I know how hard it is for people posting on this site to read the whole of a person's post, and not just pick out things they want to attack somebody about. So please, though I realize that this plea falls on deaf ears, read all of my post before bringing up Jackie Robinson or whatever it is you need to talk about.

This is another great piece by Glenn. King is one of the most unctious know-nothings on cable tv today--the free ride McConnel is getting in the media is worth documenting. Thanks.

However. I have one small bone to pick. Either because of ignorance or for being over-critical, I can't figure out why Glenn never refers to Obama's odd voting record on these FISA bills, even while congratulating him on taking principled stands. Yes, he did vote for the ammendment by Dodd, but he left before the vote on the actual bill came up. That he needed to go out and campaign is not a good argument; the vote is an important one, and he knew it was coming, and, it may be impolite to say so, he is for chris-sakes a senator representing his state of Illinois. My understanding is that he also failed to vote on the bill extension last year.

I think democrats should in fact be commended when they overcome the cowardice that seems endemic to their ideology. However, touting only the positive while ignoring the negative gives a false picture. Shouldn't we be vigilant so that we can hold our next Democratic candidate to higher standards?

Finally, Obama's commentary on Nader was shameful. Have we already forgotten that the Democratic party trumped Democracy by using huge amounts of cash and legal obstacles to keep Nader off the voting rolls in many states in 2004? Have we forgotten that Kerry voted for the resolution giving Bush the right to go to war in Iraq? Have we forgotten that Kerry was talking about invading Iraq as early as 1998?

There are a lot of things Obama gets wrong, and they are just as serious as the ones he gets right.

Hi all, I posted this earlier, but was hoping people could engage on some of the topics I'm bringing up. Obama does take some stances that are commendable--and certainly in my book--welcome. And its good that they are highlighted, especially in contrast to the cowardly actions of our democratic representatives. I do believe that he is playing both sides of the street however. Here is a section of something I posted earlier today. Please read all of it, and don't respond to just one sentence that pissed you off.

...

However. I have one small bone to pick. Either because of ignorance or for being over-critical, I can't figure out why Glenn never refers to Obama's odd voting record on these FISA bills, even while congratulating him on taking principled stands. Yes, he did vote for the ammendment by Dodd, but he left before the vote on the actual bill came up. That he needed to go out and campaign is not a good argument; the vote is an important one, and he knew it was coming, and, it may be impolite to say so, he is for chris-sakes a senator representing his state of Illinois. My understanding is that he also failed to vote on the bill extension last year.

I think democrats should in fact be commended when they overcome the cowardice that seems endemic to their ideology. However, touting only the positive while ignoring the negative gives a false picture. Shouldn't we be vigilant so that we can hold our next Democratic candidate to higher standards?

Finally, Obama's commentary on Nader was shameful. Have we already forgotten that the Democratic party trumped Democracy by using huge amounts of cash and legal obstacles to keep Nader off the voting rolls in many states in 2004? Have we forgotten that Kerry voted for the resolution giving Bush the right to go to war in Iraq? Have we forgotten that Kerry was talking about invading Iraq as early as 1998?

There are a lot of things Obama gets wrong, and they are just as serious as the ones he gets right.

You Said: This is the only thing that google presented. Is there something else he said that we should know about?

My goodness. I did a google search and found a lot more than that. There is also no reason to believe that Gore would have been a very different president than Bush on the Iraq war, given the incredible capitulations to Bush on the Iraq war, it seems the war was inevitable. Nader's point was not that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, but that there was little difference. If you look at the conduct of the democratic party--especially around FISA--I can't see how you could argue against. Lastly, my point: The Democratic party used millions of dollars to keep a grassroots third party candidate off the ballot in 2004. To dismiss that person as a "perennial" candidate, after the party you represent manipulated wealth, priveledge and political connections to stifle democracy is offensive to say the least.

You Said: As far as Obama's record on FISA goes, one has to only note that it's Dodd who's no longer in the race to realize that what we're getting is about as good as we can hope for until we've done a better job of informing the electorate on why this all matters.

I thought that's what Nader was doing; and he's dong it on network television.