He can have his justice department mine the archives to find all sorts of crimes by real or imagined enemies. And he can claim not only was it not his doing that created the evidence but he even voted against intrusive rollbacks of the fourth amendment.

Obama knows this, but apparently he doesn’t think he’s able to use the accountability argument to his advantage while defusing the BS argument that civil protections hamstring the WOT. The entire country’s eyes are on him to offer “change”, and yet he’s still deferring to the neoconservative frame of reference on liberty v. security.

By the way, who is this ambiguous “center” that the punditry seems to have pinned down as representing a weird “split the difference” combination of one part watered-down neoconservatism, one part economic liberalism? (0 parts civil libertarian apparently). Doesn’t this just describe the huge swath of generally uninterested, marginally politically aware citizens who believe whatever they’re told and who’s first response to any percieved problem is “There aughta be a law…”

I think any smart political observer would admit, under the present circumstances, Obama caving on this issue isn’t politically necessary or even advantageous–but he did. If he’s worried that the current debate, long commandeered by neconservative assumptions, labels a pro-civil liberties, pro-govt. accountability position “too left”, why doesn’t he take on the establishment in a way consistant with the “brand” he’s constructed for himself? It’s worked so far, why fix it if it ain’t broke?

8 years of Bush has provided him a gaping opportunity to capture and steer political perception and instead he shrinks away from taking a principled stand on almost anything that could be seen as controversial–not by American voters, who are thirsty for a new narrative divorced from Bushian politics, but by the very calcified establishment he claims to oppose. He seems to be absolutely surrendering to the “old politics” pressure for a post-primary pivot, on automatic pilot, without ever testing the waters to see if his “change” shtick actually works on a general electorate. Que the rationalizations of pro-Obama liberals, newly minted “pragmatists” (as long as it’s “their” guy abandoning core principles for supposed electoral gain).

All this is moot of course if Obama is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing and accepts the whole “pre/post 9/11″ interpretation of civil liberties as defined by the PNAC boys.

And each one reinforces the other, something I wish I could pound into the heads of ‘mainstream conservatives’ who rail against big government and progressives who rail against foreign policy adventurism and the erosion of civil liberties at home. You don’t get to choose which parts of the devil you dance with.

It seems to me that on the one hand you have a candidate who wants to gut the Fourth Amendment with an activist base who strongly opposes the erosion of core constitutional liberties.

On the other, you have a candidate who wants to gut the Fourth Amendment with an activist base who is cheer leading him along the way.

Does electoral support from people who favor civil liberties act as a road block to a president who seeks to violate those liberties? I am guessing the answer is no. The reason for this is simple: no one cares about FISA except activists.

That’s what makes this particularly galling. Obama could have taken any position he cared to and probably not suffer any electoral punishment.