So much for change. Given your previously stated antagonism toward telecom amnesty and your advocacy of real, meaningful change, I had hoped to see you take a meaningful stand against the anti-American FISA reform bill. The fact that your advocacy has been reduced to "support" of this bill which is criminal in intent and shows naught but willingness to support the all-too common dereliction of duty we see evidenced in our public representation leads me to the conclusion that I can not support you in your bid for the presidency. I would never cast a vote for J. McCain following his unwillingness to vote against torture and, likewise, will not cast a vote for anyone willing to support the virtual (or otherwise) abrogation of the 4th amendment or the advocacy of retroactive amnesty for corporate bodies. I am a natural citizen of these United States of America who has never claimed an affiliation with either political party, and who has not voted for a Presidential candidate since Ross Perot in 1992...In order to avoid the perception that I have not sufficiently established my bona fides as an independent, I still (and due to these events, more than ever) maintain that there is no significant difference between Democratic and Republican candidates for any given office, and given your recent advocacy of John Barrow, I can come to no conclusion but that you are willing to subjugate your intelligence to your political endeavors, and that therefore you are undeserving of my personal, intellectual and financial support. Perhaps this leaves me unrepresented in the great American game of (d)emocracy, but I prefer a jaded understanding of reality to a perpetually disappointed expectation of the future.

firenze419, as a resident of Georgia, I can tell you that we Georgians voted for Obama because we knew that, one bright and sunny day in the future, he'd extend the political career of John Barrow. John Barrow gets elected in '04 and the Dems take control of the House in '06. John Barrow was in public office for most of the 90s but left in 2000. See a pattern? He

• is what Gore and Kerry were lacking! But, luckily for Democrats, Obama picked up on this "Barrow Effect."

I'm actually thrilled to see so many others prove that, for many of us, Obama wasn't a cult of personality. Unlike the "limited government" flip-floppers of the GOP, we actually can think for ourselves and stand up to our leaders.

I hope the broken-hearted are sending off emails and calling campaigns. I'm hitting up Dodd and Feingold too, hoping enough emails will convince them to show Obama something about party leadership. The Barrow thing can't be undone, but Obama still has a chance to undo some of the damage.

how many Saloners are willing to give Obama a pass on an action that the erstwhile Mrs Clinton would be excoriated for?

If Clinton had done this she would be the evil calculating bitchmonster spawned from the blackest level of hell to take over America and turn it into the Seven-Headed-Beast to her Whore of Babylon.

But OBAMA, now he's smart, or just doing what he has to, or whatever...

I'm still bitter about losing, and won't be voting for Barack Obama under any circumstances.

But at least I have the small comfort of being right and knowing that Obama is just another politician, just as we've always said. And that "Change we can Believe in" is little more than a 21st century "Read my Lips".

An exceedingly small comfort indeed when one realises how desperately America needs competent leadership right now and not pretty speeches.

Adnoto,

You are a a small minded, petty and angry fool with delusions of grandeur.

Best of luck with that.

-- L.W.M.

Projecting.

After seeing this headline, "Poll: Presidential Race A Dead Heat -- In Georgia," I think we can all agree that Georgians are already rewarding Obama for sticking up for John Barrow! Imagine, you all thought it was Obama who would carry Barrow through his upcoming election, when in fact it's Barrow who will carry Obama through the presidential election!

Obama deserves credit for the consistency of his inconsistency. Other candidates are hypocritical around the edges, but Barack Obama has made hypocrisy the signature of his political career, without an annoying intermediate phase of even pretending to be anything except "present."

Barak Obama's just another "all fluff, no stuff" political hack. If he really believed in this "change" crap he's always talking about, he'd be leading the fight against the FISA surveillance travesty. He wouldn't just issue pretty-sounding statements.

Similarly, what the hell's he doing supporting a thug like John Barrow in Georgia? Obama's got a great opportunity to prove his "change" bona fides. He could back Barrow's opponent in no uncertain terms, explaining that he can't support a civil liberties-destroying scumbag like Barrow. Why doesn't he?

And don't forget Obama's recent speech to AIPAC. He let the Israel Lobby know that he's firmly on the side of the boys in Tel Aviv--America's interests be damned.

As a dismayed resident of Georgia (though not in Barrow's district--I'm stuck with Biblical scholar Lynn Westmoreland), I'll gladly add my letter-writing and campaign-calling efforts. I actually almost campaigned for Barrow in 2004, given his proximity to Athens and UGA. Although I don't remember much of the speech he gave to the Young Dems back in 2004, I do remember that the seat was rated one of the top potential Democratic pickups (though some redistricting has occurred since then).

The other thing I remember is he jokingly shushed someone--something along the lines of "shh, don't say that too loud"--for mentioning that he graduated from Harvard Law School.

I don't wish to infer too much from that one comment; though, when added to his voting record and his ad boasting about how much of a Democrat he isn't (except in the primaries and when taking money from them), it's reasonably safe to say he's preoccupied with avoiding the "elitist" label. The only aspect which is more troubling to me is the fact that he had the privilege to attend Harvard Law School, one of the most renowned institutions in the world, yet he chooses to use the power, prestige, and knowledge that only a select few are afforded to destroy the Constitution.

It isn't a stretch to say that, given his educational background, he surely understands our legal system. Clearly, then, he's bothered by a much more pressing issue. In fact, I'm supremely confident he'll both gladly change his position regarding the FISA bill *and* make an ad rebuffing any stragglers in his own party, once he realizes this: his belief in the ability of a powerful few to eviscerate the Constitution and the rule of law--solely for the benefit of others among the powerful few--makes him, unmistakably, an "elitist."