The MyBO FISA group just broke 10,000 users. It very well could be the #1 group by (think of the symbolism!) 7/4.

Firenze419 - Clinton is still worse. Obama may get the gas face for gravitating toward the reprehensible DLC, the charter organization for Blue Dogs everywhere, Hillary Clinton is an unabashed member.

I'd say that gives Obama some wiggle room before all hope is lost.

Public pressure got Olbermann to back off his defense of Obama's FISA position. Likely, Obama himself smells what the public is cooking. Or better yet, his chickens are coming home to roost? I don't know. Pick your metaphor.

Either way, it is going to be nearly impossible for him to do nothing about this now newsworthy story in the coming week, so I have hope and faith that Obama will come out with a more favorable approach to FISA.

Nice Wal-Mart ad over there to the right, dude.

As a life-long Democrat, I want to vote for Obama but the last couple of weeks have been deeply troubling. We constantly criticize politicians for pandering, saying one thing/doing one thing, flip-flopping. Wasn't Obama supposed to be a different kind of politician? If we don't hold his feet to the fire, he definitely will go down as the same old thing. And if we don't hold his feet to the fire, that's exactly what we will deserve.

On the other hand, I've had reservations about Barry (that's what he used to be called when he was a regular guy) for a long time. Unfortunately, I don't matter---nor do most of the others who are concerned about his rush toward the right---because his campaign folks know we won't vote for McCain, no matter what.

Thanks, especially, for the link to the Howie Klein article about Obama's most recent "Liebermann stunt" in endorsing Regina Thomas' opponent, a rightist white guy running against a progressive African-American woman. Before writing this comment, I sent off a contribution to her campaign. And I hope you will continue telling us about things like this because many of us who were concerned about the inexperienced Barack Obama's support of the man who is now working for his opponent are now EVEN MORE concerned about the experienced campaigner's equally stupid actions.

To Lawrence Libby - I would much prefer the role of gracious winner, but one plays the cards one is dealt. I personally never understood the gracious loser schtick. It's bad enough to lose without having to pretend you like it.

Christopher Michael McNeil - Clinton is still worse? I draw the opposite conclusion. Clinton, for all her faults, never truly claimed to be something she wasn't. Obama, on the other hand, won by playing the role of progressive messiah a role which he is now abandoning with an alacrity that even I (someone who always thought the man was the greatest fraud of the century) find daunting.

Peeps1 - How is the pandering to the right on the patriotism issue any different from what Clinton did vis-a-vis the flag burning amendment? You say he has good judgement, so how do you explain his support for FISA and corn-based ethanol? Or his daily policy shifts on Iran and Israel? And what exactly in this inspires you? What about it do you think will inspire anyone else? Seems to me his cynicism will just make things worse for the American political system. And even if he still is inspirational (as I'm positive he is to the poorly informed), is that all America needs right now?

Tell you what kids. You thought you were getting a political revolution. What you've got instead, is another neophyte (who himself admits to having poor organisational skills) to steer the country through recession, permanently high oil prices, Iraq, environmental degradation, an imploding Pakistan, etc., etc., etc.

Hillary was, if nothing else, competent, dilligent, and well-informed, even if she was a rubbish salesperson.

I say again, you've been had.

1. Obama gave one speech, from a very anti-war district, against the war and went to Washington and voted with the Dems, including Hillary on the war every time.

2. Both Clinton's spoke in interviews around half a dozen times saying they were against invading Iraq and Bush should not invade

1 speech vs. 5 or 6 interviews speaking against the war

3. Obama voted FOR the flag burning bill, as did Clinton, and both voted for it to cover their asses for voting against (both of them) a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.

4. Obama voted against legistration that would have capped interest rates at 30. Hillary voted to cap the interest rates. Obama gets lots of money from Goldman-Sachs.

5.Obama voted for Cheney's energy bill, Hillary agbainst it. Obama got lots of money from Exelon, an energy company, and oil company executives.

6. Hillary's health care plan, backed by Elizabeth Edwards, covers everyon. Obama's does not.

So, who's the progressive?

I fear too many pundits have failed to actually read Obama's books. If you did, you wouldn't write what you write. He's not being inconsistent at all. He's acting just like he said he would. Imagine a candidate who campaigns in the same manner as he governs? That's what Obama is trying to do. Like any good lawyer, he can well state the case for both (all?) sides of a public policy issue. He's not blind to what's at stake. But, like any good politician, he understands that to govern well in our democracy, you MUST compromise. As president, he will be constantly recalibrating the location of the main channel of public interest. So, here's the point: (1) we've been poorly served by President Bush who has consistently refused to tack to the main channel and Obama will not be that kind of president; and (2) you can count on Obama to, thankfully, hew to the left of the main channel but not leave it.

As of today, there are troubled waters ahead for the probable Democratic Party Nominee for President. Obama could lose. BUT, the addition of Hillary Clinton could make a difference. Please read on.

From www.realclearpolitics.com for July 2nd, they are showing for a November General Election for "Gallup Tracking" nationwide only a plus 2% margin for Obama over McCain.

Continuing, please read an article written by a Harry Siegel posted on www.Politico.com dated June 19th titled: "Obama Could Win Vote, and Lose Election".

Then let me add Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post, with his brilliant article dated June 27th titled: "The Ever-Malleable Mr. Obama".

Then go to one more, “The Two Obamas” by David Brooks in the New York Times for June 20th, 2008.

We have now exposed what many of us knew for a long time, Mr. Obama is an absolute "flip-flopper", and thinks we don't see it. And this is a person who when he was a State Legislator in Illinois, voted "Present" 130 times only to avoid taking a position. And now he wants to be our President.

That being said, I say let's move ahead now with Mr. Obama out front as the Presidential nominee. However, I believe if Hillary Clinton were invited to be on the ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate, and offered to head up some new important task force in a new administration, I am sure our chances of electing a Democratic Party President in November would be very strong, and I believe there are 18 Million other voters who also agree. These are the 18 million voters who just recently stood with Hillary Clinton in this primary contest we just concluded.