Category | Op Ed

He’s no Messiah

Published on March 18, 2008 by The Sentinel

    He promises “change we can believe in,” “a new kind of politics,”
“politics of hope,” “a principle bipartisanship” and tells us “yes we
can!”


 

     He’s the first (half) black candidate to have a serious chance at winning the presidency. He’s young, fresh, energetic and can give a rousing speech. His speeches move supporters to tears and lead them to call out, “I love you Obama!” To which he calmly replies, “You know I love you too.” This “movement” has caused many to look at him as the “messiah,” and one supporter even made a sculpture of him in garb traditionally reserved for Jesus (halo included). Obama’s campaign brings the “likeability” factor to new heights. All of this worship for a politician who has spent a mere four years in the Senate, with the past one and half mostly campaigning.  But has he been the agent of change, bipartisan messiah and part of the “politics of hope” until now?

    In 2004, after winning his Senate seat, Obama was asked whether or not he would think about running on a national ticket. He responded by saying, “I am believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job. I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would have to start now, without serving a day in the Senate.” Who knew that two and a half years in the Senate would give you so much insight for the presidency?

    A day after his famed 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention, the Christian-Science Monitor reported him saying that the US had an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.  “The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” and “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.” This, among many quotes, shows how far he wavers on the largest issue of the election. I guess he does represent change.

    How can you be a “new” kind of politician when you act just like the rest? Obama (along with Clinton) has joined up with Senators Demint and McCain in co-sponsoring a bill to put a one year moratorium on earmarks. The AP reports that “Obama joined with other lawmakers last year to obtain almost $100 million worth of earmarks for Illinois.” Any guesses why he’s now against earmarks?

    In September 2007, Obama said he would agree to public financing for the general election. Now his campaign denies that he ever committed to the idea. Can’t blame a guy who raises millions, right?

    When Obama talks about bipartisanship in the Senate, he means taking on easy issues everyone already agrees on, rather than taking a hard issue that might be unpopular with his base. His website talks about his joining with Richard Lugar to “to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.” I’m sure that was hard to pass. It’s his partisanship and the most liberal voting record in the Senate by National Journal that stands out.

    His ideas aren’t new in any sense. They are the same populist, big government solutions that bring back memories of William Jennings Bryan, than those of a moderate uniter. His “talking to those who don’t like us” has been done before by Carter and Clinton. Its track record is iffy at best. Yasser Arafat threw Clinton’s attempt at a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelites back in his face after countless hours of work and personal meetings. 

    I know what you’re saying. So what? I still like his speeches. Just don’t be surprised when you find out he’s just a business-as-usual politician. I’ll be there to say I told you so.