It seems I have to say it again, because reading comprehension goes down when peple are upset.

I REALLY want Obama to take a stand on this. I never said people shouldn't state that- at all. My comment came to GGs little comment about Obama kicking a baby- which I think is exactly what we don't need. It doesnt exactly come off as the "reasonable" calling out of Obama that all the objectioners seem to be making. No, that comment squarely relies on the meme that Obama supporters think he can do no wrong, the "obamabot" crapola that passes for thinking and criticism but is neither. Its just a cheap temper tantrum. Thats all. Elevate it all you want, its actually pretty funny.

My- and many peopes concern is very real. The lefts own knocking down and perpetaution of memes against our own candidates is directly responsible for the Bush regime. Take a look at TheDailyHowler.com for all the evidence you need. And funny how any mention of Obama gets such a response, but people here who are doing exactly what we say we're worried about- calling for not voting for him, or voting third party, or not voting at all.....gets not a mention from GG. No snarky comments from people there.

I would understand even further if it was absolutely necessary for him to respond RIGHT NOW. But Obama has time to formulate a plan, time to talk to his supporters and senators behind closed doors, time to plan the best way to respond.

But I guess simply pointing that out is enough to warrant as "defense" of Obama.

God how I wish we on the left had a long term plan and vision in place. We are just not going to be able to turn this ship around overnight. Obama is a STEP. Thats all. But an important one. Right now we need to be careful not to repeat the same mistake that sunk us in 2000 and 2004. From what I see, we're gonna do it all over again. And when we lose, those very people will be on here crying their eyes out about the newest outrage from the rightwingnutjobs and then they'll wonder why dems are actually not responding to their concerns. Unbelievable.

The only bright spot I see is that at least Hoyer won't be able to deny his role in brokering the "compromise." He seems to be getting full credit.

On another note, I sort of liked the New Republic article on this--only because it gave me an idea of what the democrats might say about why this bill is better. I somehow sense that you'll be refuting these points. Excerpt:

"What did the Democrats get in return? Four things, as far as I can tell. One, the bill requires the inspectors general of the DOJ, DOD, and NSA (among others) to submit a report to Congress reports on whether the program was legal. This might be valuable if it were an Obama administration submitting such a report (which it could do on its own, if it wanted to), but there's little doubt as to what a lame-duck Bush administration will find. Two, there are more restrictions placed on the actual surveillance powers given to the president going forward; Leahy seems pleased on this front. Three, the legislation sunsets at the end of 2012, so Congress will have to renew it then if it wants to keep its provisions in place. And four, it reiterates that FISA is the "exclusive means" by which surveillance may be conducted--that is, Bush doesn't have the constitutional authority to simply ignore it. Presumably Bush will claim he does retain that authority."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/06/19/how-bad-is-the-fisa-deal.aspx

"You have to say something, cowards. You can't touch my posts. Whine cry and complain. ENjoy yoru sad existance fascists. It's all you got,

Now giggle like elementary school girls, because you got someone's dander up. Congradulations children."

I'm thinking dsylexia, a touch of senility. Certainly no first prizes at the spelling bee. The glamor rather than the grammer?? Not very gut skooling. And a tad of self importance. Shaken, not stirred.

And you may want to check out School House Rock on the importance of Mr. Comma. All this besides an obvious drining problem . . .

"She doesn't get a pass anymore than Obama. Again, I ask, "Why vote for a Democrat when you're really voting for a Republican?"

If Obama cannot stand on this issue, then I am not voting for him. The same would be true if Hillary were the nominee.

-- Michael Stewart "

Obama has fought for this in the past, with dodd. Clinton>? When and where?

What are your options then? Not vote? Congradulations. Thanks for the help fighting the gop. OVER ONE ISSUE. But hey. this is america. Don't vote or thorw your vote away, your choice. I have never voted before, as I never have had liberal representation on the highest level. While you people have been voting often many have not. Right? What is the % of voting americans, on the whole? 15%? 20? I bet you it's higher now. Why? BEcause obama represents more people. Your loss is my gain. Never seen a real liberal win in my lifetime. this is the first one.

If you loved clinton you'll love mccain. no lose for you.

That depends. If he were wearing black loafers at the time, I could easily see it as a symbolic demonstration of the destabilizing effect that African American absentee dads have on innocent babies.

And I'm prabobly quilty og the pet calling the castle blanc . . .

whomever.

@thehallmark, JackHughes, Little Brother, The Small Town Hick et al

All Dems, all of them deserve criticism for this bill. All of them deserve to be targeted as part of primary races where and when feasible. And all of them still deserve our vote and our advocacy. And if you don't agree with that, then I challenge you to explain why all of the Supreme Court votes that have gone 5-4 where the liberal/sane justices were in the minority somehow don't matter. I challenge you to explain how all the even larger body of maniachal decisions by Scalia and Thomas (and one particularly grossly insane dissent of Thomas's in Hamdi) doesn't matter. Because if they DO matter- and if you've got your cortex screwed on, you cannot deny that they do- then we must continue to advocate for Democrats. We have to change this party from within unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of the destruction of our civil liberties.

Be careful how you respond now. Because some day at some unspecified time in the future you may have an indefinite period of uncharged solitary detention to think it over.