Well, it looks like Obama is silent no more on FISA. Unfortunately, his response is basically that he's going along with the godawful compromise bill. He says he'll try to make sure telecom immunity is taken out, but, as far as I can tell, doesn't commit to opposing the bill if immunity stays.

If he's trying to prove McCain's point that Obama is just another politician, he's doing a stellar frickin' job.

He keeps this up, people who care more about the constitution than the news frenzy du jour may stay home (or write in Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul) on election day.

And it's not just Obama, but virtually the entire Democratic leadership, like Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer. At least a majority of House Democrats voted against it. With such a majority, maybe they can dump Pelosi and elect a new Speaker who might actually fight for constitutional rights for a change. Under Pelosi, the House is at least if not more of a rubber stamp for the Bush administration than it was when the Republicans were in control.

I'm pretty dissapointed in Obama, and the rest of the Democratic leadship in congress. I had really been hoping that they would stand stronger than they would. I'm still voting for him but my hopes for change are much duller now.

My hopes now depend on Hillary becoming Majority Leader in the senate and standing strong.

I'd root for Feingold, myself. I know he's considered to be too much of a lefty (meaning that he subscribes to radical notions like civil liberties and the rule of law, without exceptions for wealthy corporations), but he and Christopher Dodd have been among the few Senate Dems to stand up to the Bush administration over these issues. They had to fight their own majority leader (Reid) even to have him honor their filibuster of an earlier incarnation of the FISA bill.

Meanwhile, Reid kisses Joe Lieberman's rear end even as Lieberman prepares to stab his party in the back and endorse McCain at the Republican National Convention. If this is my party, maybe it's time to start wearing a paper bag over my head to hide the shame.

Isn't Lieberman an independent?

That's a good point. But I think he's considered to be an independent Democrat who's a member of the Democratic Conference and has the chair of the Homeland Security committee just as would a full-fledged member. He represents the razor-thin edge of the Democratic majority in the Senate, which is what gives him such inordinate influence and makes his antics so much more destructive. It's probably safe to say that if and when the Dems take a larger majority this fall, Lieberman will have his ass handed to him once and for all. I imagine at that point he'll just join the Republicans.

You may be right the he is more of an independet democrat the an outright independent, but wasn't it the Democrat Party that stabed him in the back first? And how do you think they will treat him if they should loose seats or stay about the same this election? I would think if he is more then likely to vote more as a Democrat then a Republican you would want to bad mouth him.

For someone who's grandstanded at crucial moments like scolding Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair or questioning the patriotism of fellow Democrats who opposed the Iraq war, Lieberman simply faced the consequences of angering many of his Democratic constituents. He's even slipped and called it the "Democrat Party," fer crissakes. He could have tried harder to get back into the good graces of the Democrats if it were important to him, but after endorsing McCain I can't see how the Democrats owe him anything.

Too many legislative victories for the GOP and the Bush administration, like enabling the Iraq war, approving of extremist Supreme Court justices like Alito and Roberts and enabling warrantless spying and torture have depended on "centrist" Democrats like Lieberman and others. Like I was saying, whether it's Pelosi, Reid, Sylvestre Reyes or Lieberman, if they can't even join the majority of their party to stand against eroding constitutional rights or stopping the worst abuses of power of the Bush administration, why should they deserve critical leadership positions?

Ok, he may have question the patriotism of fellow Democrats who opposed the Iraq war, but dosen't the First Amendment protect his right to question them just as it would protect your right to question the war? Are you ready to throw Liberman to the wolfs knowing that nine out of ten times he votes as a Democrat?

The Democrat Party left him first. At the time he was for the war, he didn't endorse McCain and the Party ran a person who was against the war in hopes that it would end his career. If you ask me, the Democrat Party needs him more then he needs them. Why? Without him the Republicans would of controled the Senate not the Democrats. He didn't do the Republicans any favors by standing with the Dems. Do we forget so soon?

If this election dose not give the Democrat Party a majority, they will need him again. Maybe this time he will wake up and change party loyalty to the Republican party. I'm sure the Republicans will be more then willing to let him join if it gives them the majority in the Senate. Thus it will also give them the bragging rights too. Go ahead a drive him away.

Anybody who uses "the Democrat Party" is being intentionally disrespectful. This discussion is over.

So I guess First Amendment rights don't matter to you? That's it turn your tail and run.

You can say what you want, you disrespectful punk. I just don't waste time with assholes. And what a stupid argument: First Amendment rights. Like me not caring to listen to any more of your disingenuous prattling interferes with your ability to express yourself. What a fucking putz. Go waste someone else's time, little boy.

First of all fingercott, ( you have to be gay ) I am not a member of the Democrat Party so I can disrespect you fucken party anytime I wish. What a fucken hypocrite. You assholes have been disrespecting the Republican party for years. And if disrespecting your party means telling the truth, then all the better.

The truth is, it was your fuck-face party that abandon Lieberman first. Why? Because he saw the war differently then you unpatriotic but-fucks. Yes I do question your patroitism, get over it ass-wipe. The First Amendment dose give me that right.

And just like the lowly bunch that you hypocrites are, if the Senate remains the same, people like you, Peloic, Reid, Obama virtually the entire Democrat leadership will be kissing his ass. Hopefully he'll see thru-your bullshit and say fuck you.

Lieberman is an Independant now, get over it.

And BTW; go fuck yourself, little boy. Have you had your sex change yet?

..Kids, kids, a wise person doesn't need to call names. suffice it to say that Joe Leiberman abandoned reason, sanity, and his party when he endorsed a war, with a blind eye toward the facts and realities on the ground, and in the region, in typical Republican fashion, all for another shot at the Vice Presidency. He's a sellout, and a chinless, immoral opportunist and we DON'T WANT HIM.

Maxpractical, when someone calls me an asshole, disrespectful punk ( like who in the hell dose he think he is? the faggot side of Clint Eastwood? ) and a fucking putz, that person is going to get both barrels back.

I asked fingercott good hard questions. Instead of answering them in a civil tone, he went waco elitist left in his responce. Fingercott showed this by writing: " This disscussion is over ". In other words, don't undermind my arrogant authority by asking hard questions.

I'm sure Maxpractical if you read the questions I asked before fingercotts arrogant responce, none were or meant to be disrespectful. Just hard questions.

Now I find it funny that you should mention Leibermans wish for another shot at the Vice Presidency. It's wasn't too long ago when the Republicans were saying the same thing about McCain. Remember a possible Kerry, McCain ticket? Now McCain may become President. I'm sure that both Leiberman and the RNC knows that a McCain, Leiberman ticket will mean poor voter turn out for the Republicans. So I do have to question your thinking on Leibermans intentions.

But correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that if you are for the war you are not a Democrat? Many of my friends are Democrats and are for the war. It would nice to tell them that they are not Democrats anymore.

BTW, anytime fingercott wishes to be civil again, I will call him, her fingerpupet again.