Show thyself, or at least cite thy sources. Otherwise you lack credibility.

Here are articles and information in plain text about Obama's voting record and the way certain reporters have interpreted it. Notice that even in negative articles he is praised for consensus building.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16640635/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1199639336-6FxyZyglFpga4Cridxxd2A

his voting record in its entirety from the U.S. Senate:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

I hope that some liberal thinkers don't "lose the plot" about Obama. For all of Clinton's attitude of entitlement and bragging about her record, she did have eight years in the white house already, and she was not able to build consensus toward the kind of broad changes I think she does want to make in the country.

No one should forget that African Americans were the people robbed in 2000 of their vote in Florida, many of them, adding insult to injury, falsely accused of being criminals. That was a crime against their rights as citizens, and who in the Democratic Party is really taking that on and addressing what happened? I don't see it. In fact I worry that it may happen again.

If a vote for a woman is all it takes to evoke change, then voting for a black person should also be enough to evoke change. But I don't propose voting for Obama for that reason.

Leadership skills are crucial, and when dismissing Obama's lack of experience, why don't people consider what he has accomplished in relatively short time in the US Senate. Namely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006

an important step toward undoing the secrecy of the cheney era. This signals to me (and to independent voters) the kind of government he is in favor of. Also, ethically, do Edwards supporter realize that Edwards even pointed out in the debate that Obama has already taken lobbyists on with the ethic's committee ban on lobbyists purchasing politician lunches:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117003732585090802-C38Dsj5PWRwaKB7j74dTOxaXNRY_20070205.

Accomplishments that Obama's condescending detractors keep forgetting to mention.

Those who say that Obama is all pretty words and no action have refused to look closely at his career. Considering his relatively short time in Washington, he has showed political courage, and the ability to pull people together to get things done. I also thought it was funny that the Republicans all felt the need to slap him down at their debate saying that he has "no experience" etc...maybe this cozying up with him for them is also pretend because they're frightened of him and what he can do. (And unlike Clinton or even Edwards, I think Obama is not really afraid of the GOP--he's willing to build on a platform of popular consent like Senator Wellstone, and I think that gives him confidence to stand up to them). I wish democrats would remember that African Americans, if they had not been cheated of their citizen's right to vote in 2000 would have carried Gore to the white house, and all of this Bush bitternesss wouldn't even need to exist.

Obama's ability to pull independent voters to the polls in Iowa is an extremely significant marker, and if he is able to do the same nationally that really does signal a change (a'la Kennedy or Reagon popularity), not merely a change for the color of his skin. I hope that the people supporting other candidates (who are trying to accomplish the same or similar goals) recognize this. Or maybe they do, and thus, the vitriol.

I agree with you about Charlie Gibson, and did you catch it when he thought that two new york school teachers (or college professors) might make over $200,000 per year? Talk about a press corp that it out of touch with the ordinary world. That was a sad moment in journalism.

Please read my post below about Obama before you jump on the Clinton bandwagon. Clinton stood on her record, yet she didn't specify which record...the record for welfare reform? She can't affect change only by being a woman nor by bragging about her resume. Where does she show that she used her leadership skills to accomplish something with bipartisan support in Washington? I'm sure that there are examples, but I'm I can think of one out of hand. She seems more like an establishment candidate who is having a hard time connecting to ordinary voters, and I don't say this for reasons of sexism, any more than those attacking Obama necessarily do it out of racism.