But is there really that big a difference between filibuster and support a filibuster?

Yes, indeed there is.

To fillibuster, one must be a leader. To support someone else's fillibuster, one only need follow.

Which brings us to the real question of just who Obama is following and why does he believe he cannot lead?

Karl Rove is gonna getcha.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/29/opinion/blitt.650.jpg

EU to sell US private details

An internal report leaked to The New York Times yesterday said the EU was on the verge of agreeing to give US law enforcement and security agencies information about all EU citizens.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4232264.ece

And not a peep about EU citizen rights. Obama's not looking so bad after all, eh? This after all, is perfectly legal in all senses of the word.

2006 wasn't a referendum FOR Democrats, it was a referendum against Republicans, with a little homophobic partisanship (Foley) and racism (macaca) thrown in by the Dems.

The homophobic pastisanship in 2006 happened when the republicans ran Foley out of office and tried to get rid of Craig yet had nothing to say about Diaper Dave Vitter. After all, Republican 'naughty boys' are just de rigueur, as long as the happenin's can be safely classified as heterosexual in nature.

And the racism you mention above came straight from a Republican horse's ass....er 'mouth'. Were the dems supposed to be helping him keep it closed?

What was said about New Orleans by people who now need the help themselves was different only in its virulence - because many of those same people also objected to the assistance given to people in the Northeast during the floods about a year ago. There were claims that we were always declaring disaster areas, which is not true, in fact, many people in the counties that were finally declared disaster areas last year found that they were not eligible for disaster relief simply because they had been flooded before, without disaster being decalred, and they could be denied because nobody could "determine" what was from this one and what was from prior floods.

What is true is that my state (NJ) does sometimes declare a state of emergency - and occasionally call on the state's National Guard - to keep people off the roads during blizzards and Nor'Easters that are not blizzards (rain) but are not quite hurricanes. They do not, however, often ask for Federal disaster relief. That claim was bogus but I remember people from the heartland being interviewed after the floods in the Northeast last year and they were complaining that this area of the country asked for and received a cent. Maybe we just aren't part of the country any more.

Maybe it's not too late to change his name to Beback (with) Broccoli.

She as only one 'l' in her Michele name. There is no hell in Michele.

Maybe we can vote for Michele?

Let's respect the vital truths.

Eugene Delacroix : ` O young artist, you search for subject---everything is a subject.

Your search is yourself, your impressions, and your emotions in the presence of nature.

Bill Clinton won 2 terms by controlling the center and executed a mentally deficient convict to prove the ground. The other 2 lost for a variety of reasons but not because they were centrists.

You are one of my daily reads and the last few days you have been articulating my own views almost exactly, but far more eloquently than I am capable of formulating. Cf. this comment at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/6/28/143216/483/7#c7

in response to a diary by Matt Stoller yesterday. I got some recs but this response is typical of what I consider the derangement of the uncritical Obamaniacs:

There is a need to tac [sic] to the center as evidenced by decades of tacing [sic] to the center. Hell, even in the recent primaries there has been a need to tac center. Otherwise we'd be talking about Nom/President Dean.

I didn't respond, but your article today says it all.

242 sits on a pancake to prick and deflate it.

A shame the whoopee cushion still seems to be operable, not to mention voluble. ;-}

Akron Mike - a shame we can't get someone to listen to you (and me) on that point. Brown't a hard worker who doesn't seem to need a spotlight on him to do the right thing. Another good quality for a veep.

I recognize that dissent in "Comments" is a rare thing but I offer mine.

As you inform us in the quote below from your comment, this is the first time you've read Glenn's blog, or, I assume, the comments. But you think you know the level of "dissent" in the comments, and you think you know what Glenn "loved".

Blue and red, corporate executives and community organizers -- all would come together under his [Obama's] leadership. My own view at the time (and still my view): hogwash. But most (and perhaps you although I've never read your writing before today) loved it.

What you base your opinions on about the comment section and Glenn Greenwald since you've never read either until today.

Perhaps I'll write another time about Olbermann

So what?

How do we make this point more publically?

Can we make it the subject of our advertising in the campaign ahead?

Is Hoyer, or Candidate X following ...

the public will or the will of .5 percent of America? (see Paul Rosenberg at http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6656)

or something like that ...

to keep driving it home.

I actually suspect (and fear) that the Democratic Party brokers know where the public stands, and they are consciously upholding the will of those in power -- our corporate oligarchy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt announces the Second New Deal in 1936:

"…For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent…"

…"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering."

"They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob."

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."

Now there was a guy who was not afraid to say what was on his mind.

Today we struggle against the same enemies of peace and as Roosevelt did then, and, as during the great depression, the results of the right’s feckless ideology are clear. There is no better time to accuse the criminal than when he has the bloody knife in his hand, as the Bush administration now does. But our politicians must be willing to make a strong case against the failed Bush policies and name Bush and his cronies what they are – the enemies of peace both here and abroad. Roosevelt was not afraid to do so, and he was the most successful Democratic politician of all time. Instead of moving toward the political views of his adversaries, he moved the people towards his own view of how the country needed to work. Because of the horrible and dangerous condition this country is in today, there would be no better time for another FDR, instead we may have another Clinton. There are times for compromise and triangulation – this isn’t one of them.