But go ahead, vote for him. I'm sure the fact that you dislike his positions on constitutional rights will stop him from trampling on them.

-- sunny miller

Sunny miller? Have you, ever in your life, voted for anyone? If so, how often have you done so? At any one of those times, or all of those times, am I safe to assume that you were in agreement with every last damned thing they espoused? If not then I am more than safe to assume that you are being a blow-hard hypocrite for telling everyone else how voting puritanical or not voting at all is the Sunny Miller way and should be our way too?

Please let me know if you've ever voted for someone who had some ideas and ideals or some campaign actions that you were not in agreement with. Thanks.

Obama has also adopted the Republican framing of taxes and has offered a tax program that will continue to lose revenue for the federal government. --Hume's Ghost

Lose money? Do you have something that shows revenue has declined since 2003? The CBO would disagree with that.

Yes, it is more progressive and less bad than either Bush or McCain. But the reduction in funding will still hurt the non-rich more than the rich and if federal debt is not paid off the interest on that is going to burden the non-rich in the future. A tax on posterity.

What reduction in funding? The budget gets bigger every year. Do you have something that disagrees with that? As for debt interest, who cares? The bottom 20% of tax payers contribute some 1% of income and payroll taxes. They don't pay taxes, only the rich do.

Meanwhile Clinton's tax cut in 1997 is what produced all the revenue that made up the surplus. Funny how no one ever mentions that part.

While I'm at it Gallup just ran a poll where 84% of the country is more interested in enervating he whole country rather than income redistribution. it would seem that libs here are not representative of the country after all.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy.aspx

I'm an Obama supporter--and will be for this election regardless. But I'm not happy with the events of the past two weeks.

And one more thing that Glenn doesn't mention. I was disgusted to hear on the radio Obama say that the rhetoric of politicians "might have gotten overheated over NAFTA." That's a wussy way of saying that both he and Hillary Clinton lied about wanting to renegotiate NAFTA.

We knew it at the time. I knew from his voting record he was pretty much straight pro-trade.

In fact, if he supports NAFTA as it stands, then there it is. I'm not completely anti-trade--But. It bothers me that he expresses no regret over "positioning" himself on this issue, rather than being straight forward with working class voters during the primary.

Hillary Clinton had her chief strategist working on Columbia deals as she was talking about how she had been against NAFTA from the start (and Bill made 700,000 or so maybe more on the same Columbia deal)...and Obama..."overheated rhetoric." Wasn't that exactly what Austen Goolsbee was telling the Canadian embassy? And didn't Obama specifically disavow Goolsbee's disavowal?

Why did he bother?

ugh. I don't like this turn of events. It's not like I ever thought he was a saint, but it's depressing to know we were, from the beginning, trying to decide between Clinton and Clinton. We're losing the dream of the more honest Obama. And that is, I know no other way to put it, sad.

If we could jettison gay rights and reproductive freedom we could probably get a lot more. - Digby

Perhaps it's not been noticed but according to the earlier quote about the "faith based" issue, churches most certainly MAY discriminate against gays and lesbians since sexual orientation is not covered.

Just think! We're halfway home!!!!

Where's home?

What is difficult for me to understand is why you would vote for a person who would shit on the constitution. -- sunny miller

For some of them it is just a case of general stupidity (Kitt). To some of them it is all a big game and their team has a chance to win. For others it is a complete lack of principles. But the overriding reason most of these people will vote for someone who will shit on the constitution is simply that they don't know what else to do. They are unwilling to do anything that might actually make a difference so they hide behind "voting and hoping" and call it a day.

They don't give themselves any other options. They are happier that way.

Wesley Clark is all over TV "defending" his position and cable shows are discussing McCain's "qualifications" and asking the question, is being shot down and a former POW a qualification for being President?

Obama distances himself and holds no baggage but the conversation is out there.

And this is BAD?

who took positions amenable to getting things done. He doesn't have to do that this year to get elected, but once in office he will have to compromise principles of his base in order to get legislation passed. It's too bad that means moving closer to "definitional fascism." Baby steps?

Is anyone surprised that the Democratic candidate turns out to be less than we would have liked?

Hillary would have probably been the same way.

...but not so much about Greenwald's point.

Churches were not asked to pay for the upkeep of the state as are other institutions and Churches did charitable work in return. It was a fair and practical division of labor that did not require anyone to fund religious activity with which they did not agree and neither did churches have to fund state activity that offended their beliefs.

That churches don't pay taxes is a clear cut violation of the first amendment and giving them this in fact does amount to non-religious people funding church activities as this revenue must be made up elsewhere. And citing the churches charitable work doesn't excuse it. First, much of what's considered charitable isn't. For instance, when the Salvation Army requires you to listen to a sermon in order to get a meal, this isn't charity it's a quid pro quo exchange.

To the extent that churchs do provide actual charity, in a verifiably secular environment, should be tax exempt but the vast majority of money received by churchs is not used for charity.