Devastating analysis of Obama's record. Is it fair? Is Obama a panderer who doesn't deliver?

[Karmadillo]

This is a fairly long article, but it's worth reading all the way through. If this is accurate, it suggests the corporate media's failure to vet Obama will come back to bite us in the fall. Is the analysis accurate? If not, where is eriposte off base?

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011675.php

You might remember Sen. Joe "Let's send more troops to Iraq" Lieberman's famous campaign speeches during his re-election to the Senate in 2006, where he repeatedly said what he knew voters in CT wanted to hear:

No one wants the war in Iraq to end more than I do.

It was a great pitch from Sen. Lieberman☼ (Sen. Obama's mentor). It wasn't true at all, but it helped him defeat the real progressive in the race Ned Lamont because a large number of voters in CT (some Democrats and particularly Independents) fell hook, line and sinker for that pitch. Sen. Lieberman's claim was of course widely criticized by the progressive blogosphere for misleading the voter base - and rightly so.

<edit>

Some of you may have noticed Sen. Clinton is trying to get voters and the media to focus on Sen. Obama's actual record (good luck with that!) and how that compares to his history of pandering (and not delivering) to his targeted constituencies. I want to talk about that aspect just a little bit today since we have spent, by my count, at least 15 years, where big chunks of the conservative-leaning traditional media have focused on fiction, superficialities and propaganda (in favor of their politicians of choice and against the politicians they hate). If there is any point to my investing the time that I don't have in blogging, it is to at least make some attempt to focus on substance. To make this easier, I'm going to separate this post into the following sections (all emphasis is mine unless otherwise stated):

1. Iraq

2. Iran

3. Patriot Act

4. Abortion Rights

5. Lobbyists and Special Interests

6. Death Penalty

7. Healthcare

8. Taking Tough Stands

CONCLUSION

<edit>

1. Iraq

<edit>

In other words:

*Before he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he SaidTM he was for complete ChangeTM on Iraq - i.e., no funding at all (or) no funding without imposing enforceable conditions on Bush. However...

*Once he got elected to the U.S. Senate, and before he started to run for President, his actions were resoundingly in favor of what he and Sen. Edwards repeatedly describe as Status QuoTM. In fact, he was so in favor of what Sen. Edwards and he believe is Status QuoTM that he even opposed Sen. John Kerry☼'s bill that aimed to change the course of the Iraq occupation by withdrawing troops. No wonder Sen. Edwards thinks Sen. Obama almost Walks on Water for ChangeTM!

*Now, having started his Presidential campaign, its Pandering Time again - so, Sen. Obama is conveniently for ChangeTM again. All I can say is good timing!

It's interesting how Sen. Obama's need and promises of ChangeTM conveniently appear in impressive speeches right around the time when he is looking to be elected to higher office. However, according to the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary Rulebook, let's not forget that this is all about Principled LeadershipTM!

more...

[Kahuna]

1. Let's see..

:boring:

[Karmadillo]

27. I know. Facts are stupid things.

nt

[KittyWampus]

32. there are no 'facts' listed in the OP. No actual votes, from Illinois or the Senate.

And when it comes to his overall record, it's liberal enough.

At least he doesn't run away from his ENTIRE record and pretend it never existed. Unlike Edwards, for instance.

[Craftsman]

30. I have heard the same

I am looking at his record adn see he is long on talk and short on action.

[elizm]

2. Oh PLEASE!

Give.It. Up.

:eyes:

[Donnachaidh]

9. try READING the article

It's ALL laid out in plain english.

All suit - no substance. UNLESS it's politically expedient for his career. :eyes:

[KittyWampus]

31. You mean EXACTLY like Edwards. How an Edwards supporter can have the freaking nerve to say that

is beyond me.

The cognitive dissonance, dishonesty is repulsive.

[KittyWampus]

33. what exactly is "laid out"? No actual votes discussed & he stands by his record unlike Edwards

who runs from his ENTIRE Senate career and his last, failed POTUS run.

[Karmadillo]

17. We're not allowed to post facts about Obama?

nt

[Hydra]

3. Too bad I have to leave soon

So I don't have time to read the article right now. That said, the fact that he doesn't show up for votes, or claims he would have voted one way or another had he been there is perhaps the most disturbing strategy ever to stay unaccountable for his stands and to leave himself plenty of wiggle room.

Damn, I wish we had better top tiers.

[frankenforpres]

4. he says CHANGE

you just cant compete with that. especially when he smiles

[Saturday]

5. Don't try to confuse posters here with facts.

They don't like them.

[FreeState]

6. His conclusion pretty much sums up how I feel

"It's easy to give feel-good speeches about ChangeTM and PrincipleTM and ToughnessTM and BipartisanshipTM, but Sen. Obama' record makes it pretty clear that he's a politician like many other progressive Democrats - who panders heavily at the stump to make people believe what they want to believe and hear what they want to hear. His statements reflect a stunning record of hypocrisy and an inability to deliver on some of the major changes he has promised or proposed. This does not mean he is not a good Democratic candidate, but it does mean that a "reality check" is very much needed in assessing what he says and what he can actually deliver."

[Adsos Letter]

10. They are all politicians...

Politician's first goal: get elected.

Politician's second goal: get re-relected...

rinse/repeat

[FreeState]

14. I agree, but I think unfortunately others don't realize that...

how many youth are going to be put off when they think they are getting Change but dont. It hurts us in the long run IMO.

[Adsos Letter]

18. I always hope for positive change...

as I am sure you do too,,,what makes me cautious in this election cycle is the apparent willingness to treat some figures as "messianic" in the sense that was posted on a thread the other day (sorry, no link).

People tend to look for strong leadership, especially in times of stress, and especially when that leader is able to tap into deep-seated cultural triggers, many of which are often only subconsciously recognized and critically unexamined in relation to what a person is promising.

This has certainly happened before in history, and not always with positive results.

I don't want to make individual comparisons, because they wouldn't be appropriate, but the phenomenon is a worrisome one to me, at least.

:hi:

[Sulawesi]

20. Go ahead, historically, when have you seen this pattern? I am curious about what you refer to...

[FreeState]

24. "People tend to look for strong leadership, especially in times of stress"

I think thats the #1 thing. And to be honest - Im a Kucinich supporter - non of the candidates really fill that for me. Just for once I'd like to go into the voting booth and vote for someone instead of voting against the other side or voting for someone because they are not the worst candidate - so I do understand how people get caught up in the "messianic" personalities - its just like Ronald Reagan and in a way Jimmy Carter. I love Jimmy but his ideas never really transpired to action until he left office.

[Adsos Letter]

25. Yes, I agree...

the thing about the "messianic" draw is that it is usually based upon emotion and charisma...not necessarily valid indicators of good things down the road, since emotion is easily played upon and charisma doesn't necessarily equal positive substance.

[zalinda]

29. This is one of the reasons I'm for Edwards

He is not a career politician. Obama majored in political science at Columbia when he was 20. He KNEW he was going into politics. Politics IS his career. Clinton also has been in politics all her life.

John Edwards on the other hand, is not a career politician. He ran for the Senate because he thought he could bring about change. But he couldn't change anything because of the way the Senate is run. So, he is running for President to bring about the changes he sees as necessary for the people of this country. After his term/terms, he will probably do a Jimmy Carter, and work to make the world a better place.

Unfortunately, it's been a long time since the electorate has seen a real person, Jimmy Carter, who wanted the Presidency to make the country work for the people. Since Carter, it has been down hill all the way. Obama's speeches are "American Idol", Clinton's speeches are "Dancing with the Stars" and Edwards' speeches are "So You Think You Can Dance", just to keep the analogy going. Obama, (new, fresh, popular, doesn't always sings the right notes), Clinton (oldie, but goodie, may be able to bring it if the professional (her husband) doesn't mind playing second fiddle), and Edwards (good ground work, may not be professional, but works at it so it's not noticeable, shrugs off the blisters and keeps on going, wants it so bad he can taste it), so who is best? And yes, I watch too much of these shows but I love to see everyday people get a chance to do what they want to do.

I want someone who is running because he thinks the American people are getting a bad break, and he can try to do something about it. I don't want a President who is a career politician, because those are the people who are running this country now and have created the mess we are in.

zalinda

[DURHAM D]

7. The corporate media is carrying Obama on their backs.

They want him to win the primary. Members of the corporate media are vile fucks who are following a script. They question is why?

Every time I see a post on DU that HRC is the corporate candidate I shake my head in amazement. I used to think that Dems were actually smarter than Repubs - that they based decisions on facts not faith. I can no longer tell the difference between "progressives" and Freepers.

[quinnox]

8. Obama is all hype

Don't examine his record which is 99% the same as the evil Hillary Clinton in the Senate, just look at him as the messiah and all will be well.

[Donnachaidh]

11. bookmarked

thanks for the link!

[sandnsea]

12. Clinton campaign lies, er, talking points

Which have all been debunked.

Obama did not help beat Lamont. Pure lie.

He said he would vote for the Patriot Act if it was changed, and it was.

Planned Parenthood has attacked the Clintons over the abortion distortions.

He's got one state lobbyist who has nothing to do with his work in Washington.

He doesn't believe the death penalty deters crime, but that it expresses the outrage over the most heinous murders. (I disagree, but that's what he said)

His health care plan understands the choices the working poor have to make.

This is such a bunch of bullshit and much of the blogosphere must be working for Pete is all I can figure out.

[Renew Deal]

I think this is what Josh Marshall was talking about. Hillary's campaign pitching pathetic stories.

They were so bad they were embarrassing to Hillary.

[flordehinojos]

13. thank you for posting facts on what i have long believed is barack obama's duplicity.

[Sulawesi]

21. read post 12

[K Gardner]

15. Look, he's not even my 1st choice and even I can see through most of this b/s

without having to go searching for sources or material. Half of these issues have been pulled out of the proverbial war chest today by HRC and been thoroughly debunked on MSM.

She has a helluva lot more to lose than he does if you want to look at voting records.

[Egnever]

16. This guy repeatedly uses taylor marsh to make his points

Not so sure I would put much faith in this thing.

[femrap]

19. Good God and Goddess...

after these past 7 years, who in their right isn't for change???

[bellasgrams]

22. With Obama you'll see faces change, that's all.

In Obama's case he didn't even have a Daddy to advise him as President. Obama experience-less than Bush. I thought we wanted change not more of the same.

[femrap]

23. I agree with you about Obama.

I don't trust him at all...he's just 'present.' No convictions and takes $$ from those he says he'll fight...total hypocrite.

I just think it's so funny that everyone is making such a big deal over his big, bad platform of CHANGE.

Who the hell doesn't want change???? I hope Edwards has a good day tomorrow. I prefer Hillary over Obama...I'm a ABO! (any one but Obama).

Obama is still looking for Papa....and I think he has found 'him' in The Corporation!

[jackson_dem]

26. Karmadillo is definitely an agent of change!

Obama supporters can't defend his record. Luckily the media is helping them hide it. Obama won't have to answer about these things until September.

[Karmadillo]

28. Lucky for them the media is helping. It's not an easy record to defend.

nt

[KittyWampus]

35. Luckily Edwards supporters are capable of forgetting Edwards record. They can't defend it.

After all, even AFTERr his supposed 'evolution', he invested in Fortress Hedge fund to amass even more money for himself.

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. The media will crown him with no questions asked.

And the masses will cheer.