"I may even join you, depending on what it is you come up with besides angry exhortations and criticisms of everyone else."

That is, if you aren't too busy copying-and-pasting six pages of tangentially related articles many of us have already read into Glenn's comments section.

Contacted Obama campaign by way of campaign's phone number: (866) 675-2008 per Glenn's suggestion. Push 6 then 0 to speak to a live person. They are uninformed at this time but I was promised a return answer as soon as possible. Obama'a staff member did not know about Barrow or the campaign to oust Barrow or what Barrow's record has been. I expressed my concern and confusion. I fortunately am not ashamed of being confused, snarky comments about confusion are counterproductive and stop people from asking questions. I would like to hear what Obama has to say about the criticism before going off about his intentions. I spoke with Obama's Washington senate office and they did not know Obama's current position on the upcoming vote but reiterated his vote against amnesty in the last FISA bill. I registered my concerns.

To the comment's about Rep. John Lewis of Atlanta, Georgia, Lewis's voting record is a progressive primer in voting for constituents needs and supporting the constitution. He is an incumbent we can be proud of. And in my shameless bloody red state he has been an exemplary liberal and unyielding fighter for the truth. When I called his Washington office yesterday (I call often about issues and upcoming votes) his staffer told me about the Congress Daily, an ongoing journal of congressional activities that is very helpful, and we talked about FISA and Barrow. His office staff has always been responsive and informed. In the interest of full discloser I do not work for him or his campaign.

Given your prior prognostication track record, don't you think we'd all be better served (you, especially) if you knocked it off?

Scratch a 'progressive' Democrat, get a centrist/rightist in the bargain! An openness to vouchers, uncritical support of ethanol, support for the Likunik position on Isreael, now backing any rightist Democrat ... we are going to have a very long list before this election campaign is over.

Hope the Blue Dog gets knocked off.

I'm a realist about "realism". I'm cool with some wheeling and dealing for the greater good, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Realism in the service of a great principle is one thing. But if war crimes and fundamental rights aren't where you draw the line, then you simply don't have a line.

It is abominable that Congress is even considering doing anything other than extending FISA until the next President and Congress take office. That's a given.

It is extraordinarily unfortunate that Obama is not more actively seeking to prevent Congress from enacting retroactive telecom immunity, for this concept is despicable and has no legitimate place in American law. Wish this wasn't happening.

But there is nothing worse than the idea of Obama not being elected our next president, as a practical matter.

Question: if the worst thing about the FISA situation right now is the retroactive immunity matter (visualize the possibility that a President Obama might even rein in surveillance abuses by Executive Order, or that a new Congress might limit procedural excesses), is there any other hope for the American people to ever have recourse against bad actors for warrantless wiretapping? What if Obama somehow believes that extended litigation against those who colluded with the President to be somehow not in the country's best interests? I disagree with that vehemently, but suppose that's the motivation. Is there some other avenue available for vindication of the American people?

Articles 24 and 25 of the pending Articles of Impeachment specifically define the Bush warrantless telecom spying programs as unconstitutional acts warranting the impeachment of the President. Those articles are at these links:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/progress/dk_aoi_bush/aoi_xxiv.php

http://www.impeachbush.tv/progress/dk_aoi_bush/aoi_xxv.php

Glenn, as I understand it, the pending FISA amendment would immunize the telecoms from civil or criminal liability. But the amendment would not immunize the President from impeachment for creating this illegal program and giving these felonious reassurances to telecoms, is that limited point correct?

Maybe the focus could possibly be effectively directed, even in the present public debate (such as it is), to at least mention the fact that the "exculpatory act" this FISA amendment erects for the telecoms (i.e., receiving a false reassurance from the President) may mean the telecoms were "only following ze orders", but the guy giving them the orders was a felon. What Congress is talking about "immunizing" telecoms for is what Congress could also be talking about impeaching the President for; the most important "wrong" here is by no means the telecoms following the order, it is the President giving it and fighting to maintain it. If I understand it correctly, the "national security" arguments used to dismiss the government from the lawsuits would not necessarily hold up in an impeachment proceeding in Congress, correct?

The battle doesn't have to be conceded because Obama is endorsing a first term congressman for re-election, even though that's most unfortunate in this instance.

Cynic that I am about politicians I have been doing something unusual for me: I've been wearing a large Obama campaign button attached to my backpack, on the transit system, to work, and so on. When I';ve encountered news of Obama doing something I disagreed with I've simply reminded myself that I won't agree with everything he does, and that some things must be done for political expediency.

But supporting a blue dog against a progressive is unacceptable. What good is a Democratic majority if the Democrats are DINOS?

I removed the button and tossed it in the trash. I'll still vote for Obama, or more accurately, against McCain, but I am not so naive as to expect greatness from an Obama administration. I'm just trying to limit the damage.

Given the events of the past 8 years, beginning with Bush v. Gore, and ongoing (including the two-party government aligning against public interest to cover-up illegal surveillance of the citizenry), it begs the question: Exactly what would it take to engender mistrust in politicians like Obama? Or put another way: Precisely what is it about your experience of the last 8 years that has preserved your faith in the system that has produced Obama?

No, I'm not talking about voting McCain, and neither am I talking about giving up . . . or lighting the fires of revolution. I'm talking about a robust and tenacious skepticism - of every politician, regardless of party and regardless of how much promise he or she claims to represent.

While I understand why Obama appears to be the best hope, I even accept that he may actually be the best hope, in the circumstances, I cannot fathom why one wouldn't hope for the best, but expect the worst...and act accordingly.

This "don't criticize or pin down 'The Candidate' until after 'we' gain power" mindset is chilling - and absolutely no different from what I've seen and heard from fawning Bush acolytes/apologists over the past 8 years.

Seriously. What would it take to make "you" (you know who you are) assume the worst? Because clearly the events of the past 8 years weren't sufficient. I shudder to think what it would take.