I can see possibly being angry with the Government, but why put the telecom companies in the middle? The Government has many ways to be coercive, and completely regulates the actions and business of the telecom companies.

Suing the telecoms for complying presumes that there is a punishable requirement to oppose a government order/request if it would later work out that the Government did something illegal. How could the telecoms know at the time?

If a bank robber coerces the bank manager at gunpoint to open the safe, should the bank manager be sued later for complying?

I was really pulling for you and the ‘change congress’ project, but that is a very lukewarm slap down of Obama and the money game game.

Now that Obama is raising unlimited amounts of money for the Denver DNC conference where does it end?

sacrifice pawns? what kinda of BS is that? either stand for something or sit down and shut up

Shame on you

The ultimate point here is, do you believe there is a significant difference between Obama and McCain? There is no question in my mind that the difference is profound, and that McCain would be a disaster while Obama would be an improvement, if perhaps imperfect. No doubt whatsoever.

That is the sole criterion behind my vote for Obama. It’s enough to make a clear determination in my mind.

All the rest is just nuance below the resolution of my vote, and does not enter into my vote.

All the messaging you are talking about in your vote is not going to get through to anyone. What I suggest is that if you have messages to send, them them to Obama’s administration after he’s elected by phone and/or email or whatever other communication methods you prefer (but it’ll be more effective if you choose the communication methods that the admin prefers). I’m sure we’ll all have a lot to say then, and I expect that the Obama admin will be much more amenable to listening to the little guy than a McCain admin.

Keep the messaging and the voting separate. They are meant for different purposes. Voting is a crude system of preferences, and trying to use this bludgeon to communicate nuanced messages is futile.

If you really don’t want Obama to be president (and really prefer McCain to be elected), then don’t vote for him, but I have a hard time identifying with that sentiment, and a non-vote for Obama is half a vote for McCain (i.e., one McCain vote not neutralized that could have been neutralized). All you will accomplish by not voting for Obama is to make it that much more likely that McCain will be elected.

It’s marginal, to be sure, but every other vote is equally marginal, and margins add up. Drops of water add up to oceans. Don’t be under the illusion that your vote doesn’t count. It counts as much as any other, and only collective action can make a difference.

Don’t be a solipsistic individualist. Your individual vote is not exceptional in any way. It is one drop in the ocean, and the ocean needs every drop.

PS: Under the current voting structure, third party candidates simply have no chance. Votes for them are wasted unless you *really* have no preference between the two major candidates. But I suspect very few people really have no preference when it comes to Obama/McCain. Nader is just wrong here, sorry to say, when he says the two parties (and candidates) are not significantly different. That line does not fly for me.

But one can not use “one can not fight every battle” as an excuse to not fight the core battles, defending the constitution, like officials swear an oath to do. This is the 4th amendment requirement for warrants they are tearing up, this is the checks and balances that allow judges to oversee when the executive branch wants to trample on rights which will be abandoned.

One can fight every battle over the core parts of the bill of rights. One should.

I hear your message loud and clear, and ask you to consider the following:

1. If elected President, Barack Obama would have direct control over the Executive branch, and only indirect influence over the Legislative. This means that his policies and positions on issues like health care, education, the environment, etc. are nice to know but less important than his example, voting record, etc on matters under the control of the DOJ, foreign affairs, military, etc. Remember, the Clintons couldn’t get health care through Congress so I don’t put a lot of weight on Obama’s views on the matter either. And please pay attention to Obama’s votes on placing justices on benches and in courts.

2. Germane to the above: in order to accomplish even a modicum of his platform, Obama will need a sympathetic Congress. The work he does to get progressives elected will reflect well upon him. On the other hand, stumping for conservative incumbents like Barrow-GA over progressive challengers (remember his support for Lieberman over Lamont?) will reflect negatively.

I’d love to live in an IRV system – wow, how much subtle information you would glean from voting records. But we don’t. And I’d hate to help elect Barack Obama, giving him the impression that i agree with his policies. If Obama loses because he can’t energize the voters (Democrats, progressives, etc.), it’s not /our/ fault for not voting for him. The responsibility lies with him and his campaign, which may (in the general campaign) be making it clear progressives may be shut out of an Obama administration. Organizing to put pressure on a sitting President is /way/ too late in the game.

Prof. Lessig asks us to “focus” on the goal of electing Barack Obama. I don’t agree. We’ve too often put short term goals (a single election) ahead of the need to make it clear to the Democratic candidates that they cannot win elections without progressive voters. Trolling for votes among “conservative independents” or the non-existent “center” was a losing strategy for Gore and Kerry, and will lose Obama the election as well. If that means we get McCain as president, well … to quote LL above, “loud and clear opposition [will be] our duty”. No less than under an Obama administration.