Thus far I've been willing to wait and see what our Democratic nominee might do in reaction to the House's capitulation. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But after reading Glenn's account of the patronizing statements by an Obama official on the conference call, I'm seriously considering what I would have thought inconceivable only two weeks ago: voting third party.

I've never been a one-issue voter, but this whole deal just makes me want to vomit. If a politician can't commit to upholding the Constitution, what exactly can he/she be trusted with?

If he cared, Obama could use his position as the nominee to completely derail this thing. With two words - "I'm filibustering" - he could wreak havoc on Hoyer's detestable political calculus. But it looks like he'll dissemble along with the rest.

I've had all I can take of Democrats' collective pusillanimous pussyfooting. I'm not interested in being complicit in creating a half-assed, pallid "republic" where I have to beg politicians not to take away my civil rights, and where my party is interested in nothing but appeasing corporate interests and the far right. If crypto-fascist autocracy is the future of America, then let's just go ahead and get it done without all the pretense of these odious "Democrats".

I live in a swing state, and I guess I have a lot of thinking to do.

It always surprises me - the way things like a candidate's hairdo somehow become a symbol for his masculinity or lack thereof. Like everything Pawlenty does, I'm sure his mullet was purposefully crafted for political effect.

But isn't paying such great attention to appearance supposed to be at least slightly gay? I wonder how Pawlenty's odious supporters reconcile this. So Tim's attention to his 'do is okay, but John Edwards is the "Breck Girl" for doing the same. I know Tim's is "hockey hair" and all, but still - hair as the marker of toughness? I'm sure these people don't have the slightest idea how very gay that is.

Amity wrote:

"The idea that MoveOn — that unrepentantly confrontational bete noir of the Democratic Leadership Council, for whose bigwigs Lind has written in the past —"

And yet, I received an email from Moveon yesterday telling me that, despite his FISA sellout, it was still really, really, really important to elect Obama - basically because we could trust him to do the right thing. An incredible statement given that Obama had voted to void the 4th Amendment less than 24 hours earlier. "Unrepentantly confrontational"? How?

Isn't this a perfect example of the phenomenon Lind is describing? That there is no shit so-called liberals will not eat if it means ruining their "housebroken" reputation? Rather than raising hell for civil liberties, they're just saying, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" Behaving like an abused spouse is no way to earn respect.

I think the most gutsy thing Moveon could have done was to retract its endorsement from Obama in light of his patently dishonest dissembling.

Glenn, I'm wondering if you're aware of any evidence regarding a relationship between FISA and Obama's recent lack of success in attracting donations. It may simply be a function of the resolution of the contest between him and Clinton, but I'd be curious to know if there were any data available connecting his FISA betrayal with a slackening of the money flow.

It seems to me that Obama has - irrespective of the principles he's betrayed - sullied his brand. There's typically a price to be paid for that, though I suppose it all depends on whether the broad public is adequately tuned in. (Not so much at this point, I would think.) Then again, it's also possible that it will play out over time to his detriment.

That giant sucking sound is the evaporation of the intensity of Obama's support among liberals - those who are most responsible for his success - following his capitulation on FISA.

Shapiro's invoking of the Carter example is telling. I hope (and believe) that Obama will win, but I have to confess that, whereas before I'd hoped he'd win in a landslide, now I'm actually wishing for a squeaker. I want to see him sweat, along with the people who mindlessly support him whatever he does. It's the difference between pulling for someone you really like versus holding your nose and choosing the lesser of two evils.

Moreover, I have no real argument for people similar to me who decide to vote third party, because Obama has proven that there is no principle too sacred to be sacrificed to his ambition.

The neocons who constantly hold up Putin as an example of the worst the world has to offer can never answer the question: how different are Bush and Putin, after all?

They are both authoritarians, they've both supported the restriction of civil liberties in their respective countries, and they both claim religious faith.

One important difference between Bush and Putin, however, is that it can be argued that the latter has actually acted in his country's best economic interests. Bush, on the other hand, appears to be our generation's Herbert Hoover (without Hoover's intelligence), watching, dumbfounded, while the economy teeters.

More than anything, though, it was probably Putin's renationalizing of Russian oil reserves that gave the U.S. media their cue to start villainizing him.

As a side note - here's another dumb editorial praising Obama's "move to the center" on FISA. This writer uses every cliche Glenn describes, including the most hoary one of all: this is what Americans want!

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/25483649.html?location_refer=Commentary