I agree with mcjoan that this wasn't the best compromise Democrats could get. At the same time, the FISA compromise wasn't worth a quixiotic fight, either. At the end of the day, below the fold is what this election is about:
One party supports remaining in Iraq for at least the next 4-8 years -- possibly 100, or even 1,000,000. One party supports withdrawing troops from Iraq within the next two years.
One party believes we should continue to wage open-ended, preemptive wars, and the threat of war will force our enemies into submission. One party believes that we should use diplomacy before going to war if only to affirm the simple truth that peace is better than war because life is better than death, and that we should go to war because we have to -- not because we want to.
One party sees expanding the same free market that currently leaves 45 million Americans without health insurance as the solution. One party supports universal health insurance.
One party supports medical underwriting and allowing insurers to reject applicants with pre-existing conditions. One party supports community rated health insurance, and that requiring more people to purchase health insurance lowers premiums for everyone.
One party supports retaining and even expanding the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of providing help to those desperately seeking it. One party believes this money would better be spent on public investment and tax cuts for those who haven't done as well in order to expand opportunity to all.
One party supports making the minimum wage irrelevant; one party wants to index the minimum wage to keep the landmark law relevant.
One party believes we can be more energy independent by increasing the supply of oil -- through drilling wherever there might be oil -- be it in areas where our precious wildlife live, where we go to the beach, or even under second base at Yankee Stadium if they thought a barrel of oil existed under there. One party believes we can be more energy independent by reducing the demand for oil -- through investments in alternative energy sources, through investments in public transportation and Amtrak, and through greater fuel efficiency standards for the vehicles we drive.
One party wants to appoint Supreme Court Justices who see the Constitution as some precious document under wraps at the National Cathedral, and that Supreme Court Justices should be indifferent to the human consequences of their views. One party sees the Constitution as an enlightening document meant to protect human dignity in an everchanging world, and that should be mindful of the human consequences of their views, read the Constitution generously, and see the Court as leavening the democratic process and serving as a bullwark against the majority's worst instincts.
One party believes believes in reverting to the primitive indiviudalism representing the first 140 years of nation's history. One party believes we are bound to one another, and that our nation is at her best when we do certain things collectively.
One party believes we must change direction from the last eight years; one party believes we must stay the course.
That is the choice this election. Either we will stay the course, or we will steer our nation in a new direction. Only we have the power to determine if we are going to deny the nation a new direction for these quixiotic fights. It's up to us.