There are a lot of people that like Obama because of his stances on various issues.  I’ll name several below and get into specifics.  The one thing that people should know is this: Obama likes to grandstand.  He is a celebrity politician, and loves the large crowds and attention.  It is at these times that he will make far-left, strong liberal statements and make grandiose claims to hear the crowd roar.  However, quietly in the background, once his advisers and other experts have had a chance to set him straight, he changes his official policy from what he said.

Here are instances of things Obama promised, and then later weakened his stance on.  Things that you may like Obama because of, but find that his stance is actually more grounded and neutral like McCain’s.

Taxes
Both Obama and McCain will reduce taxes for people that don’t make a lot of money.  However, Obama’s plan is considered welfare, because it will give people back tax money that they didn’t pay in the first place.  Just in the last week Obama has begun to tighten up his plan so it does not constitute welfare.  He has added a clause so that you have to meet specific employment requirements before you will get the tax break on your home mortgage.  So if you are unemployed, or if you receive income from a job that is not formal (you are paid directly and your income is not recorded), or if you are in and out of work on a temporary basis, then you are out of luck.

Foreign Policy
One of the statements Obama is very well-known for is that he would meet, without preconditions, with the leader of terroists states like Iran and Syria.  At a CNN debate, Obama was asked:

...whether he would meet with the “leaders” of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea “without precondition,“ during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

“I would,“ Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. “And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them—which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration—is ridiculous.“

Since then Obama has gone back on what he has said.
From the Associated Press

Initially said he would meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions, now says he’s not sure “Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now.“

Either way, Iran has made it very clear what they think about Obama’s invitation:

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.

It is the Americans who are in dire need of reestablishing ties with Iran, he underlined.

I guess that’s why Obama is backtracking on his offer - it looks rather foolish to have the leader of the most powerful country open an invitation for a meeting, and have it completely rejected.

Campaign finance reform
While Obama was still battling against Hillary Clinton, he made some very strong statements on his views of campaign finance.  Here are Obama’s own words from the Democratic Network, EDWARDS AND OBAMA DETAIL POLITICAL REFORM PLANS

Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns
combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of
moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State
Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (DWI)
bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed
a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.
My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return
excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general
election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they
would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.
The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-
AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic
nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to
preserve a publicly financed general election.

So Obama promised to use public financing, providing a fair, neutral election not sponsored by special interest groups.  So how has this election unfolded?  Obama broke his promise and accepted donations and financing, which has resulted in an election that has broken every past campaign finance precedent in history.  Obama has run an incredibly unbalanced campaign, spending over half a billion dollars.  Instead of his “free television and radio time” Obama has done another first, by purchasing full half-hour timeslots on major networks for millions of dollars a shot.  Never before has a politician made such bold claims on campaign finance and done the exact opposite.

Why should this concern you?  Read Obama’s words again.  Look at the forcefulness and sincerity in which they were spoken.  Look at how he builds himself up, and takes credit for his proposals - how it is all about puffing up Obama.  Doesn’t that sound like his stance on so many other things?  Healthcare, the war in Iraq, taxes.  How can you believe any of those things will unfold as he says?  Obama exudes confidence, but it is a false hope.

Your specifics are incorrect in many instances, which people can easily fact-check, so I won’t point them out.

I would like to point out in general terms that being a dependable and responsible person does not mean reciting the same thing over and over. It means keeping the same priorities in mind and being able to adapt to circumstances to keep the priorities you have set. In the face of the current economic situation, if a person still is repeating the same old line (or making the same old financial allocations in their retirement account) they probably aren’t paying attention.

I like Obama because his priorities are in the right place and he continually addresses realities that I see happening around me. This is in contrast to what I see from McCain, which is an adherence to a party line based on the failed economic theory that wealth will somehow trickle down. Wealth trickles up. Anyone can see that in the “interest” block on their credit card or mortgage statement. When too much of it accumulates at the top, people who need stuff—iPhones and medical care, etc.,—don’t have the money to purchase things, and the economy stalls out.

Your specifics are incorrect in many instances, which people can easily fact-check, so I won’t point them out.

Instead of trying to get people to assume what I said is incorrect, it is your obligation to prove it.  Especially if this can be done so easily as you say.

This is in contrast to what I see from McCain, which is an adherence to a party line based on the failed economic theory that wealth will somehow trickle down.

First, if we’re going to talk about adherence to party lines, then let’s take a look at Obama.
From the Washington Post:

Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.0% of the time during the current Congress.

That’s not exactly a record of independent, free-thinking behavior, is it?  It certainly is not the record of someone who exhibits bipartisanship, reaches across party lines, or can unify our nation.  What I’m quite curious about his how Obama “addresses realities that I see happening around me.“  You obviously can’t be referring to his actual record or performance as a politician, so you must be talking about his rhetoric.  As I pointed out quite definitively above, Obama’s rhetoric doesn’t warrant any faith that he will, or can, follow through.  He’s saying what it takes to get elected, and as an inexperienced junior senator does not have the record to back up what he says.

As for the “trickle down” theory, how has it failed?  Are you talking about Wall Street investments?  Or the price of oil?  Or the unemployment rate?  That’s a pretty strong opinion you are stating as fact.  I’ve been providing sources to back my statements.  Can you do the same?