Since Hillary supporters continue to push this nonsense that Obama is all talk and no action and that his legislative record is thin or manufactured, I thought it would be helpful to provide the link to the Obama campaign's listing of his record on their fact check site.

<a href='http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/01/'>http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/01/</a>

Notice that the lobbying reform bill that he got passed in Illinois was passed in the 1990s and the Earned Income Tax Credit bill he sponsored and which passed was a bill passed around the year 2000. His bill on videotaping of confessions was passed in 2003.

That puts the lie to <a href='http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print'>this article by Todd Spivak</a> that Hillary supporters keep sending around saying that Obama's accomplishments were all manufactured by Emil Jones in the last year Obama was in the legislature because Jones had decided to "make a Senator" -- a quote I would point out is not verified by Jones himself but is instead the heresay of an unnamed source.

There are a whole bunch of other pieces of legislation that he was also involved in that passed in the 90s or early 2000s when the legislature was not fully Democrat controlled that are also listed in this fact check.

Obama supporters should all check it out and make sure that everywhere you see Hillary supporters posting this nonsense, you counter it with these facts.

CNN also did something on <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/31/obamas.godfather.ap/index.html'>Emil JOnes</a> that was a bit fairer.

Cross posted at Daily Kos.

I'm an Obama supporter but I think this Bill Clinton comment that has some riled up is fair:

Clinton said today in Charlotte, North Carolina, that it would be great if the general election were between his wife, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, and Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona. The vote would involve ``two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,'' Bill Clinton said.

``People could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics,'' he said.

Obama has said from the beginning that one of the reasons to vote for him over Hillary is that Hillary brings a lot of divisive polarizing baggage -- whether her fault or not -- that detracts from talking abou tthe issues.

With the Wright flap, Clinton is noting that Obama now also brings in stuff that's polarizing and detracts from the issues that Hillary wouldn't bring in.

I think that's true and accusing Clinton of McCarthyism as some have done doesn't address his point.

I'm not pursuaded by his argument for several reasons:

1. Patriotism is an issue in itself that needs to be discussed and worked through. So having it brought up in the campaign is not a bad thing. The Right's abuse of this issue is something we need to address head on because it is used over and over again to affect policy. It must be dealth with.

And by the way, I think Obama's speech Tuesday suggested an answer. He stood by his pastor and community despite the fact that they said things he agreed were offensive. Isn't that the definition of loyalty? If he applies that same attitude toward America -- that he stands by his country even when it does things he disagrees with -- isn't that the definition of patriotism?

2. The polarizing nature of what comes in if Hillary is the nominee is worse and harder to deal with because it's all personal and revolves around issues of trust. You can't really turn anything like that around without trust.

3. Obama has, in my opinion, show this week that he response to such attempts at injecting this kind of stuff into the campaign far better than Hillary does and in ways that diffuse it rather than feeding into it.

A story I was told in history class:

During the Kennedy
administration, when the civil rights marches were just getting
started, Bobby Kennedy went south to meet with black civil rights
leaders. He was to convey to them that the Kennedy administration
wanted to help but ask if they tone down their rhetoric and marches
because they were making the US look bad and there was a cold war on.

Black
leaders responded angrily and made a lot of anti-American statements,
saying why should they care about America's image in the world. It
wasn't their country anyway.

Bobby Kennedy -- a true blue patriot -- left the meeting and went back to Washington, mad as hell.

But
reportedly, a couple weeks later, he called one of his senior aides
into his office and said something to the effect of, you know, if I'd
been treated the way they have, I might feel the same way about this
country.

From then on, the Kennedy administration fully supported the civil rights movement.

In
regards to Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Obama's comments, I think we
should trust the American people to be just as fair minded.

The
truth is that most of them haven't thought about this from the other
side. Like Bobby at that time, they've just not put themselves in the
other person's shoes.

We need to remind the American people
that America first enslaved blacks and then forced them to live under a
descriminitory set of laws and the unbridled rule of lynch mobs.

Even
President George Bush recently said, in regard to whites in the south
hanging nooses out of their trucks, people need to remember what blacks
have been through.

And we need to ask all those people, given
that history, how would they feel about a country that had treated them
that way or their relatives -- many still alive to remember it -- that
way?

Would the fact that the country had finally stopped
treating your people badly but only after being repeatedly pushed to do
so, assuage you? Would you look upon 30 years of affirmative action as
enough to make up for 400 years of oppression -- oppression witnessed
by a generation of people still alive today?

I personally am
not surprised by the notion that there's a fair amount of anti-American
feeling in some quarters of the black community, but I sense that most
Americans of African descent WANT to believe in this country. There's a
desire to love America and be proud of it, but there's the fear that
America maybe won't return the favor.

If Obama is elected
doesn't it say, more powerfully than anything else could, that those
fears are unwarrented and that Americans of African descent can rest
assured that they are full members of this country. Does it not offer
the potential to change once and for all how Americans of African
descent feel about America? It has already apparently changed how
Michelle Obama feels. What is the impact for our country if that change
in feeling becomes universal? If you're concerned about the lack of
patriotism of people like Jeremiah Wright and other cynics who say
America is a racist nation, isn't the best response to show him he's
wrong about the country?

You don't have to do that by
necessarily electing Obama president, but you do have to do it by
giving Obama a fair shake and by being understanding of the history
that blacks have faced and the necessary attitudinal consequences of
that which make it impossible for a black politician not to know and
even be friends with someone of Wright's views regarding America.

The
trouble is that this may not be an argument that a black person can
make to whites as successfully as another white could make it to
whites. Maybe someone like Senator Byrd or someone a little more
conservative, who has credibility with more conservative elements of
the white population?