FISA fight far from over

By Libby

We may have lost the Senate vote on FISA but as my first husband was fond of saying -- payback's a bitch. The feckless fools that didn't think it was important to stand up for the Constitution will find there is a price to be paid for their complicity. And those who courageously took up the battle on the front lines will be rewarded. Digby has the details on how the Blue America PAC will be using their funds to do both.

Obama, as he and we well know, will not be punished in this effort even though he let us down tremendously. Neither will he be rewarded. Rather than receive rich praise, he will continue to reap criticism unless he finds a way to communicate his constitutional stance much more forcefully on the side of civil rights and the rule of law. Slate publishes a good article along those lines that offers some sound advice to the candidate, including this about his rhetoric on the Supreme Court.

Obama doesn't have to stumble here. Nor should he maintain the curious silence that leaves his supporters wondering about his constitutional values. A growing number of Americans believe the Roberts Court is too conservative. Polls indicate that the public likes progressive judicial results: The public responds favorably to questions asking whether judges should strongly protect civil rights and civil liberties, rule for the powerless over the powerful, and ensure broad access to justice. Put simply, Americans want to live in Justice Stevens' America, not in Clarence Thomas'.

If McCain genuinely thinks it's smart politics to run against the Warren Court in 2008, Obama simply needs to run against the Roberts Court. He must promise to nominate Supreme Court justices who will protect civil liberties, civil rights, and ensure equal access to courts and justice. He needs to talk and talk about these issues not because these are tender, liberal values he wants his judges to share, but because they are values enshrined in the Constitution, values that have been corroded and neglected in recent years.

Digby also sums up what's been bothering me about Barack's style in the last few weeks.

One of the things I had been hoping the Obama campaign would do was creatively frame the agenda on new terms rather than the old reliable issue matrix. It's not easy to do it because people see politics in a sort of shorthand and it's hard to change years of conservative propaganda in one go. But I did think that an election where the other side has been completely discredited and we have a candidate of unusual rhetorical gifts it would have been possible to do it. Certainly, it would have fit the change theme.

That's it exactly. It's hard to believe in change when you don't see any. He's not directing the debate at all at this point. He's building the conventional narrative instead. Not good.

Comments

[Nell]

And at TPM, Josh Marshall ruminates about the causes of a slowdown in small-donor contributions to the Obama campaign without so much as considering the effect of the FISA betrayal and the rest of Obama's very purposeful 'signaling to the "center"'. There's something to the suggestions he does make about the possible causes, but the omission is glaring.

[Libby]

Well, I've been thinking about what effect it might be having and have been waiting to see his numbers which I assume aren't good since they haven't released June yet.

Thanks for the link.