Let's hold him to this October 2007 promise:

Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.

(Emphasis supplied.) If Obama does not filibuster telecom immunity, it proves his commitments can not be trusted. That he will say and do anything to win, even if he does not mean it. A test for Obama's credibility is at hand.

Speaking for me only

DemfromCT writes;

Too many people have too many unwarranted expectations about what Obama would do as President. At the same time, Obama is sending a clear message that he intends to run pragmatically, and has the toughness to do so. Whether it's FISA or campaign finance, that means making some people unhappy. Running to the center means increasing his chances of winning and the size of the win, and it also means that the "Obambi" slurs (weakness, no substance) are badly missing the mark. I'm not suggesting we suck it up and like everything he does, I'm suggesting we be realistic about expectations.

(Emphasis supplied). I find it ironic and disingenuous that after a year of not just sucking it up but actively smearing Hillary Clinton and deifying Barack Obama, that post appears now. NOW there is an admission that Obama is just a pol. NOW there is an admission that all the talk of "new politics" was pure BS. It is a perfect example of why the Left blogs lost all credibility with their behavior during the primaries - their behavior towards Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama belied the belief that the Left blogs were truthtellers. It was a disgrace. More . . .

I've been opposed to all of the proposed rewrites of FISA. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We don't need a new FISA law. We need to force the President and his Administration to obey the law, not rewrite it so they can do as they please. Here are 10 mytbs about it.

As for Sen. Obama's statement today that he supports the compromise but will work with the Senate to eliminate the telecom immunity provision, my question is, how will he vote if the immunity provision stays in? It seems like he will vote for it. [More...]

I have two FISA thank yous to hand out.

The first is to Big Tent Democrat, who has been relentless in his opposition to the bill. I gave up on it long ago, believing there was no way around what happened today. I'm sorry my cynicism has proven true, and I'm appeciative that he keeps up the fight.

The second is to Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette who voted against the FISA bill and issued this statement. [More...]

Reacting to a court's decision that Ohio law precludes using a mixture of three drugs to execute prisoners, The Plain Dealer invites Ohioans to reconsider the death penalty:

There is always the danger, despite safeguards in the criminal justice system, that an innocent person will be killed. The road to the death chamber is usually long and expensive. Survivors of a heinous crime may never get the closure they desire. The state is put in the awkward position of taking life in the name of protecting it. And then there are the death chamber embarrassments - procedures that take longer than anyone can stomach in part because they're done by nonmedical personnel using rudimentary equipment.

According to The Plain Dealer, "the death penalty - however administered - has no place in 21st century Ohio."

Last October, TalkLeft called attention to Ronald Taylor, one of the innocent victims of the Houston Police Department's faulty lab work. After serving 12 years for a rape he didn't commit, a judge released him on the strength of new DNA evidence. That happened eight months ago. Since then:

He moved to Atlanta in October and reunited with the woman who patiently had waited for him. In December, they married. ... Taylor secured a job with an Atlanta restaurateur. But this spring, he left it and borrowed thousands for equipment to start his own business. He knew it was risky but said he was determined.

TAylor started his own lawn care business. Even better, he's been given a full pardon and he's been offered $700,000 to settle his claim against the state. He's thinking about it.

This is a stunning abuse of power.

According to the alleged victim's mom, the 19-year-old woman called [Scottsdale] police Sunday morning about intruders in her apartment complex. The mom claims one of the officers, who came to investigate, ordered the teen to get naked. Afraid and confused, she complied with the strip-search.

Officer Chong Kim resigned after the department commenced an investigation.

The FBI may look into whether Officer Kim infringed on the teen's civil rights under color of law.

May look into? [more ...]

Philosophy from a police officer who watched Celtics fans celebrate Boston's NBA Championship yesterday:

Disorderly, drunken “celebrations” in the middle of public streets - otherwise known as riots - are not good times to have discussions of civil rights or the First Amendment with the police officer holding a large stick.

That's particularly true when the stick-wielding officer views drunken revelry as a riot.

As I posted below, Barack Obama said:

I will work in the Senate to remove this [telecom immunity] provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses...

"Work" MUST include leading a filibuster of the Steny Surrender bill. I am saying that a vow to remove this provision includes a vow to filibuster the Steny Surrender bill. He made that very vow in April. I am holding him to it.

If he breaks that vow, it will be more evidence that Obama is not a man of his word. Most pols are not. But I will certainly rip him if he backs down on protecting the Constitution. Let's see what he does.

Speaking for me only

..."Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses....

Entire statement below the fold.

Via TPMCafe:

[A] reporter asked specifically about Obama's position. "I better check on that. . . ," [Robert] Gibbs said. "I honestly -- that's what I need to work on, as well." It certainly is striking that Obama is now the leader of the Democratic Party, but he has yet to say anything on such a crucial public issue. Obama has in the past opposed lawsuit immunity for the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping, but neither he nor his campaign have commented on his position for the latest bill.

(Emphasis supplied.) I smell a "present" vote coming.

Speaking for me only

It's just one poll, but Obama's silence on the FISA capitulation bothers me, so I am posting about it. In any event, at least in terms of national polling, no poll has Obama ahead by more than 5 and leading by less than 2. It's a close race according to these polls.

By Big Tent Democrat