Barack Obama Is As He Was and Has Been

For most the political blogsphere the last couple of weeks have been a shock because of the actions and policy positions we now hear from the presumptive nominee Barack Obama.

In an very informative and enlightening article by Taylor Marsh, Senator Obama’s positions are revealed to be the same one’s he has consistently held through his campaign, according to Marsh.

So to say it’s been more than a little amusing to see hard core Obama supporters either surprised, moved to pull back a little from their candidate, as well as criticize their candidate on being exactly what his record reveals, is an understatement. For political analysts like me, this is the Obama I’ve come to know after covering him for 18 months, so I’m not surprised, disappointed or excited. He is revealing himself to be the exact person I covered, warts and all, but no less real. But you have to have at least some compassion for the folks who got suckered; believing that Obama really was going to offer a “different type of politics,” which I guess is true if you count no ideology at all being new, because in a way it is.

After a detailed examination of the campaign roles of Moveon , the Huffington Post and Markos of the DailyKos Marsh posits:

No doubt more activist liberals will fret and moan over Obama’s “moving to the center” or “moving to the middle,” pick your cliché, but it’s not going to phase the Democratic nominee. This is who he is.

Can’t wait until Obama drops his vice presidential bomb. [emphasis mine] People like me believe Hillary is the strongest choice, but that’s not likely to happen. If recent activities tell us anything, which they do if you’ve been paying attention, it’s likely that Obama’s core supporters will be in for another rude awakening.

Since retiring Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is apparently still under serious consideration for the Veep spot, according to Todd Beeton at MyDD, perhaps Barack Obama’s choice really will be a bomb.

Comment: I was busy writing about Hillary Clinton and didn’t study the details of Obama’s positions. As I’ve said here many times, I think the guy is an empty shirt.

Since I didn’t take the time, however, to truly understand his positions perhaps I missed understanding that the man isn’t an empty shirt but is a shirt filled with many things I don’t like in a Democrat. Perhaps all of that was covered up by his brilliant oratorical and organizational skills. I’m not sure that is true. I hope it is not.

I hope he’s really a Democrat with core Democratic values. Time will tell and if he leaves Denver with the nomination I’ll vote for him. The alternative is just too destructive to the Constitution to even be considered.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Barack Obama Is As He Was and Has Been

  1. Darrell Prows says:

    Am I missing something? I have the impression that religious groups were allowed to play on the same level field as the rest of our society. “Faith Based Initiatives” as I understaood it was an attempt to put folks with a religious agenda in a preferential position. They were saying, in essence, we don’t want to get involved if we aren’t allowed to try to gather souls while ministering to physical needs, and the answer of GWB was in essence “if they ain’t willing to pray your way you don’t have to give them a meal paid for by the taxpayers”. And then Bush trotted out some dog a pony show bit about we’ll all be better of getting these born agains into the game than having them sit on the sidelines, and we were off down a path never before tarveled.

    The proposal of Obama sounds vaguely like restablishing the old way of doing things but keeping the new name. If so, the logic pretty well escapes me.

  2. Well all I can say is Clinton herself has said numerous times over the months that they both hold similar positions on the issues.

    So Obama is moving centrist, which every candidate does and now the Obama supporters are getting up in arms because they expected something different. These are the same folks that complained when Kerry startered moving centrist in ’04. It’s a tactical move like it or not to attract independent voters which we will need in November.

  3. Darrell Prows says:

    But if “Faith Based Initiatives” means one thing and Obama means something else, isn’t that being a bit dishonest? Just wondering!

    (And I do get the point about him being high priced perfume compared to the smell of rotting flesh that is McCain.)

  4. I don’t think, having researched the topic, that there’s an difference between the existing system of ‘faith-based’ (read Religious Organizational Based) initialtive and Obama’s. Obama simply, with the most idiotic of language, wants to make the program the ‘moral center’ of his admin.

    He also wants the elevate a group of leaders to a Council that gains importance in the WH and changes some of the educational methodologies and preferences.

    I know that Hillary Clinton is a deeply spiritual woman who has never used the reality for political gain. She opposed this initiative when it was under consideration before and I do NOT believe, even if she adopted it, a ‘moral center’ of her administration.

    (That comment alone was Obama pandering to a particular section of the Religious Right. It was distasteful.)

    The moral center of any administration has to start with the heart of the leader. If his/her moral center is in the right place and the surrounding advisors are on the same page you will have a fully aligned administration.

    Any criticism of Obama this early after that last primary contest isn’t an attack but the pointing out of a weakness or possible problem. Or simply my personal distaste for his rhetoric or proposed actions backed up by as much research as possible.

  5. Darrell Prows says:

    Obama, in one report I saw, says that he would oppose aid being targeted on the basis of religious belief, and that he would prohibit even the hiring by participating groups on that basis. That appears to be a movement back to a level playing field, or back to what existed before the Bush “experiment”.

    (By the way, at least some Evangelicals have declared that these terms are unacceptable.)

  6. Stuart

    “I know that Hillary Clinton is a deeply spiritual woman who has never used the reality for political gain.”

    Hillary has interjected faith into her speeches and made a point of courting the “values” voters just as Obama has. I would suggest you read through the articles here: http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=2

    Also long before she announced her candidacy, in fact on the eve of Bush’s 2nd inauguration Clinton said:

    There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles.”

    The entire article dated January 20, 2005 is here: Sen. Clinton urges use of faith-based initiatives.

    In a nutshell — I have no doubt that HRC would be doing the exact same thing as Obama on this issue, she’s made it clear for some time that she supports this issue.

    The initial bill on Bush’s program was H.R.7 and the Senate version was S.476. FYI, that bill was passed 95 – 5 with Clinton voting “yea.”

    Like it or not, we need these “faith” voters and the “values” voters. There is no way around it. Obama gets that and so too did HRC. I think there is very little difference in their stance on this.

  7. One more thing — I care deeply about putting a Democrat in the White House this election because this country needs change. We need healthcare, we need to fix the economy, we need out of Iraq, and host of other issues that won’t get fixed with McSame in the White House.

    My first choice for that never made it out of the gate sadly, so I stepped up and eventually chose to back HRC.

    It was a tough choice because I felt both Clinton and Obama were very good candidates with a lot of good positions on the issues. I have honestly and truly liked them both all along.

    So now my 2nd choice didn’t make the cut either, and I’m not going to waste my time bemoaning that because it doesn’t help the cause which in my opinion is far more important than who the nominee is. But the fact is Obama is a damn good candidate with a lot to offer and HRC, I say again, has that many times herself. Obama is proving himself in the polls, he’s raising money hand over first. He’s bringing in new voters. He’s taking on some of HRC’s best advisors.

    I’ve said here many times his stance on some issue will change once we have the convention, because there will be pressure from delegates for him to adopt the stance of HRC and Edwards on issues like healthcare and the economy.

    That is what people are missing about the role of HRC’s delegates at the convention. They will be there to fight for her stance on issues like these and make sure that people who care about this stuff are heard.

    Yes, Taylor Marsh is right, Obama is now who he was months ago. I know that. And deep down inside so do those in the netroots who are bemoaning his middle of the road leaning on issues. They bemoaned about Kerry doing it too as I said above.