Russ Feingold has often come across as a reasonably sensible guy, but something seems to happen to politicians when they are working to see the nominee of their party elected as president.

In thrall to this inexorable political force, Republicans have recently been seen to exhibit a blind and lemming-like obedience to he-whom-they-regard-as-Dear-Leader. Dear Leader walks this earth in many guises. He can stand 5′ 3″ and wear a pompadour. He can be a lying pseudo-Texas sidewinder with the initials G.W.B. He can be a decrepit old man with Congenital Utterly Nasty Tongue syndrome.

And now Feingold seems to have been inspired by this same political force to temporarily abandon common sense entirely. (Or at least we hope it is temporary.)

You may remember Obama’s recent performance on the FISA bill that Dear Leader has just gleefully signed.

One imagines so does Russ Feingold, one of the chief opponents of the bill. Which is what makes Feingold’s performance on MSNBC‘s Countdown on July 9 all the more puzzling:

The people have a right to be disappointed in the Senate’s approval of the new FISA bill, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) told Maddow. However, the best remedy, he said, is a Democratic president, particularly a President Obama.
[...]
Feingold conceded that public disappointment following gains for Democrats in the 2006 elections was understandable, but said that a Democratic president, “in particular, Barack Obama, should allow us to greatly change this mistake.”
[...]
I think he will understand and help take the lead in fixing some of the worst provisions.”

“I do think that people have a right to be disappointed,” he went on, “but they also have a right to hope for change–on this issue, in particular–starting in January.”

Of all the things Feingold might have picked as a reason for supporting Barack Obama, surely the FISA bill is the least convincing? Obama didn’t exactly turn in a distinguished performance here. After having vowed, clearly and bluntly, to oppose telecom immunity, and to support any filibuster of a bill containing telecom immunity, when it was time to put his money behind his magnificent rhetoric, Barack Obama suddenly decided that he just didn’t care all that much about telecom immunity any more. He suddenly embraced vintage Republican talking points and decided that considerations of National Security trumped telecom immunity.

And let’s be clear about this: if Obama, the de facto leader of the Democratic party, had chosen to put his weight behind opposing to telecom immunity, the Democrats might well have been able to strip the provision from the bill. When he chose to look the other way, he essentially guaranteed that telecom immunity was going to go through.

A lot of Obama supporters were outraged at Obama. Eventually Obama decided that he had to address the outrage. A long (and, yes, magnificent sounding) statement was put out. But all that Obama did was trot out his most patronizing tone, treat us like children, tell us how much he loved us and how proud he was of us and how keenly he understood our disappointment. And he never once explained why he had gone back on his previous commitment, what happened to make him change his mind on telecom immunity.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I’m happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples’ attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true — not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I’m not exempt from that. I’m certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States — a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples’ business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

And now Feingold wants us to believe that the Barack Obama who wouldn’t stand by his own word and fight some of the worst provisions of this bill today will somehow be inspired to do so tomorrow after he’s elected.

I guess that would indeed be a new kind of politics—presidential candidate makes promise, presidential candidate breaks promise even before the election, presidential candidate keeps same promise after the election.

Is that change I can believe in? Only when I actually see it.