Well, surely you wouldn't contend that Mitt Romney's 1994 race against Ted Kennedy is too old to be relevant.

The positions don't bother me, but I'm very concerned about this:

"Obama said he would support a single-payer health plan for Illinois 'in principal' [sic]"

I mean, the man was the editor of the Harvard Law Review!

If you want to make it to easy to dismiss old opinions (apparently allowing for "pandering" as an excuse), then you have to do so for the Republicans too. They probably would benefit from that more than the Dems would.

The Politico is giving me reasons to vote for Obama.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but there's nothing here, and that Politico article was an incredible piece of hackwork.

If the Republicans really believe that support for government-guaranteed healthcare and the possibility of tax cuts for people who make six figures is electoral poison, they're going to be in for a very rude awakening come November 2008.

Other than that, Obama is at most guilty of "rounding up" some of his positions because he was asked for yes/no answers.

Gun nuts, anti-abortion zealots: these people aren't voting Democrat no matter what.

Every Politico article is an incredible piece of hackwork.

I can't dismiss this quite as easily as you can, E. Whatever the document, you don't lightly say you're opposed to the death penalty. Of course, I prefer the old Obama.

The last ten years, he's moved gradually to the right, perhaps in preparation for his run for the presidency, Not great crime, that, though I'd prefer someone like Edwards, who moves left to run.

Every Politico article is an incredible piece of hackwork.

I especially appreciate the sources they turn to for analysis. Grover Norquist - who surely has his hand on the ideological pulse of the electorate - is "licking his chops." But my favorite is this one:

"No candidacy of his avowed liberalism has succeeded in the United States in much more than a generation," said Republican strategist Kieran Mahoney, a national political adviser to former Sen. Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign.

Politico might want to think twice before supporting an argument by reference to the political acumen of an adviser to the Bob Dole presidential campaign.

Holy crap, are you suggesting that the press is unfairly biased in favorof a possible Democratic nominee? Well shucks, we'd better not let THAT guy win. What a nightmare it would be to have the press on our side for once.

Liberal views! The horror!

Love all the obamaniacs who miss the point along the thread. keep up guys and gals, in the final stretch this sort of shit hurts you when you claim you are above politics only to turn around and play it.

The interesting thing is not that he had his campaign manager fill out the questionnaire in which there are liberal positons affirmed.

That should reassure me. The Obama's campaign to the release of this disturbs me. Why are they backpedaling from these positions as fast as they can.

Hell why bother to vote present in the Illinois State Senate on bills from not only women's issues like partial birth abortion but gun control bills as well, in order to secure one's viability for future office, if this kind of thing is hiding in your past?

How distressing! Just what one should love about a so called progressive candidate, running away from those positions.

And why does the press consider Obama the flavor of the month???? Maybe because he holds many of the same viewpoints they have.... from the beauty of bipartisanship to the crisis confronting us in Social Security. they like him for their reasons and their own Village preoccupations.

I'm not reassured by

I think Obama might be haunted by Mickey Kaus, but in the sense that Mickey Kaus is a decaying zombie-like creature more than anything.

I love how the Politico highlighted his answer to the death penalty question as if that would be a huge deal breaker. Of course they forgot that Illinois had to suspend executions a few years back because of evidence of rampant fraud in the prosecutions.

So the underlying intimation is that being a "liberal" could hurt Obama? Did being an avowed "conservative' hurt G.W. Bush? We gotta man up because the vast majority of the country IS LIBERAL.

There is speculation that some blacks will vote for Obama because he is black.

Is that a legitimate position?

Dont let the republicans tactic from the last 2 elections put you on the defensive. ..again. They managed to simplify politics down to the idea that if you've changed your mind, your not credible. ..with Bush chanting his incredibly annoying phrase (which I refuse to type here) labelling Kerry as variable in his opinions shall we say. Then we reap the rewards of a president that refuses to change his policy regardless of opinions or facts that are presented.

So what is the date that all ones political ideas should stop forming and be set in concrete?

It isnt important to me that 10-15 years ago, or even yesterday a candidate has a view that he doesnt today. If there is truly a substantive difference between the 2, I would him to be able to explain the reason for his change in attitude.

Did 9/11 change his views? ..did he do work in the Il legislature that tempered his views? Whatever. Then we can evaluate him on the basis of the major thing that matters more here then his opinion on specifically manufactured questions, his judgment.