I thought it would require Obama taking the White House before his leftwing white supporters realize he is not as progressive as Hillary Clinton and certainly not as them. One of the reality of American politics is that the leftwing of the Democratic Party is remarkably out of touch with America and who gets elected in this country.

Bill Clinton was deserted by leftwing Democrats over "don't ask don't tell" and welfare reform long before Republicans started impeachment against him. The left went after Carter, whom Obama is most reminiscent.

Lets at least wait until he is in the White House before feeding him to the Republicans.

Glenn I love ya, but you're letting your indignation [righteous in the literal sense] over the telecom immunity outrage overwhelm your common sense. A President Obama will need the Blue Dogs to get anything done, and it doesn't matter one bit how long this particular congressman took to endorse him. I can't think of one effective Democratic president who helped liberals only and stayed effective. Even the egregious Lieberman has, on more than one occasion, been of aid on initiatives favored by Progressives. The phony 'war on terror' and the genuine Iraq disaster will not last forever, and there will be coalitions to be formed in the future with people we now find repugnant. For example, if someone in the 80's told you that a Jim Webb would be one of the stars of the Democrats, and the idol of some liberals, you would have laughed in his face. And the horrid Bob Barr of Monica fame as one of your allies in preserving our constitutional liberties? 'Nuff said. I would be alarmed if Obama wasn't doing this type of outreach, and I'm sorry for the progressive challenger. If she's that outstanding, it won't matter.

Did Obama feel the need to get in the middle of this race at all? By taking sides, he is sure to alienate some, but not gain the support of anyone.

No net gain of support, is what I really mean. Why not just let the primary play out?

It just smells like some kind of deal.

that someone who seems so aware of what's wrong in politics and would like to practice a different brand of politics would-- more than once-- make an endorsement like that.

I wonder how many more such Obama endorsements there are besides these two and another that I know of in Philadelphia, where he endorsed Chakka Fattah for mayor in last year's primary. At the time it seemed like it was Fattah's to lose... and he did. He hardly campaigned. Perhaps he thought his name recognition would be enough.

In the meantime, there were enough people (myself included) who were rooting for Michael Nutter, because he had already demonstrated that he understood that newer brand of politics.

The last time I checked "America" consisted of everybody.

While it may be appropriate to say that the Progressives represent only x percentage of voters, to say that only those other voters represent "America" is deeply repugnant.

It's my country too. You can't and won't take it away from me, even if it's with stupid word-games.

I don't know enough about Georgia politics to say, but a decision to endorse an electable blue dog that he might get something out of later over endorsing a challenger that will not get elected and will not help in the GE might well be very pragmatic. Being right but being out of office isn't going to help much right now.

What I do not understand is Obama's absence on the telecoms issue. He does, at this point, pretty much have the jam to kill it I would think. And it is hard to see how it would be much of an election issue-- the fact is that the majority of the electorate don't really know or understand it much, and even if they do, it isn't a burning issue, either way. I don't see he has much to lose by killing it, and it would be concrete example of "change" that he could then point to on the campaign trail.

And the telecom law-breaking is really a bit of a smoke-screen, even if charges go forward the damage is likely to be pretty minimal. The real issue is the tapping, and that is an issue that could, I think, be explained to the electorate in simple enough language for them to understand.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I called the Obama campaign to express my disappointment in Obama for supporting Barrow. Everyone reading should do the same. The number is in Glenn's post. We need to make sure that his campaign knows that we are paying attention.

This is what they do. He is smart, and he speaks and writes well, far better than the average pol. He is capable of leading the US in the world; the current guy maxed out as a fraternity president. All politicians require pressure, all the time. Be prepared to give it to him.

I think he made a mistake on this endorsement, plenty of votes for the lady in that district. But we do not know how many levels that deal has.

When I tried to find a WaPo story about Taguba's war crimes charge today it took me awhile. I finally found it but noticed that in addition to bad placement they were also downplaying the actual story. I just sent several questions to their 11 a.m. Post Politics Hour online chat. If you guys think these questions need to be answered I hope you too will submit questions.

Post Politics Hour link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/06/14/DI2008061401789.html

Here's what I sent:

I have a couple of questions about a Joby Warrick story that appeared on page A7 of the Post:

Exams Back Up Reports of Detainee Abuse, Group Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061800336.html

I almost missed this story because I was looking for a headline that talked about a former Bush administration general accusing the administration of war crimes.

Why did the Post bury the headline on this story? Does the Post believe it is not newsworthy that a former General accuses the administration of war crimes?

Included in the Warrick piece was this single characterization about what Taguba said. It was at the end of the piece and did not include his actual quote:

"In a statement accompanying the report, retired Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who led the Army's first official investigation on Abu Ghraib, said the new evidence SUGGESTED a "systematic regime of torture" inside U.S.-run detention camps."

Do Warrick and the Post really think that Taguba only SUGGESTED torture when he said:

"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Why did Warrick and the Post go out of it's way to downplay this story?