Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

I still don't know the repercussions that the non-cheerleading Obama supporters will enforce if he throws them under the bus.

Will they employ a vice, rather than a clothespin when they vote for him?

Obama doesn't care.  He doesn't want their approval.  He only wants their vote.  And he knows he'll get it because "real Democrats" have nowhere else to go.

Obama's corporate character was always there for anyone to see.  I think he will continue to disappoint, and his most ardent adherents will eventually turn and feel betrayed by the illusion of change he perpetuated, as compared to his performance as an agent of the status quo.

Now we are stuck with this choice, and with maybe 4 or 8 years of payments.

If Obama really represented change, he never would have made it this far.

Black Agenda Report, speaking of Obama and his black constituency, stated:

Obama wants to shut down what's left of the Black Freedom Movement. He's getting help from panicked and unprincipled Black Left misleaders who contort their former politics beyond recognition in order to attach themselves, mostly uninvited, to a corporate campaign that tries to masquerade in movement clothing. They meekly offer insubstantial but nevertheless unwelcome advice to unhearing campaign operatives on how to make the campaign appear more like a genuine people's mass political vehicle, as if Goldman Sachs and the other Wall Streeters who made Obama the early money frontrunner would tolerate interference in their behind-the-curtain rule.

"I'm not sure when the vote is scheduled," Obama said.

from Jake Tapper's blog

Hillary was/is a pragmatist and may have taken a similar stance on FISA or campaign financing but purity is not what she was running on. Obama's only real claim was purity, change, hope, blah blah blah. If Obama was truly the principled type and won by attacking her as a typical pol many of her supporters could live with that, as at least he had some differentiating justification for his nomination. When (as many suspected by his actions during the primary campaign) it turns out he is just the same typical pol but with no experience or agenda to speak of, he seems to have blatantly won on false prenteces.

Now, if the superdelegates wake up and back Hillary, the winner of the People's Votes, the one with the experience, knowledge, record of accomplishments, good judgement, and maturity, we can get on with getting America back on track.

Another GREATEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN HISTORY,

another 8 YEARS OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY.

Of course it needs to be about issues, and about giving the candidate a reason to listen to us - but that ship sailed a long time ago, and about all people are going to be getting for their contributions and endorsements is seasick.  Heck, I'm not even on that ship and I feel nauseated.

Yeah, I want my country back, but I'm not much interested in handing over the controls to people who are going to break off more pieces of it and claim that it's okay because they have better reasons for doing it than the other guys did.

The Democratic Party is being undermined by its own dysfunctional power structure, which was never more evident than in its handling of the Michigan/Florida debacle - and Obama is as tied into that structure as anyone - or he would have bucked the so-called leadership in the days leading up to the House vote and he would be twisting arms and playing hardball with his fellow Senators in advance of the Senate vote.

This is who Obama is, folks - it's not about the people, it's about the checks.

Support strong Dems downticket and support a muscular Congress. Make sure the treacherous ones know their time is at hand. Summer's the time to do this.

If the Repugs -- or enough Rogue Dems with the stones to hang tough -- were smart, they'd goad Obama into leading a senatorial filibuster to stop (even reverse) this FISA mess.

Obama's mushmouthing the notion of an idea of supporting one ... feh. Make him go out there. Make him.

If Obama still can't stand up for basic Constitutional principles -- and these aren't even radical -- right now, against a candidate he should be trouncing, with popular support all on his side and after the worst Pres/admin ever, he deserves to be sent back to the Senate to grow some spine or make up for lost learning time.

You are naive if you think the compromise happened without the knowledge of Obama, and he is issuing a statement after the fact.  That cannot be.  

An expolosive, controversial issue like this could hamper the nominee.  Why would Pelosi bring it up now?

Note carefully.  It's the quiet time.  Reporters mad at Hillary Clinton for prolonging the primary have just now gotten their vacations. It's summer, just before 4th of July.  What better time to throw Campaign Finance, FISA under the bus?

Superdelegates LOVE the money networks Obama has and are drooling at the prospect of that money. He is even careful and not issuing fundraising emails for anyone, b/c that means some cherished donors will also end up on somebody else's big email list.  That's his ace, and he is not letting go of it.

Remember, the first thing that came for Obama was MONEY. You'd think that network of bundlers, lobbyists, and corporate bosses with connections didn't expect anything in return?  

Obama will throw a lot of people under the bus, but he is too smart of a politician to throw his money backers there.  That won't happen.

By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

What I do have is more evidence that an Obama administration could be as disastrous for the Democratic Party as the Bush administration has been for the Republicans.

An uncertain and unpredictable president in today's world can be much worse than a merely bad president (or a president with whom you disagree).  No matter how much you support his policies, he's going to have problems, and if his response is to throw whomever and whatever under that famously overcrowded public conveyance, or if that's what his response is expected to be, he's going to be rendered powerless.  He'll be pushed around by public opinion, by his fractious congressional colleagues, by the press, by his supporters, by his enemies...  He'll be forced to overreact to provocations or take firm stands that are unwise simply to prove that he's capable of doing so.  It's happened before - in fact, even if the president is a very stubborn person, it's a danger.  I've always thought the Senator was unprepared for the job and didn't really expect to get this far this time around.  

Without links (because it's bothersome), the Bu$h admin. has disclosed information to a select group of congressional leaders.  The Speaker & the Majority Leader of the House as well as the Minority Leader & Minority Whip, the Senate Majority & Minority Leaders & both Senate Whips, the Chair & Vice-chair of both the House & Senate Intelligence Committees & the similar chairs of the House & Senate Armed Services Committees.  If my memory serves, this is a total of 12 legislators who have been briefed, informed & included on the actual implementation of the wiretaps that most liberals consider illegal, unconstitutional, & un-necessary.

It is my opinion that Sen. Durbin has met with Sen. Obama & changed the presumptive nominee's opinion about the "new" FISA bill.  It is very likely that neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain have been privileged to the specific results of the wiretaps.  Even so, the White House may have shared some preliminary information with them & tried to avoid slipping across the "need to know" line for intelligence data.

Having observed Sen. Durbin's behaviors on other similar issues, it is difficult to reconcile his support for these House & Senate FISA bills with past speeches & votes.  It doesn't seem likely to me that Durbin would "sell out" on this for some imperceptible political gain.

In a similar manner, it seems unlikely that the past record of Representative Pelosi would lead an impartial observor to predict or expect her support for the FISA bill(s) as Speaker.

Other observors may be have more focused observations on Senators Rockefeller, Reid, & Levin.  It just doesn't pass the smell test to have these senators supporting Title I of the bill as they also try to "immunize" the TelCos with slightly different fixes than after-the-fact approval by Congress in Title II.

If people are going to be involved in progressive politics, they are going to be disappointed in their standard-bearers.  That's reality.  And it would be the reality if Hillary Clinton was the nominee.

I hope that the new, enthusiastic Obama voters will remain involved even through their disappointment.

I strongly disagree with a poster above who called Clinton a shoo-in.  I have been 100% sure, ever since she announced her candidacy, that she would lose the GE.  I was so sure that the Democrats would nominate her and the Republican would win in the fall, that I paid no attention to the race at all until February.  It seemed pointless to me (though of course I planned to vote for her in Nov.)

The reasons I felt she couldn't win are:
a)  The almost-unconstitutional third term for the Clinton co-presidency, which I think would have been a major RW radio talking point if she had been nominated
b)  The motivated Hillary-haters flocking to the polls to vote against her
c)  Clinton fatigue -- all of the old baggage
d)  Dynasty fatigue -- I didn't think the voters would go for Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

Many Democrats do have fond feelings toward the only Democratic president they've known  (or one of only 2, depending on their age).  That's why I thought Hillary would be the nominee.  

But Bill Clinton was elected with 43% (then 46%) of the vote, with Perot in the races.  Our nominee in 2008 needs to get a lot more votes than Bill Clinton ever did.  So, Bill's winning 2 terms was not at all an indicator to me that Hillary could do the same.

I have my doubts that Obama can win.  When Democrats start off with pretty much no chance to win the entire southeast quadrant of the country, it's a very tough challenge.  Yet, I strongly feel he's our best chance, and I support him enthusiastically.  And realistically, knowing he is not perfect.

{I wrote this off-line, after reading the 'do anything to win' thread.  I'm posting it here, since this seems to be the current thread on the same topic)

Obama's now the leader of the Party.  I don't much like it, but the Dem party isn't the progressive haven I'd like it to be.  It isn't just black hats and white hats; there are some gray hats as well.  I live in OK (talk about a lonely place to be a yellow dog FDR lib) and there are lots of folks in the Dem party here that are to the right of Bush.  Folks like Dan Boren get elected here (he's a U.S. Rep. that has publicly rejected Obama, as you may have recently read, but don't confuse him with DAVID, former Gov. and U.S. Sen. who is now pres. of Univ. of OK).  

There are Dems like Dan Boren spotted all over very red states like OK, even in the deep South and the Mountain West.  They vote with Pelosi and Reid on a wide variety of issues that progressives care about, but not always.  FISA is one issue where they vote with the GOP.  This is especially critical in the Senate, where the Dem majority is so thin that we rely on the odious Joe Lieberman, even when we have to hold our nose.

Politics is the art of the possible, they say, and I understand where Pelosi, Reid and Obama are coming from on FISA.

That said, it's outrageous.  As an attorney deeply invested in civil liberties, I'm appalled.  As an Obamatron, I am deeply disappointed and yes, this month (at least) my pocketbook closed up.  

Dear XXXXXXX, I hope you had a chance to read the email that was sent from Senator Barack Obama. His message is critical for all of us who want to take our country in a New Direction. As Speaker, I can tell you that we need a Democrat in the White House and a strong Democratic majority in Congress to drive change forward. Our June 30th FEC deadline is vital to our success in November. All eyes will be on Democrats' fundraising totals as a measure of our party's unity and strength. I ask that you please help to show our commitment to across-the-board victories this November by making a contribution of $35, $50 or more at www.dccc.org/unitedforchange today.

Thank you for your support.

He's got the majority of Democrats, about half the independents, and some moderate Republicans.  He's rolling in cash, so much so that he can withdraw from "aggressively" pursuing an agreement with McCain to use public financing.

And given the lack of consequence among his supporters to his many recent flip-flops and lobbyist prostration (AIPAC), he will get those votes even if he were to state more honestly something like: "That change thing? That was for the primaries.  Time to get real now, sweeties."

McCain will be a one-term prez.

McCain will have his hands tied by a Democratic Congress.

McCain will not touch Roe v Wade.

The Iraqi Prime Minister said, after talking to Obama by phone, that there is basically no difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq.

McCain may not have an abundance of knowledge on the economy like Hillary does, but Obama has no knowledge on the economy.  Obama even put down Clinton's GREATEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN HISTORY.

McCain works well with both sides, Obama has destroyed his own party. He is in no way a uniter, he can't be trusted, he has been proven to be a flip-flopper and a liar, and he and his gang use very dubious tactics to get their way.

More and more voters are going to McCain and leaving Obama.

"That's change you can Xerox!"

And they booed her for that.