I think you and the author of this sentence are way to harsh on those who have for now at least removed their support of this candidate.

I dissociated myself somewhat from the harshness of that rhetoric by making clear that I empathize with that extreme far more than the other, even if I ultimately believe that it's important -- for pragmatic reasons -- to avoid it.

Is there anyone who really thinks that the outcome of the 2000 election -- Gore or Bush -- made no difference? It probably made a difference to the millions of people in Iraq who are dead, maimed and/or displaced. It probably made a difference in terms of the extremes to which our political credibility and values have been demolished. And it probably made a difference in lots of other ways.

No less an establishment critic than Noam Chomsky frequently points out that with systems as large and powerful as the American political and economic structure, even small differences between leaders can translate into huge differences in people's lives. I understand the impulse to ignore that and declare it all so corrupt that it's not worth caring about, but ultimately, I think that judgment is somewhat irresponsible, even self-indulgent -- which isn't to say that I don't empathize with some of the sentiments underlying it.

Here's another person who see's the Lord of the Rings in all of this. They posted this comment on emptywheel. I loved it!

Having designated himself a Ring Bearer, Obama has done the impossible and reached the summit of Mt. Doom. Like many before him, he faltered. He chose not to toss the One Ring back into the fire. He’s sure that he’s the one who can use its powers for good. The Ring, and Mr. Cheney, are leering at his hubris. - earlofhuntingdon

This is a brave and important post by Glenn. A few comments in reaction:

1) If I understand something that pow wow posted on the last thread, the Senators had an opportunity to object to the bill's placement on the calendar, which would have provided a few additional days of breathing space, but not one did (i.e., neither Feingold nor Obama, for example).

2) While it's premature for me to comment extensively on what Jack Balkin has written, as I understand it, what Mr. Balkin refers to as the "National Surveillance State" ("NSS") is, in his well-considered and well-reasoned view, inevitable. Indeed, as is pointed out, it is already here. It is a new form of governance and, therefore, holds various implications for and to the constitutional framework of the US system of governance (not the least of which is the equally inevitable transfer of surveillance to private actors beyond the scope of the constitution – hello, telecoms). As I further understand it, both political parties will contribute to, and shape, the parameters and development of the NSS. This, too, is as logical as it is inevitable – it is in the best interests of the ruling parties to play their role because…they’re the ruling parties. This is, in part at least, what I think Balkin refers to when he suggests Obama might want these powers - inevitably, as part of one of the ruling parties, Obama wants to play his role in shaping the NSS. It comes with the job description.

3) If one embraces Balkin's analysis, it begs a question for those who appear to be seeking "change" as championed by the Democratic Party, i.e., change away from the course pursued by the Bush administration as well as change in the general flavor of government owing to the greater influence of, say, "liberal" values (as opposed to conservative/neoconservative values). Does the "more and better Democrats" crowd accept that the NSS is inevitable, your objective essentially being to have the NSS shaped more by one party than the other? If so, isn't it fair to say it's not "change" you're actually seeking, but more of the same, just under the guidance of the other ruling party? In one sense, what you really care about is WHO is at the helm while the government drifts away from the constitutional framework, not its actual destruction.

4) In addition to the four- and fourteen-year olds who are frustrated to the point of taking their ball home and not playing anymore, there is another category who may appear to be as, well, childish, but who don't have any choice to opt out (or even pretend to) - those around the world who are/were banking on Obama to provide relief in the illegitimate, fear-driven, "war" on "terror". Perhaps they can be forgiven for (a) being mightily disappointed by Obama; and (b) railing at strategic Democrats who don't appear to understand the consequences of the imperial surveillance state to themselves, let alone to the "foreigners" being rendered, imprisoned, bombed and killed. As another commenter challenged me on an earlier thread: it is precisely because I understand the connection between the domestic surveillance state and imperial foreign policy that my disappointment (with both Obama and strategic Democrats) is so bitter. For them, the word “fear” when spoken by a US politician is actually code for more “death” and “destruction” in their homeland.

Glenn, why not run these ads in Rep. John Barrow's district, the guy Obama did a support ad for, the guy who has a credible progressive opponent in a primary election the next few weeks?

Barrow predictably voted Yes on the FISA bill. His primary opponent, Regina Thomas, has publicly stated she would have voted No.

Helping her get elected, even if our support significantly narrowed her margin of loss, would send a message to Obama that people who care about the Constitution will fight back. Best case, if Thomas wins, we've rebuked Obama the best possible way, by showing him that progressives can win and should be supported, that there is a cost to supporting Bush and the Republicans.

And thank you for this piece, Glenn. I was so pissed yesterday. I unsubscribed from Obama emails. And I plan to support progressives wherever I can. But I don't plan to support Obama actively except where people can successfully pressure Obama to act in a sane, Constitutional manner.