Digby believes Obama engineered the FISA betrayal because he was afraid of being attacked by McCain as "weak" on national security.

the reason I'm almost positive that this was an agreed upon strategy is that the House brought this to the floor when they didn't have to. Sure, the Republicans were whining about it, but the Democrats had successfully fought that back in 2006. The politician who is most worried about attacks on his national security credentials and who has a stake in not having this be a thorny issue during his first term and who would possibly want to have these powers at his own disposal isn't Nancy Pelosi. (He's also the guy who has to exert his power in the Party after a very close primary race. He can't put up with being sandbagged on something he really cares about)

Anyway, this is how Democrats always run for national office. Republicans are action, Dems are reaction, particularly when it comes to national security. They've already pounded Obama very hard for his debate statement that he'd talk to foreign dictators and the campaign knows that's just the beginning. The "Muslim terrorist" drumbeat is all about making people feel uncomfortable with this exotic new guy's ability to keep the country safe. Reacting to that by showing "strength" on issues like this is a choice I think the Democrats probably don't have to make this time out --- the Republican party is so damaged that I think their usual schtick isn't going to work --- but it's hardly surprising.

This FISA compromise was orchestrated by Pelosi and Hoyer personally. It was not a conspiracy of Blue Dogs, as much as Hoyer may want people to believe it. There's too much at stake in this election for the Dems to be doing end runs around the nominee and they know it.

While Digby's theory has some plausibility - Obama does want to avoid being attacked as "weak" on national security - I don't buy it. In fact, the closer I look, the more I'm convinced that Hoyer actually stabbed Obama in the back - and slit some BlueDog throats at the same time, possibly even his own. Here's why:

First, the bill is very divisive within the Democratic caucus. Why would Obama want to start a civil war within his own party?

Second, the most vehement Congressional opponents of the bill were liberal Obama supporters like Robert Wexler. Why would Obama want to screw his most devoted supporters, while rewarding BlueDogs like Dan Boren who refuse to endorse him? 

Third, the most vehement grassroots opponents of the bill were the Netroots - the very people Obama is counting on to deliver massive amounts of cash in lieu of public financing. Why would he want to piss us off - especially now, when he's actually trailing Team McCain, before we've started giving the $300 million in general election money that he needs from us?

I believe Hoyer cut this deal with Republicans to help his beloved BlueDogs, not to help Obama. But because it was an incredibly stupid deal, I believed he screwed both Obama and the BlueDogs and ultimately himself.

What did the BlueDogs get out of Hoyer's deal? 

First, they get to vote with Bush, which plays well with Bush's dead-enders in their district. But what value does that have?

Those dead-enders are below 30% nationally, and below 40% in BlueDog swing districts. And by definition those dead-enders will never vote for a Democrat, no matter how conservative he tries to be. Worse, this vote alienates the Democratic "base" who actually do vote for BlueDogs, as well as persuadable NRA-type conservatives who see warrantless wiretapping as Big Government Gone Wild.

Second, they get to avoid attacks from Freedom's Watch, the neocon-run 527 funded by billionaire Sheldon Adelson which is spending its millions on Congressional races, not the Presidential race. But what value does that have? Incumbent Republican Nancy Johnson (CT-05) ran pro-wiretapping ads against Chris Murphy in 2006 but lost.

Third, they get to pocket telecom and other corporate cash, worth a few thousand dollars. But at what cost?

Politically, the bill painted Obama into a corner. To avoid being "weak" on terrorism (see above), he cannot aggressively fight the bill, so he wrote the lousy statement that he did. But his lousy statement immediately alienated progressives.

And the timing couldn't be worse! Obama just rejected $85 million in public funds so he could raise $300 million from small donors who are overwhelmingly progressive. Even if Obama loses just 1% of that by refusing to fight FISA, that's $3 million - perhaps 100 times what the telecoms will give Hoyer and his BlueDogs.

So it's clear Hoyer stabbed Obama in the back - time will tell how deep the wound is. But in the process, Hoyer stabbed his own BlueDogs in the back too. How?

First, BlueDogs like John Barrow (GA12) are now the primary targets of outraged progressive activists. In one day, we raised $1,176 for Barrow's opponent, Regina Thomas. And we're fundraising newbies compared to Blue America and other progressive blogs. Just wait until they decide to throw their weight behind Thomas to send Hoyer a message by ending Barrow's career!

Second, the BlueDogs are actually the biggest potential beneficiaries of Obama's surplus cash! If Obama's fundraising is weak, he'll spend it in the purple states like Ohio and Florida. But if progressive small donors give Obama the huge amounts he hopes to raise, he will expand the playing field into red states like North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Indiana, and Texas - where most BlueDogs live!

Steny sold the Democratic "base" out for a small amount of corporate cash, but it was a stupid political deal to cut. And if there's any justice, it will cost BlueDogs some seats - starting with John Barrow's on July 15 - and ultimately end Hoyer's corrupt political career.