The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza summarizes his 15-page article on Barack Obama's rise in politics in two wonderful sentences: "superheros don't become President; politicians do."

For those of you that had any delusions regarding Obama's star power - keep Lizza's observations in mind. I think this is a great follow-up to my post on the FISA controversy since it illustrates Obama's ability to maneuver in our political system; his FISA vote is evidence of this repositioning.

I sincerely believe that he will use his political advantage to make improvements. I whole-heartedly support his candidacy and plan on voting for him in November, but there's much left to be fixed in our so-called Democracy that no one person - superhero, politician, or president - can accomplish on their own.

The quote at the top of his campaign website sums up our responsibility nicely: "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours."

I understand that Barack Obama needs to reposition himself for the general election. After winning the Democratic party nomination, there's no doubt that to succeed he has to shift his politics from left to center.

After listening to the news this week and buying into the hype about Obama's disservice to his party, I thought I should go check out this legislation that has caused such a ruckus. Is Obama shaping up to be a disappointment like we're being led to believe?

According to the Library of Congress, on 09-July the U.S. Senate passed HR 6304 (69 Yeas, 28 Nays) under veto threat from Bush with a Yea vote from Obama and a Nay vote from Clinton. Having already passed in the House, the Bill was presented to the President for signature the same day.

The news media is placing much emphasis on a group that petitioned for Obama to vote Nay on the Bill. But is there really that much to be upset about? What exactly does this Bill (or law by the time you read this) mean with regards to wiretapping and telecom immunity?

HR 6304 is titled FISA Amendments Act of 2008. It amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. That's nineteen hundred and seventy-eight folks - a 30 year-old piece of legislation that governs foreign intelligence surveillance. Think about the past thirty years - how much has changed? Think in terms of technology and our ability to communicate with one another. Aren't things much more complex than they were 30 years ago?

Also, did I mention that the Act addresses foreign intelligence. In fact, the verbiage specifically places limitations that prohibit surveillance of foreign targets substantially composed of U.S. citizens. So we're not talking about widespread domestic surveillance of the American people, but foreign intelligence of possible threats to domestic security.

The other major parts of the amendments include protection and immunity for entities that assist the U.S. government with such surveillance (telecommunication companies, landlords, etc.). While the term immunity in any political conversation can immediately raise eyebrows, in the context of this Bill it isn't such an unreasonable proposal. Why should entities be financially liable to individuals for merely complying with requests from the U.S. government? If there's anyone that should be liable for misuse of wiretapping, it should be the government. If they were liable and we're successfully sued in a civil court, who do you think they'll past their costs on to?

The other buzz-word you'll hear related to this discussion is that the surveillance is warrantless. The truth is, it can be warrantless in an emergency situation, but court approval is still required within 7 days. Aren't you more assured about your safety knowing that those who are trying to protect us don't have to wait on a warrant to capture intelligence that could save lives or otherwise protect American interests?

All of this being said, my closing argument for this debate is the simple truth that if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? Seriously. Think about how many people live in America. What makes you so special that you think you have something to worry about if your phone is tapped while you're talking to your relatives or friends overseas.

I think Barack Obama is taking a bad rap for what in the end will be an inconsequential piece of legislation to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Obama has always championed compromise over browbeating and I think there is some wisdom in this philosophy. While I don't understand where there is compromise in this Bill, I still think that Obama is on the right track and can provide our country with the unifying leadership that we so desperately need.

Sources: ars technica, Library of Congress, Wired Blog