Dear Mr. Burton:

About 4 months ago I heard Barack Obama give a speech in which he finally mentioned his undying support for our Constitution. It was that night that I sent him a donation. Frankly, I don't trust Barack Obama due to his connection with Zbigniew Brezinski as a foreign policy adviser. But it was my loathing of Hillary Clinton and finally Sen. Obama's speech supporting the Constitution that sealed the deal for me with him.

Then this morning I was reading Glenn Greenwald's article on Salon.com about Obama supporting the recent legislation on FISA and I am writing to you to tell you that I fully expect Sen. Obama to stand up for what he said in September that he would, "Support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies."

Sen. Obama is either serious about wanting to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC", or he is NOT. Which is it? Please ask Sen. Obama this question for me and thousands of other Americans who would like to think there actually is a difference between any of the candidates come November.

It's issues like this that make progressives like me want to vote for Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. Sen. Obama should be more principled regarding the document he purports to want to protect. Think about it.

Sincerely,

Obama's position on this FISA compromise is just wrong. I am supporter but his decision to support this bill is disturbing. Unlike the current occupant in the White House, Obama knows better.

He is not a Messiah. He is a Politician.

Perhaps this is the time to begin treating our candidate as a real person, rather than a god. This is a terrible position for any Democratic leader to take - much more so for our party's nominee.

The only plausible reason for Obama to do so is to combat the "most liberal of all" label that the Reps are throwing at him. Obama's campaign even orchestrated the simultaneous announcement about the campaign finance flip-flop, which has managed to put FISA on a back-burner for the Sunday talks.

The real issue now becomes: So what is so different about Obama's approach to politics?

I will vote for the Democratic ticket because the only other option - staying home - is not an option. I will vote for Obama, but not with stars in my eyes

Okay, I botched the Roman quote. My Latin professor would be pretty pissed about that.

Venezuela and Cuba were my attempt at humor, guess you didn't find it funny.

The whole point of my original statement was that, if I could pick anyone from history, my first choice would be a woman. Everyone on that list was dead except Elizabeth. Ben Franklin is dead too, in case you didn't notice. It was sort of my point. To be perfectly clear, there aren't more than a dozen people alive, of any sex, or combination of sexes, etc, that I would really be fired up about as a presidential candidate. Most of them come from Air America radio.

Also, I just thought I'd point out that, not only would I support a female candidate as a head of state, I already did. Her name was Ann Richards, and she was governor of Texas. I wish I could say it was thanks to me, but just as I got old enough to vote, and voted for her, George Bush won. I have voted against George Bush three times now, and he's up 3-0 so far, unfortunately. In Ann's case, though, I wasn't voting against Bush. I was voting for her.

Plus, I came back later when I'd thought about it, and listed Rachel Maddow, and Jeanine Garafolo.

I'm mostly Irish, by the way. How's the home country? I didn't put it on my immigration list because it's currently colonized by the British. Can y'all do something about that? I wouldn't mind coming home.

Between the Republicans and the Democrats? Not so much that I'd be motivated to vote for one over the other. Ralph Nader is looking better every day.

What exactly is the dreaded "warrantless wiretapping"? It's hard to tell because it is in the best interest of those whipping up your ire to keep the actual issues murky.

Loss of privacy is a "murky" issue? What, do you live in a barn or something?

If I have this right, (and I'm sure there will be irate corrections which are telling in themselves) when wiretaps of people overseas are installed, one hears the conversations of people calling that phone.

Correct, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Sometimes those calling or called from a particular phone, are from the US. That's it, that's all. That's what all the fuss is about.

Wrong.

The great assault on your rights is hearing conversations on a phone overseas.

Wrong again.

Get a grip people,

Only if its around your neck and we're allowed to squeeze.

hearing both sides of a conversation is standard in warranted wiretaps here. There is no difference between here and there.

Wrong again.

The next time someone tries to whip you into a frenzy have the smarts to wonder why.

We do. The fact you don't is a source of great amusement for the rest of us.

And yes, my spelling in the subject line was a premeditated choice on my part. That is what I consider your ejaculates, excuse me, 'comments' here.

"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 . . "

Oh about time!! and more please! Til Obama-rama stops I am having a very hard time voting for this man.

Otherwise, its "W" all over again, just on the left. Adoring press, uncritical public, roll over congress.