I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling" every time the media puts out a negative story about a Democrat.

But it is worrisome that Barack Obama needed two press conferences today to clarify his position on Iraq. Here's the AP version:

Arriving in Fargo, Obama hastily called a news conference to discuss news of a sixth straight month of nationwide job losses, but the questioning turned to Iraq policy and his impending trip there.

"I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he said. "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy."

He left the impression that his talks with military commanders there could refine his promise to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office.

Sadly, Obama "listened" to us but chose to ignore us.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.

We don't need a new exclusivity provision - the current one is already sufficient, as a Bush 41 judge just affirmed.

Over the past two weeks, Barack Obama has said and done a number of things that pissed off progressives:

By Dave Lindorff

Laid-off American workers will be getting temporary extended
benefits as the nation sinks into recession, thanks to Congressional
Democrats, who cleverly tacked a funding provision onto a bill giving
the president all the money he asked for (and then some) to fund the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars on out through next June. Veterans of the
Iraq War will also be getting tuition benefits equal to the full cost
of in-state public college tuition plus $1000 a year for books and
supplies.

By Dave Lindorff

Double standards when it comes to children are pretty
appalling—especially when it comes to “our” kids vs. “their” kids, but
here in America they aren’t limited to just right-wingers.

Take reaction to the US Supreme Court’s latest ruling that you
cannot execute rapists—even those who rape children—on the theory that
only killing someone justifies execution.

Politicians who make their careers by promoting state sponsored
murder have been quick to condemn this latest “liberal outrage” by
calling for more laws that would make execution the punishment for
raping a child (admittedly a monstrous crime).

Here is a link to a ton of different sites with electoral map projections. 

Digby believes Obama engineered the FISA betrayal because he was afraid of being attacked by McCain as "weak" on national security.

the reason I'm almost positive that this was an agreed upon strategy is that the House brought this to the floor when they didn't have to. Sure, the Republicans were whining about it, but the Democrats had successfully fought that back in 2006. The politician who is most worried about attacks on his national security credentials and who has a stake in not having this be a thorny issue during his first term and who would possibly want to have these powers at his own disposal isn't Nancy Pelosi. (He's also the guy who has to exert his power in the Party after a very close primary race. He can't put up with being sandbagged on something he really cares about)

I cannot for the life of me understand why any Democrat would vote for warrantless wiretapping.

I can easily understand why every Republican would. Republicans fully support the Bush Dictatorship in every way, including imperialism, torture, corruption, and warrantless wiretapping. If George Bush took the completely opposite positions (as he did before the 2000 election), they would support him too. They don't think and have no principles, they blindly follow their Fuhrer Leader.

But why would any Democrat - including our party leaders?

At the Presidential polling blog FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver analyzed 31 vulnerable House Democrats in conservative-leaning seats, and found 23 voted for warrantless wiretapping, while 8 voted against. Nate observes,