Even though Hillary and Obama were not very far apart on many issues in teh primary voters supported Obama because he talked about Unity and compromise. That is exactly what he did with his final FISA vote. He just did not move farther to the left.

Regardless of what Glenn says, the Democrats did not just roll over for Bush. The new FISA bill was months in negotiations.

The only compromise the Democrats did not win on was stopping immunity for Telecoms thus ending many lawyers cases and income. Obama did vote with the for Dodds and Feingold's amendments that lost.

The biggest win for Democrats and the most important improvement in the new FISA bill is the Exclusivity Clause: The new FISA law states no president can authorize surveillance(like Bush did with the N.S. A. program) under exclusive powers. Authorization must be done under congressional powers.

* The new FISA bill expands the use of new technology for surveillance. (modernization).

* The new FISA law creates a SEVERN-day period for directing wiretaps at foreigners without a court order in "exigent" circumstances if the Government official assert important national security information would be lost.

* The new FISA law expands from THREE TO SEVEN days period for emergency wire tapping on Americans without court order if the AG certifies there is probable cause the targets are linked to terrorism.

This bill only expand wire tapping without a warrant on U.S. citizens by 4 days.

Meh. We can sit here and parse semantics all day. My point is that what Obama did - while unforgiveable, craven and politically stupid - is not at all comparable to what George W. Bush did.

Sorry, you're completely wrong. What Obama did is directly comparable to what Bush did. In fact, Bush's and Obama's roles comprise two crucial parts of the overall evisceration of the 4th amendment. One initiated it, the other legitimized it after the fact for all presidents to do likewise. This has nothing to do with semantics.

Obama also has not betrayed us on his support for abortion rights.

Don't blame the messenger. He's only an ambitious politician promising everything to anyone. If you heard what you wanted to hear, if you thought you knew what "change" meant, that's a natural quirk in perception. It is the use of mental imagery that leads to a short term memory trace becoming part of the long term memory source of belief formation and emotional attachment and conviction of beliefs.

We tend to accept as real what we expect, anticipate, or wish to happen. That's the reason we are constantly surprised and why we tend to play the victim.

Our virtual reality, however comforting and secure, does not change or influence the course of events in the real world. Our experiences are inventions if they rely on habit and wishful thinking.

I also never saw Obama as a progressive who would fight the lobbyists and corporations and would re-establish the seperation of church and state (by doing away with the faith-based initiatives). In fact, my first choice was former Sen. John Edwards, who I thought was much better in the debates than Obama or Clinton and had a stronger message, as well.

With that said, I will vote for Obama because I believe he is the lesser of two evils.

(obama too).

I'm really tired of Obama apologists telling me I should ignore his flip-flops and vote for him anyway. Support for a candidate has to be earned. Why don't you tell him to stop changing his positions? His arrogant pandering caused this problem, it's for him to fix it before it's too late... if it isn't already too late.

Sorry, you're completely wrong. What Obama did is directly comparable to what Bush did. In fact, Bush's and Obama's roles comprise two crucial parts of the overall evisceration of the 4th amendment. One initiated it, the other legitimized it after the fact for all presidents to do likewise. This has nothing to do with semantics.

In my opinion, Bush is far more culpable for violating the 4th amendment and FISA than Obama is for legitimizing it. Bush acted as an executive; Obama was one of many Senators who voted for it. It's comparable to Hillary Clinton and the AUMF -- it was a horrible, horrible vote but I don't hold her as responsible for the Iraq war as Bush, despite the fact that her vote (and subsequent votes) legitimized the president's bad decision.

I'm in no way defending what Obama did. I just think some of the criticism is over the top.

I did vote for Obama because he will reestablish he Separation of church and state and I still beleive that. Obmaa has been very clear how his faith based progrms woudld differ from Bushes.

There always have been faith based programs in this government, but under Bush they wre expanded and religious organization were allowed to hoist thier beliefs on others. Obama has said he will not allow this.

So, you Emo Donatists, why don't you stop whining and man up? If I want to read crybaby emo rants there are plenty of teen social networking sites.

Option A: Get together, hijack a plane, fly it into the Denver Convention, and collect your 72 virgins each. Allah Akbar!! Purity or Death!!! Purity or Death!!! Purity or Death!!!

Option B: I've heard these stories before. A 60's liberal says he's going to vote for Nixon because he wants to "fuck up this country so bad that it will hasten the Revolution!" This is basic Leninism, "hightening the differences."

So what'll it be? Also, please illustrate what your progressive utopia will be like, after the streets have run red with blood, and this utopia has arisen pheonix-like from the ashes.

Joan - Barack Obama will do or say anything to get elected. And, here we are, about 6 weeks out from the Democratic Convention, and I despair that the DNC will never come to its senses and nominate HRC. We've had 7 terrible Bush years and now we have 2 empty suits running at one of the most pivotal moments in our history.

I'm listening to Obama now and he's talking about equal pay for women, and yet women on his own staff make less than their male counterparts....It goes on and on.