SecretMethod70

Again, what has Obama done that indicates he doesn't intend to try and elevate the level of discourse, and what has he done that indicates he's not interested in hearing other points of view?

He's never promised that he's perfect - in fact, for a politician he's uncharacteristically willing to admit his own flaws, as is his wife. He's never promised that just because he listens to people he'll agree with them. All he has promised is that he is not interested in demonizing anyone simply because they disagree with him, and he has not done anything to indicate otherwise. In fact, his Senate record demonstrates that he is entirely sincere in his interest to work across the aisle, considering how many of his bills have had Republican co-sponsors. Part of the problem, I think, is the expectations people on the other side of the spectrum have when he says he wants to work together. Working together, for Obama, doesn't mean siding with a bill he disagrees with just so that he can get a bill that he agrees with passed. He hasn't demonstrated an interest in the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" brand of working together. Instead, what he has demonstrated is that while he is not willing to compromise on his own principles, he is still willing to respect the fact that other people have different principles, and he will listen to them. So, many people on the other end of the spectrum say "he's not working together, he's unwilling to change his view on _____ which is really important to us!" Well, no, he's not going to change his stance just because some of his opponents disagree, but what he will do - and this is how he's managed to get Republican co-sponsors on many bills - is approach the issue with respect and try to find where there is common ground without compromising principles.

So, I haven't seen a single thing from Obama which would indicate he's not sincere in those intentions. His Senate record shows it, and even his handling of the Rev. Wright situation shows it. He's a very intelligent man, and rather than do what was politically prudent and simply unequivocally reject Trinity, Wright, and the whole nine yards, he gave a speech which he certainly knew would open a can of worms.

And seriously, "can we trust what he says?" It's impossible to run a political campaign without the occasional fib, but I haven't seen anything from him that was as much of a bald-faced lie as Clinton's "I was a critic of NAFTA from the start," or her sniper-fire-on-the-tarmac story, or McCain's "oops! I misspoke on perhaps the most important foreign policy issue facing the next president....three times in a row....oh wait, now that you'r criticizing me for it I'll try and point out how I was right all along!"

At worst, Obama is no worse than either McCain or Clinton in terms of honesty, etc, which isn't a reason not to vote for him, it simply means it's a wash on that issue. In which case, you look at other issues, like policy positions (there are plenty on his website, so don't say he's an empty suit), or track record (both Clinton and Obama have relatively short Senate records, but Obama more often has bills that get passed and more often has bills with Republican co-sponsors, or any co-sponsors at all for that matter, not to mention that he has clearly run a better campaign than Clinton, which is the closest comparison we're going to get of how the two of them would handle running an administration).

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling