The success of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama can be attributed to his “change” message. In fact, for those that have been following along, it is clear that many American voters truly yearn for a genuine candidate.

Hillary and Obama are similar in most respects, but for his consistent message of change–Hillary’s loss can be attributed to this phenomenon.

Opposition to War in Iraq

Of course, many tout Barack’s stance against the Iraq War. However, I believe that he didn’t vote to authorize the Iraq war because he wasn’t in the Senate at the time. Yet, there is little doubt in my mind that if he was he would have voted to do so.

I’ve believed this from the beginning of his ascent, but now I have the proof to back it up. Well, it’s not actually evidence directly related to the Iraq authorization but it is an accurate indicator of the “flexibility”of Barack’s positions.

I’m referring to his convenient stances on divisive political issues, including support for the application of the death penalty in child rape cases and a “refining” of his Iraq withdrawal position. They are summarized well in this editorial from the New York Times.

Obama on Wiretapping

However, his reversal to support the FISA Amendments Act speaks most definitively on whether Obama is truly a genuine candidate and not just another politician.

FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is post-Nixon legislation designed to prevent government spying abuses and protect the privacy of Americans. It introduced strict procedures designed to comply with the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Under the old FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) would rule on government applications for wiretapping. The new legislation severely weakens the power of that court.

The government can first begin a wiretap and then ask the court to authorize it. While this was possible within the confines of the old legislation, if the court now denies the application the government can continue to spy on appeal, and if unsuccessful can still use the information collected.

According to the ACLU:

[the legislation permits] the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime…

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

In essence the government can apply for a warrant without, as the 4th Amendment dictates, “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.“

Retroactive Immunity

The other sticking point has been retroactive immunity.

The telecommunications companies that participated in Bush’s illegal wiretapping program of Americans post-9/11 are now off the hook.

During the primaries Obama campaigned against the FISA amendments and promised to filibuster any telecom immunity provisions.

Even though he ceremoniously voted to remove the immunity (an amendment he would have known would not pass), his support for the final bill is an indication of how much a real politician Obama is, and not quite the “change” candidate he has made himself out to be.