I agree that Obama's speeches are great. I, as all were, tremendously enthusiastic about the Junior Senator from IL when I heard him first at the DNC Convention. He seemed bright, brilliant and the one to unite a divided country. He talked a lot about hope and his book has received good reviews. Mind you, I have not read it. However, since his entrace to the Senate, he was seemingly quiet under a Republican leadership of a 'do nothing rubber-stamp' congress. He talked a lot but has always echoed the talking points of his colleagues at the democratic side. For example, Senators Reed and Levin introduced a legislation of a orderly phased redoployment of US forces from Iraq in 4-6 months and it talked about a political solution not a military solution to the abyss in Iraq. They were criiticized heavily and were labeled 'cut and runners'. Obama was quiet. It was one sane Republican Hagel who stood up at the Senate floor and denounced the attack. It seems rather absurd that the attacks of such nature on a non-binding resolution which needed bi-partisam support from both sides of the aisle would need a republican senator to defend it and denounce such attacks. Where was Barrack then? And now all of a sudden we see him coming to every talk shows and commentaries in news media blabbering as if it was his idea of what he now calls 'political acoomodation' of US forces. I think it would be a mistake to vote for Obama just because of some of his speech and catchy slogans. He needs to prove what he is capable of. There has been enough 'political slogans' and phrases. Remember the young governer from Texas? Nothing to show for in his Governership yet he had pitchy speeches and promises that are yet to be kept.