Glenn Greenwald describes why Obama’s new position directly contradicts the old.

Yesterday, Greenwald defined specific examples of Obama utilizing tired but too-often effective blame games that play heavily on symbolism in the national consciousness with little regard for accuracy.

In the latter, however, certain conclusions stand out:

There is no question, at least to me, that having Obama beat McCain is vitally important. But so, too, is the way that victory is achieved and what Obama advocates and espouses along the way. Feeding distortions against someone like Wesley Clark in order to please Joe Klein and his fact-free media friends, or legalizing warrantless eavesdropping and protecting joint Bush/telecom lawbreaking, or basing his campaign on demonizing MoveOn.org and 1960s anti-war hippies, is quite harmful in many long-lasting ways. Electing Barack Obama is a very important political priority but it isn’t the only one there is, and his election is less likely, not more likely, the more homage he pays to these these tired, status-quo-perpetuating Beltway pieties.

* * * *

Ari Melber writes here about the rapidly growing group of Obama supporters organizing to urge him to vote against the FISA bill. Details on how to join that effort are here.

A little further down, Greenwald states:

Other than FISA, there isn’t a single position Obama has taken that, standing alone, is so bothersome. It’s the general approach he’s taking to how he thinks he’s going to win the election — by repudiating key factions that supported him and reversing himself in both tone and substance on vital issues, all in order to comport with the prevailing Beltway orthodoxy over how Democrats must prove that they are Serious and “centrist.” The pattern seems to be to push liberals as far away as possible (MoveOn, Wesley Clark, the ACLU) while emphasizing all the similarities he shares with those on the Right. That approach is what the political establishment demands and, at least right now, Obama seems eager to comply. Meanwhile, John McCain flew to the mountaintop home of Billy and Franklin Graham yesterday in order to move closer to the Far Right base of his party.

And that has been my position. FISA is the deal-breaker. There is one other position he’s taken that bothers me a lot, pushing for alternate energy sources that remain carbon-based, environment-fouling or impossible to achieve (ie, nukes without nuke waste disposal). The distinction between the two, imo, is that Obama could be presented scientific evidence on the latter and change his position with no harm done to anyone. On the FISA bill, once the immunity’s granted, there’s no way to reverse the damage, especially of the precedent-setting authorization by Congress for big businesses to break the law AND violating our Bill of Rights in doing so.

Congress is specifically sworn to defend the Constitution and setting a precedent that destroys any part of it is simply not defensible. Which is why I’m so angry about it.

However, I urge you to read Update IV and Update V in that same Greenwald post. I agree with Greenwald in the first and both him and Digby in the second. THERE ARE VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN McCAIN AND OBAMA THAT WE IGNORE AT OUR OWN PERIL. That does not mean, however, that we have to accept Obama AS IS.

When he blows it badly - as he did with FISA, the energy bill and Wes Clark, he needs to hear our criticism, to witness our responses and - in the most serious FISA issue - to know that he’ll have to deal with certain repercussions. No favor is done to him - nor to our country, more importantly - if he’s granted free passes on critical issues. No man or woman deserves kid gloves all the time. That promotes idolatry, which breeds the potential for tyranny.

And that’s why I withdrew my endorsement for Obama and am registering as an independent. It’s called ‘consequences for inappropriate behavior’, a tenet of behavior modification.

Before I took those steps, I had to consider the point Atrios often makes: “this is not about YOU.” I asked myself, am I being over-emotional here, injecting my personal issues into the decisionmaking? I passed that test. I thought about my children and all children. I thought about the best interests of our country and the world. It clearly was Obama who failed the test with his FISA bill reversal. And I further thought that if more people took similar actions, it would reach Obama and could influence him. Liberals like me, like Black Americans and others, get taken for granted as part of the Democratic base. We’re expected to shut up and go along because, realistically, where else can we go?

My answer: we can go elsewhere. We can limit the full fundraising capabilities of the net. We can consider going with the Greens. We can withstand the repudiation of Democratic Party addicts who’ll insist we threaten the potential for an Obama victory.

Good. We don’t have to be doormats. It’s good if Democrats worry that they might lose us WHEN THEY REFUSE TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

However, such worry, omnipresent on blogs, isn’t felt by presidential candidates unless they can see it reflected in the numbers from their pollsters. MY choices, in other words, don’t mean a damn thing unless tens of thousands in the swing states, make similar choices. Without that, my choices are wholly ineffective.

I was fully aware of that. But I chose to be dismissive. I noted that I’d likely influence few others. In that, I erred. For unless I’m willing to make an effort to organize thousands of others to take similar positions, then I’m committing a political activism sin: I’m being ineffective.

Or am I?

Sometimes dissatisfied voices crop up all over. And that creates bigger worries elsewhere. Like-minded people sta