and representatives. In exchange for their support, FDR allowed them to control the implementation of various programs and policies in ways that largely excluded blacks. See, for example, Ira Katznelson's book “When Affirmative Action Was White.”

I understand what the JD and the Telecoms did and I even understand why so many want immunity for the telecoms, I understand the crimes that occurred and who was responsible.

What I don't know is the language of FISA or the proposed changes to the Act and what that will mean. I understand that there is immunity from civil prosecution but not criminal prosecution.

Seriously though, will one or two or even three men be able to right this wrong when so many of the participants are in positions of power or had power used as a sword against them. Power is not in words, rather in actions. Barack could vote against the legislation and remain in a position where he has no real control over how FISA is used or he can compromise now and exercise his authority in a far different manner than Bush has.

I think John McCain better worry about his base.

Does he even have a base outside of the media at this point?

Angela

Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments: In Pledging to Work to Remove Retroactive Immunity for FISA Violations, What Kind of Action Is Obama Contemplating?

I'm thinking Obama is smarter than we give him credit. And a reminder, that the only president to be elected 3 times was FDR and from what I read he managed to be criticized alot by his base but he also accomplished the most for middle class Americans……..and he ran as a “change agent.”