Here's the problem. In October 2007, the Obama campaign said:

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Maybe next time around, when a candidate runs on a platform of change and progress, people will examine his or her record for substance more closely before joining the bandwagon

The problem here is that every time around, the young crowd and new people pulled into the party will always be attracted to the "change" "hope" type stuff, or the shiny new object. So there will never be such an examination in my opinion from the voters. That examination instead is supposed to come from elder party members (that is, SD's). Sadly they don't tend to be very wise. See for example, Obama, Kerry, etc. And of course it would be nice if it came from the press, but of course we don't have one anymore.

As Democratic voters, it is OUR JOB to fix the Party when it's broken. Saying "Oh well, what choice do we have?" is exactly what the DNC and Pelosi and Reid want us to do.

If we want a better Democratic Party, we must force our leaders to give it to us. Sometimes this means going against the party line. But if we don't show some spine, our leaders never will.

Which is likely to cause the worst long term damage, a Congress who will roll over for every damaging policy put forth by Obama, even if his policies are slightly less damaging than McCain's, or a Congress who will be slightly less capitulating for more damaging policies?  

Then throw in time -- I doubt McCain will make 2 terms, but if Obama wins there's a better chance for 2.  So twice as long to implement a series of individually less damaging policies, but which still may add up to more damage overall?

For instance, I seriously doubt McCain would have any success at privatizing Social Security, yes, even with our current crop of weak 9%-ers.  Obama, on the other hand, is much, much more likely to succeed.  How long and how hard will it be to undo that damage?

Nonetheless, as between a President who reaches out to Republicans and one who is a Republican, the one who merely reaches out is preferable.

Why? I mean, if the blue gang is more and more like the red gang, when is it only about gang membership. Of course I know there's still a difference, but not that much. And it seems to be less every day. At what point will this be strictly gang colors and nothing else.

I know the vote is tomorrow, but if Hillary really does vote no, I will dance and sing the rest of the day.

He will continue to plummet further in the approval category.

Obama should be out front leading on Obama's stated principles -- ESPECIALLY the ones he used to deprive Democrats of the better, more qualified, more winning candidate in the primaries.

It's simply not good enough to say, "Oh well, I'm just a lying cynical pol like all the other schmucks!" just as it's not right for, say, a drug-clean athlete who got millions in endorsements based on that saying, afterwards,

"Yup ... I'm dirty like the rest. Yeppers, growth hormone in the morning, steroids at noon and anti-histamine masking agents at night. SUCKAHHHHHS!"

Now does this athlete get stripped of his/her gold medals and endorsements, or allowed to continue competing unquestioned and bestowed with millions more in rewards?

Ugh.

I will not vote for either candidate, but I have more confidence in a Democratic Congress pushing back against McCain than against Obama - and it is what Obama will do as president that I am concerned about.  Remember how we railed against the rubber-stamp Republicans?  Well, I've come to worry about what a Democratic Congress will be rubber-stamping for President Obama.  Sure, some things will work out just swell - but is a Democratic Senate more or less likely to reject a "consensus" nominee to the Supreme Court if Obama makes the nomination - how on earth will be stop the nomination of someone like Roberts, whom Obama was poised to vote for?

If Obama doesn't have the guts and honesty to stand up now, he hasn't earned the right to be trusted to do it in the White House.

He ran without a record or noticeable skills and asked people to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he's going to be like every other sellout, we should have back the other candidates he knocked off by saying he was bringing something different.

I think if there is one thing liberals should have learned from the 2000 election, it's that bad things happen when you decide to cast a protest vote.  I think when the chips are down, there is still a clear difference between Obama and McCain no matter how you slice it, and it is the duty of every good liberal to vote for Obama whether they have to hold their nose or not.  I totally understand where people come from when they say they don't want to vote for Obama, I just think they're wrong in the final analysis.

But setting that aside, even if Democrats like Obama can feel free to take my vote for granted, I think it's a serious mistake to ADVERTISE that they can take it for granted.  It becomes a free license for Democrats to move as far to the center as possible, secure in the knowledge that their base has "no place else to go."

We have very few levers of influence over our elected representatives, and our vote is one of them.  I think it's important to practice a little tough love and make them worry that they might lose our votes if they don't stick closely enough to a liberal agenda - even if, in our hearts, we've decided that we're actually going to vote for them either way.

once they're elected, we're all SOL until they start pandering to us again before the next election.  At least, the House has less wiggle room, since they're only in for two years at a time.  Some of them definitely need the boot this time around.

We get the Government we elect

Indeed.

Maybe next time around, when a candidate runs on a platform of change ... people will examine his or her record for substance more closely before joining the bandwagon.

first, i will hope that the SD's come to their senses, before the votes are cast in aug., and nominate sen. clinton. it's the only way to be sure.

if they don't, i have the write-in option available to me.

next, i will vote dem all the way down-ballot. if the dems. succeed in getting a super-majority in both houses, the president becomes a moot point. except, my fear is that a pres. obama would be given much more leeway than a pres. mccain would.

Obama presents himself as a "progressive", when in fact he has no ideological foundation whatsoever -- and is likely to "govern" from the center (and define the 'center' as progressive).   . . . I think Obama represents a far more 'dangerous' president than McCain, because Obama (like Bush) is all about his own ego -- and this is especially dangerous in terms of foreign policy.

What you're saying rings an intuitive bell on a macro level in the "movement" Obama is leading in which there are few disagreements and those who dissent are separated out, marginalized, in essence ignored by the sheer juxtaposition of the movement next to "McCain, the not-Obama." The specifics (and dissent) are not important. What's important is maintaining the unitary cohesion of not a political movement unified around contentious issues like union solidarity or civil rights or economic justice but a social movement, fervent and almost religious in feeling, where partisan edges and disagreements are softened, melded and eliminated and the leader of this movement is projected as a "great speaker" and an inspiring rock star speaking to 75,000 people in a stadium time after time until we are conditioned by repeated media exposure to that overwhelming applause and acclaim for his speeches (therefore what he says must be true), all in agreement and unity and filled with hope which is the cement of unity, all oroboric, preconscious and seamless.

Any historical echoes I leave to your imagination. The word "dangerous" does seem to apply, although I use that word as a wakeup call to keep our eyes open, not dismiss the Obama movement but try to stay awake around it.

Within this context, Obama's statement that "if FISA is a deal-breaker for you, that's OK" is dismissive and condescending (cutting troublemakers out of the herd) but makes perfect sense.

Not one effort to re-enfranchise the Hillary supporters that I know of... only that he's better than McCain. There are a number of candidates on the ballot better than McCain. So I guess he means "with a chance to win".

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/members

It is all of the recent posts made on all the blogs on the mybarackobama site.  There are some very thoughtful people making posts critiquing both McCain AND Obama's positions.  Sure, that is not all of the posts, but there are some great ones.  

And the biggest reason not to support him. Pelosi, Kerry , Dascle, the DNC and Donna Brazille love him. That should be enough to tell you he is no progressive.

How many more things do you need

"I don't see any mind control or anything scary about the Obama Phenomena.  I agree with Jim Hightower (a great progressive populist), I'm more a fan of the phenomena than the man."

The term here is phenomenon, in both places. because it's being used in the singular.

This is so common now, but it still drivs me up the wall. I just can't help myself!

Jim Hightower is well to the left of me, but Obama is well to the right of me. How could the two have any relationship at all?