For that report from the ground there, the danger of not fighting politics with politics and all the other observations on the nature of all politics being local, etc.

All that said, the history of the 12th offers a highly pertinent, ironic lesson on the dangers of not fighting politics with politics....

So in the context of Georgia politics, Barrow's ability to hold his seat represents more than just another surplus Democratic congressman in Washington. In the long run, the Party itself in Georgia is so wounded that they can't afford to lose another district. I'm not saying that the telecom bill, or for that matter, the constitution, isn't important. I'm just saying there's a big, local picture here that needs to be acknowledged. Turning a deaf ear to the electorate is what got the Democrats in big trouble in Georgia in the first place, and it will take many, many years to undo the damage.

-- Tina Trent

In his new book "The Uprising," Sirota talks about the real political paradigm in America, and it ain't Liberal/Conservative or Democrat/Republican. As this FISA battle and the entire Bush-enabling Congress has shown us, those demarcations are for window dressing only.

Sirota says America's two parties are actually "The Money Party" and "The People's Party." So when this recent FISA initiative begins bringing together the ACLU with Ron Paul supporters and others, we are watching those bits of iron as they begin to fly to the magnet ends.

The uprising, according to Sirota, will come from the joining of forces from the "left" and "right," "liberal" and "conservative." And because of our numbers, we can be a "money party" too.

All of this to say: Gone to Act Blue FISA page and given yet?

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

The bill would let a federal district court determine if the telecommunications companies received lawful orders from the government asking them to place wiretaps. If so, the lawsuits would be dismissed.

How can you receive "lawful orders" to conduct unlawful activities?

The mind boggles.

...will only come about with something on the lines of a General Strike as advocated by MLK.

The only thing Obama is going to transform is the face of this destructive system. Its functions and goals will remain unchanged.

sCREW THIS SITE. yOU WIN. i'M GONE

...within yet another box. That's how I view the Democrats. It starts out, they couldn't do "A" because of "B". Then, oh my gosh, they couldn't do "C" because of "D". Then, just when it looks like "E" is on its way, here comes "F" and they're back to square one. I'm starting to think they just plain don't want to do it. I just can't wait to see what keeps them from doing "Z" (I think they're up to "Z" by now) come January when they run both Congress and the White House. But I'm sure I'll find out.

He was very nice, very sympathetic. He said that Obama was opposed to the bill. I said he should be leading the fight, etc., not supported the likes of Barrow. He said they were getting flooded with calls, most through this site, and the message was getting through. I said I realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good, but that in this case, it is not even politically practical to stay out of the lead on this issue.

Let's see.

Just a brief update: Steny "Stainy Whore" Hoyer is feeling the heat: the majority Leader's website has scrubbed the office phone number from the site.

That number, should you want to let Stainy know how you feel about his disgusting scheme, is 202-225-3130. And let them know that scrubbing contact phone numbers is cowardly.

Please, call Obama NOW!

And if you've already called, call again!

Word is, Vote is Friday!

(866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu]

How can you receive "lawful orders" to conduct unlawful activities?

The history of American politics has been about those with good intentions having to compromise with knuckle-dragging bigots in order to keep worse things from happening.

That is why the U.S. had slavery for the first ninety years.

This is another such compromise. We're talking about Georgia, remember--a state where triple-amputee war veteran Max Cleland was beaten by a Republican labelling him a friend of terrorists.

Obama needs as many Democrats in the House and Senate as he can get--otherwise he'll be a lame duck president. (Remember, Republicans only need 50% plus one to get stuff done, but Democrats need a filibuster-proof majority.) To do that, he needs to make some ugly compromises. Just as FDR did to get the New Deal, just as Washington and Jefferson and Madison did to get the Constitution passed.

Imagine if Obama backed the progressive (btw in the conservative south "progressive" rhymes with "Communist") black candidate against the right-wing white guy. Imagine how the Republicans would spin that in Georgia, and imagine where that would send Georgia's electoral votes.

Am I defending Obama? Yes, I am--if "defending" means recognizing that he has chosen the lesser of two very evil evils. I don't like what he chose to do but I am reasonably confident that he felt he had to do it to prevent something worse from happening on a strategic level. I also--and this is key--I also am quite confident that he is really, really unhappy about having to make that choice. Those of us in private life have the luxury of sticking to our principles. Let's cut the guy some slack.

Glenn: As several people here have suggested, it's a reasonable possibility that Obama endorsed Barrow because he and his people believe that Thomas won't be able to win the general election, thus they feel that Barrow has to get the nomination in order to keep a Democrat in that House seat. Now, you can be skeptical about whether or not this is Obama's thinking here, and you can certainly argue that this is a bad strategy, but, Glenn, you haven't even considered it. It would be extremely helpful if you assessed this possibility realistically, rather than plainly accusing anyone who even raises it of being blindly loyal to Obama, which, by the way, is a good example of viewing your readers through a Manichean lens.

Anyway, I'm left wondering whether you actually believe that having a Republican win that House seat would be no better than having Barrow re-elected. Is that the case?