"my god, i always knew rufus was smarter than greenwald or walsh - but now he 's proven it"

It will only anger them more. As is they already sacrafice all journalistic credibility and them doing their jobs just to spite us "mean obama supporters". One would think their jobs and credibility are more important than that. Obviously, to them, it's not.

don't make them angry. Otherwise glen, like joan, will spend all their time trying out new ways to attack obama/olberman/me and other progressive allies. Who's next? jfk? No he's a catholic, can't be jfk. ou hear joan always talking about catholics and what they want or who is a good candidate based on who the catholics like.

I don't get it. I have several questions. They have shown fighting for progressives/liberals don't matter. To joan she fights for catholics, but also irish catholics. So which is more important? the minds of catholcis or the irish? I can't think in these divisions.

In regards to Greenwald here. It's mighty conveinant that he starts going after obama and olberman when he has a book to sell. As you see by the pop-ups.

Money trumps progressive/liberals. Altough eh does have a point, to a certain extent. But he takes it to far. all day everyday is to much, imo.

But don't anger them. they are angry enough. they sacraficed everything and got nothing in return. All they got left is fox love. I give them 2 months before they turn into juan willaims/alan colmes.

NEw party 12' :)

Peace out eric. Keep your chin up, brother.

women (as clinton represents all women to her) or catholics? Women or the irish? How do they think in compartmenta;ized ways like this? What happened to everyone being an individual? I thought the more we progressed the more people would be individuals? Wishful thinking I guess. Maybe we just have to wait for the boomers to die out before we get our freedom from captivity. :)

"I don't get it. I have several questions. They have shown fighting for progressives/liberals don't matter. To joan she fights for catholics, but also irish catholics. So which is more important? the minds of catholcis or the irish? I can't think in these divisions."

I just heard on Countdown, Obama restate his position on the FISA bill. He ain't gonna change his position no matter how many people join the Obama vote against FISA group.

Frankly, I don't much agree with the blog's author. Credit for the find goes to Allie Mann upthread. But, if the link appeals to you, then I'm glad I highlighted it so you could catch it. Still, Allie Mann is the person you should thank. Credit where credit is due.

He will not help or listen to our causes. fyi.

What percentag of mormons are republcain cultists again? 90%.

the mormon cult is just a gop group that got out of control. They use the countries religous freedoms to rip us off, in terms of taxes. Nothing more. They want to keep their state white as can be. As gop as it can be. If you rnot a robot clone out you go. I'm just glad they have their problems. They offspring not with the program. The craziest mo fo's in america are punks who rebeled from the lds. Give em hell punks.

He ain't gonna change his position no matter how many people join the Obama vote against FISA group.

I think that's an error. I hope he does manage to win this election. But, if he doesn't, of all the choices he's made, I'll be looking back over my shoulder to this particular choice.

I just heard on Countdown, Obama restate his position on the FISA bill. He ain't gonna change his position no matter how many people join the Obama vote against FISA group.

Was he actually interviewed on Countdown (and, if so, did Obama ask if he intends to prosecute telecoms criminally), or was Countdown just reporting on remarks he made today about FISA?

You're right, of course -- there is no way Obama will change his position and, at this point, he probably can't even if he wanted to, and I strongly doubt he wants to.

What matters is what the people behind him do and have been doing.

Talk is cheap. War is profitable.

Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss.

America has been fooled again.

Not that we had any choice.

It will probably cost him on fund raising. I don't see it costing him the election and may well help him win.

When answering media questions after his speech on religious views and how religious organizations can help the down trodden, he volunteered the info. I'll send you the link from his show as soon as it is available.

It is in item #5 Obama talks about faith at the two minute mark

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25485192

But they're both cops, and they're both taking stands that lead us down the road to an authoritarian, surveillance, security-is-all state. The differences between them are substantial, yes, but in the long run Obama, if what we've seen on FISA is any indication, is taking us in the same direction as McCain. He'll just take it a little more slowly, subtly, make us love that undeniably slippery slope, convince us that we need it.

And the presidents who come after him? They'll just take authoritarianism a little further, and further, now that it's been institutionalized. I know this particular power is supposed to expire in 2012 (?), but if a popular president claims he still needs that power, or its offspring, what Congress is going to have the courage to deny him? Congress and courage are not exactly on speaking terms these days, and its "progressive" Democratic leaders give us no reason to hope they will reconcile anytime soon.

In his updates - some of which amount to caveats - Glenn has a point when he notes the "progressive" - or at least not regressive - aspects of Obama's record and campaign. I mean, almost no politician is all bad; most average out neutral in the long run, some better than others. But sometimes neutral isn't enough, and these are dangerous times for our democracy.

Like Glenn in his original post, I'm looking at what Obama does, not what he says, and given what he's done on FISA, that's inarguably a wise view. He says he's against immunity for the telecoms, but he's voting for it, and in the process he's voting for broad new domestic spying powers for the president. And I don't recall hearing him say much about that.

Why not? Does he think those powers are something he might want to use some day? Maybe expand them a bit? And in the interim we're supposed to be assured by his promises to be good, that we can trust him?

Well, I don't trust any politician. No one should. The kind of psyche that drives a person to seek the greatest power over the planet and all its inhabitants that humankind has ever known should raise a big, red flag for everyone who will be subject to his power and failings. A politician as charismatic and eloquent as Obama, one with as many "good points" as he, has to be mistrusted even more, especially when he's already displaying a pronounced tendency to pander and to contradict his own statements and promises. The "lesser of the evils" is still evil.

We're as free only as far as our Constitution is allowed to free us. The Constitution - its intent and its execution - is paramount to the United States, far more important than any war or social dispute or tax policy or economic stress, because without it we have no Land of the Free. It's that simple. Obama has done an about-face, an ominous one that promises nothing but harm to what's left of our democracy.

Like I said before, I live in a safe state so I don't have to vote for the guy. I'll depend on those in swing states to choke off their very justified apprehension and bestow this incredible power on him, and then we'll all have to do whatever we can to take away those sweeping powers of domestic surveillance. I fear the die is cast, but then I tend toward catastrophic thoughts.