Back in February Obama missed the vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries." However, he issued a statement then declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

Obama was in cahoots with Pelosi, Hoyer, et al on this recent capitulation on FISA. He doesn't deserve our trust.

I'm a Peace Corps volunteer in a small Romanian town. During the Cold War Romania suffered horribly under the dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, who carried out the most oppressive, brutal communist regime in Eastern Europe. I work in a school and many of the young people frequently ask me how such "a great and free democracy like America" could allow itself to be "ruled by a tyrant like George Bush." I have no simple answer...nothing that I can reasonably say to explain this.

I just hope that when I come back in a few years to visit them I won't be asked the same question about a different Administration.

Do the right thing and the opposition will destroy him -- do the wrong thing and his supporters will destroy him.

We are headed for a lesser of evils election -- the democrats have screwed up again.

And it is so early!!!

Reading Obama's "trust-me-to-do-the-right-thing-with this-as-president," one sees him turn distinctively -- and in a bad way -- "conservative." I was immediately reminded of F. A. Hayek's essay, Why I Am Not a Conservative, my emphasis:

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

Obama is clearly far less principled than many had thought, and believes he is Good, and so we should trust him with arbitrary power. Thus, in that sense he is very conservative.

I love how you claim that the idea of the uncritically supportive Obama supporter is Pure Myth, and then write a whole, long comment in which you say everything except something that is critical of Obama.

What do you think about his support for this bill?

I am thrilled that you responded to me, but I think you are better than this. Tell me you can't see the flawed logic there: I am an uncritical Obama supporter unless I insert a criticism of him into every comment I make? I was addressing one particular issue I noticed. What I think about his support for the bill is exactly what you wrote, and because you said it so well, I didn't think it needed repeating. My whole point was that most Obama supporters would agree with you from the outset, and I have not seen anyone claiming that he is a saint or beyond reproach.

But look at some of the comments on here for examples of the tantrums I'm talking about. I'm not even talking about the tired "I'm voting for Nader" dreck, but the "I'm staying home," "Obama will nominate fascists to the Supreme Court," etc. None of these come even close to anything resembling a rational argument and ignore the fundamental reality that their actions contribute to McCain being elected. In addition I will repeat a point I've made earlier - such attitudes betray an underlying classism. The people saying this are the ones who likely will not be affected much by a McCain presidency on a material level. They most likely have professional-level jobs that will remain despite the economy, are well-off enough so that their children will not have to go to Iran/Iraq, and live in cities with decent transit systems so they will not be hit hard by the price of gas. To them, perhaps, "Democrats and Republicans are the same". Just remember that there is a whole mass of people for whom even 'small differences' like how many troops we keep in Iraq and the level of corporate involvement in healthcare can impact their entire lives.

Shorter achilleselbow: I've never seen anyone say we shouldn't discuss this. Stop arguing and STFU.

I've stated my position enough times yesterday and today, that repeating it again will serve little purpose. I also question the credibility of your statements because I don't think you will find many Dems who would buy the nonsense that McCain could be better than Obama. All you have to do is look at the team that he has compiled and the team that Obama has compiled as people should have done with Junior and Hillary and you know a lot about what the candidate stands for.

Were you one of the ignoramuses that couldn't see what Cheney was all about and how malleable and insecure Junior was? Did you really want a fighter pilot drinking buddy for a president? McSame is not all that different than junior. Why would anyone toss out all we have learned since 2000 and make statements like you have? My guess is that you just want to stir up controversy.

Consider this the last time I will engage in any conversation with you because I know it is a complete waste of time.

Re: the Thomas Jefferson quote Glenn cites in the Update--

This is why we're paying Glenn the big bucks. ;)

Is it the assholes who voted for Nader or is it Karl Rove and RNC fraud that gave the WH to Cheney/Bush? It may be annoying that people stuff "protest" votes into the box but it's juvenile to avoid the realities that you yourself detail. Rove has been working on engineering rope-a-vote by computer processing for over thirty years. Admittedly, it wasn't his only angle, vote caging and suppression of every stripe was employed. These elections are his masterworks, though. The laurels don't go to the foolish people throwing tantrums.

Why do you assume either/or, 714day? The answer is, "both."

Yes, they caged and suppressed the election, exactly as you described. However, the exit polls weren't way off all around the country, just in the battleground states. It's embarrassing that it was as close as it was. The reason it was that close is precisely because of self-defeating Democrats like notveryhappy, which is why I took notveryhappy to task. There is a huge difference between Obama and McCain, just as there is a huge difference between Bush and Gore.

The vote suppression was planned. The Nader voters were a happy accident, and made it just close enough for the dirty tricks to work.