Redstate

Obama isn't beholden to any special interests at all.  His election was a fluke to begin with.  Politically there is no fallout if he votes "Yes".

Corzine and Clinton both have higher offices to consider so they will definitely vote "No".  

GOP, Obama doesn't have to worry too much about losing his next election.

I think he is doing this to cozy up to the left a bit more.  His speeches made him seem like a moderate, but he pretty much seems to be a hard left kind of guy.

The one that will surprise, and bother me would be Salazar.  He doesn't seem to be the kind of senator he said he was going to be during the election.  I wonder if it is going to hurt him in the long run-especially if the Colorado GOP can find a good candidate to run against him.

He pretty much confirmed for me that he was just another partisan shill when he began doing ads for Moveon.org to reelect Robert Byrd, towed the party line on the filibuster, and began playing the race card after Hurricane Katrina.

I'd be interested in some quotes to back up those opinions. Here are a few I found interesting:

I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee-jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure.

There's been much attention in the press about the fact that those who were left behind in New Orleans were disproportionately poor and African American. I've said publicly that I do not subscribe to the notion that the painfully slow response of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security was racially-based. The ineptitude was colorblind.

I am certain that Senator Obama was not race-baiting when he made those comments. It would be beneath his dignity for a Senator to engage in race-baiting. So far be it from me to suggest that Senator Obama was race-baiting there.

he is far from "hard left"

Obama has recorded how many votes?  He's only been in the Senate for 8 months.

His "hard left" record comes from his votes in the Illinois State Senate.

From Obama's speech to the Congressional Black Caucus:

Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday night again criticized the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina and urged a black policymaking conference to make sure the poor are not left behind again.

"The incompetence was colorblind," said Obama (D-Ill.). "What wasn't colorblind was the indifference. Human efforts will always pale in comparison to nature's forces. But [the Bush administration] is a set of folks who simply don't recognize what's happening in large parts of the country."

Translation: Bush is indifferent to people of color.  Obama follows up his smear with an outright lie:

"I understand why people would be cynical, when [Bush] makes the decision to give tax breaks to Paris Hilton instead of providing child care and education, but I listened," the senator said. "It was the first time in his presidency he acknowledged poverty in this country."

Right because the president has never before acknowledged poverty in the United States.

Like I said, Barack Obama's a partisan shill and now we know he's a liar too.

against his party

a person who is "hard left", wouldnt have done that

He voted against the bankruptcy bill. His party was split 50-50 on the vote and he voted on the more liberal side.

... I think in general the guy carries himself well.  I just think he needs to read up on the role of the courts a bit.  Anybody who makes broad statements about outcomes of decisions is clearly clueless about what courts are supposed to do.

To wit:  He claims admiration for Roberts' intellect -- maybe he should listen to what Roberts is saying about the role of the courts.

And the Obama LIES! campaign begins.

Obama has always played the poverty card (whatever that means) and so to the extent that poverty is currently correlated with race there will be some overlap. I think there's a big distinction between his calls for (usually bipartisan) renewed attention to the issues of poverty in the wake of Katrina, and suggesting that racism motivated the response. I see Obama's message as generally consistent with

Hurricane Katrina could have a silver lining if it forces the nation to respond "in a different way" to difficult poverty and racial problems.

"A large percentage of our population probably doesn't realize what inner cities are really like and has looked away from that"

Which was, of course, Laura Bush. So if you wanna say Obama is playing the race card, let's at least distinguish his approach from those people who really are saying blacks were left to die.

As far as Bush's record on poverty -- NCLB has some good stuff in it, and the faith-based initiatives is an interesting idea. It's hardly been the focus of his presidency: your first three links are all different versions of the same speech from May 2001. But I agree, "acknowledged" was a poor choice of words. To the extent that makes Obama a liar, he's got a lot of company among (deliberately?) forgetful politicians.

I like Obama because he demands both that government help the less fortunate, and that the less fortunate help themselves. I get he's not for everyone, especially a libertarian. I don't personally think he's a "shill" for anyone; he's criticized both sides. However, we'll get a chance to see over the next few years what he's really made of.

it's his content that sucks.

In Pat Cleary's thread about the Hillster, here.  On stage this morning, Belafonte was flanked by Hillary to port and Obama to starboard.  The event is still being webcast as "Town Meeting" on C-Span.

Good for him.  That's one reasonable vote at least.