Obama *must* remain a left-leaning progressive if we are to have any hope of an existing "left."

And so, we have the superdelegates. They are a check against Obama's drift: they can withdraw their support if he abandons his progressive positions. And we can ask them to do so.

-- Juliebird

Unfortunately, Obama is not now nor has he ever been a "left-leaning progressive". Read that Nation article by Sirota GG references in his article. Face it, Obama pulled a masterful bait and switch in the primaries and he doesn't care now if you know it.

As to the superdelegates, just how many of them do you think are progressive/radical enough to pull such a coup against the nominee? There is not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, no matter how nicely you ask them.

There is no question, at least to me, that having Obama beat McCain is vitally important.

In what way is it "vitally important" to have Obama as president over McCain?

Has he given any indication whatsoever that he will govern substantially differently than McCain?

I'll give you that Obama will certainly be a better looking, more articulate president, but I can't for the life of me think of a single heinous thing McCain might do that I trust Obama NOT to do.

"The lesser of two evils" has for too long been the voting strategy of progressives who fall right into line for the politician with the 'D' after their name despite glaringly obvious non-progressive records or a record of shafting the base. (Sherrod Brown comes to mind with his MCA vote)If the progressive community as a whole had just ONCE in the past decided not to stand for it and sat on their asses and allowed the (generic, just name one) DINO to lose as a punishment for this specific reason the Party as a whole might have gotten a clue.

There is a reason Obama feels perfectly at ease in slapping the base around like a bitch. We have behaved like bitches.

In the same way that the outcome of the Bush-Gore 2000 race was vital even though Gore would have been a manager of many of the status quo's standard policies. Before the Iraq war, Gore vehemently opposed the attack on that country. Is that a meaningful difference to you?

Yes indeed, but Obama is no Gore. Gore did not aggressively turn on his base, just for starters. He also never threatened to bomb Pakistan, or work for an undivided Jeruselem.

Do you want Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol running foreign policy?

What guaratees do we have that Lieberman WILL NOT have a part in Obama's foreign policy apparatus? Did Obama not endorse him over Ned Lamont? Besides, I don't view Zbig "Grand Chessgame" Brzezinski as much better.

His endorsement of Scalito's decisions of late do not give me much hope in his SCOTUS nominations, either.

Yes, the differences between Obama and McCain are smaller than I wish they were. But as no less an establishment critic than Noam Chomsky frequently points out, even minute differences at the top of powerful political structures can translate into significant differences in people's lives.

As of right now, the differences are not minute enough to warrant any hope at all that he will be different than McCain in any "vitally important" way.

I said I didn't view Zbig "Grand Chess game" Brezinski as "much better" than Lieberman. I have no indications I should change my view.

What exactly would it take? Just what would he have to do before electing him was no longer a "very important priority?"

-- adnoto

I keep trying to get people to answer that question with no luck. Perhaps when he comes out as anti-choice? and maybe not even then. He's on board with eviscerating the 4th amendment and people seem to be ok with that. (And don't say you are not ok with that if you are still voting for him. If you vote for him you are endorsing his positions.)

So for you to come off with this horse-shit about, "a vote for Obama is a vote for anytime Obama takes a shit on the constitution or anything and everything else that Obama has done of might possibly do is nonsensical and self righteous. Is that really that difficult for you to understand.

-- Kitt

What is difficult for me to understand is why you would vote for a person who would shit on the constitution.

If you vote for a candidate fully cognizant of what he is capable of doing, it makes you responsible for his actions when he actually follows through-because you have given him the power to do so.

You know, kind of like how the Bush dead-enders are responsible for returning him to power even knowing of his corruption and lust for war.

But go ahead, vote for him. I'm sure the fact that you dislike his positions on constitutional rights will stop him from trampling on them.

I think the politeness of which you speak is a function of the Southern setting. Down here, politeness is not only an indicator of good upbringing (Standard reply to rudeness: Didger momma raise you in a barn?), but quite often presents the opportunity for, and at the same time whitewashes, subterfuge and intrigue.

I think Maryann may be the modern day incarnation of Circe. Read the wiki page and see if you agree. Circe is the daughter of Helios, god of the sun, and Jason has been recruited into the Fellowship of the SUN, not SON, indicating the sect may have occult underpinnings instead of Christian. Veddy interesting!

I sure am glad I watched the ep before reading this review Heather. Next time, give a little spoiler warning!