(Note, this is a crosspost)
Many people believe that when something is described as a "compromise", it means that there were two or more parties involved in creating it, with neither getting entirely what they wanted but both getting just enough to support it. For example, if two children are fighting over who gets to play with a toy, then the arrangement where one gets to play with it for an hour, and the other then gets to play with it for an hour, is generally referred to as a "compromise" because neither got what they wanted (to play with the toy without restrictions, for ever), but both get to play with the toy.
As it happens, this is not the only definition of compromise. Last week, for example, the Democratic Party - Congress, the Senate, and the Presidential Candidate, all referred to an agreement to give Bush everything he ever wanted with regards to updating FISA, having some previously unconstitutional powers, and letting everyone off who broke the law previously, as a "compromise". Many people were mystified, wondering how it could be a compromise if the Democrats didn't get anything they wanted, and the Bush administration got everything they wanted.
The answer lies in the fact that compromise means more than the definition above. Here are some sentences that contain the word "compromise" using the definition Barack Obama was using:
By supporting immunity for those who broke the law to help the Bush administration ignore the constitution, the Democrats compromised the long term future of America as a Free nation.
Obama compromised his chances of raising enough funds to beat McCain by cowardly caving in to Bush's demands.
By wussing out on every serious issue that Congress has faced, Nancy Pelosi has compromised every cause she was elected to fight.
Hopefully this helps explain the Democrats choice of language on this issue. In the mean time, if you want a free country in January, I recommend voting for your Democratic Presidential Candidate - and your Republican Congressional candidate.