it isn't the legalities...it's the betrayal that's pissing people off

[brett_jv]

108. If you're talking about the Verizon thing ...

I'm pretty sure it was a subpoena, not a warrant.

And it was done according to the legal protocols in place.

It's (unfortunately) debatable whether or not collecting bulk phone call meta-data (without the name attached) is something that would violate the 4th amendment. I'm sure we ALL wish this matter had already been decided 'in our favor' but unfortunately it has not been at this point.

Personally my threshold w/regards to the point of when I will get really pissed about the whole thing will be if/when we find out that this data is being 'abused'. Like, for example, if we find out they're using it to try to catch domestic drug dealers (I have to think that metadata would be EXTREMELY useful for catching drug dealers ... I could probably write the algorithm to find those people myself) instead of terrorists.

Not that I'm blind to the fact that someone I ostensibly 'trust' is not going to be 'in charge' forever, because I'm not. I see the proverbial slippery slope, believe me.

I just see the whole thing as more of a systemic problem than a matter of a single person, even if that person is POTUS.

I guess I'm just unable to work up the level of vitriol present in the OP because I never deluded myself into thinking that this young Senator with relatively little experience and few connections in Washington, and without a ton of money of his own prior to becoming President ... was going to end up in a position of being able to enact major 'changes' (like a 'public option' that would basically put the hugely powerful insurance companies out of business w/the stroke of a pen) to the established paradigm ... esp. not one who's half-black. Not that this SHOULD matter, but it unfortunately it does to a sizable enough contingent of people.

I never thought Obama was going to be able to 'do' much of what he said he wanted to. Dunno about you, but I remember the saga of Bill Clinton, which is an illustrative case, because the SAME THING is going on w/Obama's administration. Both Obama and Clinton ... they THOUGHT ... they could 'change' everything in a progressive direction. But then they got into office, and have discovered that they CAN'T.

POTUS is NOT as powerful an office as people imagine it to be UNLESS you have majorly powerful connections (See: Bush/Cheney) when your going into that position. Clinton didn't, and neither does Obama. That's why we're seeing what we're seeing, which is a WAAAAAY similar trajectory.

I personally believe Obama 'plays ball' because he's been convinced he has no other option. His first day, he was probably shown the film that was shot FROM the Grassy Knoll, and been told 'Any further questions?'

Maybe that makes me a 'traitor to the cause' in some people's eyes, but ... whatever. I call it being realistic. There is major, major dollars and entrenched interests in Washington fighting against pretty much everything progressives hold dear. One person cannot change that, even if he is POTUS.

Not that we (DU'ers and our ilk) SHOULDN'T fight for what we believe in, hold Obama's feet to the fire, etc. But ultimately, as long as we don't have 100% publicly-financed elections, we'll never, ever see a USA that even approaches what us progressives would like to see.