As for Obama’s “record”…his record is one of voting “Present” on major issues. He has done that even recently in the Senate on a surveillance bill (Hillary too. Only McCain voted). So Obama is obviously playing games with his past by hiding how he stands on very important issues.

As for Obama “workng with people”, if you take a look at what little track record he leaves, his Senate voting record is heavily partisan. Not exactly “uniting” material.

If Obama’s poor judgment and dishonesty don’t have you at least a little concerned at this point (assuming you do read the papers as you have said) then I would say you are a reckless voter.

Also, you may have noticed, this is America in 2008. Boring details like actual policy, not to mention uncomfortable facts, do not get you elected in most of this great nation. Vague platitudes and easily-remembered sound bytes get you elected. And frankly, I like Obama’s infinitely better than McCain’s, and at this point better than Clinton’s. Most importantly, I trust him (based on his record, primarily, but also on his rhetoric) more than I do Clinton let alone McCain to actually work with people at home and abroad to address the issues I care about - health care, national security, and economic policy (I shan’t cite references…we can all read the Register and CQ).

Anyone who reads the papers knows Obama has made only vague promises with no substance and has made some of the most ridiculous foreign policy gaffes ever.

I find it funny you are citing the Law Review as proof of his intellect, because on 60 Minutes he was asked to defend the accusation against him that the only thing he has ever run in his life was the law review. His response was “That’s not true. I’ve also run my Senate office and this campaign.” Yeah, he’s really prepared for the presidency.

The military is one place where simply changing the rules can make that big a difference. When you get down to it, most of the Brass, because they are dedicated so fully to the cause, don’t actually care if you’re gay or not, just like they didn’t really care if you were black or not in the ’40s, as long as you do what you’re there to do.

And Bugboy: the whole Obama-as-empty-suit meme is utter crap, and anyone who reads the papers knows it. Empty-suits don’t sit on the Harvard Law Review, for starters. Yes, his published books are mainly campaign tools and thus devoid of actual content, but sadly that’s what political rhetoric means in the US today.

As for dadt, at least it lets gays in. I think of it as a first step that is also a mild slap in the face. But you are correct in that it is not equality by any means. And the joke about the whole thing is they can tell who is gay anyway, but are comforted by it not being confirmed.