This has it exactly right (posted by bearpaw above, but worth repeating) -

The one thing about an Obama victory we will be able to take some comfort from is that -- I hope -- the administration may actually pay a little attention to the people, rather than just totally ignoring us. So all our noises may actually have some effects then, unlike it usually does now. But we will have to keep making noises.

Glenn is extremely right to make noises.

However, I don't think Glenn is saying "neither candidate is perfect, so throw up your arms and sit out the election".

Any criticism of a Democrat seems to provoke a million "I have never been so disillusioned, sob, I have to let the Republican win" type of responses.

Who could have been a more disillusioning Democrat than Bill Clinton? Yet look at the difference between having Clinton as president versus having Bush as president.

Note that all Obama has done is endorsed a candidate who endorsed him (an act of some decency for a Georgia politician). Obama has indirectly weakened his own opposition to warrantless wiretapping. That is different from aggressively promoting it.

With McCain, warrantless wiretapping and a lot worse is guaranteed. With Obama, some or all of it is likely to get better. McCain openly supports the policy in question. Obama opposes it, but did not take his opposition to the level of opposing a primary-challenged incumbent, during his own presidential election year. There is a difference.

If you want a third, even better choice, more power to you. Work your a$$ off and support the most progressive candidate who can win at every level (which may included ignoring Obama's endorsement in this primary).

However, there is no third choice at the presidential level this year, and if you contribute directly or indirectly to a McCain victory, then quite frankly, you are not opposing warrantless wiretapping as strongly as you could.

The response by won'tgetfooledagain saying Obama is "the worst choice of Presidential candidates in 50 years" says quite a bit about the lack of some historical perspective on this issue. This is a horrible fact to learn about Obama, but let's not forget some of the presidential candidates of the past 50 years: George W Bush (do I really need to continue after that), Barry Goldwater!, Richard Nixon!, Ronald Reagan!, Bob Dole!, and the latest sludgeling up from the primordial ooze - John McCain!

Later in the post, won'tgetfooledagain says, "I pray for a viable third party candidate. Where is Ross Perot."

'Nuff said

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Obama is supporting a Georgia blue dog who supports Bush's illegal wiretapping and calls for telecom immunity because it is politically expedient (at least in Georgia with the Obama push for a "new electoral map") to do so. This is change?

As I said previously this week, I am beginning to wonder why I vote Democratic. Perhaps I project my hopes for change upon a party that seems to just not give a damn any more. Perhaps it's time that I stop doing that.

First, this item that you have bravely reported does not make him part of a duo that I feel represents the worst choice in 50 years, but his pretensions to be a different kind of politician are what gave him the opportunity to win the nomination. After all, that is what his candidacy was supposed to represent.

He is a bad candidate, because he is a phony and he has lambasted the Clinton years until he got into the general election phase, he promised to renegotiate NAFTA until now, and he has no record of accomplishment or principled stands to run on.

If the Republican choice were a good one then he and McCain together would not warrant that title.

I should have titled my first post: The dangers of voting for someone with very little record.

His antiwar speech was not going to cost him in his only election at the time for US Senate, and his record since then is ambiguous, having stated that he does not know how he would have voted had he been in the US Senate at the time, and he has risked no political capital by voting for war funding each time he has had the opportunity.

Yesterday, I called Steny Hoyers office, and explained to the gentleman who answered that no one was fooled by his claim that Hoyer has always been against immunity, and that it is time for Dems in Congress to support the people who put them there, not corporations. I also left a message for Nancy Pelosi.

As someone who has worked hard on Obama's campaign in a couple of states, I'm very disappointed to hear about his endorsement of Barrow. You're absolutely right that he needs pressure, and I'll be making that phone call today. Thanks for the heads up.

The question Obama's supporters have to ask is (and I am one of them), if the presumptive Democratic Nominee for POTUS will not stand up and protect the Constitution against something as odious as the proposed FISA redux before the election, will he be likely to do so when the pressure is off once he's sitting in the Oval Office? The honest answer is...maybe. But this kind of political prestidigitation with Rep Barrow should give his supporters pause. I'll be calling his office. You should, too.

Thanks for digging this up, Glenn.

While Congress is busy shredding the Constitution, all the media outlets can not help themselves to talk about offshore drilling. Very timely, Bush makes news demanding the end of the moratorium and the media dutifully follows the shiny object while ignoring this ominous FISA vote.

The deck is stacked.

Would have been better. Just chalk it up as a loss.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

The gods know Obama isn't perfect, but if you actually think he'd be the same as the old boss, you really haven't been paying attention.

I called my rep's office but the staffer couldn't look it up without the number. The legislative director was conveniently out of the office, so without the number she couldn't tell me how the rep was going to vote.