Did he really do that?**Updated!

Helpful and knowledgeable blogger, Brandy sent this link to the Obama website:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php

I read it and you should, too. I don't understand what a "present" vote means. Why do politicians do that? And why is government complicated? I'm still upset about the abortion issue. Maybe I am raging with the hormones...I don't know. I still can't vote for him...and I really do hope(!) he did not vote against giving aid to a baby. And I don't care if he/them/whomever thought it wouldn't stand up or whatever.

I wish we had some kind of non-partisan(!) group to REALLY give us the facts behind an issue or a soundbite. I don't trust campaign websites....whether for or against an issue or person.

Brandy said awhile back she was considering retiring from politics. I can see why!!

It's no secret I am not a huge McCain fan. I don't think I am even a tiny McCain fan. I do appreciate his service to our country though and I have great respect for our men and women in uniform. That having been said, I wouldn't vote for someone just because they served in the military. I loathe identity politics...(vote for me, I'm: a woman, black, Mormon, a vet!!!!).

Knowing I will vote for McCain, even though he's not my favorite candidate makes me a little jealous of the Obama supporters. I mean, they do like their guy. And there certainly are a jillion Obama bumper stickers out there.

Anyways, I was reading this morning and came across this article. I read the whole thing and I have seen many "scare" articles come out about Obama. I get them in my in-box all the time. If they exceed my only-one-exclamation-point-allowed rule, I disregard them.

I don't know why...but today the part about abortion made me sick to my stomach. Did he really do that? That bothers me so much. More than the bile that his pastor spewed for 20 years, more than his creepy attack on McCain for not knowing how to use a keyboard (war injury, WaPo 2000)...really, more than anything else.

I really do think we can honorably disagree with each other on foreign policy, taxes, energy, defense....you name it. But this? Really? I am not a one-issue voter. Far from it: remember I did vote for Bill. Twice. Maybe I am so upset because I just had a baby or that I know women who are longing for a baby or that I know so many pregnant women.

So, if he didn't really vote this way on abortion, I will post such a notice on this widely-read (by 5 people) blog. But if he did, I am stunned.

Read it and tell me he didn't really vote that way.

If you are going to read something this morning, Gerard Baker's column ought to be it. Fair-use excerpt:

This election is a struggle between the followers of American exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism. Democrats are more eager than ever to align the US with the rest of the Western world, especially Europe. This is true not just in terms of a commitment to multilateral diplomacy that would restore the United Nations to its rightful place as arbiter of international justice. It is also reflected in the type of place they'd like America to be - a country with higher taxes, more business regulation, a much larger welfare safety net and universal health insurance. The Republicans, who still believe America should follow the beat of its own drum, are pretty much against all of that.

You can argue the merits of each case. But let me try to explain to my fellow non-Americans why Mr Obama's problems go well beyond that. Even if you think that Americans should want to turn their country into a European-style system, there is a perfectly good reason that you might have grave doubts about Mr Obama.

The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.

Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life, to take on the special interests that undermine government's effectiveness and erode trust in the system itself,

Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country. As David Freddoso writes in a brilliantly cogent and measured book, The Case Against Barack Obama, the angel of deliverance from the old politics functioned like an old-time Democratic pol in Illinois. He refused repeatedly to side with those lonely voices that sought to challenge the old corrupt ways of the ruling party.

Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.

Politician Obama has toed his party's line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate. His one act of bipartisanship, a transparency bill co-sponsored with a Republican senator, was backed by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He has never challenged his party's line on any issue of substance.

Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the “culture wars” in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.

Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate - not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy - opposed this same humane measure.

Here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance.