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.

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.

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.

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.

It might be useful to compare what's happening in America in 2008 with what happened in Australia in 2007. John Howard, the encumbent Prime Minister went in bigtime on the wedge. He tried to wedge the opposition leader Kevin Rudd in any way he could on issue after issue, especially national security but Rudd just kept on agreeing with him and refused to be wedged. The government then ran a campaign strategy of saying Rudd was just like Howard: reciting 'me too' in a childish way at every opportunity. It didn't make any difference in the end because the government had passed its use by date but if Rudd had stood on principle and voted against Howard's often extreme measures the media would have torn him limb from limb. Yes, we have a mainstream media just like yours. They march with only one foot, right, right, right, right. The big problem for Howard(one of many) in the end was that Rudd's party had voted against the Iraq war. This proved to be not only ethically correct but politically correct as well. But how often is the ethically correct applauded by the media? In my experience almost never. They applaud politicians for being devious, dishonest and foolish.

For years they discussed how cleverly Howard lied, manipulated and relentlessly took the low road and took the country with him down that road. I only ever heard one politician refer to this and he said that the media spent its time praising Howard for doing appalling things well. Needless to say he was from the opposition party. The FISA laws can still be changed.

Changing them in the climate of a general election is probably not going to happen. If the Democrats are in government with control of both houses, that's a different matter. The point is Rudd has now signed the Kyoto Agreement and taken our combat troops out of Iraq and given a nationally televised apology to Aboriginal Australians for past wrongs. Three things Howard would never have done.

Once the Democrats are in the White House things will change because unlike Bush and his deadheads, they know things HAVE TO CHANGE. The real problem is that the Republicans are untrainable and never learn anything and still don't know that Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman's economic theories are what delivered the sub prime mortgage crisis and economic disaster, not only for America but for the global economy.They still don't understand that oil is yesterday's fuel or why Nixon had to be fired. They still don't understand why they lost the Vietnam war or that they have lost the Iraq war. If they get back into the White House they will continue down the path of disaster. To avoid a McCain government it might be necessary to avoid the wedge and keep your powder dry to fight another day. It's not right but it's how it is. I don't believe Obama actually supports these laws at all but he doesn't want to be wedged on them either. Expect a flood of stories on Al Qaeda throughout the Presidential campaign. And worse. I don't think the Democrats can afford to be wedged on anything to do with terrorism at all.