It will be interesting to see how long my post on Obama's Facebook FunWall stays up. It reads like this:

"Hi! Everyone who is saddened beyond belief by Obama's endorsement of the disgusting, loathsome, unConstitutional FISA bill passed yesterday in the House of Representatives, say "I thought you were different. But at the moment, I seen no reason for HOPE, you hypocrite."

I can't stand this. The very second you think you might actually have someone with some integrity to cast your vote for, they are guaranteed to outrage and disappoint you. Once again, we are left with two fetid choices for president. I'm so fucking tired of fishing in the toilet for a Chief Executive.

We're you listening to the Dude's story?

Glenn, your posts on FISA are the first articles in Salon that I have read in months. I had to stop reading Salon (and Slate, the Times, etc.) because of the anti-Hillary thing (not you specifically; the overall impact).

Your FISA coverage is riveting. Your ability to cogently explain the legal issues and your absolute moral clarity are inspirational. I wasn't following this at all until two days ago. But I believe, as do so many others here, that we are watching an historic event unfold. It is outrageous that so few people who have a public platform are using it to speak out. The New York Times has almost nothing - ditto the LA Times coverage. So thank you, thank you, a million times thank you.

Why don't our electeds realize that it is better to lose with honor and priniciples than to have a "compromise" "victory" that no one respects? Even if just a few Senators were to filibuster - even if it failed - to know that someone in the Democratic (or even Republican) party put themselves on the line and went down fighting would mean something....

I've been involved in pro-choice politics for nearly two decades, and I'd like to draw an analogy. When abortion became a big political issue in 1989 (around the time of the Webster decision) neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties could be trusted on choice. There were quite a few pro-choice Republicans, but they were swamped by the antis. And on the Democratic side, some of the party stalwarts were lousy on this issue. Neither party was home. The outline of the newly emerging voting constituency - pro-choice women and men - did not match the "footprint" of party politics. The Democratic committee chair who was your dependable ally on, say, labor issues, was suddenly your worst enemy, and vice versa.

The pro-choice movement had to very consciously and painfully decide that issues came first. You support the candidates who support your values. You oppose those who don't. You nurture those candidates whose views you admire. You punish those you find offensive. Regardless of party.

So screw party politics. Go after electeds when they are most vulnerable. Make no allowances. No compromises. No inside baseball. No quid pro quo. Just hardball.

If nothing else, we should have one, non-negotiable litmus test: support for the Constitution of the United States of America and the principles enshrined therein.

The Republican from Illinois who opposed FISA? Fund him. Even if he doesn't need it. Make a positive example of him. No viable challenger to a pro-FISA incumbent? Run ads anyway. Make the party spend money where it thought it didn't need to.

Why is it that the Republican party feels like it owes its base? Because Republican activists spent two decades ruthlessly eliminating Republicans they didn't like in primaries. Why does the Democratic party feel like it can take its base for granted? Because we enable them at every turn.

If we can't hold our own party - our own elected leaders - accountable on the fundamental elements of the Constitution, then involving ourselves in political activism is no different from going to the racetrack to yell at the jockeys, hoping it'll help our horse come in a winner.

Beyond donating to your fund, I'm not sure what I think all this means, specifically. I just know that this country's problems are huge and counting on the Democrats to just "fix it" after the election is not enough.

Taking a nod from a commenter in yesterdays post, I sent the an email to the obama campaign plus the address you mentioned today the following:

A few suggestions for the Senator to read during the filibuster he will be leading next week:

The Constitution of the United States of America

The Declaration of Independence

The Federalist Papers

The Emancipation Proclamation

US Title III

The collected works of The Ramones, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Frank Zappa and Jello Biafra

1984

The works of Kurt Vonnegut

The works of Gore Vidal

Brave New World

Animal Farm

The Prince

Good luck with the filibuster Senator Obama promised to lead against telecom immunity.

Yes, we can!

--

http://revolt.com/

TO: William Burton, Spokesman

Obama for President Campaign

Sir,

I am quite dismayed that Sen. Obama has decided not to oppose the FISA legislation pending in the US Senate. I really expected more from him. I had supported his candidacy up to now, voting for him in the Virginia Democratic Primary and contributing frequently to the campaign.

I am writing to tell you personally that I will not vote in the general presidential election and have removed the solicitation email address from my address list. Any future messages and requests for funds from Obama's campaign will bounce. I am frequently asked by friends and peers to weigh in on political issues, and as far as I am concerned, this position is a total sellout for conservative votes. I intend to actively encourage everyone I know to sit out the 2008 presidential campaign and withhold their vote. I have blind-copied them on this letter.

I find it incomprehensible that Democrats would bow to the Bush administration's now successful attempt to cover up their efforts to break the law and wiretap US citizens without a warrant. The telecommunications companies were being sued in federal court by US citizens who will now have their rights abrogated by the US Congress, all in the name of the phony war on terror. There is a minority of folks in this country who see this sham war and the war in Iraq for what it really is: a means to subjugate dissent and enrich military contractors at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Sen. Obama has squandered a golden opportunity to explain why FISA in its present form is more than adequate to protect the nation from terrorism. He could have cleared up the obfuscation and misinformation being propagandized from the right. Sadly, Sen. Obama has chosen to forgo honorable actions for political expediency.

I am fairly certain that the pending FISA legislation, which contains ex post facto attempts to allow illegal acts on the part of government officials and private companies, would not hold up if reviewed by an impartial Supreme Court. Sadly, the US Supreme Court is not impartial, as the 2000 Florida election debacle has proven. Our civil rights, fought for by our founding fathers, are being gradually eroded and discarded in the name of political expediency.

Perhaps Sen. Obama has forgotten that Martin Luther King was a victim of illegal wiretapping by the FBI. Words cannot adequately express my disappointment in the position taken by your candidate. Actions, however, can.

I expect to receive some kind of canned form letter response to this email, but at least I will have said my piece before pulling the plug on my support for your candidate's campaign.