I'll point out that at the bottom of most of those pages are also links to the more detailed policy papers should you not feel satisfied with the issue overviews.

are important to explore as well for spin/smear rebuttals:

Obama fact check page.

I recommend bookmarking the fact check page (and frequenting it) as well as "subscribing" to its RSS feed here.

The same request to other readers as well.

What he does

Lets Rezko a lobbyist help buy his house for him.
Rezko is now on FBI indictment for trying to get kickbacks or else he would kill legislation.

What he says

"Shine the Light on Washington Lobbying"

Its not an accident DC voted for him.

The argument that Obama doesn't stand for anything is just a tactic used by Clinton (and McCain and President Bush recently) to attempt to undermine the enthusiasm about Obama's message about hope. They know he's taken specific positions on a whole host of policy issues, both foreign and domestic.

While you are at it, lets post where Hillary stands on the issues....or have you forgotten that she is still very much in this race?

All these links you post that supposedly are Obama's positions on a number of topics.....hmmm....why isn't he talking about them on the campaign trail.....all he wants to talk about is some meaningless "hope and change". I've heard that slogan a million times before and nothing ever changes in Washington and never will regardless of who is president. She stands for something....can you say the same for him?

these statements...but his rhetoric doesn't say a thing about them.  If you have to be directed to a website to read for yourself, no wonder many people don't know what he stands for.

Remember the video...name one thing Obama has done....and no one could?  Well, the same video could be made about his position on issues.

Because he is obviously failing to communicate those.

And don't tell me we're fucking lazy idiots (yes, I was once told that at DKos).  The average voter is far more fucking, far more lazy and far more idiotic than I am - IMHO.

is not that Obama doesn't have position papers.

Of course he has position papers. Every campaign needs to have position papers, and I'm not sure why you decided to link each one from his website, when it would have been simpler to just link to this page:

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

and let people navigate through the position papers for themselves.

But anyway, the concern being expressed about Obama is that he he does not have the record or experience in the big leagues to accomplish these goals. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, the concern is that it would be amateur hour at the White House and that he would fail in the face of the certain visious Republican opposition.

Supporting Hillary doesn't make you a mouth breathing bot.  The argument is counterproductive on both sides of this nomination race.

Definitely sites you should go to for a non-biased look at where he stands

(not!)

Obama has been trying to be all things to all people is one of the reason "stands for nothing" got started. He was the AA candidate in the south. He was the liberal candidate in the NE. He tried to be the hispanic candidate out west and now is trying to be the white working class candidate even to the point of taking Hillarys ecomonic plans.

If you have to refer to his website, you don't know his plans either. In the debates, he didn't seem to know what his own plans were either.

And then there's the belief that he can't deliver because he doesn't have many accomplishments and very little experience. The fact that he missed a bunch of votes since being in the senate doesn't help either.

Who Cares? He's our next Messiah!

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

A group of citizens walk into Senator Barack's office.
They say:  We believe the Exelon Nuclear plant is leaking tritium into our drinking water.
Barack says: How dare they!  Let's have a meeting.  I am going to write a bill that supports mandatory reporting of leaks at the lowest of levels.
Citizens say: YEAH!
Barack says: Here's my bill Exelon.
Exelon says: Excuse me Senator, could we speak to you for a moment in private?
Barack says: I am a uniter, of course you can.
                    DOORS CLOSE
                    DOORS OPEN
Barack says: Hey, I just got myself two new fundraisers and 214 new donors from Exelon.  Thank you citizens for introducing me.

His first "at bat" and he stuck out...for the people.

www.politicalamnesia.com.blogspot.com

none of those links have footnotes indicating where Obama stole the Infrastructure Bank and 5 million Green Collar jobs from Hillary.  Hmmm.  

Geez, do you have to be ugly about it?

Thought that the Obama campaign would not have an issues section on his website, so to that degree this whole post is a simple strawman. The devil is in the details and Obama does not seem to supply them. And when he does they are scary.

His Social Security plan is totally fuzzy and in what limited degree we can see where he is going actually counterproductive. A payroll cap increase does not in fact operate in the way he suggests it would, nor is it on balance progressive. Instead it gives the holders of capital a free pass while socking it to middle class professionals.

Platitudes are not a subject for detailed policy. Take a look at his 'Energy and Environment' page. http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/ene rgy/ First there is exactly zero on any environmental issue other than global warming and his progressive solution for that is the "implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system"

The same is true from top to bottom of his economic and health care plan, from his choice of advisors to what limited details he has released each and every time they bow down to the 'miracle of markets'.

It is not that Obama gives no details at all, it is that every detail he drops is profoundly out of the progressive tradition of economic and social justice for everybody, and not just those the market doesn't kick to the curb.

The issue is, though: he says he stands for "change".

So, if you compare these positions to those of Clinton, how do they provide more "change" than Clinton?

His proposals are, in a few cases, more conservative than Clinton's proposals. That sounds like less "change".

How does he provide more "change", or how does he more effectively bring it about?

That's what I like to know, and I have not been able to find an answer other than fairly generic rhetoric.

I've checked his website a number of times and have familiarized myself with both candidates policies pages on the issues most important to me.  I find their positions close and equally detailed.

I became concerned in the last two debates when it seemed to me that Obama struggled to well defend or explain his own policies.  To me, he seemed uncomfortable with the details.  that is my concern, not that don't exist somewhere, but that they are not policies he will be able to well defend against McCain.

I know that his website makes clear that he does not take money from FEDERAL Lobbyists, thus leaving him free to clean up the influence of Washington lobbyists.

So the questions I pose are as follows.

1.  If he does not take money directly from the lobbyist's own checking account because of the influence that money implies, why does he not also reject the practice of the lobbyist collecting checks from others and presenting them in huge chunks to his campaign, the practice otherwise known as bundling?  Is there fundamentally any difference?

2.  Does anyone here see any hypocrisy in the fact that the chairman of his campaign, Tom Daschle, is a Washington Lobbyist, or the fact that many Washington lobbyists play official and unofficial roles in his campaign as either formal or informal policy advisors and check bundlers?

3.  Why did he flip flop on the promise to prohibit lobbyists from having positions in his White House?

4. Finally his website under ethics lists one of the big problems in Washington as "Lobbyists Write National Policies: For example, Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy."

True indeed.  But then Why would he vote for it?!

he is RARELY caught on tape telling us his ideas. How are you going to hold him accountable when he has nothing to be accountable for?

What is Obama's position on protecting consumers from predatory credit card and payday loan companies?

Oh wait - we already know that.  It's called 'Buyer Beware'. If those mean old banks charge you more than 30% on your loan, then Shame on You!

How do we know this?  Obama voted against a 30% cap on consumer loans - credit cards, payday loans, etc.  The result - there is NO CAP.  No consumer interest rate is too high for Obama.

And in case you are wondering, Hillary voted for the cap.

What, you expect people to actually check the record for themselves instead of repeating inane talking points?  Isn't that un-American or something?

Still, the logic of the naysayers (who claim that there will be no substantive change) could actually follow if you buy-in to their point of view:  1.  I am lazy.  2.  Laziness is sufficient to know that there will be no effort.  3.  True change requires effort.  There will be no true change, QED

Obama is long on rhetoric and short on specifics.  And when he does get specific, it doesn't sound very progressive.  I have a big problem with his health care policy, which leaves millions of Americans un-insured.  I have a even bigger problem with his use of right-wing talking points against Hillary and her plans.  "You can't trust her.  She's too calculating.  She's too polarizing," Obama says of Clinton.  It's the same crap the Republicans have been peddling against the Clintons for years.

Then he attacks her health care plan because horror of horrors, it mandates that everyone have health care coverage.  It's not fair says Obama.  

"They" are going to garnish your hard-earned wages, he says.  Whoever "they" are.  It's straight out the Republican playbook.  WATCH OUT!  They're coming after your money.  AHHH...OH NOOOOOOO......IT'S......IT'S.......IT'S. .....THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY'VE COME TO "FORCE" YOU TO HAVE HEALTH CARE.  IT'S DOWNRIGHT SOCIALIST.

Obama's is a recipe for a two-tier health care system.  A shitty one for everyone who can't afford it, and everyone who can, don't worry you can continue on having the best health care money can buy.  Some change!

One other point on his claim that Hillary is "too polarizing."  WHAT A CROCK!  Anyone who stands for something will end up being polarizing.
Hillary maybe polarizing, but it's because she has been fighting the Republicans for years.  Of course, they don't like her.  But apparently Obama feels it better to take no position and not threaten their grip on power.  Instead just talk about change and hope and unity.  And allow the media to fawn all over you, while talking about that awful woman Hillary.  When push comes to shove, I'll take the fighter who doesn't mind being unpopular with the right-wing, neo-cons and will fight for change, not just talk about it.  

Unless he talks about these issues on the stump, and puts his political capital behind them, and proves he has personally thought about them deeply, the web site is just a bunch of papers put up by his staff wonks that no one will ever hold him to.

Quote: none of those links have footnotes indicating where Obama stole the Infrastructure Bank and 5 million Green Collar jobs from Hillary.  Hmmm.  End Quote

Hmmm..... actually it does address those lies.

RHETORIC: "I was, however, glad to see that yesterday, my opponent adopted the goal of five million green collar jobs -- months after I announced I would create five million green collar jobs."

REALITY: OBAMA ADVOCATED FOR GREEN COLLAR JOBS FOR YEARS--AND UNVEILED HIS PLAN A MONTH BEFORE CLINTON UNVEILED HERS
OCT 2007, MONTH BEFORE HILLARY'S PLAN: Obama's Said In His Energy Plan That Investing In Energy Would Create Millions Of New Jobs In The US. Obama said, "In meeting the challenges of earlier generations, we didn't just end a costly war or beat the Soviets to the moon - we also unleashed opportunities we had never dreamed of. The GI Bill sent an entire generation of Americans - including my grandfather - to college and then on to the middle-class. Legions of scientists and engineers emerged from our race to space whose discoveries and innovations have forever changed the world. That's why my plan isn't just about making dirty energy expensive, it's about making clean energy affordable - a project that will create millions of new jobs and entire new industries right here in America." [Speech, 10/8/07]

Apollo Alliance Co-Founder Bracken Hendricks Praised Obama's Energy Plan For Funding Programs To Train "Our Youth In The 'Green Collar Jobs' Of The Future. Hendricks, Co-founder of the Apollo Alliance and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress said, "Barack Obama's plan to combat global warming and achieve energy security shows that investing in clean energy will drive good jobs and economic growth. This proposal reduces carbon emissions and boldly invests in clean energy alternatives and efficiency. From helping farmers locally produce bio-fuels, to training our youth in the 'green collar jobs' of the future; from helping US manufacturers retool to build more efficient cars, to creating a venture fund for emerging clean technology, this plan demonstrates that solving global warming is at the center of renewing America's economy." [Obama Release, 10/8/07]

SEP 2006: Obama Addressed Creating Green Collar Jobs In A Speech On Energy Independence. Obama said, "During World War II, we had an entire country working around the clock to produce enough planes and tanks to beat the Axis powers. In the middle of the Cold War, we built a national highway system so we had a quick way to transport military equipment across the country. When we wanted to beat the Russians into space, we poured millions into a national education initiative that graduated thousands of new scientists and engineers. If we hope to strengthen our security and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, we can offer no less of a commitment to energy independence." [Speech, 9/20/06]

APR 2006: Obama Addressed Green Collar Jobs In A Speech On Fuel Efficiency Standards. Obama said, "But it's precisely because of that competition that they don't have a choice. China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius to sell 100,000 in the U.S. this year. There is now no doubt that fuel-efficient cars represent the future of the auto industry. If American car companies hope to be a part of that future - if they hope to survive - they must start building more of these cars. This isn't just about energy - this is about the ability to create millions of new jobs and save an entire American industry." [Speech, 4/3/06]

Obama Called for Green Jobs in Audacity of Hope...Published in 2006. "What we can do is create renewable, cleaner energy sources for the twenty-first century. Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, we should end every single tax break the industry currently receives and demand that 1 percent of the revenues from oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward financing alternative energy research and the necessary infrastructure. Not only would such a project pay huge economic, foreign policy, and environmental dividends--it could be the vehicle by which we train an entire new generation of American scientists and engineers and a source of new export industries and high-wage jobs...Aggressively investing in alternative fuel sources can also lead to the creation of thousands of new jobs. Ten or twenty years down the road, that old Maytag plant in Galesburg could reopen its doors as a cellulosic ethanol refinery. Down the street, scientists might be busy in a research lab working on a new hydrogen cell. And across the way, a new auto company could be busy churning out hybrid cars. The new jobs created could be filled by American workers trained with new skills and a world-class education, from elementary school to college." [Audacity of Hope, p. 169-170]

RHETORIC: "I was also glad to see that he modeled his $60 billion infrastructure bank on a bill I co- sponsored last summer to create a $60 billion infrastructure bank."

REALITY: INFRASTRUCTURE BANK PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE--BUT CLINTON WASN'T ALWAYS A FAN
2005 Democratic Senate Bill Included Infrastructure Banks, With 13 Cosponsors, But Clinton Wasn't One of Them. In 2005, Sen. Sarbanes sponsored, along with 13 other Democratic cosponsors, "A bill to provide for alternative transportation in certain federally owned or managed areas that are open to the general public." Part of the bill read, "A qualified project assisted under this section shall be eligible for funding through a State Infrastructure Bank or other innovative financing mechanism otherwise available to finance an eligible project under this chapter." Sen. Clinton was not a cosponsor of the bill. [S. 890, Introduced 4/22/05]

Clinton Also Did Not Sign Onto the 2003 Bill. Sen. Sarbanes also introduced "A bill to provide for alternative transportation in certain federally owned or managed areas that are open to the general public" in 2003. There were 18 cosponsors, all Democrats, including Schumer, Dodd and Corzine, but Sen. Clinton was not one of them. [S. 1032, Introduced 5/8/03]

No matter which candidate you choose to support, you need to do your homework and make that choice. Parroting "all fluff, no substance" shows a lack of knowledge. If you are going to put your reputation out there, you should at least verify claims before making them. Be a part of a solution, instead of a part of the problem in politics today. Divisiveness based on attacks.

It was January before I made my choice. Until then I watched how these candidates ran their campaigns, the claims they made and the facts of those claims. I read their papers, I investigated their votes and their real experience. I have looked at the scandals out there.

In the end my choice came down to these things. Their stances and plans are not that different. Just different shades of gray. So I wanted to look at who I thought could actually make these changes. I believe firmly that Hillary would have a white house much like the Bush house. Surrounded completely by 'Yes' people from Bills presidency who will support any decision she makes. On the world stage and even here, I believe that Obama will encourage people to work together. I see Hillary attacking, instead of using diplomacy, when things get strained. You can see that in how she is handling being behind now.

Obama out campaigned the well established Clinton machine. Not a little, but in a HUGE way. He is smart enough to do this and to surround himself with really intelligent people. He consults and listens to his people. This tells me he will put intelligent, strong people in his administration based on experience, not cronyism.

Clinton ignores states and make statements that caucus states don't matter. That is a VERY bad political move any way you look at it. It makes people angry. Obama campaigns in every state he is allowed to campaign in and he does it heavily. He thinks all states are important and it shows he cares about the United States, not only the states that he can win.

Obama always looks well composed and above the fray and lately Clinton has been getting frazzled, strident and releasing attacks that make her look unprofessional.

All in all, Obama's judgement in this campaign, his demeanor and his political decisions convinced me that he would be a much better president than Hillary... from day one!

But that said, everyone needs to make their own decision. I just ask that you please get informed and if you are going to make a statement, make sure it is a true statement. Try to see the totality of the candidates, not just one aspect you like. Don't vote for a woman because you are a woman or a black because you are black. Vote for the person you think is best able to do this important job.