Whatever.

It's a free country. Vote for whomever you want, or don't vote at all. Boycott a viable candidate with almost identical political beliefs to Clinton, just because you can. There's no law that says you have to be rational in the voting booth.

Just don't be such a freaking exhibitionist about it.

Obama simply can't afford to oppose this bill. The attack ad would practically write itself:

Our government told them that they were protecting the American people from another 9/11. The phone companies cooperated. Wouldn't you? But BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA wants to let his trial lawyer friends sue the phone companies for millions. If Obama gets his way, what will they do next time? Call Barack Hussein Obama and tell him that protecting the American people is more important than helping his friends get rich.

I think we can hope for that Obama will find some happy medium between accommodating every whim of the GOP and committing political suicide. It is one thing to argue, as Obama did, that going to Iraq wouldn't make us safer. It is quite another to argue that wiretapping terrorists' calls doesn't make us safer. I know that last point isn't really what the current controversy is about, but with the help of the compliant media the GOP would have no problem framing it that way.

Is Obama New and Improved? I don't know. But if the public doesn't buy a product(to follow your analogy), it doesn't matter how good it is.

I do hope that this crummy "compromise" fails, but I can forgive Obama for not being the one to block it.

There are two issues here one that need to be separated. One is whether the FISA bill is a bad bill. The other is whether Obama is now a terrible person because he voted for it.

I think we all agree about the bill, so I'll focus on Obama's role. The bill passed by a vote of 69 to 28 -- that's a margin of 18 votes. The cloture vote was 72 to 26 -- that's a margin of 12 votes. Obama's individual vote made no difference to the outcome. He could not have filibustered the bill if he wanted to.

Let's say that Obama had voted the "right" way on cloture and final bill. The bill still would have passed by a wide margin. The only difference would have been that Obama would have handed the GOP a potent weapon against him in the election.

Politics is about the art of the possible. It was not possible to block the bill. It is still possible for Obama to win.

As a Clinton supporter, I will now be accepting the apologies of you Obama fanatics.

If I apologize for Obama's inconsequential FISA vote, will you apologize for Clinton screwing up universal healthcare?

Shouldn't a bill that "plainly violates the Fourth Amendment" be overturned in court?

I think between now and November the Salonistas will forgive Obama. At least enough to vote for him.

[Clinton] proposed universal health care, twice, while Obama left out 15-25 million Americans.

The problem with this argument is that Clinton never really explained what she was going to do to people who simply chose not to have health insurance. There was no way Congress was going to pass a system in which people are forced to buy private health insurance out of their own pockets. It would probably be unconstitutional.

I am for universal healthcare all the way, but the only way it is going to be achieved is if it is paid for by the government. Clinton's plan was doomed to fail (again).

We can eneact laws until the cows come home but if the President is determined to violate the law, what the hell good are they? Especially when Congress refuses to use its powers of impeachment.

I was thinking the same thing. Greenwald has repeatedly suggested that Democrats in Congress are naive to think that will Bush obey the new FISA law, because he knowingly violated the old one. In making this claim, however, he sets up unsolvable legislative problem. Once you assume that the law you are writing is going to be ignored, no possible language in the bill is going to get you of the dilemma.

The way to deal with lawbreaking is to prosecute violators.

In 2000, some political geniuses decided that they may as well vote for Nader because they thought that George W. Bush and Al Gore were practically interchangeable. But they turned out to be pretty freakin' different, didn't they?

Now we hear people saying that Obama is no better than McCain. I hope the movie ends differently this time. I don't want to hear a lot of self-styled "progressives" claiming later that they couldn't possibly have predicted what a right-wing nut McCain would turn out to be.

National Journal: Obama was the liberal member of the US Senate in 2007.

Salon posters: Obama is a fake progressive with no principles.

Which raises the question, just how consistently left-wing does a politician have to be for you guys to acknowledge that he is preferable to a Republican?

you make the assumption that the National Journal is correct...and that is based on what?

Ok, let's say their methodology is flawed. Let's say he was, oh, the 10th most liberal senator. Wouldn't that make him a pretty good deal for the left? When is the last time someone to the left of Obama was actually elected president? FDR, maybe?

I certainly agree with all of your comments about critical thinking. By all means, compare McCain and Obama issue by issue. I just can't believe anyone who would describe themselves as "liberal", "left-wing", or "progressive" would pick McCain over Obama.

There is nothing wrong with picking McCain, as long as you want to overturn Roe vs. Wade, continue the neocon foreign policy, make the health care system even more market-based than it is now, etc.

katetex,

Anyone could write what you wrote about any politician they don't like.