Borowitz hits the nail on the head again.

Here's the thing: I was clearly sympathetic to Obama's campaign throughout the primary, and I certainly don't expect him, or any Democrat, really, to be on my side on every or even most issues--I'm too far to the left for that. And I don't expect to vote against him (not that it matters where I vote from), in spite of the fact that his "move to the center" has so far included a huge capitulation on FISA, a soundbite that suggests he approves of Faith Based Initiatives, and the fact that he is clearly pulling back on his signature issue--i.e. Iraq. If I were interested in purity, I wouldn't be looking to politicians for my model.

My candidate doesn't entertain me.  He's too boring.  Too much like the Republicans.  He voted the wrong way on a bill.  Let's punish him by withdrawing our support.

How many ways have we found to put Republicans in the White House?  In the last few decades of their glory, Republicans have hardly been purists.  When they at last tried to be, they practically destroyed their party.  But they did achieve something.  They kept pushing their line, kept pushing their choices.  They didn't let so many second thoughts and buyers remorse regrets soak into their political habits.

They got one thing right: if you want political progress in your desired direction, you take it one step at a time.  If you've got a candidate who seems great, don't twist yourself in knots worrying about them.  If they're just mediocre, but your other choice is simply terrible, don't be ashamed to chose the uninspiring over the unthinkable.

Too many people have confused Obama's victory in the drawn out primary process with actual victory. Barack Obama hasn't won the election yet.

I have three kids.  Little ones.

The oldest is four.  He's a hoot.. like a mini me.  A real sweetheart, blue eyes, and he's kind to bugs.

The middle one is a daredevil.

There has been a growing attitude and message problem around much of Daily Kos lately because of the FISA capitulation. I'll start by saying that I count myself in the group opposing the bill that was recently passed and signed; I've made it clear that I don't support immunity for the telecoms or insufficient court supervision for the FISA program.

But that's not what I'm writing about today. Today I want to address something that is potentially ten times as dangerous and damaging as the FISA capitulation. I'm talking about the perception that by acting as purists when it comes to ideology we can wash our hands of the consequences when it comes to reality.

It must be nice to not have to worry about your job, your health insurance, and your mortgage. It must be nice to be so obsessed with FISA that you're willing to do massive harm to the rest of us out here in middle America. It must be nice to be so much of a purist that you're willing to withhold donations to the Democratic Nominee for President because he didn't vote your way.

I actually can't believe that I am the one saying this, but some of you fellow lefties are off your nut.

I recently took the Political Compass quiz.  Needless to say, I was to the left of Lenin and Ghandi both.  I am an atheist, vegetarian, pro-choice, pro environment, anti-discrimination, semi-socialist who believes that all of life's basic needs should be communally shared... wants are negotiable.

For every thousand citizens there are probably 999 who disagree with me on one or more of my values.

Yet, I openly campaigned and was a state delegate for Senator Obama in Washington.

Sorry folks but I do not want ex-Republicans in  my tent. The small government, fiscal conservative, personal responsibility crowd needs to form their own party.

I am not defending Obama's vote for the FISA `compromise'. He was wrong, in my view. He was wrong to promise to support a  filibuster against TELCO immunity. He was wrong even more not to follow through. These days everyone, left and right, is finding reasons to take potshots at Obama. Perhaps it means  that he is successful. Or that he is a centrist after all. Most likely it means that people put Obama up on a pedestal where no politician belongs. Not even MLK or Gandhi. If you have heard of MLK but not Stokely Carmichael; if you know about Gandhi but not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, it is because the compromises they made eventually made their movements succeed.

The opposition to FISA has attracted large numbers of sincere progressive activists. It has also attracted some agitators and hotheads.  A case in point is the diary below  by Mike Stark. Yes, that Mike Stark. The founder of the 23,000 member group on myBO.

I'm sick and tired of reading all the lefty blogs freaking out that Obama isn't a mindless surrogate for every one of the netroots' pet policy-positions. He's not a living breathing manifestation of the liberal movement, he's a shrewd and brilliant progressive politician. Liberal ideological purity has been causing us to eat our own for decades, and I'm sick of losing.  

If Kos, HuffPost, Think Progress, Crooks & Liars, Jesus General, MoveOn etc keep this shit up, defeating a 72 year old war-monger guaranteed to continue the policies of the most unpopular president in modern memory will turn into a bizarre curiosity that historians look back at and say "Wow...how could Obama have possibly lost?".

As we all now know Purity DEMANDS that we shoot ourselves, our country, and the Progressive Movement in the foot by not voting for one of the most viable Progressive Political leaders in the last forty years because... you know he is Pure on every political issue. Okay, so we'll be giving the country over to a much worse Republican buffoon who will keep us in Iraq 100 years and turn a bad recession into a Great Depression, but we can all feel smugly self-righteous about our choice to remain political pure on the soup kitchen line.

So if you are a little hesitant in sitting on your hands in the name of Purity I've compiled a list of reasons you can cite to everyone who will listen (all two of them) as reasons you are not voting for Barack Obama.

To start with, I don't like the word purity but given that it seems to be the parlance of the times I'll go with it. It is a complete misunderstanding of fact that all of us who express displeasure with some of Senator Obama's recent actions are hardcore ideologues; or least of all that we expect him to be one. What I will say is this: I am disappointed to see our party running away from itself. Instead of pretending centrist bipartisanship is an end in itself let's recognize it for what it is. Ultimately we have to except that governance is a pragmatic matter that requires compromise. However, it's fundamentally wrong to think that we do our candidates any favor by pretending compromise is not just that. It's about framing, and if we don't do it we will lose.

This isn't for those who will find any excuse not to vote for a Democratic candidate. I have no defense for them. I am just tired of seeing the constant criticism of diarists and allies such as the New York Times who voice a critique of our candidate from the left.

Well, as usual, we have members of this site saying they won't/might not vote for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

It happened in the primaries, with mainly Obama supporters saying they wouldn't vote for Clinton if she became the nominee.

Clinton, and now Obama failed a "purity test" to some people.

To quote New York Mayor Ed Koch has often said that a one-issue candidacy isn’t sufficient to run on. "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me," Koch often has said. "If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist."

As the election approaches, it is becoming increasingly clear that our presumptive nominee will continue to "swing right", much to the chagrin to many in our community. Over the course of the past several weeks, countless diaries have been written and thousands upon thousands of comments posted decrying this disturbing trend.

Now, though, Senator Obama may have gone too far even for his most ardent supporters. Now, he can be seen swinging right on the court.

He is moving to the center, so they say.

The pragmatists, so-called, recognize a strategic need for this move to the middle and, trusting Obama, applaud it; the purists so-called, wonder what we're going to win, if moving to the middle is needed to win.

For my part, I'm a pragmatic purist, an idealistic pragmatist, always concerned about falling into what the great writer Walter Benjamin called "left melancholy"--his take, I suppose, on the ways in which "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

Well this is my first diary.  And while I hate to have my first diary on a topic that has already been beaten to death, I feel like I have to speak my mind.  To put it simply, I don't really like what I have been seeing here, in terms of the so-called "Purity Wars."

Every single-issue person is a purist, even if that single issue is the Constitution. Purists have a holier than thou self-image. That makes purists vociferous and bold in action. They look down in total amazement upon others that do not share their passion.

Why is purity about the Constitution any different than purity about any of the other major issues like Guns or Abortion or Economy? I don't think there is a difference. No, but constitution is a level higher and encompasses all the other issues, say the constitutional purists. Well, yes, but only from a legal standpoint. There is a custom and tradition part of life that predates laws and can not be ignored.

More under the fold ...

I'm sick and tired of reading all the lefty blogs freaking out that Obama isn't a mindless surrogate for every one of the netroots' pet policy-positions. He's not a living breathing manifestation of the liberal movement, he's a shrewd and brilliant progressive politician. Liberal ideological purity has been causing us to eat our own for decades, and I'm sick of losing.  

If Kos, HuffPost, Think Progress, Crooks & Liars, Jesus General, MoveOn etc keep this shit up, defeating a 72 year old war-monger guaranteed to continue the policies of the most unpopular president in modern memory will turn into a bizarre curiosity that historians look back at and say "Wow...how could Obama have possibly lost?".