Nor do I (really) disagree with what you’re saying about the prism through which Obama judges these things. He surely is a true believer that the government can be a good mechanism of change. Let’s just say there are a few other prisms that scare me more, as far as civil liberties are concerned.

The President is being a dickhead. That’s worth recognizing. Which is why I did so.

I mean it’s a little early for “We should have voted for McCain because Obama’s administration has been worse or the same on civil liberties as his would have been!” is let’s say a tad early, considering we’re what 60 days in. Rojas is begging the question that we should mark down in the history books now Obama’s record on civil liberties. I think that’s stupid, and saying so, even though I absolutely agree with Rojas/Greenwald et al on the perniciousness of this particular move.

Obama can and probably will be a net plus for civil liberties relative to Bush and probably McCain in the long run, despite having a myriad of black marks (which he will also probably have, and which we should recognize and highlight where and when they occur). But anyone who claims certainty on that already is axe-grinding.

That’s been my only beef here.

Who is expanding their energies on demonizing Rush Limbaugh? Are you subscribing to the notion that that’s a scheme concocted by the Obama administration at great energy and expense and not just their PR department happy to bait the GOP on an issue of its own creation?

Now THAT’s leadership we can believe in.

But I’m sure you’d agree that there are varying degrees of “questionable commitment” and varying levels of valuation and hypothetical counterfactuas (see my reposted blockquote above). To say that because Obama has fallen short of my ideal on civil liberties means that there would have been no difference between he and McCain in the long view and thus the issue is moot is not just (admittedly non-falsifiably) incorrect, but fairly silly.

I still think it’s pretty early to be declaring Obama’s presidency a failure on civil liberties, or anything really. We’re not even out of the first 100 days, and contra Greenwald, I think the indications so far are at least as positive as they are negative, probably more so. I think each of the items needs to be aired and examined and debated, and I’ll say right now (as, indeed, I did in my endorsement) that I fully expect Obama to fall far short of ideals, and for me to join the trenches against him where that happens, but turning it into a “don’t blame me” bumper sticker war is silly, and needless, and polarizing. Just to speak for myself, you’re triggering less my outrage at civil liberties encroachments and more a defensive impulse to “stand by my guy”, which I’m trying to resist because, frankly, I’d rather not fall into that trap myself.

Like I said, I share your outrage here. Doesn’t change how I would have voted, not by a longshot.

That aside, it is entirely possible to care about civil rights and to also care about other things. One needn’t be a single-issue voter on such matters, particularly when the commitment of either major party candidate to the issue is questionable.