This Stephen Bainbridge article is an excellent exercise in not jumping to conclusions. There is a piece of federal legislation under consideration, and the link that sent me hinted that Attorney Bainbridge is against it. Barack Obama is one of the sponsors, and the legislation is described with paragraphs directly from the Obama campaign.
I read those paragraphs, and the bill made eminent sense to me - it seemed a no-brainer, and I figured that Bainbridge had it wrong this time. Then I read his reasons why he thinks it is very bad legislation. I was embarrassed that I had overlooked some of the points that now seem obvious to me.
Things are usually more obvious after someone explains them, aren't they? Fancy that. It pays to check out both sides.