Nothing can pass without a senate vote. Obama, with help from Clinton (and from Dodd and Biden who also vowed to stop retroactive immunity during the campaign) can keep a vote on any bill that contains immunity from happening.

He's the nominee friend. That carries a tad more weight than his Jr. Senator status.

If he were to follow the course you seem to think he will follow then he's nothing more than another capitulationist Democrat. If that is the case then all the rhetoric about change is nothing but old fashioned sloganeering.

Who cares what the Republicans will say? They will say it either way! Have you not noticed that is what Republicans always do?

You may recall the reason the "smart crowd" like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and many others went along with the Iraq war authorization was so that the Republicans couldn't use it against them in the election the following month. And of course, the Republicans still used it against them as though they were opposed and voted against the invasion. How much different things would be today had they had the presence of mind and the courage to do what they knew was right instead of playing the "smart" political move eh? Now is another one of those times. Obama has nothing to lose by doing the right thing, but our country has much to lose if he does not stand up now--when it is difficult and do the right thing.

As I just posted elsewhere, in theory the Senate could block Steney Hoyer's FISA "compromise."
There doesn't even need to be a filibuster.
Reid can keep it from even coming to a vote.
He's already expressed misgivings about the "compromise" bill, suggesting he'll vote against it.
But that's just covering his ass, since he has the power to actually block it.
Meanwhile, Feingold, Wexler, Leahy and Dodd are among those expressing strong opposition. Feingold accurately called it "a capitulation, not a compromise."
But rememember, this same Democrat-led Senate passed an earlier bill (which later died) granting limited telecom immunity.
As for the House, Pelosi appears to be holding her nose on Hoyer's bill. She previously called for the issue to be resolved by July 4.
She may vote no on the bill, but clearly won't do anything to block it.
Obama's silence (so far) suggests something shocking: that he too may have been kept out of the loop on what Hoyer was actually agreeing to.
Given the way the players are lining up -- Bush White House and DLC types on one side, progressives and quasi-progressives on the other -- this is indeed a crucial test for Obama.
The fact he and his team have been so slow to comment suggests a heated internal debate.
I think it's a given he'll vote no if and when this comes to the Senate floor.
The big question is whether he'll publicly use his newfound clout to pressure Reid into blocking it.
He doesn't want to suffer his first Senate defeat before even becoming president. But he also doesn't want to cave on an obvious issue of principle.
This past week, he's been studiously courting the "moderate" -- read craven chickenshit -- congressional Democrats.
Now, this looks like a shot across his bow to indicate he needs to pay these scum yet more obeisance.
The message is: piss off your most enthusiastic netroots backers, or piss off us powers-that-be.
A hard choice. I hope he makes the right one.

It's the life story of the Democrats, sadly.

Neither Obama nor Clinton can simply kill the bill. That's why you run for President.

As much as this sucks as policy, the truth is the future is more important than the past. Immunity for past acts is less important than whether we discontinue this policy for the future. When power changes hands, policy will change.