Mr. Burton:

Like so many others, I was excited -- for the first time in a very, very long time -- about the prospect of someone worthy finally being elected President of the United States.

No more.

Barack Obama's capitulation on telecom amnesty and the wholesale gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is the most craven and unprincipled act I can imagine. He should be ashamed. I know I am: ashamed that I allowed someone to get my hopes up, that I dared to believe, even for a minute, that anyone playing in that corrupt system could ever rise above the muck and imperial power-mongering that is Washington DC.

Several months ago, as Mr. Obama's spokesman, you vowed:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Well?

I trust you will pass on to Mr. Obama my demand that he live up to his word -- and that he live up to the hopes and aspirations of the millions who have come to see him as literally America's last chance to halt our slide into corporate rule and imperial corruption.

Mr. Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. His demand that this bill be killed -- NOW -- would have a powerful effect on the political system. It would send a message that real change is coming, that there will be a renewed compact between government and its citizens, a renewed respect for our rights under the Constitution, and a new approach to ensuring our security without sacrificing our liberty or our Constitution.

--------------------------------

I sent the above letter to the Obama campaign, and bcc:ed dozens of friends. Each of us should do the same, and help get the word out.

Bad call: Highlighting sysprog's snide analogies in your post wasn't the best way to make your points. As you know from your days as a Constitutional rights litigator, the party who launches the attack ad hominem usually does so to distract his opponent from weaknesses is in his underlying argument.

You write:

If there is one good thing that can come from this week's horrific embrace by Obama and our bipartisan political establishment of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, perhaps it will be that the illusions of "lily-ness" about Barack Obama can finally fade away and be replaced by a more realistic perception of what he is, what his limits are, and the reasons why he merits real scrutiny, criticism and checks -- like everyone else pursuing political power does.

That lands with a bit of a thud, don't you think? That's the "one good thing that can come from this week's" utter fiasco? Many of us who have been following the primaries closely have had deep misgivings about Obama from the start: his utterly substanceless rhetoric about "change," his less-than-progressive universal health care plan, his waffling on NAFTA, his poor style of public speaking, not to mention his shameful stance on gay marriage.

I was prepared to accept all of those shortcomings and tender my vote for him until yesterday. How is it not "utterly corrupt," to quote from sysprog's '14 year-old' analogy, for a scholar like Obama to trade a bedrock principle of American Constitutional law for what he thinks will be a political advantage in the general election?

Why didn't this "change" candidate try to make the case to the American people that upholding those principles makes us safer? Why didn't he have the courage to re-frame that poisonous, radical right-wing narrative?

And how is it that reasonable, intelligent people are suddenly transformed into 14 year-olds for refusing to sign on to a candidate who takes such a public stance? Would you have the same disdain for a woman who refused to vote for a pro-life candidate? And if not, then why?

There is literally no other language--other than money, of course--that Obama or his handlers understand better than votes.

When a candidate flip-flops with abandon on a variety of issues, and his supporters excuse it on grounds that it's necessary for the greater good of getting him elected, what are fence-sitters like me supposed to think? So far I think this: Obama will say anything and do anything to get himself elected, and it is TOTALLY unclear what he believes about surveillance, campaign finance, NAFTA, or anything else. (Mark my words, an offshore oil drilling flip-flop will be next.)

So tell me: what is the greater good of electing this man? Because of what he believes underneath all this political hedging? Just what is it that he believes? No one here has any idea, and that's a big problem. Evidently we are supposed to vote for him just because he is great -- because he represents hope and change. Give me a break.

Wounding public finance, now support of FISA, where is the change? I finally understand that we are going to have a 3rd Bush term regardless of who becomes president. At least this time we didn't have to wait for Obama to be in the White House, like Bill, before the balloon popped.

Mr. Burton:

Please send this message in loud and clear tones to Mr. Obama, as per Glenn Greenwald's Salon Magazine column of June 21, 2008:

"As the extremely pro-Obama MoveOn.org notes today, Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, back in in September, vowed that Obama would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." MoveOn believes Obama should be held to his word and is thus conducting a campaign urging Obama to do what he promised -- support a filibuster to stop the enactment of telecom amnesty. You can email Burton here to demand that Obama comply with his commitment not just to vote against, but to filibuster, telecom amnesty..."

Mr. Obama's statements on June 20, 2008, were a shameless sellout of both democratic and Democratic principles, and nothing short of his direct leadership in the Senate by filibustering this atrocity of a "compromise" will wipe that stain away.

There is no tack to the center on this issue. The Constitution is the framework by which his candidacy has meaning; his craven support of the "compromise" bill sent shivers up my spine. In my view, he can only redeem himself by leading the charge to see that this bill is STOPPED in its tracks.

Many of us know that the orchestration of yesterday's events clearly contained Mr. Obama's imprimatur, and only his appearance in the Senate to lead the "protest" against this bill will stand as a testimony to his commitment to the Constitution. Mr. Burton, show him the words of Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, and the writers of the Federalist Papers if he is not sure what action to take.

Stand up or stand down, Mr. Obama.

These is NOTHING that you can do to redeem yourself if you do not act with conviction about the FISA bill: not the ending of the Iraq debacle, not the restoration of balance regarding signing statements, not the stoppage of torture in Guantanamo or at the several black sites overseas; none of these hold a candle to the preservation of the Constitution.

I promise to provide my full-throated support if you demonstrate an iron will to stop this travesty; and I also promise you that if you do not, I will withhold my support for you in November, and do everything in my power to convince those who will vote for you that they should strongly reconsider casting their ballot for a man who does not support the Constitution of the United States.

As those famous anti-war protestors shouted outside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968, sir:

"THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING!"