I think many people intentionally let themselves be "fooled", made themselves into disposable tools and aided Obama's trek to the top because they wanted the prestige of being even slightly involved in his victory.

So, if you thought FISA was an outrage, or that we ought to withdraw from Iraq, or that the DC handgun ban was constitutional, or the death penalty should be abolished, you're not just liberal. You're on the "far left".

Just a thought. It's saturday evening, and I've had a few.

I'm with Jeralyn; I didn't expect anything different. I'm voting for Obama because I don't like McCain, but I honestly understand why people will be turning to McCain in the general. Nobody likes to be lied to about such important things.

It's sweet, really.

Because there is life after 2008 to worry abuot, too.  I think that what was done to the Dem base may not bode well down the line -- and we still have to see just what it means for midterm elections.  More needs to be known about this restructuring of the party headquarters and staff, which can mean a lot to Congressional and state legislative candidates.

People who believe in the protection of civil liberties, in reproductive freedom, in a stark line between church and state - we are not hard-left/far-left radicals: we are the mainstream.

I guess I just don't get it, why so many are rationalizing Obama's ping-ponging by making it the status quo - what pols do, as if they can't help themselves.  It's as passive as being "disappointed;"  It's just so...polite.  I don't see "polite" as getting us where we need to be; what I thought we needed, and what I thought Hillary was more disposed to, was a little kicking a$$ and taking names.

How on earth will we ever get the leaders we need and the leaders we want if we allow people like those in the Democratic leadership and Barack Obama, to play fast and loose with where they stand on the issues?  These people are supposed to represent us, after all - and if we are not holding them accountable with our votes, we are giving them license to be just exactly who they have been - and will continue to be.

I thought I was going to be able to go "big picture" on this election; I did it with Kerry and I thought, if I had to, I could do it again.  But the last 18 months of the most spineless Congress in my memory, and after the way the DNC handled the primary, essentially saddling us with a nominee who is not the best person for the job, I can't do it.

Not that I am advocating not voting for Obama, but I hate how "those awful, cranky, hippie liberals" are to blame for everything.

He, along with his lickspittles in the M$M, did everything they could to destroy a sitting US Senator and the most popular multi-term President this Party has had since FDR.  His bloggers went all-in with their support of him, and I would imagine they have lost traffic and influence over their stupidity.  (I have no problem with someone being pro-Obama, or even that they criticized Hilary a bit, but the virulent CDS on display was just fracking atrocious.  I will NEVER forgive them, or read their stupid blogs again.)

Oh, and for the record, Obama didn't win, he was pulled across the finish line by a corrupt process that violated its own rules in finishing Hilary off.  A vote for Obama is a vote for Dean and Brazille and rewards them for destroying the Party when they should have just stayed the H*ll out of it, and at this point I can't do it, maybe that will change.  Sorry, I have those pesky things called principles, I won't reward that kind of "suck on this" corruption.  

Does the Dem Party want my vote?  Eliminate all caucuses as the frauds that they are.  Dean and Brazille et al must not only apologize, but publicly fall on a sword and resign.  Hilary has to be the VP Nominee and given as much, if not more power, than Cheney in that office.  Majority Leader is a compromise if it is handed to her BEFORE the Election, because for some strange reason I don't trust the current leadership to follow through on any promise they make.

Right now, with his positions, Obama is running for Clinton's third term.  Hilary was in a far better place to do that IMHO.

The disgraceful FISA lockstep was a clinic in legislative Fascist architecture, why it occurs, how it is erected and why it is difficult to knock down.  

This sloppy "centrist" labeling should be stopped in its tracks, no matter how we, in this day and age, so lazily prefer such trains of thought to run merrily on time and without interruption that we'd sell our children's freedom and joy for it.

Fascism is NOT centrist. Fascism is Fascist.

Everyone, take back our freedoms and use every means necessary to do it. Indeed, do it even if it means sabotaging that all important number one priority of the Dems, their ridiculous swanning and perpetual oily posedown for the cameras.

The primary "reason" behind their real and theatrical ineptitude, as stated by their own party leaders at long last, has been to avoid criticism from the media.

Because that's the most important thing. Not even Britney Spears thinks that's minimally important.

This is why we have witnessed two admins of Dems ludicrous, haughty and toothless disregard to avoid at all costs doing the ONLY job they were placed in office to do:

uphold and defend the Constitution.

I can type out a long response here but I won't.

While I taught in the poorest schools, worked to improve educational opportunities for the poor, for minorities, for girls, he lectured about what was needed.

I find it frightening that Dean & Co. are trying to engineer a convention that denies the truth of where our party actually stands. They are scared to death about what might happen if Hillary's name is put in nomination and the super delegates get to vote in secret ballot. Do we really know at this point who the nominee would be?

The DNC's motives for staging the nomination acceptance at a venue other than the convention aren't fooling anyone. How can a man afraid to face his opponent's supporters confront the rigors of the presidency?

It's not too late for a Hillary-Obama ticket. He can't raise money, her base (which is huge) isn't buying what he's selling, and the 527's haven't even begun with the heavy artillery.

Whose party is it, Dean's, Pelosi's, Brazile's or ours?

The fact that a fairly traditional politician campaigns on the idea of "change" is not -- to me -- deceptive.  In fact, campaigning on change is typical politician behavior.  In a sense it's hard to blame Obama that so many people took him seriously when no one takes, for instance, John McCain seriously when he campaigns on change.

And the fact that he has campaigned in general terms which allow him to be all things to all people is also typical politician behavior.  The ability to be all things to all people is the sign of a good politician.  People who fool themselves into believing the politician is someone he's not really have themselves to blame.

Obama's major violation was his flip flop on FISA.  That's almost breathless in it's audacity -- he clearly, unequivocally promised to vote one way (indeed, to filibuster the vote) and in the event, with no change in circumstances and no argument as to why his opinion had changed, voted the other way.

On pretty much all the other issues you could fairly easily discern Obama's true positions, or the fact that he didn't have a clear position, from his own statements.  The few remaining issues are ones which most people don't seem to care about (like public financing of campaigns).

I agree, I have always agreed. My previous posts have been that he was the only Democratic candidate who could lose. I always thought that Edwards was a lock to win the Presidency. HC had an excellent chance. But Barack Obama could lose.

Barack Obama could lose Ohio, Pennsylvania and/or Michigan. Lose any one and it is very difficult to win. Lose 2 and we have Bush 3 in the White House.

You can be a media darling. You can stand for nothing. You can win the popular vote. But if you don't win the electoral voters you are not the next President of the United States. Axelrod is truly brilliant to get his guy this far. But his guy seems to stand for nothing.

The question is "why are those so-called Regan Democrats going to vote for Barack Obama?" Please tell me the answer.

Funny how the low information people smelled the phoniness on the man when the better class of people couldn't manage to detect anything the least bit off.

Like Jeralyn, I am a pragmatist, go for who you know.  I like Hillary's competence.  I like how she stood up for the Dem causes.  But alas, now we are back at this Unbearable Lightness of Centrist Nothingness.  

And thus, for the first time, gender -- "male" -- went into our Constitution in 1868.  No, the guys didn't care that the majority of African Americans were left out: women of color.  And thus, all women had to fight for more than another half of a century to rewrite the Constitution again.

given his recent FISA vote and the other centrist positions he's staked out in recent weeks.

can you say "right-wing, bordering on fascist" positions, boys and girls? i knew that you could!

realistically, soon, the only thing that will separate sen. obama from sen. mccain is that sen. obama is taller. oh, he's also still working on wife # 1.

On another subthread in this topic, someone said I left out what strategy the Obama campaign is using.  I'll answer in this message because it's related and because the anti-Obama folks here can post as many messages as they want, while I'm limited to 10 posts.  For the same reason, I won't be responding to each jab from you guys trying to make me use up my limited allocation.  I try to write insightful posts here, and I won't back down from supporting our candidate.

I believe Obama's strategy is to undermine the simplistic arguments against him, such as his disagreement with FISA proving he's not tough enough on terrorists to be Commander in Chief.  His vote minimizes our opponents claim that he's blocking the government from protecting us.  I don't like the vote, but the effect will be that the GOP won't be able to easily make the simplistic "fought against FISA" claim in 457s ads.  From comments here and elsewhere, the non-Obama half of our party were that way well before Obama announced his support of this FISA bill.  Most of the college crowd is off playing or working this summer, and a big chunk of Americans are more concerned about gas prices than the complexities of FISA.  They expect our government to figure it all out, to do something to stop terrorists without letting the government hurt regular old Americans.  They certainly don't want our leaders to do nothing, and we may have dodged a bullet by not letting FISA expire in August.  

Obama's outreach to evangelicals and use of the words "mental distress" have angered feminists, but given how many Hillary supporters won't support him, I think his ability to look for votes amongst anti-abortion voters will turn out to be useful.  He's speaking to their fears about women choosing late term abortions flippantly.  Although their fears don't reflect reality, his ability to speak to their concerns is important in undermining our opponents claim that he's a crazy left wing liberal.  By reaching evangelical youth, he's reinforcing the generational difference between old school bible thumping leaders who sold votes to Bush, and the new faith based leaders and followers who may accept a more centrist compromise on hot topic issues like abortion and gay rights.  Ultimately, he could walk the walk and talk the talk with regard to women's right to choose, and still lose support from that part of the Dem party based on the perception that he was or is sexist.  So now we have Obama's pro-choice record, combined with his outreach to the anti-abortion crowd.  The payoff (and the strategy) is that many evangelicals and communities of faith won't fall for the GOP strategy of painting Obama as a crazy left wing liberal.  In fact, by appearing to be deserting the left wing of the Democratic party, he's in a better position to win the GE.  

The big news now is the split in the party.  M$M thrives on conflict, not cooperation.  Faux News wants to promote McCain, but he doesn't have any draw.  Obama does.  Every time they report on a McCain event, their bored viewers switch channels.  As far as the event in TX goes, Obama doesn't look like a coward as some here have claimed, and if the media uses that terminology, they're just trying to create drama for ratings.  I personally don't want him to "cowboy up" and I think tough guy attitudes like MarkL's "Fine, he just LOOKS like a coward. Advantage McCain..." is exactly why we have a worthless president in place right now.  McCain can't inspire his followers.  If the campaign agrees to attend a fake townhall in that conservative corner of TX, Obama will be the draw that makes McSame suddenly look good.  They'd stack the deck with simplistic questions that right wingers like simplistic answers for.  McCain would lie and say he supports the troops, they'd all forget that he votes against the interests of the military, and they'd cheer for him.  Obama would be the draw, but lying, anti-troop McSame would get the cheers.  No, it's not about Obama looking like a coward, it's about our opponents wanting him to make poor strategy choices that boosts the image of their no solution candidate.

I don't like how Obama voted on FISA. However as Russ Feingold said the other night on Countdown, he believes that Obama understands the issues, understands it was a bad bill, and will work to undo the worst parts of the bill if he's elected President.

A part of me is not surprised Obama's not as progressive as we all make him out to be. If we're surprised, how much have we been paying attention to him? This isn't anything new.

We can't turn to Obama to solve all our problems and/or issues. The most progressive, revolutionary, effective, beneficial, substantive, lasting, and evolutionary changes that have ever happened, in human history, are the direct result of people taking action- themselves- to demand it; not through ballot boxes, not through vigils, not through quaint marches or petitions, but through insisting that something about the way things are is un-exceptable and antiquated.

Barack's FISA stance was a jaw-dropper. He misled the public by mischaracterizing what was in the bill (a kind of lying) which is bizarre because there was no need for it. He said to people, "If FISA is a deal-breaker for you, that's okay," dismissing the Constitution and -- just as important -- dismissing any dissent with his opinion. He inoculates himself by saying, "You won't agree with everything I say" and salves disappointment by rhetorically pumping the emotionality of his "movement." It's a very cunning flim-flam.

I disagree with your conclusion at the end.

(besides the SuperDelagates haven't casted their votes and won't until late August).