As a progressive, I don't like it. I wish he would push every bluedog out of Congress. But really, imagine if he were to try that. Imagine if word got out to the House and Senate members, that if you don't follow what the progressive line, Obama is going to actively try to unseat you. I could only imagine the uproar, and when Obama is President, he would get nothing done. Not to mention that him supporting the challenger may not even work. And then how would he look?

Whatever his strategy, it did not work with Lieberman.

Why surprise by this latest gag?

Uncle O has already:

Stabbed the great Reverend Wright in the back.
Left his church of 20 years.
Went down to FLA spewing shit about Castro and basically sounding like Ronald Reagan.
Backed off on his "negotiate with Iran" position. (As if this country has anything to teach Iran, a country which hasn't attacked or invaded another country since the 16th Century.)
Took it up the bum from AIPAC.
Wagged his stern finger at all those dead-beat darkie dads.
Filled his Foreign Policy "Advising" Team with a bunch of the Undead, the same people who gave us the Iraq Sanctions, the Sudan bombing, the destruction of Yugoslavia, and similar happy events.
Announced that NAFTA is A-OK with him.
And pushed his great wife to convince people that she's basically just another Condi Rice.

And my God, we're only in mid-June!

Maybe he'll be giving his convention speech in Denver wearing white gloves and a big bow-tie.

I don't approve. He should stay out of the primary. He can help local Dems in the general, but don't mess with the primary, especially helping a conservative Dem, not a good idea.

I'm sure he had his reasons, but it doesn't seem like something Obama would do. Then again, he made the same mistake with helping Lieberman.

Hopefully the challenger still wins.

Do we know any details about that race? Any polling? Whens the primary?

It might help with some swing voters to have a few headlines along the lines of "Obama slammed by liberal bloggers for supporting moderate Dem". I'm not saying I disagree with the liberal bloggers. I'm just saying they're not the ones Obama needs to convince in order to win in a landslide that will secure at least 8 years of advancing the progressive agenda.

Since I got you here, do you mind answering a question I had on your previous post about McCain's conference call?

When a McCain staffer outright lies on a media conference call like this, is there anyone there that calls them on it? Or does everyone just listen and play along, and then either report or debunk McCain's talking points later?

Also, in your opinion, how do statements like this [McCain so grossly mischaracterizing Obama's stance on capital punishment for bin Laden] effect their overall relationship with the media as they cover their campaign.

I'm genuinely curious about how far McCain staffers can go with distorting Obama's positions, and how far the media will allow him to go. One of the real unfortunate tenets of politics today is that the more shameless you are, the more leeway many in the media seem to give you with outright distortions and lies. I'm curious to know if you see this as a lose or an overall win for McCain that they've resorted to this already.

It's like the saying goes, you run to the left for the primaries, you run to the middle for the General. I'm not surprised, but it still sucks to see...

It's crap like this that makes me really want a true progressive on the ticket with him. I don't like this whole float to center crap- it's how Bill effed over the whole movement in the 90's.
I'm hoping a progressive running mate would keep him true to his platform.

I do not want a repeat of the 90's.

Also, I'd like to point out that Gov. Tim Kaine had the same no "cut and run" tactic in his last run for Governor. Ominous indeed....

I've been following Greenwald's excellent coverage of this story and this latest "twist" is certainly a big let-down. Shame on you Obama. By supporting this guy Obama is helping the telecoms gain amnesty for their lawlessness. It's a real tragedy. Why do DEMS enable this stuff???

BARACK IS QUIENTLY TELLING THE IRAQIS'S THAT HE HAS NO INTENTION ON GETTING US OUT IN 16 MONTHS.

this is wayY to unbelievable. not only has OBAMA lied to the country when he said one thing to us and another to canada regarding NAFTA, he is now discretely telling the IRAQ foreign ministry he has no plans to remove US troops in 16 months and that this is just camapaign rhethoric. Now, add the fact that he has also just announced he lied to the american public regarding taking public financing over private and you can better believe what i have been saying all along is that OBAMA is a snake oil salesman and you folks have been taken.

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=&vid=fe86c872-82f5-4525-afc7-e85d3ca13bd5

This were Obama better start leading or it won't matter if he wins or not, the US already lost.

Obama better get on that damn phone and CALL Nancy Pelosi and tell her what the score is - can OBAMA lead or NOT?

There are multiple reasons why Obama would do this. For example, he might be trying to send a message to certain House Dems that he can help them even in conservative districts, which could keep them from refusing to endorse him -- something that would give the GOP ammo in the Presidential race.

If this FISA passes - alot of netroot WILL lose faith in Obama overnight - and it will be a big blow. Either Obama needs to lead or get heck out of the way.

And the sellout of Obama begins.

He will do anything to get elected.

Sound familiar?

I have said all along that it was not a sustainable situation for the same guy to be the darling of both moderate Republicans and the Democratic Party's self-proclaimed left wing. Sooner or later, I said, one group or the other is going to be disappointed.

I wonder if this is an indication of which group it is going to be?

I agree with joejoejoe, 1:25 PM, re a wee bit of pragmatism. Obama's decision may have to do with sending messages to the more conservative wing of the Democratic party. But it may be simpler than that: do the Dems want to hold this seat or not? This is Georgia we're talking about.

Ok, the only thing I have to say here is that I find it very interesting that a very conservative Democrat thinks an ad by Obama will help him.

That's the only part of this I will even touch. I refuse to get into this shit until the man is elected. Then I'll worry about it.

In the meantime, the fact that Barrow wanted this ad speaks volumes to me.

I love Obama, but I can't support any representative that supports telecom immunity. I won't fault Obama, but I'm going to send money to this asshole's primary challenger.

Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss. How disappointing. How American.

I live in Barrow's district. I've talked to him in person on several occasions, spoken with his staff and contributed money to his campaign. On one occasion he put his two index fingers together in the form of a cross when I suggested he vote with the Dennis Kucinichs of the party a little more often than he does the Republicans. He is, however, far better than former Congressman Max Burns(R) and the other conservative nut cases that will be running against him. That said, I called his DC and Augusta offices today and told them he will not be getting any more money or support from me in the future should he vote for the FISA compromise and instead will support Regina Thomas. Truth is, Regina Thomas does not have a chance in the Hell that is GA District 12 against Barrow or the Republicans even if she got an Obama endorsement. She ain't got no money. Barrow's loaded and that was barely enough to get him re-elected in the GA Republican gerrymandered district. Barrow can't even get a single good mention in the ultra-conservative Augusta Chronicle even though he has voted with the Republicans and Bush more than any other Democrat. He's the worst of the Blue Dogs. I'll vote for Regina in July and hold my nose once again as I vote for Barrow in November. The alternatives are far worse believe me.

Suggestion for self-identifying "netroots"--read it again:

Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party
by Barack Obama
Fri Sep 30, 2005
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165

Those appear to be his sincere beliefs, as he's been quite consistent on this front.

Obama is endorsing John Barrow, a flaming reactionary redneck,democratic-in-name-only candidate who supports torture, warrentless wiretaps, telecomm immunity and continuing the war in Iraq – instead of Barrow’s opponent, state Senator Regina Thomas. Thomas is a bona fide y Progressive, AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN, who was running on anti-war, anti-telecomm immunity platform -- AND -- this is in a district that is 70% African American! ! !

-- again, this is not the general election, but the Democratic primary -- Outrageous! Kinds smacks of Bill Clinton's gratutious public condemnation of Sistah Souljah back in 1992.

The apologist commentary accompanying the main story above says:

"There are multiple reasons why Obama would do this. For example, he might be trying to send a message to certain House Dems that he can help them even in conservative districts, which could keep them from refusing to endorse him -- something that would give the GOP ammo in the Presidential race.”

Occam's razor would quickly shred these mental contortions into . . . well,. . . tripe, which they are . . . . . [ "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." ] Applying Mr. Occam's scapel to this set of events, I think the simplest and most probable explanation is that Obama is really showing his true conservative colors.

This does not bode well for either “change” or “hope.”

Unfortunately, many of the posts above share this willingness to engage in mental contortions in order to not challenge the "hope" that Obama respresents real "change."

Progressive Obama supporters need to hold him accountable – instead of doing his contorted rationalizations for him. Don't let him get away with this crap . . . And don't try to rationalize it away. Face reality.

Obama’s stunning endorsement of Barrow, - the candidate who is 100% wrong on the Iraq Occupation – the one key issue that Obama's base is counting on Obama to champion – says Obama is very comfortable taking for granted and ignoring his progressive base -- much as Kerry was, much as Gore was, much as Clinton was, much as Dukakis was, much as Mondale was --- the same way Archie Bunker was very comfortable taking advantage of Edith Bunker's loyalty. [Sorry, t.v. metaphors are our post-literate world's equivalent of the Shakespearean allusion.] I for one am a little bit tired of being taken for granted. . . .

If' Obama is as progressive as people on the left "hope" or rather dream he is, why the hell isn't he stumping for progressive candidates, that will help shore up his progressive base, increase his voter turnout and, by the way, be the right thing to do? If Obama is/were progressive, he should/would be expanding his campaign to reach out to other progressive campaigns and causes to help build a movement. This would strengthen his position as a candidate, and as a president.

I also had hope Obama would live up to his percevied image among progressives. Obama's gratuitous kowtowing to AIPAC was strike one. His even more inexplicable and gratuitous embrace of Barrow over State Senator Regina Thomas is strike two. . . . .

P.S.
-- I'm sending Regina Thomas $100 today.

GA District 12 is 55% White and 45% Black. The Democratic primary voters are 70% Black. It has been gerrymandered to be less progressive and more conservative by taking away parts of Athens and adding rural southern counties and communities. Barrow barely won in 2006 almost becoming the only Democratic incumbant to lose his seat. Obama is smart enough to know that the only way the Dems have a chance of holding on to this seat is if Barrow is once again the incumbant nominee. He may not like it and I definitely don't like it but that's the way it is down here y'all.

From what I've been reading Tomas hasn't had much of a professional campaign. She doesn't believe in direct mail or TV ads. And don't know if she has asked for help from Obama or made his name or platform part of hers. Her efforts to fundraise should have been more stealth long ago and progressives should have grown her campaign from the ground up.

Also I hear that Barrows is his co-chair in Vote for Change.

Obama is not a Progressive. He's a Centrist.
But since Obamabots have bought the propaganda, they fully believe Obama is the Progressive messiah.
LOL

Here in Western NC we have what CHarlie Gibson called the most Republican like Democrat Rep there is Heath Shuler. I am far from crazy for the guy but he is running against Hitler this year, so I will vote for him and urge others to as well.