Of course, we may never get to see them, because of bills like these...

What I dislike about this whole thing:  conferring an aura of acceptability on Presidential secrecy.  The secrecy of the Bush administration has been one of its worst aspects.  Taking it as normative, and extending it to Obama, is a HORRIBLE precedent.  And I assume Bush's secrecy is not something Olbermann really loves.

But basic honesty and adherence to one's core political values compels criticism for what Obama is doing here, and it's just distasteful and destructive -- not to mention dangerous -- for people to invoke patently false rationalizations in order to excuse or support what he's doing.

(Bolding mine.)

Great piece, and I hope it makes Olbermann think, but I suspect he'll only grow more defensive. You're right BTD: Olbermann has stared into the abyss so long that he's become O'Reilly.

The difference between the two arguments is that Olbermann is dealing with personalities--his and Obama's--while Greenwald is separating principles from personalities, as reasonable people are supposed to do.

It's really as if we are seeing on display the various stages of Dear Leader addiction.

You've got Greenwald, who was an Obama supporter until the FISA bill forced his hand, requiring him to recognize that he couldn't maintain both his dedication to Obama and his more basic career commitment to being perceived as a pundit who stands up for the Constitution.

You've got Kos, who realizes that for all his truly rabid support of Obama, he has to draw some bright line around progressive issues if he's to maintain any credibility for the future.

Then you've got the Olbermann, Alter, and DKos crowd, who refuse utterly to see that their guy might be wrong in any way, given his messianic status in their minds. If there's a little cognitive dissonance there, there's nothing compelling them -- no career need, no basic integrity -- to pull them away from their very comfortable, perfectly conforming mob.

But none of these people -- not Greenwald, not Kos, not Olberman nor Alter nor the DKos crowd -- none -- would be in their current little pickle if they had managed to exercise beforehand even a modicum of judgment about who Obama really is and what he really stands for. They are all paying now, in terms of their own credibility and self-respect, for the abject failure in judgment, the utter incapacity to be objective and realistic, which they could not muster up earlier.

But what bothers me about the online Obama supporters is that they always believe the proper amount of political courage is exactly the amount Obama displays, no more, no less.

If Obama makes a bold proclamation ("I'm not afraid to talk to Iran without preconditions!") this is hailed as a sign of his unique courage, proof positive that he's going to change the way politics is done, that he's going to take us to a place where we no longer need to fear Republican demagoguery.

But if Obama chooses the more cautious route, the notion of changing politics is suddenly forgotten.  Now it's like "oh, of course he can't say that, he wants to win!"  The thought that maybe, just this once, he could afford to be a little more gutsy is not even worthy of consideration.

Obama is wrong on this FISA "compromise."  Period.  How in the name of all that is good and holy do people expect to put this country back on the right track, restore the Constitution and our standing in the world, if the candidate who claims to be the one who can do it is allowed carte blanche to make the kinds of decisions that will ensure that it won't happen?

I am sick to death of the "we have to do it the wrong way first, so that when we have real power, we can do it the right way - trust us" theory of "leadership."  This is not leadership.  It is devoid of principles.  And I don't care whether the people saying this claim to be Democrats - I'm tired of giving them my vote and my trust, tired of the broken promises, and I will not vote for those who do not understand what fighting for what is right means.

When I listen to Obama, when I see that he has no core beliefs, when I hear others rhetorically tying themselves in knots trying to justify his boneheaded decisions, I realize that some people have learned nothing - nothing - from 8 years of George W. Bush.  Nothing.  

I feel sad, frustrated and wonder if I will ever see true liberal progressives wake up and come together.  I will vote for Senator Obama because I know I have no other choice.  But he will never be the better candidate and I will never understand how all the so called liberal voices were willing to sit silent while one of our most truly amazing democratic candidates was lied about, spun about, trashed, demeaned and demonized by the likes of a washed up sportscaster and his buddies, all whom have obvious women issues.

Senator Clinton has walked the walk, talked the talk and done the work.  She knows and understand the pragmatism game and was demonized because her first priority was getting elected, getting other democrats elected and changing direction.  The audacity of this woman's understanding of reality was insulted: how dare this woman be confident...let's call it "inevitability" in the media and they will hate HER ambition.

Hillary reaches out and she is a vile panderer, a nasty trianglulator. Barrack says we need to reach out, there is no red or blue America and "swoon" he is the American Idol.

I have always known that Hillary has made mistakes, is human and sometimes has to change direction.  I get it.  Multitasking females have to change direction all the time...have to be practical 24/7 to get things accomplished.  But Hillary never needed her ego stroked, to be adored and followed blindly like the "next coming."  Accomplished women rarely need that....but sadly the media, even the blogs are filled with egos.

If this trend goes on with Obama, it is possible that delegates and superdelegates might get some buyer's remorse. If so, a vote at the convention out of courtesy for that other candidate could produce surprising results.

 bush wants high gas prices so his oil buddies will get rich.

But because people, the obama movement itself, has refused to make similiar distinctions about other politicians, I rather enjoy watching obama fry in a vat of "obama=bush" greasy pap.

Oljberrmant will not.

Therefore, I submit that he is not obamas oreilly.

There are likely many reasons for confining immunity to civil liability -- including the heightened difficulty of proving criminal intent and, most importantly, the fact that Bush, on his way out, can pardon telecoms from criminal but not civil liability. So it's far from certain that Obama -- even if he did have a Secret Plan criminally to prosecute telecoms once in office -- would even be able to do so. If Bush pardons everyone connected to his illegal spying program, as many have speculated he might, then Obama's Secret Plan -- even if it existed -- would be instantaneously extinguished.

I mean for all the talk of Keith's impending credibility implosion... What of the above possibility - neh - PROBABILITY?  

Loophole.  What Loophole?... There's no viable Secret Plan if it can vanish with a stroke of Bush's pen.

What say you Keith? (to borrow from O'Rielly)