[ryberg]

Yes, interesting... If you will just allow me to decimate.

First and foremost, the entire gist of this article immediately calls to mind my question a couple pages back -- here it is, actually -- about whether Bush didn't have less international experience than Obama does now when Bush took office. However much elephants may prefer to forget such points, Bush was woefully inexperienced, and yet Obama has an impressive record in this area (not counting his personal life experience) in just a short period in the U.S. Senate (see my post). Nevertheless, the article makes no such comparison, however obvious it may be, but does provide a scary quote like this from a Republican on the point:

"Obama has a great intellect and the leadership characteristics of our great American presidents," said state Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Republican who befriended Obama in Springfield. "But the unknown is the administrative and foreign policy experience."

Then greatly furthering the notion that the author may not be all that fair and unbiased, here, if not just pushing a hidden agenda (or at least doing poor research), he goes straight down that "say it enough times and people may believe it's true" road, citing and leaving to stand as objective truth with no further explanation a scare story whipped up by the National Republican Senatorial Committee in their opposition research on Obama:

Still, he once voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive.

In a passage very illustrative of politics in general and how little one should believe even about voting records, Obama explains (see pp 132-33 of his second book) that this is one of several such politics-as-usual misrepresentations about his voting record created by Republicans:

As is standard practice these days, the National Republican Senatorial Committee had prepared a fat binder of opposition research on me before I was even nominated, and my own research team spent many hours combing through my record in an effort to anticipate what negative ads the Republicans might have up their sleeves.

The didn't find a lot, but they found enough to do the trick -- a dozen or so votes that, if described without context, could be made to sound pretty scary. There was the criminal law bill that purported to crack down on drug dealing in schools but had been so poorly drafted that I concluded it was both ineffective and unconstitutional [and he taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago, by the way] -- "Obama voted to weaken penalties on gang-bangers who deal drugs in schools," is how the poll described it. There was a bill sponsored by antiabortion activists that on its face sounded reasonable enough -- it mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies (the bill didn't mention that such measures were already the law) -- but also extended "personhood" to pre-viable fetuses, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade; in the the poll, I was said to have "voted to deny lifesaving treatment to babies born alive."

Rounding it all out, you have some standard issue rhetorical tactics, perhaps to heighten the sheer "fear" factor consistent with the author's approach: he includes lots of positive stuff about Obama's leadership and compromise skills, highlighting his bipartisan approach and compliments from Republicans, but shoves it all to the very end, where it is only seen by those who skip down 4-5 screens and read the whole thing:

While he was never a Senate leader, Obama did lead. He helped pass ethics laws in a scandal-plagued state and won tax credits for the working poor. On racial profiling and the death penalty, he negotiated with Republicans and police chiefs on bills that chipped away at both institutions.

Though these were small steps rather than grand reforms, Obama impressed Republicans and Democrats alike with hard work and a soft touch.

Laimutis Nargelenas, a lobbyist with the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, said Obama broke a logjam over racial profiling legislation when he volunteered to make his case personally to the chiefs.

Nargelenas is used to Democrats drawing a line in the sand and declaring war. Not Obama. "The thing we noticed about Obama is he's a willing listener," Nargelenas said.

When Democrats took over the Senate, Obama still did not throw his weight around. "While I'm in a position that I can run this bill through, I don't want to do that," he told Nargelenas. They compromised on a bill that, rather than end racial profiling, commissioned a study and required police to record the race of people they stop.

Nargelenas, a rock-ribbed Republican, can see himself voting for Obama in 2008.

"I think he's ready to move up," Nargelenas said.

Then a single undercut of that whole thing:

He paused for a moment, then copped to some doubt. "It is a big leap."

How'd I do?

Steve