You are behaving like a rightwing asshole. I do not tolerate people like you.

Suck it up, Sweetie!

Seriously, how old are you?

Honey-bunch, you do not want to get into a "leftier than thou" credential match with me. I've been to a Democratic Convention, Sweetcakes, working for the insurgent candidate in that race. I've served as a chair of a convention committee, arguing for progressive principles every step of the way. I've marched and demonstrated and written against the Iraq War (and that one before it, now, what was it called? Probably before your time).

You are obviously a political neophyte who understands nothing about core progressive principles. Naifs like you are responsible for disasters like Nader in 2000, and now, Obama. Which is ironic. We were supposed to vote for Nader because there was "no difference between Bush and Gore" (what a load of crap), and now we are supposed to support Obama, regardless of what he says and does, because, well, I don't know. He's not McCain. Making your argument a "lesser of two evils" one at best.

Obama is not a progressive. He never was, and your projection of your naive, unformed and uneducated notions onto him is a clear signal of how little you understand both politics and principles.

Obama supporters like you were what turned me off of Obama - though not in the first place. His lack of experience, neo-liberal economic advisors and bad environmental platform influenced me before insulting little twerps like you, with your weird religious commitment to an empty suit.

I'd get past my annoyance at people like you if Obama bothered to stand for anything I cared about. But his craven cave on FISA goes way beyond anything I can accept.

Suck it up, Sweetie.

It's the Constitution, dummy.

Where to start?

Betraying the Constitution is not some small compromise that one can and should live with. Criticizing the Democratic nominee who has done so is not an example of uncompromising and foolish revolutionary romanticism.

This is a betrayal of core democratic - both small "d" and big "D" - principles.

Obama was never a progressive and the delusions of some of his supporters on this very basic reality is something I've had a hard time understanding.

Still, I could support Obama, albeit unenthusiastically, even if I felt he were the "lesser of two evils," if he stood firm on a few fundamentals. I'm not asking for a lot here. Just standing up for the Constitution. Basic stuff.

But no.

Meanwhile, Hillary is STILL being excoriated, even though she was the more progressive of the two. She gets crap for doing the right thing in the FISA vote. "She would have voted the same way as Obama if she were the nominee."

I call bullsh**. Suppositions like that have no basis in reality; they are a way of avoiding the cognitive dissonance of passionately supporting a candidate whose real stands don't match his True Believer's idealization of him.

Yeah, we can go back to AUMF (it always goes back to AUMF). I was one of those people marching on 2/03. I knew giving Bush any authority would end in disaster, and I was disgusted with the Democrats who voted for AUMF. I still think it was a horrendous decision. But Bush would have gone to war regardless of how Dems voted on AUMF. And most of the Dems voting on AUMF were not voting to go to war. They were voting to give the WH authority that they should not have given the White House, but what they were actually voting for was far short of an endorsement of a unilateral war. I get the impulse to demonstrate that one was strong on national security after 9/11. What I don't get is how any thinking person would believe that George Bush would use this sanction of increased authority wisely. I for one knew that he would not.

Regardless, Hillary's speech on AUMF is instructive. IT is not the warmongering speech that her haters like to pretend it is.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

There is no ambiguity in this vote for the new FISA bill. The entire bill, not just the disputed telecom immunity language, is a shredding of the 4th Amendment and of its implied right of privacy. Moreover, this vote comes in a time when Bush is THE most unpopular President since Nixon. Voting for this bill isn't simply a crime against the Constitution, it is politically stupid, and unnecessary.

I don't get it.

And AKA Smith, I heart you. You are fighting the good fight here.

between political compromise and a betrayal of core principles. The Constitution is about as "core" as it gets.

Clinton voted against this atrocious bill, and those who say, "well, she would have done the same as Obama if she were the nominee" are engaging in the worst kind of wishful speculation.

As for Clinton's AUMF vote, I suggest the following links:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html (full text)

I disagreed with her vote as well, but given Obama supporters' acceptance of "nuance," they might want to take a closer look.

and "the perfect is the enemy of the good." However, some things are bottom-line issues. The Constitution is one for me, and Obama's flip on FISA is far from trivial.

Choosing a "pro-life" running mate is pretty hard to get past as well.