Senator Obama responded to me. He must love me to give me this special attention

Here is his response.

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

- Benito Mussolini

So, I don’t know man. Now, for the most part I’ve been a kool-aid drinker with Obama. But that is as much for his biography as his politics.

I would also tend to agree with you that it doesn’t really matter, in the Universe sort of way, which guy goes to bat.

But, the pragmatist in me really has to wonder how you can sit through the last eight years of Bush and still consider that voting for a third party is a a viable option, or that it really means anything.

Nader and Barr will have little to no effect on the outcome and certainly no effect on the politics.

It seems like a more viable protest would be to not vote. For voting is still somewhat sustaining belief in what you believe to be is a broken system.

I certainly understand your frustration, but Obama is product of political circumstance, that doesn’t mean he is not a better option.