Every politician will eventually take a position with which you don't agree. (i.e. Sen. Paul Wellstone supported the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. Rep. Dennis Kucinich in the past has supported an anti-free speech constitutional amendment banning flag burning.)

How should you respond when that happens? Drop your support? Refuse to donate or volunteer? Vote for some other candidate? Continue your support, but publicly push the candidate to reconsider?

Some suggested questions to ask yourself in those instances:

1. Is the issue one of core principle to you, negating any other positive attributes?

I have long said here that anyone who would support permanent bases in Iraq crosses the neocon line, subscribing to neocon foreign policy goals which would lead to drastic global consequences. I believe those consequences would be so severe and far-reaching, that it would overwhelm other issues where a Democratic president could be expected to make improvements, and I could not be a party to those consequences with my vote.

It's always good to think through your redlines in advance, to help avoid having to continually reassess your support for a candidate in crunch time when enthusiasm is critical.

2. Is it fair to extrapolate the position to fully undermine the core principle?

Consider Obama's position in offering reluctant support for the FISA bill even though he disagrees with the provision effectively granting immunity to telecom companies.

Core principles of constitutional check and balances, as well as privacy rights, are involved. But does Obama's vote necessarily mean he shares Bush's disrespect of the Constitution, and would act in a similar unconstitutional manner if he assumed the presidency?

3. Does the issue amount to a battle worth fighting in the short-term? Is it an issue that's all that relevant to governing?

If you are opposed to the death penalty, you may not have liked Obama's statement opposing the Supreme Court's decision striking down a law extending the death penalty to convicted child rapists.

But does Obama's view on a single decision have much bearing on the justices he would nominate to the Court, or his administration of the Justice Department? Is his role in reforming the Illinois death penalty laws and combating coerced confessions more relevant to how he would govern?

Further, would it have made practical sense to make an issue of minor relevance to the presidency into a major point of contrast with his presidential opponent?

Should he have sparked a heated nationwide debate whether the death penalty is a sensible punishment for child rapists, instead of talking about the economic and foreign policy matters most affecting voters?

4. Has the position been characterized accurately?

I have seen Obama's position on faith-based initiatives described in headlines as a plan to "expand Bush's faith based programs." Obviously, the intention is to make it look like Obama is embracing a Bush position and risking disappointment with his supporters.

But he is not proposing to expand Bush's program, but to reform it, so it will no longer be "used to promote partisan interests," and so "faith-based and secular" groups will fully participate.

There also was inaccurate reporting that Obama would allow discriminatory hiring practices by participating organizations. He explicitly rejected that in his remarks.

Also, the position has been falsely characterized as a "move to the center," implying that he is abandoning principle and shifting his positions now that the primary is over. In fact, he had expressed support for "carefully tailored" faith-based initiatives two years ago in his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

You may still disagree with the position. You may even consider it an untenable violation of church-state separation.

But it is always important to go beyond crude headlines and know all the facts, instead of rushing to turn on a candidate you support.

The media is always looking to stoke and magnify conflict and dissension, because conflict and dissension is considered newsworthy. Guard yourself from that dynamic.

5. Is there a way to advance your view in hopes of constructively pushing your candidate without undermining your candidate?

Rarely does outright opposition from supporters cause a candidate to change a position in the course of campaign. Doing so would only make the candidate look weak.

There's also not much value in raising a stink just so your candidate can say he or she isn't beholden to the Left. That only weakens us -- the ability of liberals to make the case that our vision for government is the basis of the mandate that propelled the candidate to victory.

There's no simple answer to his question.

My best suggestion is to use your energy to focus the national discourse on key issues where a change in Washington matters most -- such as Iraq, health care, global warming and the overarching role of our government -- to help establish that mandate, and give us the leverage to push an Obama White House and Democratic Congress to truly reflect the public will.