OK, so Obama is all about "change."

What does he want to change?
What does he want to change it into?
How's he going to do it?

And what in his record thus far in the United States Senate provides evidence that he is a change agent, or that he regularly seeks dialogue with both friend and foe to rise above differences and get things accomplished?

Past accomplishments are not necessarily a good indication of what a politician will do in the future. Consider the following:

A governor pushed through the highest tax increase his state had ever seen. He also signed into law a bill not only allowing abortions, hitherto illegal in his state, but allowing them to be performed solely for the well being of the mother. Millions of abortions resulted. He ordered the National Guard to occupy a city to pacify protesters, many of whom were protesting the killing of previous legal protesters by the state police, sent by him to put down the original protest. Prior to his administration, the state universities had no tuition for instate residents. He instituted the first tuition for state colleges. He closed many state-funded mental health facilities, sending thousands of mentally ill people out into the street. Even though he ran on an anti-big government platform, he increased the size and cost of the state government.

Looking back at that, and considering what he and his successor did to the national debt (increase it by a factor of 4), I guess Reagan's accomplishments as governor were a fairly good indication of what he would do as President.

I suppose if you keep doing the same things, you will certainly get the same results.

If he has accomplished nothing- it is logical to expect the same.

Here is an article out of the Wall Street Journal that discusses Barack Obama's time in the Illinois State Senate. Not so much listing accomplishments but rather an insight into how he operates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.h...F0jCIeVkIlIi6NUT+NBQ

From LR's link - (Something he may have missed.)

By the time he left Springfield in 2004, he had built not only the connections necessary to win election to the United States Senate but a record not inconsistent with his lofty rhetoric of consensus building and bipartisanship.

“He came with a huge dose of practicality,” said Paul L. Williams, a lobbyist in Springfield and former state representative who is a supporter of Mr. Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Mr. Williams characterized Mr. Obama’s attitude as, “O.K., that makes sense and sounds great, as I’d like to go to the moon, but right now I’ve only got enough gas to go this far.”

With the assistance of Senator Jones, Mr. Obama helped deliver what is said to have been the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the state’s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies.
~~~~~~~~
The disclosure requirement “revolutionized Illinois’s system,” said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, “put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown.”
~~~~~~~~

The article is titled "In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd". Neither seems to me to be qualities that would hamper him as President. A pragmatic and shrewd president just might be a welcome change.

An interesting quote from Obama appears in the article.

“What if a politician were to see his job as an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?”

Yes, what if? Imagine a president who tells the people the truth, the real choices.

Thanks for the link, LR. I suspect you just made a few more Obama supporters with that.

(DG walks away muttering to himself, "A president who is straight with the people, who doesn't sell them short. Isn't that what we all have been asking for?")

DG-My purpose for posting the WSJ article is to help provide some insight in how Barack Obama conducts himself in the business of politics. And it would seem to me that he actually has a lot of accomplishments to his credit. But they are not easily defined by listing them 1, 2, 3... Much of it is more behind the scenes, dealing with power brokers, trying to achieve the impossible with nothing and still having something to show for his efforts.

DG, now contrary to what you may think, knowing my past history of running Democrats through the meat grinder, I do have a lot or respect for Barack Obama. Not just because he is the Senator from my home state. Granted there are many positions I disagree with him on. But from what I have seen so far, he stands behind his positions. And I can respect that.

Actually what I foresee, is if Obama does indeed get elected, he may anger his base from time to time in order to get things done. Time will tell on how well he uses the fine art of compromise.

You've surprised me, and I apologize for my thinly-veiled insinuations.

quote:

Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
But from what I have seen so far, he stands behind his positions. And I can respect that.

Actually what I foresee, is if Obama does indeed get elected, he may anger his base from time to time in order to get things done. Time will tell on how well he uses the fine art of compromise.

It's being reported that he'd appoint a Republican as his Secretary of State. Didn't JFK do that?

JFK had two Republicans in his cabinet.

C. Douglas Dillon was the Secretary of the Treasury. Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense.

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/jfk/section7.rhtml

quote:

You've surprised me, and I apologize for my thinly-veiled insinuations.

I'll admit, he surprised me too. But, sometime things can so evident that a person would have to be a complete fake to deny them.


And LG, even tho we've hardly ever agreed on anything concerning politics, I've always respected your views. Who knows, Obama might be the change we need to finally bring America together.

Though Obama has been the Senate's "most liberal" member, there may be a compelling case brewing for a conservative to consider voting for him. He is not altogether a foe of the chambers of commerce. More on this to come (maybe) ...

quote:

Originally posted by honilov:

quote:

You've surprised me, and I apologize for my thinly-veiled insinuations.

I'll admit, he surprised me too. But, sometime things can so evident that a person would have to be a complete fake to deny them.


And LG, even tho we've hardly ever agreed on anything concerning politics, I've always respected your views. Who knows, Obama might be the change we need to finally bring America together.

Yes Honi, it is rare we agree on politics. Yet I still consider those here who disagree with me to be friends, no matter how heated the discussions get. After all we all have our reasons for deriving the opinions we have.

As for Barack Obama, some might consider yesterday's primaries a step back for him. As I see it, Ohio & Texas were suppose to belong to Hillary any way. And he still maintains his lead as before. Also there are some issues that have come out that he hasn't really had to answer for before now.