From Sun Times:

What would Barack Obama do? With a delegate lead putting him on track to win the Democratic presidential nomination and Republicans facing an uphill fight in November, what would the change Obama touts on the campaign trail mean were he to take over the White House? That question arises because of things he says as he politicks, including a couple of positions that have been undercut by his advisers.

A “NAFTA-gate” brouhaha erupted after Obama made protectionist-sounding remarks, saying he would reopen negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement to correct defects that have cost U.S. jobs. Then it was reported that an adviser, University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee, told the Canadian consulate in Chicago that Obama’s remarks should be viewed more as “political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” Obama said the discussion had been “misreported.”

Obama has a reputation of understanding the value of free trade, so the Canadian report seemed reassuring on the economic issue if not altogether flattering to him in regards to candor while wooing voters in Ohio. But Obama followed up by saying he would reopen NAFTA to “strengthen the core labor and environmental standards.”

Which position, free trade or more protectionism, would prevail in an Obama presidency?

Then another adviser raised questions about his pledge for a scheduled pullout of troops from Iraq. In a BBC interview, Samantha Power said Obama “will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan — an operational plan — that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.”

That’s an imminently reasonable position, but at odds with Obama’s campaign rhetoric. He reacted by sticking to his position: “I will end it in 2009.” Democrats never tire of damning President Bush for ignoring military advice on Iraq, but their presidential candidates insist on retreating no matter what the generals say.

Faced with the realities of Iraq, what would President Obama do?

On several occasions, Obama has sought to reassure Jewish voters of his commitment to Israel. But in a meeting in Cleveland, he also said, “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel then you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”

Fair enough. But it’s also true that Israel has been led by Likud governments, and may again because Benjamin Netanyahu is considered a leading candidate for prime minister should elections be held.

What would be Obama’s attitude toward a new Likud government on the front line of the war against terrorism?

In his speeches, Obama says Americans want a break from the divisive politics of the past and a president who can reach across the political divide in Washington. This is one area where Obama does have a record, and except for work on ethics legislation, it doesn’t match Obama’s rhetoric. The respected National Journal rated Obama as the most liberal U.S. senator. That’s hardly an indication of a strong bipartisan urge.

Think of the more controversial issues in the last couple of years — immigration reform or the bitter fight on judicial confirmations, for example — and Obama does not come to mind as the presidential candidate who tried to bridge differences. It was Republican John McCain who led the effort at a compromise on immigration and who was one of the “gang of 14″ senators who forged a deal on judicial votes that staved off a showdown on the right to filibuster.

Which Obama would occupy the Oval Office: The liberal partisan of his record or a McCain-like maverick willing to step in between Republicans and Democrats to hammer out compromises?