They sure do, Baldilocks. However…there’s an important point you’re missing.
The difference between you that you don’t mention, is that while you’ve proved that change and have a rather public track record on the matter, as well as very publicly held positions on the matters of the day, Obama does not, having nearly no record at all.
I don’t blame the right for being skeptical, here. The Democrats have a long history of putting up somebody for office who has nothing going for them other than the ability to mouth all the correct noises.
You have built up a trustworthy record, and have it out where anyone with a computer and the time to read it, can.
Obama has no record at all. None.
And therein lies the biggest question of all to his candidacy, much less the fervor of with which Democrats have been treating it. what has this guy done, what are his positions on the matters of the day, that causes them to wet their pants every time he enters the room?
December 20th, 2006 at 14:11
But Obama does have a record, as a United States Senator and as a state legislator. The record in one hundred percent liberal. Obama even opposed the Defenses of Marriage Act. Obama is another JFK, John F. Kennedy, young, glib, good looking and devoid of substance. Kennedy was a disaster as president, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crise. Let Dumbo go flap his ears somewhere else. In a post Nine Eleven world we need a serious president. Obama does not qualify.