I posted obama's voting record as part of my response to you, if you read down that far, so I've been looking at it too. I'm wondering why you are posting as anonymous on this board if you're proud of your candidate?

Also, why do you post Clinton's criticism of Obama without looking at my criticism of clinton? Which part of her record that she is standing on is she proud of? Only the part in which Bill was President? What has been her work in the Senate that she is proud of?

I mentioned the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as a measure Obama co-sponsored, and something that I think he built bipartisan support for and accomplished. Not bad for a junior Senator, and in a similar way he took on Special Interests, as Edwards pointed out in the debate, by his contributions toward an ethic's committee ban on Lobbyists purchasing politicians' lunches. Both Edwards and Obama were pointing out how corrupt this system is.

So as for the Patriot Act, he did not sign the old version of the bill but he signed a new version in which he worked for the best compromises he could on the bill. Here is his statement about it.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/

Clinton was making a typical poltician's jab at Obama, because he could make a similar jab at her for "compromising." He did not, as she alleged, flip-flop, as much as he worked toward bipartisan support for something he wasn't/isn't completely happy with. Maybe the reason that Obama was shaking his head in the debate instead of answering her was that Clinton supported the Patriot Act herself, twice

http://www.factcheck.org/article416.html

both in it's original form, AND in it's new form. This is why you saw Edwards and Obama both wondering why Clinton had to mention the word change thirty five times and still people weren't really believing it. Running on her record is not enough...her record is broad and includes failures as well as successes. I ask again, where are Clinton's successes that convince us that she's the best leader?

She's taking her party's nomination for granted, and I think a lot of voters are frustrated and want her to be more specific not only about what she's going to do, but how she's going to lead. That's what a President does on Day One in the white house.

Is not impressing anyone, because it's full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

answers each of her questions about his record in detail.

And what about Clinton's record?

Why did she vote for the Patriot Act twice, both in its original form and in it's new form, and then take on Obama in the debate as if he had done something wrong? Why isn't she talking more about her Senate record. Why, according to this article is she funding a New Hampshire attack campaigns (fear campaigns not unlike a Rove attack...hmm.....) on Obama--and trying to make it look like it's coming from Edwards?

Follow the threads down on this site: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/06/553247.aspx

Why is Rupert Murdoch raising money for her in fundraisers? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/

Clinton is attacking Obama to try to protect herself from scrutiny, but her plan seems to be to make people too frightened to vote for Obama, so in her evoking of fear to elicit power, she reminds me too much of the dark side of politics we already know.

I'm also concerned about unions and candidates who actually support workers' rights and not just candidates who take union endorsements and money and run with them.

So there is this, if you scroll down to a critique of the New Hampshire primary by some concerned about union money and attack ads:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/06/553247.aspx

and here is one report of the union members' votes in Iowa

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/05/the_labor_vote

I hope this helps.