More and More, Obama Seems a Faux Liberal

[IndianaGreen]

More and More, Obama Seems a Faux Liberal

John R. MacArthur.President and Publisher, Harper's Magazine
Posted: December 16, 2009 01:03 PM

Following President Obama's war speeches at West Point and Oslo -- two breathtaking exercises in political cynicism that killed any hope of authentic liberal reform -- I've got only one question: Have the liberals who worshipped at the altar of "change you can believe in" had enough?

There was already ample evidence of Obama's feeble commitment to peace, progress and justice. Ever since he started fundraising for his presidential campaign, it's been clear that the principal change in the offing was skin tone and slogans. One only needed to read "The Audacity of Hope" to see how thoroughly Obama was enmeshed in the neo-liberal orthodoxies of the Robert Rubin-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Obama's impeccably establishment party credentials -- that is, his fealty to the Democratic leadership of Chicago and Capitol Hill -- practically guaranteed that he would hew to the status quo when forced to choose.

Even before he announced his candidacy for president, Obama endorsed the Iraq hawk Joe Lieberman for re-election to the Senate; then, when Lieberman lost the primary to the antiwar Ned Lamont, Obama made sure that he was never seen with the official nominee of the Connecticut Democratic Party, a bald act of realpolitik that helped Lieberman win as an "independent." In the U.S. Senate, meanwhile, Obama's voting record on Iraq war funding was identical to Hillary Clinton's.

Liberals, exhausted by President Bush and heartened by Obama's challenge to the pro-invasion Hillary, ignored their new hero's record and fixated on his one major anti-Iraq speech, delivered when he was a state senator. Ironically, it was Clinton who best characterized Obama's candidacy when she said that she and John McCain would "put forth" a "lifetime of experience" while "Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Indeed, apart from extraordinary ambition, there wasn't much more to Obama than that one speech.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r-macarthur/more-and-more-obama-seems_b_394341.html

[polichick]

1. Somebody will argue with this, but it won't be me. k&r

[doc03]

2. It's amazing a year ago he was the Messiah and Hillary

Clinton and the others were the antichrists. Many of us said he was making promises he could and never would be able to keep and we were told to sit down and shut the f--- up.

[whathehell]

3. I do think Hillary is more of a fighter...

I'm just not sure she would have fought for more of a "change"...That said, I'm finding Obama to be an enormous disappointment.

[yurbud]

6. Hillary didn't do as good a job of hiding her corporate allegiance

[whathehell]

11. Yup...Sadly, I'm starting to see it that way.

[Tesha]

4. Actually, many of us thought they both sucked.

Obama was seventh on my list of eight; Hillary
was eighth. Unfortunately, we ended up with both
of them (in varying capacities), but that's what you
get when the DLC runs things: pitiful excuses for
Democrats.

Tesha

[abq e streeter]

7. +1 re: every word you just wrote

although I finally got caught up in thinking maybe Obama would be better than I thought he'd be once he was the nominee. I never thought he'd be even worse...

[whathehell]

12. True...John Edwards was my first choice, actually...But we know what happened to him. n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rageneau]

8. Don't blame me -- I supported Hillary.

Too bad so many Progressives thought she and Bill were racists. (Or were willing to SAY they did.)

[TankLV]

10. ya got THAT right!!!

[NorthCarolina]

9. A "Faux Liberal"???? He is, and always was DLC, Hope there's a Liberal/Progressive

Primary Challenger, because if there is..he/she has my support and vote.

[caraher]

14. I'm not sure about a primary challenge, but yes, definitely DLC material

The idea of Obama as a "liberal" was only ever plausible to people capable of believing in the (FOX excepted) "liberal media." Both Obama and Clinton (actually, both Clintons) are more accurately considered centrist Democrats. And this is why I feel no sense of betrayal - I don't think he ever pretended to be something he is not.

And this is why I find stories like this so annoying - I think they really play into the only RW strategy that can get the Republicans back into office - inducing sane voters to sit the next election(s) out in a fit of pique.

[GeorgeGist]

13. And a true ...

Coward

[Vidar]

15. Recommended. Obama is a DLC corporate conservative.