Wrong ActBlue page.

Damn.

Hello, Glenn Greenwald community! Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I thought I would share the small things I am doing to try to move the Obama campaign on this issue (while of course not holding my breath!).

I am registered on my.barackobama.com where the first thing I did today was write an email to his campaign and then post a blogpost within his own system stating my disappointment and disillusionment. Here is the text of the letter I sent:

I donated the max during the primary, got to meet Obama and felt very inspired... now, not so sure.

Stand up and be a leader! Stop the erosion of our Constitution! Congressional Democrats are about to hand Bush & telecoms a "Get Out of Jail Free" card --- and for what? Where is Obama on this issue? Sending out messages that sound 6 to 9 months old, that's where!

That, combined with Obama's support of John Barrow of Georgia, makes me very sad. I'm beginning to think he's the same as every other politician. My enthusiasm for the general election is slipping, fast. And, donations are looking very unlikely.

Oh well, politics as usual!

Then I found where Glenn had helpfully posted the phone number to contact the Obama campaign immediately, which I did. Calling (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6 on the menu], I spoke with Faye who was very friendly and helpful. I told her how important this issue was to me. One line I said, which I particularly liked, was "I like Obama... but I like the Constitution more!" We also talked about the futility of giving into President Bush and the Republicans to avoid being labeled "soft on national security" because --and she finished the line for me-- they're going to do that anyway, no matter what Dems do! So, we may as well stand strong for the Constitution, it's the right thing to do. She took down my comments, email address and such. I made sure she knew that I was from Jacksonville, FL, and that I had maxxed my donation during the primary but had yet to donate for the general campaign. She told me that I was the second person she had spoken to on this issue since she had started her shift one hour ago. I'm sure that she's one of many working the phones, but we need more to call!

I was nervous. It's only about the second time I've ever called a politician's office because I was angry over an issue. When I first dialed the number I pressed option "6" and was told that the line was busy. I dialed again immediately and was connected right away. As soon as I pressed "6" the person picked up (I did not have to dial another "0" as Glenn said in his post). I began by saying, "I hate to do this because I really like Obama and have been a strong supporter of his, but I'm disappointed that he is not leading in the fight against the FISA compromise that's being pushed through in the House." Some other points I made: **He voted the right way in the Senate, but now that he was the most visible party leader he needed to speak out **If he did not speak out soon the law would be enacted and with a five year sunset provision meaning that nothing could be done about it during the next Presidential term! **The Bush administration has been shredding the Constitution and by passing this Democrats would be signing onto everything wrong that Bush has done.

We'll see...

(I still received the several-months-old form email reply.)

I am not a constitutional scholar. So perhaps I missed the section that authorizes Congress to grant immunity from prosecution to private citizens from lawsuits brought by other private citizens.

Is this just spreading the love provided by sovereign immunity (which is a wicked concept rooted in royalty and tyranny)?

1. They and their constituents can (and likely will) be targeted for surveillance without legal warrant, especially those 2nd Amendment and anti-abortion nuts the GOP so depend upon.

2. They and their constituents will have no legal recourse if (and likely when) their personal information gets spread around, espeically the anti-government and anti-tax crowd the GOP so depend upon.

I'd appreciate the delicious irony of it all, if only it weren't so bloody sickening.

Glenn, you are doing excellent work. Thank You!

So you talked to Chris Dodd and he told you he wasn't going to filibuster? Glenn

Well where's the filibuster Glenn? If Dodd was going to do it, where is it? If Dodd does filibuster the bill, then I'll admit I was wrong. But until he does so, I remain pessimistic about him actually doing it.

I just meant to remind you not to make important decisions when you are angry. You have every right to be angry.

And I will remind you that NOTHING has changed from when the GOP was in charge, except as mentioned just a few messages downthread, that when the GOP was in charge, they couldn't get telecom immunity passed, but now that the traitorous (in the literal sense of that word rather than the simply perjorative) Democraps are in charge, POOF! Here comes illegal spying made legal!

It CANNOT happen without Pelosi and Reid providing tacit approval for it. The entire Democrap leadership is corrupt and lying through their teeth to us. I will NOT support them any longer. I want them to go down. The sooner the better and that means starting in November, my votes are actively ANTI-Democrap.

i agree, you may be right that the supremes will knock this down, but...

1) you're obviously taking a risk. the liberals on the court tend to be deferential to congressional decisions, and unless you really think the fourth amendment case is slam dunk, do you take this case to two guys bush put on the bench and three guys who who put him there - is that a risk you really are willing to take? you're putting a lot of faith in Kennedy

2) this isn't so much about the spying and the infringement of our inalienable human rights guaranteed to us by a hallowed document, but instead its disappointment at the spineless cowardly democratic party, and the presidential candidate who is supposed to be better than this. after all, we've lived with the law breaking and rights violating - but we're supposed to be celebrating the end of it, not the ratification of it.