Take a read: here

Lessig

some reactions to the outrage.

1.    Obama is no (in the 1970s sense) "liberal": There are many who are upset by this who believe this (and other recent moves) shows Obama "moving to the center." People who make this argument signal they don't know squat about which they speak. You can't read Obama's books, watch how he behaved in the Illinois Senate, and watched how he voted in the US Senate, and believe he is a Bernie Sanders liberal. He is not now, and nor has ever been. That's not to say there aren't issues on which he takes a liberal position. It is to say that the mix of views he actually has and has had doesn't map on a 1970s spectrum of liberals to conservative. He is not, for example, "against the market," as so many on the left still make it sound like they are. He is for same-sex civil unions. So if you're upset with Obama because you see him shifting, you should actually be upset with yourself that you have been so careless in understanding the politics of this candidate.

2.    Obama has not shifted in his opposition to immunity for telcos: As he has consistently indicated, he opposes immunity. He voted to strip immunity from the FISA compromise. He has promised to repeal the immunity as president. His vote for the FISA compromise is thus not a vote for immunity. It is a vote that reflects the judgment that securing the amendments to FISA was more important than denying immunity to telcos. Whether you agree with that judgment or not, we should at least recognize (hysteria notwithstanding) what kind of judgment it was. The amendments to FISA were good. Getting a regime that requires the executive to obey the law is important. Whether it is more important than telco immunity is a question upon which sensible people might well differ. And critically, the job of a Senator is to weigh the importance of these different issues and decide, on balance, which outweighs the other.
This is not an easy task. I don't know, for example, how I personally would have made the call. I certainly think immunity for telcos is wrong. I especially think it wrong to forgive campaign contributing telco companies for violating the law while sending soldiers to jail for violating the law. But I also think the FISA bill (excepting the immunity provision) was progress. So whether that progress was more important than the immunity is, I think, a hard question. And I can well understand those (including some friends) who weigh the two together, and come down as Obama did (voting in favor).

3.    Obama's shift was in his promise, as relayed by a member of his staff, to filibuster any bill with telco immunity...[.]

:::  :::

And those views are mirrored here by Al Giordano - The Sky Didn't Fall

a very good essay on 'all those who whine they're getting off the bus.'

Do take a read.

We don't know what we got. Nothing satisfies. We Dems take comfort in losing. We're headed down the same road as we did with Gore and Kerry.

The GOP sees what we got in Obama - a superb candidate. They know Obama transcends all their made-up categories and are having difficulty because nothing in the Rove playbook is working.

While we fret others are getting the Obama message.

Obama is the only candidate we have and there's a need to circle the wagons. The GOP are very good at protecting their candidate - right or wrong.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"