Regarding “corporate progressivism,” I don’t see him in that vein at all. More like “grassroots centrism” but leaned somewhat left. I mean, this is a guy who wants to EXPAND faith-based initiatives (though after reading Kuo’s excellent book I don’t know if this is such a good idea) and who wants to ease abortion restrictions but also stem the tide of abortions… this may all sound very “pandery” to many of you, but I’ve felt the same tugs in my heart from time to time… the difference is that I don’t detect much cynicism in him–opportunism maybe, but not cynicism–where as McCain is the archetypal cynic and his “straight talk” is impossible to gauge as to its actual straightness.

As for any violence toward the man, I have honestly sat awake at night, wondering when the attempt will come and praying that it will be stopped. He’s going to win… a president (or president-elect) Obama assassinated would tear this country apart.

His phlegmatic quality (”Don’t just do something, sit there”, voting “present” and with the consensus) may allow us to avoid some military adventures that McCain would dive into. If so, that’s a plus.

Palin’s right. Taking temperament into account, McCain-Palin really are more mavericks than Obama.

If hope in the wisdom and decency of what passes for “conservatives” these days was a stock, I’d be shorting it right about now.

I think we’re going to get a chance to revisit the whole mid-90’s black helicopter militia nonsense all over again, this time with an added dose of race-hatred.

And what if they come to the conclusion that their candidate has been scorched, their party reduced to ashes, and they still want to play with matches? Angry, embittered partisans who believe that the highest office in the land is about to be taken over by some foreign agent provocateur? I’m less worried about the professional political operatives surrounding the campaign itself than about those who respond to the sort of dog-whistle described above.

That is one way of looking at it. Another is that he’s running for president, he isn’t yet president. If he becomes president and does nothing about FISA or avoids a confrontation with power then I’m right there with you. Until then I can sort of see it as a man avoiding the trap doors laid in front of him by an opposition that believes winning elections matters most of all. The right probably had an ad ready to blast him for opposing a law that would let daddy gov’t protect us all from big bad Osama. It’s how they play. Another tactic was saying Congress should return from recess to vote on drilling close to shore. The hope was that McCain would go along with it while Obama opposes what good God fearing Americans know is a common sense solution to our gas crisis. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

I had the very report in mind when I wrote my comment, as well as yesterday’s only slightly less outrageous rallies. Perhaps I should have omitted the term “virtual.”

I do wonder what the response of the McCain camp will be to those horrible but predictable crowd reactions. I don’t think for a minute that they will be swayed by any concerns aside from the narrow utilitarian interests of their candidate, but they MUST at this point realize that they are playing with fire – a fire that could end up burning their candidate, their party, and their own political and professional futures.

Palin needs to be careful not to demagogue further (catch the “kill him” reference made by an anonymous audience member) because if some nutjob does something to Obama, she would have committed political suicide.

There were two other problems with the “compromise” legislation–not holding anyone accountable for illegal acts conducted by the administration and telecoms, and providing for extensive warrantless wiretapping powers under very limited oversight. The “compromise” was not much more than a slightly less egregious form of the so-called Protect America Act, and I’m not sure why anyone would want to defend any pol who supported such legislation. Obama’s support for it was notable most of all because he pretended that he would oppose it. I bring it up here as evidence of how readily he abandons promises to his constituents and concedes important points to avoid confrontation with power. That’s nothing new, either, but I don’t have to pretend that he’s anything he isn’t.

I think Obama was wrong to vote for the FISA compromise, but let’s be clear: the FISA court has failed at protecting our constitutional rights. Over the course of decades, the court approved EVERY SINGLE government request. What kind of oversight can you possibly provide if you never say no? Does anyone here think that the federal government never once asked the FISA court to approve something improper over the course of decades? Is anyone that naive?

The FISA court was always a questionable idea; after Nixon’s abuses, it made sense for us to try the experiment and see if it could work, but we’ve known since the Clinton years that as an institution, the court cannot work. How can any court act impartially when it only hears one side and when its decisions are secret and not subject to review? How can any institution remain faithful to the constitution when it never has to face scrutiny?

So yes, Obama’s decision on FISA was bad, but let’s not pretend that it actually matters. I have been following arguments about FISA for the last decade and a lot of the hand wringing over Obama’s FISA call I’ve seen seems to come from people who never gave a thought to FISA before it could be used to criticize Obama. Which is fine, but if you’re going to do that, you don’t get to claim the high ground and act sanctimonious about it.