This diary examines the question of the smartest thing for Obama to do if it is true that FISA would nonetheless pass even were he to throw his entire weight behind opposing it.
(Given that politicians are concerned foremost with their own electoral fate, and that the Dem leadership has been working on this bill for months, I think it is reasonable to assume that Obama probably would be unable to stop this juggernaut.)
I try to argue that Obama is uniquely vulnerable in a way that Democrats running in local races are not to being wounded on issues of national security (he's running for commander-in-chief and he's a young black "crypto-muslim commie"). Thus, I will argue that we should cut Obama some slack because his choices most likely are (1) oppose FISA and sustain potentially serious political damage or (2) don't oppose FISA and receive political benefits. In either case, FISA passes. I try to stress that Obama is facing a strong headwind of beltway bias and has to court low-information voters. And I remind Kos readers of the many times Obama has shown great courage on the issues of national security. In other words, Kossacks, be pragmatic first and foremost, and don't require that Obama fight a battle that he will likely lose and that would harm his chances in the war.
BACKGROUND
It has often been argued, and persuasively, that opposing FISA will not hurt Democrats, contra the beltway "CW," and that therefore Democrats should stand on principle.
I agree that this is accurate for congressional races and in most cases. But the race for the presidency is altogether a different beast. In local and statewide races the focus in often on, well, local and state issues as well as the economy. But the president above all is charged with "keeping us safe" and being "commander-in-chief."
And regrettably, Obama trails by large double-digit margins on voter perceptions of "foreign policy" and only ties(!!!) with McCain on Iraq, despite the public's agreeing overwhelmingly with Obama on the issue of withdrawal.
Now part of changing this requires Obama to take on McCain aggressively on the issues, which he has done and brilliantly I think in the case over the appeasement flap, over detainees, and over negotiations with Iran. He has done so far more forcefully and with far more courage than would have Clinton, I think it is hard to deny. But the public opinion has yet to move. And part of that, we must keep in mind, is that by and large Americans are low-information voters who go more on feeling than anything else. McCain is an old and experienced war hero, and Obama is a young dude without a military background. The emotions override or strongly mitigate the fact that the public actually disagrees with McCain, as we see in the Iraq numbers.
Obama's greatest weakness and liability is being painted as an extreme liberal who will not keep us safe (cue "crypto-muslim black nationalist hamas endorsee" as well as background whispers).
THE CENTRAL CASE
The most severe problem, as I see it, with opposing FISA is that to do so would be to oppose a bill with hefty Democratic support including from the Democratic leadership.
Let us look at the most likely scenario. Obama courageously stands with Senator Dodd and Feingold, but the bill is passed with very strong margins. What does the public "see"? How does the MSM portray it? The public could see a man standing on principle for our constitution. But the Republicans would furiously move to paint Obama to the left of even his own party, to the left of even Nancy Pelosi, on an issue of national security, an issue on which large bipartisan majorities disagree with Senator Obama.
Furthemore, imagine how extreme Obama will look is he were to throw his entire weight behind opposing FISA. If he fails to change the Senate's (or Pelosi's mind), he will look weak, extreme, and a captive of the left-wing. Again were Obama to take on this fight, he would not only be combatting the Dem leadership but the MSM and low-information voters.