This comes across as a poorly conceived, and poorly formatted, whine. Why didn't you show examples of what you meant form his speech and put your point across?

But Obama's response to the anti-immunity group on his blog is transparently misleading and underestimates the intelligence of many of his supporters.

If your intelligence was insulted by Obama's thoughtful explanation of his position, it must have been because it went way over your head.

The critical line -- which Obama has always said from the outset of his candidacy -- is that you might not always agree with his positions, but that he would listen to his constituents concerns. He did not say he would govern according to polls or the popularity of opinion.

I have said before that far too many of you whining about the FISA legislation have never read it. You are distracted to a certain degree about "retroactive telcom immunity" but miss the larger points of government accountability (that is, failure of the executive branch to get subpoenas for wiretaps will not be tolerated) and that the executive branch cannot threaten or hold hostage private sector businesses with coersive legal action if they refuse to break the law and violate your civil rights, and that "fighting terrorism" is not a blanket excuse for curtailing constitutionally protected rights and imposing virtual martial law.

You cannot see the forest for the trees. You'll throw a temper tantrum at the feet of Obama, but you all have been damn quiet in front of President Bush -- he who ordered the FISA lawbreaking in the first place. Where are the protests in front of the White House? Where are the protests in front of the Justice department? Where is the outrage which should be directed at the Bush administration?

Misguided and misdirected. Telcom immunity is not the problem. It is an administration which believes laws apply to everyone else but not to them. You want something to scream about? Re-read the third sentence in this paragraph.

Thanks for your comments, Jade. You're making some unwarranted assumptions about me. That's not my style, so I won't disrespect you.

I would ask you to read Glenn Greenwald's comments on Obama's response:

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html

If you disagree with any of his points, I'd love for you to explain what part he's misinterpreting.

Granted, this will require a certain level of specificity on your part.

To say we're all whiners won't cut it.

If I wanted to reply to Greenwald I would go his blog and do so. As this is YOUR blob, I'm replying to YOU.

Why don't you, yourself, quote the bits of Obama's response and tell us your opinion on them and what you would rather see? And while you're at it, tell us what you did like and how you agree with it.

THAT would be worthy of a post, not this dribble which comes across as a 'Look what Greenwald says in his blog' moment.

Is this your blog, or his? Do you have an opinion to express, or just his?

Changing your decision because less than twenty thousand names,(many multiple signs up by people included) demand that you do so, and you know that changing would not stop the bill from being passed, would be PANDERING. Thank you Senator Obama for not engaging in pointless micro pandering.

Get out the fucking violins. Another pathetic whiner drops his load and neglects to flush.