Obama voted for a revised version of the Patriot Act, that was altered to be less repressive under a Democratic Congress.

Senator Clinton supported the Patriot Act in both versions, passed under a Democratic Congress, and the revised version that Senator Obama signed.

Although I'd like to think that he wouldn't deny a woman her right to vote, either.

I think you're right on that. I wish Salon would cover more of the not-present issue though.

Have you read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

I don't know if I read it as cowardly to vote not present in the Illinois Senate, because this is commonly done there. For a bill to pass it requires "yes" votes. As for seeking cover, yes I think he was because the right wing in Illinois had a plan of attack to un-elect officials based on their pro abortion rights stance, and he was a prime target. Political expediency? Yes. Was it damaging to women's right to vote? From what I have found, No. He has never used this option when it meant costing a woman her right to vote, as demonstrated when he voted against the bill supporting the "rights" of a partially aborted fetus. The right wing will go after him in a general election for this if he wins the nomination. But notice that they will be attacking him for his pro-choice stance, not for not protecting a woman's right to choose (as Clinton has accused him).

I don't think Obama is Teflon coated. I think the not present voting in the national Senate needs to be better examined, because I have read conflicting reports. I welcome debate on this. I don't automatically assume that it is cowardly, since he has been active in the Senate in putting forth more progressive and passing legislation than either of his opponents. Have you read about his Senate Career on Wikipedia? Seriously, have you?

I think all of the candidates were pushed into the go into Pakistan without permission assertions, and yes, these assertions bother me.

I think they are all bowing to pragmatism and what the country supposedly wants in a leader. But if one is cowardly, they all are cowardly. I found Clinton's husband's position on war to be too hawkish for me (although I supported him twice in the 1990's), and I suppose I expect the same from her if she is elected.

Also, how do you explain Clinton's anti-flag burning amendment? I find this more troubling as a piece of legislation than any of Obama's record so far, in pandering needlessly to the Republicans.

But I'm not trying to push criticism of Clinton as an endorsement of Obama--do you see more examples of inconsistencies on his record? I don't see any glaring inconsistencies in his support of women's rights or of his anti-Iraq war position. I don't agree that his not-present votes were automatically cowardly. But I welcome more debate if I'm missing something.

I have to jump in here. You know, it's time that we critically examine the candidates. This is just an observation of mine, but Obama supporters seem unable to see the drawbacks of their candidate or his past history of spin. What would it mean if Obama supporters could admit that in this race, he has a few cracks in his personae and has done some spin? What would it mean?

So I'll balance things out here:

First of all, Obama voted "present" to IN THE WORDS OF A PLANNED PARENTHOOD leader, "give him some cover." He did this so that he would not vulnerable pro-life voters. To vote present, as the Planned Parenthood leader said, is not to vote pro-choice. It is to give you cover. Not taking leadership. Taking cover. Enough said.

Here's some websites that mention Obama's spin and tactics:

On his healthcare ideas, he makes stuff up:

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

Also, Obama and Hillary's record on Iraq have been almost identical. From ABCNEWS:

"In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against."

Obama, in difference to Hillary, has said, however, that he'd take us into Pakistan militarily to finish the search for terrorists. Just what we need, to attack the unstable nuclear nation of Pakistan....

The NewStateman writes he lets his friends in the Senate do the work, while he leaves them swinging in the wind and is not the peace leader at all he leads us to believe:

"But he has not been the sainted man of peace his supporters portray, either. In his three years in the Senate he has kept his head safely below the parapet, leaving two congressional colleagues - Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania - to spearhead opposition to the war on Capitol Hill. In 2006 he voted against a Senate resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops and has also voted to continue funding the war.

Most recently, he said he would not hesitate to send US troops into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission to hunt down terrorists, and he insists that the US must not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs". He wants the military to "stay on the offensive, from Djibouti to Kandahar" and to increase defence expenditure. Like most identikit US mainstream politicians, he talks of "rogue nations" and "hostile dictators", and says the US must maintain "a strong nuclear deterrent" and be ready to "seize" the "American moment". He appeared to support Israel's attack on Lebanon, but then said "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" - which, in turn, he denied saying.

In the meantime he let his mentor and fellow senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, swing alone in the wind after Durbin - perhaps the most liberal Democrat in the Senate - compared US interrogation techniques of prisoners in Guantanamo with those of the Soviet Union, Nazis and Khmer Rouge. He voted to reauthorise the Bush administration's repressive Patriot Act, and says that as president he would not rule out a US first-strike nuclear attack on Iran.

His equivocations and contradictions thus proliferate......"