I don't think I can vote for Obama...I'm not voting...I'm going with Nader...I'm concerned about Obama...I'm voting for Dingus Wingnut...I'm feeling betrayed and can't vote Democratic...I'm writing in Hillary Clinton...Ron Paul's my guy...I have no choice but Cynthia McKinney...

Isn't this what's so wonderful about America? You can vote for anyone you want. Hell, you can write in Bugs Bunny if you feel like it!

There's that little matter, of course, that Dingus, Hillary, Ron Paul, et. al. are not going to be President of the United States.

They are not going to be trying to get us out of the wars we're in.

They're not going to be nominating Supreme Court justices who will affect American law and life for decades to come.

They are not going to have an opportunity to reform health care, and education, and any one of a number of critical issues.

But please, enjoy your rights as Americans to vote for someone who isn't going to win, isn't going to change anything.

Democracy means the right to waste your vote.

But remember...

If John McCain declares war on Iran, gas prices go to $10, your health insurance deductible goes up to $10,000, or Karl Rove is appointed as a special advisor to President McCain, we don't want to hear you complain about it.

Because you will be a proverbial part of the problem.

If things get worse than they already are, suck it up and take it like a man/woman.

Because you exercised your right to utterly and totally waste your vote.

Side issue, but you brought it up (apart from this, I find your indictment of Obama's betrayals pretty accurate):

Why is "partial-birth" abortion a "despicable term of choice"? The procedure involves delivering a fetus until only its head remains in the birth canal, then cutting into the fetus's head to kill it, before crushing the skull and removing the fetus entirely.

You write that "the correct phrase is either late-term or third-trimester abortion." Correct in what sense, exactly? Do you really believe a generic phrase like this (which encompasses all forms of abortion that happen late in pregnancy) is more accurate or more honest? I think by "correct" you really mean, "doesn't make us think about the details of what actually happens in this procedure."

This vote by Obama was NOT "only" about immunizing criminal telecoms for their blatant and knowing violation of federal law. It also gives the President the power (a power that Obama is just drooling for, hence, his vote) to spy with wild abandon, in secret and with no judicial or congressional review, on all Americans who happen to call (or email) beyond our physical shores. Furthermore, it leaves it entirely up to the Executive Branch to police itself with regards to preventing reverse targeting and related crap.

The immunization of the telecoms itself is more than just immunizing the telecoms from having to pay for their blatant, and knowing, illegal conduct, it also assures that We the People will NEVER know what was done to whom and for what end (we can guess: an equal part of the reason for the blanket illegal spying on Americans was for political and economic reasons).

This isn't a "small" issue. This is the core of what this country was founded upon, and upon which it used to stand. Now it doesn't even pretend (and cannot do so) to stand for liberty, justice, blah blah. It is all lies and Obama is a core part of the lie.

Don't give me that crap about "it was just immunity for telecoms". It was MUCH more than that.

Then, of course, is Obama's "new found love" of NAFTA (without labor or environmental protections!), his growing love of the Iraq Occupation, and his first steps towards relegating women back to second-class citizen status who need men to help them make personal decisions for them about sex and babies. They are just too emotional and ditzy to make proper decisions in this regard.

Salon is a supermarket tabloid.

It's interesting that Joan Walsh's longstanding opposition to Obama and support for Clinton has allowed her to hypocritically ignore Clinton's *unforgivable* vote for war with Iraq and Iran. (And no, the fact that she has written wimpily about how it was the wrong vote, but then continued to support her, does not count.)

While no longer supporting Obama because of his FISA vote may be reasonable at this point, supporting Clinton after her disastrous votes demonstrates that Joan has no credibility.

I guess I missed the part where Ma Bell not footing the bill for Dubya's crimes became the death knell of the republic. Really, some people need to grow up already. In the litany of bad decisions made and outright crimes committed by this administration, granting telecoms immunity for being as cowardly as Congress and the media and capitulating to Dubya's whims is pretty far down the list.

I'm not defending Obama his flip-flop, mind you. Given his earlier statements on the subject, his recent decision is a definite cop-out. But let's keep some perspective here.

As for Joan Walsh's post here, it's a joke, as is much of this site these days. I wouldn't trust her selective outrage or her sense of "betrayal" as far as I could throw her. It's misplaced Clintonite pique, just like most of the posts below.

But as for the shitstorm she's once again trying to stir up, I'll leave comment to the venerable H.L. Mencken, 1924: "Progressives are like Christians in this: that they hate one another far more than they hate the heathen. The devil doesn’t have to fight the Catholics: he leaves the business to the Ku Klux, i.e. to the Methodists and Baptists. Just so the Progressives devour one another, to the delight and edification of the Babbitts…[By Election Day] the whole pack will be in chaos, and dog will be eating dog."

As a fity-something republican veteran from AZ who was planning on voting for Obama I've got news for him: He just lost one of the voters that (I'm will to bet) his "political consultants" thought he was going to reach by voting for this "compromise".

By voting for HR6304 he showed that he doesn't understand the basic job requirement of ALL elected officials: ". . . to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . .". He shouldn't have a seat in the Senate let alone the oval office.

I have a list of every member of congress who voted for this and none of them will get my vote.