Huh? You really can't see how a politician could govern differently despite campaigning the same?
No I can't Bill, but perhaps you can provide us with an example of one, or do you believe Obama is going to be the first?
I know you are impressed by his rhetoric, but do you really believe that his words speak louder than his actions?
As for the proper response to the Con:
The end doesn't justify the means.
He is not, after all, the Messiah. If he doesn't win the presidency in November, America will survive. While it may very well be to him personally, it isn't essential, to us, that he become the President. We don't need him to win at all costs.
People who temporarily sacrifice their principles usually have a very difficult time recovering them, and there is absolutely no empirical evidence that Obama is capable of this particular trick.
One can argue that this is the dilemma we face with all candidates and, to some extent, that is true, but in Obama's case it is his promise, not his track record that he is selling. He is, comparatively, a blank slate and if he can't live up to his promises during the first opportunity he has had to act upon a national stage, why do you assume he will do so once elected?
There is always the possibility that he will end up, if elected, being one of our greatest presidents, or merely a competent one, but why does anyone (who is not a partisan Democrat or ideological leftist) believe this is more likely to be the case with Obama than McCain? Because his speeches give people a thrill up their leg?
Situational ethics are always interesting.
We shouldn't torture people who are sworn to destroy us, even if by doing so we may save lives, but our politicians should do whatever it takes to get elected because we really need their particular brand of bullshite, and can rely on them to shape up once in office.