When I found out about how Obama voted on the FISA bill, I sent an angry letter to Obama HQ via MySpace. Thinking I wouldn’t hear anything back, I went about my merry way. Within 24 hours, I received a response from Lindsey:

Hi Kristen,

Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.

We appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Lindsey @ Obama HQ

—

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.

Standard issue response, but kudos for the quick reply and personalization. I’m sure they get a lot of angry email from people and have a response-o-matic team ready. I guess. Whatever. Nice that Obama addressed the issue, but it still doesn’t make it OK. It’s like saying “I’ll let my kid rob banks, but I’ll make sure to watch over him and if he requires disciplinary action, I’ll take care of it“. What does that mean?

Ok, this is why the country is so fucked up. Big corporations get away with whatever they want and with the promise of immunity from the White House – and now Barack Obama when he becomes president. If the law isn’t perfect, why vote FOR it and not AGAINST it until it is perfect? This is the kind of bullshit compromise that senators use to win elections. And it all sounds shady to me. Sounds to me like Obama will easily bend, he’ll do and say whatever he has to in order to win the election. Fine. He’s a politician. Charles DeGaulle said, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.” And I think he may have been right. Obama has painted himself as the president for change. Is he really, or does he just happen to be a really kick ass speaker? He’s an amazing speaker. He won me over with his “yes we can” and “change we can believe in” slogans, but maybe that’s all they really are…slogans.

In the end, here were are faced with yet another election where we as Americans must choose between the lesser of two evils. Is Obama a good man and will he make a good president? I don’t know. Is he smart? Yes. Will he change the world for the better? I don’t know. I hope so. Still, look at what he’s done. He really is changing the face of politics, but when he caves on shoddy laws, how can we trust him? He is, apparently, not a man of his word and that bothers me because I really thought he was.

I’ll continue to watch and wait. It’ll be a cold day in Hell before I vote for McCain, but perhaps Obama won’t get my vote either. How are you going to make this one up, Obama? Huh?