An open letter to Sen. Obama.

Good morning, sir.

I write to you today as one of the outspoken young supporters that have served as the backbone of your campaign.

I am a college student who will have the privilege to cast my first general election vote this November. Like many, I have followed your efforts since you first entered the national spotlight at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and have backed a presidential run ever since.

It is my sincere hope to cast a ballot in your favor not because of my disagreements with the other candidates, but because of my genuine enthusiasm for your candidacy.

It is due to this audacious hope that I write you today.

On Friday, the House overwhelmingly passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which minimizes judicial review and provides retroactive immunity for telecommunication corporations. As the new leader of the Democratic Party, your silence during the floor debate spoke volumes, and the statement issued immediately following the vote only served to disappoint further.

In it, you stated that "...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."

With all due respect, sir, you have yet to be elected into the highest office of the land. In fact, your election is far from certain, and it is due to this that your statement is suspect.

As a United States Senator serving during the Bush administration, you should have a level of understanding of why it is inadequate to entrust such oversight to the executive branch. You should know why it is important to support the system of checks and balances that you actively participate in.

But your decision to back the general compromise, while disappointing, is not what incited me to write my first-ever letter to Congress. I understand that you are imperfect, and that you will have your fair share of misjudgments.

However, a large part of the interest surrounding your candidacy is the fact that you have engaged the American people to be a part of a common purpose to better this nation. You told us that this was our campaign, that this was our opportunity to have our voices heard.

I am holding you to your word. So I write.

Indeed, it is not necessarily the fact that you came out in support of the compromise that disappoints me, but rather the apparent lack of will to stand up for what you pledged to defend as an elected official.

On the topic of immunity for telecommunication corporations, you stated that the compromise "does, however, grant retroactive immunity," and that you would "work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Sir, this is not enough. Your fellow senators -- in particular, Sen. Harry Reid -- have conceded that such efforts will be futile, amounting to little more than political theater.

I find this revelation rather unsettling.

The Washington Post would prefer to depict those concerned as "the liberal activist base," but you know better. After all, it was you that declared that there are not red states and blue states---there is only the United States of America.

We are all Americans, and part of our duty as residents of this great nation is to adhere to and protect the Constitution. You, of all people, should understand this.

Sir, you spoke before millions and inspired the masses with the promise of change. You've led the charge to rid Washington of lobbyists and PACs. You've tackled the issues of race and fatherhood with historic oratories. You've managed to be victorious against the most powerful couple in domestic politics.

This, Senator? This is what you cave on?

Sir, you of all people---as a former constitutional law professor and the first black president of the Harvard Law Review---you should have a grasp of how important it is to uphold the law of the land.

I find it difficult to comprehend the logic behind your support. I need not elaborate upon the legal follies of the FISA Amendments Act; after all, you once held a more firm position, standing by Sen. Dodd in support of a possible filibuster last December.

Not much has changed between then and now. What are you aiming to achieve by taking such a passive stance on the issue, effectively casting yourself alongside Sen. McCain? Where is this change that you speak of, and how do you plan to deliver upon it as president if you refuse to rise to the occasion now?

Sir, the level of judicial review is questionable, the wiretapping concessions despicable, and immunity immoral. I assure you that your supporters are watching, and we are none too pleased.

You told us all to relinquish our cynicism, that you would bring forth change we could believe in. Such positions will not fuel these efforts, and will only serve to plant seeds of doubt in our minds.

On a personal level, I fear that my enthusiasm is misplaced. I invite you to prove otherwise. Help me understand how you plan to address the issues raised by the passage of this bill granting retroactive immunity.

I seek a direct answer to the following: Do you continue to support a filibuster in the Senate, will you spearhead such an effort, and will you be voting against the act if the attempt to strip immunity were to fail?

Sir, the achievements of your campaign have been impressive, from the fundraising records you shattered to the very nature of your candidacy. You should be recognized for your work; it has made a believer out of me.

Now it's time for you to live up to your word.

Don't let me down, sir.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing back.