My ambivalence towards Obama lies in the fact that Obama is trying to move to the center, and toward positions are closer to my own, but his record and previous statements just don’t jive.

Almost all here have confirmed that he’s just playing politics. The media lauds his ‘pragmatism’ and covers for him. If he wants to be against FISA, he should be against it. He shouldn’t worry about being accused of being ’soft on terror.’ But don’t support something just to get elected. Don’t promise to accept public financing and then become the first post-Watergate president to refuse it under the guise of ‘independence.’

I do not object to changes in policies or positions if reasonable circumstances warrant them, or if a thoughtful analysis alters one’s point of view, but that isn’t what has happened.

Playing politics with positions and policies that are important to me is disconcerting.

We’ll know for sure when McCain, in an attempt to be “hip” starts sporting “wife-beater” shirts under his suits.

Seriously, has anyone seen Cindy in clothing that bares parts of her body that would indicate McCain’s using her as a punching bag? I have yet to see her in something like that purple dress Michelle Obama rocked, and I often wonder, cause the first indication of abuse is the clothing a person wears to cover up bruises and injuries.

McCain did call ole girl the “C” word on the “Straight-Talk Express” Bus earlier this year.

Craig @1:36 (and anon/Junglecat @1:48) — you know I agree. I also know from other experiences with other people that too much criticism or arguing often animates and energizes the person’s ego in situations like this, so … take care.

Yes one issue. Good thing that’s not all there is right? Because we know there have been other things, such as getting cops to videotape interrogations.

Why not the US Senate where he’s introduced and passed as much legislation as more senior senators?

How about:

-Energy Security Bill –
-Relief for Katrina and stopping FEMA no-bid contracts
-1st public database of federal spending and contracts
-attempting against the senate to raise CAFE standards in a meaningful way
-making voter intimidation illegal

On the wonkier side he has done things like move to regulate genetic testing (because there is little control over it), or being the first to talk about the Avian flu and other international health issues (with bills dedicated to these topics). Also there is the nonproliferation bill, and he even teamed up with Hillary a year ago to stop medical malpractice the way doctors have suggested, by doing it before the courts ever get involved.

Obama knew he was limited in power so approached unsexy problems with real solutions. We can make lists all day but the truth is he passed as many bills last year as someone like Hillary Clinton. He gets work done, and like most politicians not every solution works.

For all of these things just search the Senate records…but then that would take an open mind.

I’m no McCain basher, I just know who has policies most inline with my own and make no apologies. I don’t try to tear down McCain just talk about where I disagree with him (Oil for example).

s is either not intelligent enough to have a conversation without parroting the lengthy (and often ridiculous) opinions of others or he is not really interested in engaging in a conversation about the issues. Either way I “keep it moving” when it comes to s.

Junglecat

I, for one, ignore serpents.

I have reviewed his record. He’s my Senator.

Let’s look at the Boston Globe article today RE: Obama’s record on housing:

“As a state legislator, Obama had been in office for all of four years before he decided he was ready to replace Rep. Bobby Rush in Congress. The voters in his district didn’t see it that way. Relatively powerless when Democrats were in the minority, Obama’s accomplishments piled up in the final two years in the state legislature, as his political godfather, Emil Jones Jr., helped Obama take a lead role in just about every piece of high-profile legislation. By the end of 2003, Obama focused heavily on the upcoming U.S. Senate race.

This brings Obama to the U.S. Senate. His first general election ad touts a bill he didn’t vote for, his signature accomplishment in foreign policy (the nuclear nonprofileration bill) was so uncontroversial it passed by unanimous consent; and with his signature domestic policy accomplishment, ethics reform, nonpartisan observers conclude he has exaggerated his role in passage. Two years isn’t a lot of time to bring about “real change,” and most of his supporters would concede that Obama’s accomplishments as a freshman senator have been modest. He’s been rebuked by his colleagues for taking credit for legislation he had little role in crafting.

It’s easy to wonder whether the candidate who talks about “real change” and pledges a government that will “heal the sick” and “stop the oceans from rising” actually knows how to get big things done – or whether he had the patience. Obama would seem to have the skills and brains to be a legendary community organizer, or state legislator, or U.S. senator. But momentous accomplishments in each of those positions take time, and at each level, Obama hit a wall, and turned his attention to a position of greater power.

I note this as the Boston Globe takes a comprehensive look at Obama’s efforts at housing as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator, and comes to devastating conclusions. The policy changes Obama pushed have been catastrophic failures for the public, but lucrative for his donors.

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies – including several hundred in Obama’s former district – deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers – including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko – collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama’s campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama’s own accounting.

One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations.

Obama has said that his preference for private companies acting as landlords of these developments rather than the Chicago Housing Authority was inspired by his experience with Altgeld Gardens. I can understand that instinct. But one of the problems of constantly moving on to the next promotion is that you never get to see the consequences and ramifications of past actions.”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/

Your argument about Obama refusing to answer questions relied on Obama not answering about Rezko. But as we know he spent hours with the Tribune. So, where is that argument left?

Frankly I don’t care. They both deflect questions they don’t want to answer. I don’t care. Obama doesn’t woo the press, which in a way makes me more confident in those who cover him…but regardless.

If you want to know about Obama there are plenty of places to do it. I don’t think J&J is the best place. Why don’t you try the many articles written by the Chicago tribune? They’ve been writing about him for years.

How about you check out his work in the Senate. I have, and what he did (taking on un-sexy problems and looking for good solutions) was impressive to me (though I’m a policy wonk).

Also, Jill has often been concerned about misogyny and this election cycle has provided a lot of food for thought. In a time when McCain and Obama are seeking female votes I think talking about how they treat and think about issue as well as how they talk about women is important. So I find your portrayal of this post as a McCain beat up post problematic.

I find it distasteful for you to claim Obama has “played” the “Race card” against the republicans. I recall him playing it cool when a Republican congressman called him boy before the nation. Please, the truth is that portions of the right seek to race bait, and guess what (southern strategy) they have a record.

I can’t stand when people take a critique by an object of racism to label that object racist themselves or “race baiting.” It is dishonest and frankly troubling.

Many of us know how it works. The hidden comment, the just beneath the surface call to racial stigmas. Even republican Huckabee has been vocal about traditional Republican strategies, cautioning elements on the right about running the type of negative campaigns we’ve seen with regards to race.

I watched that press conference. Obama couldn’t wait to get out of there fast enough.

That’s your subjective opinion about his demeanor…but even if you’re right, it didn’t prevent the reporters from asking all the questions they wanted. Also, you assess that he looked eager to leave, then assume that it’s because he had something to hide. It’s entirely possible he had a plane to catch…an event to get to…pressing things on his mind related to the campaign.

See, even you are doing the deflection dance just like your candidate. You instantly tell a lie about Obama to cover criticism of McCain.

How odd that you would come here specifically to find out about Obama. How odd that you’d forget that Obama answered questions about Rezko.

This isn’t really about Rezko. Rezko is bad news and Obama should have known better. By his own admission he was ‘boneheaded,’ I’m satisfied to leave it at that.

truthseeker was trying to contrast McCain and Obama in a way that did not make much sense to me.

Again, I came to this blog looking to find out more about Obama. If he was indeed a moderate, like me. I have yet to discover anything concrete to which I can grab hold of…

His tacks to the center thus far, while they are indeed closer to my own poitions, seem calculated and insincere.

I watched that press conference. Obama couldn’t wait to get out of there fast enough.

But to your larger point, “My sense is he’s gotten by his whole life by fudging it. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Mo. But, for a President, people need to know.”

I honestly thought you were talking about Obama.

Obama set down and had an extended interview with the conservative Chicago Tribune and gave indepth answers about Rezko.

The fact that you distorted what happened to make your point makes you just as ridiculous as the reporter who was badgering McCain. It’s lame to make shit up or ignore conflicting facts.

Real lame.

Obama made himself available to reporters to answer questions about Rezko, remember? He answered everything and there was nothing left for him to say but to admit to things he wasn’t guilty of. Obama realized it wasn’t a good faith questioning, but an interrogation where they were trying to frame him.

How come you didn’t remember that O answered questions about Rezko?

You see what you want to see.

When the NYT tried to accuse McCain of having an affair, he took every question, until the reporters has nothinh left to ask.

Obama scurried away from the podium after three questions about Rezko.

McCain allows the media access virtually unmatched by any other politician, while Obama closely controls media access and availability.

Many older Americans are not as technically saavy as the younger generation, and McCain is being honest. McCain also is a very humble man who has called himself an ‘imperfect public servant’ on more than one occassion.

Obama, by contrast seeks to excuse or deflect scrutiny and criticism. He preemptive playing of the race card, was particularly distasteful. NPR reporter Scott Simon even called him on it. The media increasingly sees him as arrogant, debuting his own presidential seal was seen as egotistical and presumptuous.

Let’s face it. This election is all about Obama. Who is this man who has described himself as a ‘blank slate?’ What does he TRULY believe, what does HIS RECORD show, and HOW DOES HE BEHAVE? Does what voters learn about him cause them to pause…or to donate to his cause?

McCain is a known quantity. An ‘honorable’ and experienced statesman. He is an acceptible alternative to voters who feel that Obama is a tempting, but ‘risky’ choice.

___________________________________

dna,

The truth sometimes hurts.

My sense is he’s gotten by his whole life by fudging it. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Mo. But, for a President, people need to know. The fact he doesn’t use the internet…how can you have access but not even the curiosity to go online?

Obama – by contrast – makes himself excessively available. He doesn’t shy away from discomfort…and those reporters do put a hurting on him for it. It makes supporters like me into nervous wrecks.

Obama is a man who steps up to the plate and takes responsibility, even for things he hasn’t done. Everyone projects their faults onto him. He becomes the racist. He is the race-baiter. He becomes the sexist. We all know it’s not true; yet, he doesn’t defend himself.