Supporting Obama at this point, or even to just to passively acquiesce in his election, amounts to a massive relinquishment of political power that could instead be used -- successfully -- to change the political landscape in the U.S.

I suppose you're basing this opinion on history, right? Because, after Gore lost to Bush and Nader the first time, the Democratic party got the message, and is now walking the progressive path, right? Oh, wait, that's just a fantasy you're having.

Nader does not have to win the election for such a shift to occur. He merely needs to get eight or nine percent.

Umm... this already happened. Where's the shift? Furthermore, Nader is not the Green Party nominee. He's just Nader now, and supporting him is just supporting his ego, at this point. I voted for him in 2000 (but I live in Texas, not exactly a swing state), but I urge you to look into the man and his record. It's not all sunshine and roses, unfortunately for your "argument." I could see myself voting Green again, in the future, but not for Nader.

To argue, confusedly, that Obama is the "lesser of two evils" and should therefore in the end be supported is to simply maneuvre oneself into a position of impotence.

When one of the evils is well, and truly, evil, it's your moral duty to make sure he doesn't get elected. McCain was a POW, for Christ's sake, and he vows to continue Guantanimo Bay, where they torture people in a prison camp.

The consequence of such political miscalculation will be that U.S. politics remains dominated by far right politics, no matter whether the Republican or the Democratic party serves as the instrument in this.

First of all, voting Nader or Green in the election is just a lazy cop-out, designed to make you feel good for exacting some revenge on the Democratic party. It's not real political action. Canvass for the Greens, get out there and sweat. Donate your time and money, and WORK to build a third party. It takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to build a party, and a few million disgruntled Democrats voting Green, or worse, Nader, ain't gonna do shit.

Those who fail to learn from history... you know the rest.

Secondly, implying that the best way for progressive politics to win is for McCain to get elected is about the funniest idea I've ever heard. It would be like saying that the best way for the Jews to become well liked in the world would be to elect Hitler. Get over yourself, commit to real action, and I'll be impressed.

Just not sure which is which.

Obama's support for the FISA bill or his dishonest justification.

Either way his actions really do force me to fundamentally reconsider my support. I chose him over Clinton early in the primaries not because I expected a saint. I had an internal debate about whether I preferred his aisle-crossing line and approach to the combative Clinton approach. I chose Obama because I didn't believe Hillary would fight any fights for me that didn't help her. I bought Obama's line.

I was aware that he was actually fairly tepid in his opposition to the last attempt to pass the FISA bill and worried about what it portended for the next time the issue came up. Now I know.

It really feels like, now that he has the nomination, he is prepared to morph into Clinton - the Democrat without a difference.

Progressives must keep up the pressure. No more money to Obama or the Democratic Party. All donations to and through progressive groups to support targeted Democrats that support our values.

To paraphrase Hamlet, speaking of Barack: "He was a pol; take him for all in all; I shall always look upon his like as such, again ... and again."

That I will not only NOT vote for Barack Obama, but I will not vote for ANY Democrat for the forseeable future, let alone support/volunteer.

I don't know if that makes me the 4yo, the 14yo or just an American citizen who is so sickened by the actions of the Democratic Party that I simply cannot hold my nose and support them anymore.

I can't even stay in the Party anymore. I am ashamed to call myself a Democrat.

But anyway, with that being said, after yesterday, why in the world should I believe this statement is true:

(as one commenter ironically noted yesterday, at the very least, Obama is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rule that the bill Obama supports is patently unconstitutional)

Seriously.

What in the world would possess anybody to believe that statement after Obamas words and actions from yesterday?

If the Constitutional lawyer Obama, who has ALREADY taken an oath tho protect and defend the US Constitution, then shits on that constitution in the manner he did yesterday before he is elected POTUS, why in the hell would I believe he won't do the same after?

Seriously, what the hell am I missing here...

Given that he is the Democratic Party's leader, I believe that Obama was pulling the strings for this deal from the start. For all his brave talk, he wanted to get this off the table prior to the general election so he wouldn't seen "weak on terror."

Timmy, I just don't buy this -- certainly with regard to telecom immunity.

The fact is that a great deal of political mileage against McCain could have been gained by making telecom immunity an issue -- the general public doesn't think that giant corporations should get away with criminal acts, and McCain has supported immunity for these crimes from the get-go.

Obama could even have suppoorted the rest of the bill (all the objectionable provisions could have been undone once he was in the Oval Office) and kept the focus on telecom immunity -- casting McCain as "soft on Corporate Criminals and Government Corruption."

so this had nothing to do with a political strategy for November. My best guess is that Obama sold us out long ago -- that allowing telecom immunity to happen is what got him Jello Jay's endorsement, and why Reid and Pelosi have been so eager to grease the skids for Obama's nomination -- ALL of them are probably implicated in this, since ALL of them were in a position to know exactly what was going on, and how illegal it was.

Clinton, on the other hand, probably said "no deal" -- and that meant that regardless of how she wiped the floor with Obama during the last three months of the campaign, and regardless of how obvious it became that Obama was unsuitable for the Oval Office -- Clinton could simply not be allowed to win the nomnation, because SHE would have taken full political advantage of McCain's support of "telecom immunity"....