Perhaps there is something that we don't know.

I think I'm beginning to understand how it is that all of the purity trolls and concern trolls seem to stick around this place endlessly.

Olbermann is the only journalist trying to figure this thing out while giving Obama some benefit of the doubt. I don't particularly agree with him, but that certainly doesn't make him a wanker or a flip-flopper. It makes him an ardent supporter trying to make sense of a situation that might be more complicated than it appears on the surface.

And maybe we should ALL consider giving Obama the benefit of the doubt without using the loaded phrase "flipped his position" until WE know if there's "something else to it."

If MyDD is not going act in the best interest of getting the Democratic Nominee for President elected into office, then I'm outta here and fast.

Keith Olbermann is not an Obama supporter on MSNBC, he's supposed to be a reporter (at least that's what I assume he's doing).
I know everyone thinks that Olbermann is the next thing to God on MSNBC, but biased reporting isn't good for anyone.
Five months ago, Olbermann said in another special comment:

There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists.

On that, I agree.

I would like to add that Obama's position on FISA has more to do with politics than protection, but I do understand why he's doing it.

I think this diary is a bit of a stretch aimed at taking a jab at Olbermann. He may or may not deserve it, but I think Jerome has a bone to pick and stretched the story about MyBo to include Keith O just to make a point.

One question for you Jerome, "Is there anything about Obama that you think highly of?"

I don't ask to be difficult. I ask because I haven't seen much praise for the nominee out of you at any point and I wonder if you're against him.

omg you're right Jerome, i wish we'd listened to you in the first place about Clinton!

This just reveals that Obama is a tool of ZOD!   He's going to destroy us from within!  Don't you all see!  Run! No, wait, there is no where to run, now here to hide...

because Zod is coming!

KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

.......

Or maybe his positioned is nuanced and you, like much of the blogosphere, are completely unwilling to listen to him, for some reason beyond my understanding.

Hello, I think we should stay with our dog in the race. Let's see how things work out with this FISA thing. I have trust in Obama. Plus, where are ya going to go from here? The McCain camp? This is our candidate. We need to get him in the White House.

He's beginning to make Obama look bad.  Now he justifies the same things that he used to demonize- all in the name of political expediency.  Wow, sounds like a certain President with a 20% approval rating.  

...over one vote (oh noez he's sold us out!!!), and pit two imperfect champions of liberalism (Olbermann and Glenn) against each other in the process.

Running for President requires some degree of manuevering and sacrifice -- it simply cannot be done with principles always intact.

Do I agree with this? No. Do I wish the system was better? Of course. But impossible standards of perfection are not realistic.

Obama has every right to be called out on FISA immunity. The question is: is this manuevering and opportunism pervasive or sporadic? In Obama's (and KO's case), it is the latter.

(and KO is still my hero)

I'm totally through with Senator Barkey, the lil' dog who would not bark in the night, but.....

Seems to me there are a whole wad of wankers in the House and Senate who panting to vote the Telcos immunity. Yesterday, Wexler was at FDL and he WOULD NOT GIVE AN ANSWER as to WHY everbody wants to give Bush and Co. a pass on this.

To me that means there is someghing really, really rotten on the Dem side of this. I'm happy to see Barkey go  under the bus on this but....

WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE QUISLINGS?

hah, I like that one about Olbermann. I was wondering whether you're going to be pilloried by the ABC and IHC crowd for this one though.

Jerome, this is nothing personal.  I respect your political analysis a lot.  And I hate to be a grammer Nazi.  Cancel my account and ban me if you want, but today's piece was the final straw.  

You really need to learn the difference between "who" and "whom".  You only use "whom" when the person to whom you are referring is a direct object.  "Whom" never actually does anything.  It's just like "me" as opposed to "I".  You never make "whom" the subject of a sentence of a phrase.  I do things.  People give things to me.  I gave the pencil to the person who was sitting over there.  To whom should I give this pencil?  Just to make it a little more complicated:  The person to whom I gave the pencil is sitting over there.

I agree with you about Keith Olberman, but you just can't say, "Keith Olberman, whom has flipped his position...."  

In saying he'd vote for a "not perfect' bill, Obama left himself room to vote for amendments to perfect it. Feingold's got six.

Don't hammer Obama, use a screwdriver.

MyBO Total Members of Obama Vote No on FISA Group: 4,122

MyBO Total Members: about 700,000

That's about six tenths of one percent.

45% of House Democrats and about 70% of Senate Democrats (cloture vote) effectively voted for this bill.

Obama's actual statement on FISA bill:

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.  There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

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. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

He has to be. There is no other credible explanation for his willingness to do backflips twist himself into a pretzel in an effort to promote Obama and kiss up to the KOs krowd. I thought his spittle spewing special comments were reserved for those who had somehow offended his delicate sensibilities. People like Bush, who has broken laws and destroyed the Constitution, and Hillary Clinton, because she made the mistake of running against Obama, and actually trying to win. Now I'm hearing that he's going to do a "special comment" to explain to people who need things explained to them why it's actually a good thing for Obama to reverse himself on FISA.