Duck à l'Obama

With so little federal experience, the only way to understand Obama's position on many issues is to examine his track record as a representative in the Illinois legislature. Fair enough?

But there's a problem. On many issues (abortion, child safety, law enforcement) Obama didn't vote either yes or no when key legislation was put to a vote. Instead he voted 'present', which is functionally the same as a 'no' - but gives no indication what the representative actually thinks about the issue. (Article here, by Nathan Gonzalez in the Wall Street Journal.)

He's still an immensely likable politician - but with apologies to Mr. Biden, a vote of "here" doesn't add up to a very "articulate" stance, at least when it comes to actually going about the business of being a lawmaker. Being a responsible leader means sometimes taking a difficult stand on issues that may be unpopular in some circles - and the failure to do so signals the possibility that the politician has more ambition - more of a desire to avoid the entanglements of practical politics - than anything else. Complain all you like about Romney's changing platform on abortion, or Rudy's excessive tolerance, but at least they can be nailed down somewhere, today. Obama, in contrast, ducks controversy.

He has plenty of time to fill in the blanks, but this aspect of his voting record fails to impress.

Related: My favorite libertarian lesbian, Camile Paglia, is back posting at Salon. I'm not claiming to agree with CP on many issues - but her candor and insight is unmistakable - especially in her most recent, lacerating analysis of Hillary and Barack.