The current major leak (but really you are all supposed to know about it – shhhhh!) has Tim Kaine, Governor of VA, as a likely candidate. Never heard of him? Yeah, well, we lived in VA when Mark Warner was governor, and he was GREAT.

Kaine was his Lt. Governor, so when Warner’s terms was up (VA permits ONE six year term – that’s it), Kaine rode in on his coattails. He hasn’t done a whole lot since then, at least not a lot of positive changes for which he is receiving any accolades. BUT – Obama stumped for him in VA, and Kaine has been stumping for Obama around the world, uh, I mean, COUNTRY, and now they are BFFs! Woohoo!!!! Kaine has now moved to the short list for VP!! Gosh – he must be really experienced, and his constituents must really love him, right?? Uh, no.

Like Obama (wow – I almost typed “Bush” then – I am not kidding, and it isn’t just because I’m tired!), Kaine isn’t all that experienced, certainly not in important matters like foreign affairs. Which would help since Obama has no experience, even with his NINE DAY trip!!!! A whole nine days – that is enough, right??? No. No, Obama, it is not even anywhere in the same ballpark as REAL experience, like Clinton’s. But you know that already. You’re just trying to appease your cultists, um, ah, I mean FOLLOWERS. Oh, that isn’t right, either – SUPPORTERS! Yes, that is what politicians are supposed to have – supporters Okay. Got it. Anywho…

Ahem. Since you may know NOTHING about Gov. Kaine, he is personally opposed to the death penalty as a practicing Catholic, but when he campaigned as a gubernatorial candidate, he assured people he would not impose him personal beliefs on the state. In other words, he would not prohibit death penalty executions. Wow – what a stand up guy. He was not going to allow his personal faith to supersede the Commonwealth of Virginia’s laws (and I hasten to say that I am completely opposed to the death penalty – always have been). Well, okay then.

Oh, but wait – there is more. While Governor Kaine wouldn’t impose his religious beliefs on the death penalty, he had/has NO problem imposing them on the issue of – wait – for – it, yes, ABORTION!! So, a woman better not kill a zygote, but it’s A-OKAY to kill a full-grown adult. Yes, indeedy! That makes sense, right?? Oh, yeah, NO. Governor Kaine, before he was governor, said he had a “faith-based opposition” to abortion, and vowed to promote ABSTINENCE focused education – you know, the one that doesn’t WORK. And to ban so-called partial-birth abortions. This was a more popular position in VA than his opposition to the death penalty. In other words, his faith-based opposition takes a backseat to political aspiration. One was not politically expedient – the death penalty issue. The other one was – abortion. Regardless, now that Obama has secured the endorsements of NARAL, and even more importantly, for the second time ever in presidential politics, Planned Parenthood’s, it makes PERFECT sense that he would target an anti-choice candidate to run as Vice President. It highlights that some of the very few times Obama exposed his true colors was his exceedingly patronizing comments to/about women and when they can/not choose to have an abortion.

What’s that I hear? Oh, it is Planned Parenthood being thrown under the bus. And NARAL. Couldn’t happen to two more deserving organizations supporting OBAMA over CLINTON after all of the work she has done on behalf of women, and the sexist, patronizing, arrogant way in which Obama has treated women, especially on choice!

So, all of you Obamabots trying to hold Roe v. Wade over our heads, what say you NOW, huh??? Really think he is not going to turn back the clock on women’s rights like you claim McCain will do, and Obama won’t? Because I think you are dead wrong. He doesn’t give a damn about women and our health. He has made that abundantly clear. In the same way he proved he doesn’t give a crap about the Constitution voting for FISA and telecom immunity (AT&T welcomes you to the Denver Democratic National Convention – I kid you not!), oh, and PLEASE stop calling him a “Constitutional Scholar” – he was a lecturer at the same law school he had just attended. It’s like being a TA, for crying out loud. And he has made it clear as day – HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION! He cares about getting money, and getting elected. Your lives will be SO much smoother once you accept that! He will say and do whatever he has to do to accomplish those two tasks. So, quit with the whole Roe v. Wade scare tactic, because Obama DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WOMEN and our health. He does not. Too bad Planned Parenthood and NARAL apparently cared more about publicity (and money?? Does anyone know if Obama’s “Hope PAC” gave them money?) than they did about supporting the candidate who would work the hardest for the issues about which they claim to care. Thanks a whole lot for the capitulation there, PP and NARAL. How do you people sleep at night?

So, Tim thinks we should care what he thinks about abortion, like so many other men. And he wants to impose HIS “faith-based opposition” on VA, and presumably, the country, should the world got to hell in a handbasket and Obama gets into the White House with him. Holy Cow.

These men, and obviously, Tim Kaine in particular, reminds me of when I was in seminary in NYC, and got to go see Whoopi Goldberg’s one woman show on Broadway. One of her characters, a drug addict with a PhD in English Literature from Columbia University (“what else are you going to do with a PhD in English Literature?”) said when confronted by some Operation Rescue-like people, something along the lines of, if you men are so opposed to abortion, “why don’t you take that tired ol’ piece of meat down to the ASPCA and get it gassed??” In other words, Tim, if you are against abortions, don’t have one. Stop trying to impose your “faith-based opposition” on us. Same goes for you, Mr. “Feeling Blue” “Mental-distress-isn’t-physically-threatening” Obama. Just spare us the patronizing pandering already.

And once again, SuperDelegates, pay attention!! The best candidate on this issue is: HILLARY CLINTON. Get with the program already.

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Obama’s Speechwriter: A Baby Faced, 26-Year-Old White Guy 

So, Obama is really, really successful at reading a teleprompter, and delivering someone else’s words. A puppet, you might say. 

Then we learned that Obama was regurgitating words originally given by his friend Patrick Deval. Not once, but many times. 

And we not only learned about *borrowed* speeches but also borrowed phrases. 

“Sí Se Puede” or “yes we can” is from the United Farm Workers. 

 “Together we can” was the campaign slogan of Deval Patrick in 2006

“Fired Up! Ready to Go!” is from the NAACP in South Carolina, used by Jondelle Harris Johnson in the Civil Rights marches. 

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is a Hopi Indian saying, used by Alice Walker as the title of her book.

But now we learn that not only is Obama a puppet when it comes to giving speeches, but his foreign policy isn’t his either. I knew he had very little foreign policy experience, if any, but doesn’t he have to do anything?? A cast of 300 prepare him daily? Who are these people that are affecting our foreign policy? Shouldn’t they be running for office, or at least vetted, since they are doing all the work? 

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign PolicyEvery day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.   

I do take some comfort in knowing that many are from the Clinton White House and from Hillary’s staff. (funny how Obama always wanted to distance himself from the politics of the past, and from the Clinton’s, but he always surrounds himself with people from the Clintons years.) 

I know all candidates, and all Presidents have advisors. I know they all have speech writers. But, if you take away Obama’s great speeches, and you take away his foreign policy advisors, what is left? Seriously. He has not accomplished anything. Nada. Zilch. And the LITTLE that he does do, now, (give speeches or comment on foreign policy) is totally scripted and provided by someone else. And when he speaks to groups like African Americans about taking responsibility, he is threatened with castration. And when he has taken a firm stance on an issue, he completely FLIPS and FLOPS on them – FISA, NAFTA, the surge in Iraq, campaign finance, guns, abortion… 

Well, I think we have a pretty good idea of what happens when Obama is left to his own devices. Here are some new ones: 

“Great” Moments in Presidential Speeches: Obama

Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army? (what is that all about??)

The Real Barack Obama, The Flip Flop Kid

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Barack Obama “Uh” Count 

And of course, the classics:

Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge

Obama on Iran

 The Game of Expedience

Obama Just words – just speeches – just think

Obama on Lobbiest bill

Obama on the Race Card

Obama Claims He’s Visited 57 States

Obama on his dad and the flag?

Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Obama’s Memorial Day Gaffe

Obama in Sunrise 

Obama rally in Sioux Falls

Obama on Rezko

Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong 

So, again I ask, is he just a puppet? A flip flopping, do nothing, know nothing, present voting, change jobs every two years, never having accomplished anything, hangs out with bigots, racists, and terrorists, gaffe machine, judgment lacking, slumlord buddy, vain, pandering puppet. 

What does he stand for, really? We thought he was very left. But now he is moving further and further to the right. We can’t look at his voting history, because it is very un-telling (130 present votes on tough issues- intentional, me thinks) We can’t look at his resume because it is very, very short – he has spent more time campaigning then serving in the Senate (146 days). And his state senate job was part time, meeting 55 days a year.  

Hell, we can’t even look at his birth certificate to know if he is who he says he is! We can’t even look to his books for information, because they are full of mistruths, and fictitious characters and situations.

I can’t figure out if he is super calculating and dangerous, or a puppet.  

But, who is controlling his strings? 

Published at American PUMA in Italy. 

“In the primary, Mr. Obama:

• supported pulling out of Iraq within 16 months,
• called the D.C. gun ban constitutional,
• backed the subjection of telecom companies to expensive lawsuits for cooperating in the terror surveillance program,
• opposed welfare reform,
• pledged to renegotiate Nafta,
• disavowed free trade and
• was strongly against the death penalty in all cases.

“But in the past few weeks, Mr. Obama has reversed course on all of these, discarding fringe liberal views for relentlessly centrist positions. He also flip-flopped on accepting public financing and condemning negative ads from third party groups, like unions.

“By taking Nixon’s advice, Mr. Obama is assuming such dramatic reversals will somehow avoid voter scrutiny. But people are watching closely, and by setting a world indoor record for jettisoning past positions, Mr. Obama may be risking his reputation for truthfulness. A candidate’s credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built.”

The above excerpt is from today’s Wall Street Journal.

The bullet points were added to emphasize the number of 180-degree reversals.

Moving towards the center is one thing. Displaying no adherence to principles is another.

As Medusa notes, this is very unsettling to Obama’s most passionate supporters, many of whom are protesting on his own Web site.

Speaking of Obama’s campaign Web site:

Change & Experience blog linked to a story here the other day, and displayed an astonishing trend graph that shows that Obama’s popularity indeed is on the wane:

NoQuarter is reporting that Daily Kos and Barack Obama’s base is fracturing. He couldn’t be more right. Right now BarackObama.com is tanking in website hits. He is currently at pre-Iowa caucus levels (currently at around Jan. 2nd). John McCain’s site and Bob Barr’s site have remain constant. Barack Obama’s polling numbers have remained unchanged since May 18th. For a “popular” presumptive candidate, you would think you would see his numbers increasing.

It’s worth the read. Part one starts out like this:

In 1998, as six years of a national campaign to demonize First Lady Hillary Clinton — funded by conservatives and rooted in profound anti-feminism — was reaching a fevered crescendo, then-conservative David Brock (now of Media Matters) penned a book called The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. The publisher’s note for the tome says of its subject: “No public figure in contemporary life has elicited more polarized reactions than Hillary Rodham Clinton. The first presidential spouse who pursued a major policymaking role, the beleaguered first lady has been a heroine and role model to her feminist allies – and a malevolent, power-mad shrew to her conservative foes.”

Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole “malevolent, power-mad shrew” thing sounded pretty good, too.

Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as “wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn’t matter we swear.” The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.

Without a hint of irony.

Read the rest ->

Part two starts out like this:

It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren’t even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work. There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them.

Not content to merely destroy the entire Democratic party single-handedly, Hillary Clinton was hell-bent on murder. Evidently having failed to satiate her bloodlust after murdering Vince Foster – or such was the claim of her ideological enemies, a charge still being chanted like a demonic incantation by rightwing pain-maker Rush Limbaugh – now she was openly lusting for the assassination of her opponent, Barack Obama. (That is not to suggest there were no legitimate concerns about her statement.) And Randi Rhodes – a “progressive talk radio personality” – fresh from calling Clinton a “fucking whore,” fanned the same flames when she announced fearing for her life after delivering the insult to someone who routinely has her enemies whacked.

Give this a read. Although stomach-churning, it calls out the that orange place and Randi Rhodes for their smears. And it’s not a bad thing to remember why we’re still fighting for HRC.

2) This morning, CNN has a story about Clinton supporters not going for Obama. According to a poll, fewer Clinton supporters say they will vote for Obama than a month ago. (See also: “Obama Fails to Attract Hillary’s Supporters.”)

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain’s camp is down from one month ago, but — in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party — the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.

In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party’s nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.

Looks like PUMA and Obama’s many position switches may have had an effect here. Unfortunately, CNN still ascribes this unwillingness to vote for Obama to sour grapes rather than for any principles or ideas about leadership.

“These things always take time to heal,” said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. “I think Clinton’s supporters are waiting to see if Sen. Obama will pick her as vice president. That would certainly be very healing to them.”
———————————
“If he doesn’t pick her, a later stage of grief is depression and then acceptance,” Schneider said. “In the end I expect Clinton supporters will accept Obama, because they will listen to Sen. Clinton, who has said the stakes are too high for Democrats to sulk.”

Then the article slinks down to talking about how Bill Clinton needs to “repair” his image. Blech. CNN would have spent their time better to figure out exactly what the voters’ objections to Obama really are.

But I guess it’s a step up from saying it’s just a racist plot against Obama, right??? Racists, sore losers, bitter old white women and, later, just bitter white people. And the ideas that we need to just “get over it” and “come home.”

Yeah, yeah, we know. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Yada, yada, yada.

3) Over at Redstate, conservatives ponder Obama’s position(s) on abortion and figure he might not be so bad after all. Of course, they also recognize you can’t tell where he really stands. Hey, Redstate, we can’t tell either!

4) ABCnews blogger Greenburg finds it interesting that Obama has supported the gun ban reversal and death penalty decisions from SCOTUS. In particular, Obama’s position on the abortion question (saying mental distress is not a reason) is one held previously only by Justices Thomas and Scalia. Not the usual playground buddies for a Democrat.

“. . . McCain and . . . Obama praised the conservative’s position [on the DC gun ban]. The same thing happened the day before in another sharply divided 5-4 case over whether states can execute people who rape, but do not kill, children. This time conservatives lost, but again McCain and obama were on the same side, blasting the liberals’ decision striking down laws that allowed the death penalty for child rape.

“But on two of the biggest social controversies to reach the Court this year, Obama, too, [like McCain] sided with conservatives — rejecting opinions by the liberal justices who, presumably, are of the kind he would appoint if elected President.

But that’s nothing compared to Obama’s most recent comments about the most controversial social issue of them all: abortion.
————

. . . there’s no mistaking that Obama says he no longer will support what’s long been a cornerstone of the abortion rights debate: The Court’s insistence that laws banning abortions after the fetus is viable (now about 22 weeks) contain an exception to allow doctors to perform them if necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s mental health.”

Greenburg notes that Obama’s current position is in opposition to the current law of the land on this issue. She notes as well that his current position contradicts earlier legislation co-sponsored by Obama himself.

“The Freedom of Choice Act specifically allows abortions after viability where necessary to sprotect a woman’s health, and the legislation refers repeatedly to the guarantees of Roe and Doe, which protect the right to an abortion where necessary for a woman’s physical and mental health.

One of its co-sponsors? Barack Obama.

5) At fivethirtyeight.com there’s an article from June 26 about which candidate, Obama or McCain, has a problem with his base. The answer is both of them.

We’ve long assumed this about McCain, but this is a change for Obama. It may even be stronger now. We’ll just have to see. Perhaps the more interesting question now is whether or not the Obama campaign cares if its most enthusiastic base is fully behind him. Judging by his recent moves, I’d say no.

6) At therealbarackobama, Steve Diamond writes that the American Federation of Teachers is defending Obama and his education advisor Linda Darling-Hammond and suggests the AFT doesn’t want Obama and Darling-Hammond’s close relationship to Bill Ayers to get much attention. Both the AFT and National Education Association will endorse Obama.

Diamond wrote about the relationship between Obama, Darling-Hammond and Ayers before.

When I pointed out at the Edwize Blog sponsored by the United Federation of Teachers, the big New York division of the AFL-CIO affiliated AFT, that Darling-Hammond backs the same key policy proposal (repayment of centuries of “education debt” to people of color) as Bill Ayers, long time education advocate and co-worker of Obama, and that Ayers and Obama are far from being “casual acquaintances” as Leo Casey of the AFT had contended, Casey replied with the following false claims . . .

Diamond outlines Casey’s counterclaims and then states his position on those. While all this is a little “weedy” for those not involved in education, it is noteworthy that Diamond’s ends his post with the following:

While no one could, or should, impute to Obama any support for the terroristic activity of Ayers, Dohrn and others, there is an important connection between Ayers’ politics then and his approach to education policy today: Ayers and the Weather Underground promoted a politics built around the absurd idea of “white supremacy,” which Ayers calls even today the “monster in the room” at the heart of American life.

This was linked to another idea that was widely held among the maoist elements that took hold in the early 70s in the US: that American workers and their unions were part of a giant labor aristocracy that exploited workers of the south, the so-called Third World. Inside the US, the Weather Underground argued that a global form of “unequal exchange” was reproduced in the relationship between white and black workers.

Thus, when an idea like repayment of centuries of accumulated “education debt” is proposed as the top priority of the next federal government as it has been by Darling-Hammond, Ladson-Billings and Bill Ayers, all of whom have links to Obama, it is reasonable to ask what Obama’s view are on such a critical issue. The presumptive nominee has yet to explain how it is that his education advisor can promote such an idea and yet he remains silent on it.

I would think the members of America’s teachers’ unions would like to know the answers to such questions as well before they decide how to approach the upcoming elections.

I’ve heard from teachers for a long time now that “there are NO stupid questions, only the ones you don’t ask.” Well, how about asking a few? Of course, even if Obama promised the unions he wouldn’t significantly change education policies they advocate, why should they believe him?

After all, the Obama bus has a lot of blue meat under it already. Of course, teachers’ unions aren’t favorites of a lot of “middle America,” so there may simply be a collective yawn when the unions find themselves at odds with Obama later. Because, you know, all the truly progressive educated people loooooovvvveee Obama. And they make more money than teachers.

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

The privileged Penny Pritzker threw grassroots donors under the bus:

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The editors naively think that this is a “new” Barack Obama? Uh, no. That’s the real Barack Obama.

If only the New York Times and other MSM had paid any attention to Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists’ union, when he described the REAL Barack Obama:

Read all about what Tom Buffenbarger saw in how the REAL Barack Obama operates (includes stories from Chicago newspapers).

Here are more broken promises that today’s Times editorial lists:

• “The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11. …” [...]
• “The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation. …”
• “On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.”

The editorial closes with these two paragraphs:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Look. The only “change” anyone can believe that Barack Obama will act on is any finger-to-the-wind “change” that helps him achieve his SOLE goal: Winning.

He is not abandoning his principles because he doesn’t have any that he holds dear.

He is not shifting his policies because he is not the policy wonk that Hillary Clinton is, and frankly doesn’t care that much about any policy.

Ambition is a vital trait in a political candidate. Ambition helps a candidate keep going when the going gets tough.

But ambition for the sake of ambition — for the sole objective of winning — is extremely dangerous. It suggests a personality that is wholly self-absorbed and only feigns caring and concern for others.

Hillary Clinton is ambitious. But she also cares deeply about enacting policies dear to her, and has a long track record of actually accomplishing great legislation and programs — particularly for children. Which is why, in my story yesterday morning, “Obama and the hoi aristoi,” I linked to the remarkable essays by Alegre and MarkJay:

“She Changes People’s Lives,” by Alegre

“Four Reasons, By a Father I’ve Come to Know,” by MarkJay

:::::::::::

On February 20, 2008, we posted this YouTube as a warning. If only more people had heeded our warnings — but there was too much of a cult-like adoration of Obama for people to use their common sense, and also do some “due diligence” on this politician:

There’s still time to make this right. Before it’s too late. And the Democrats nominate an ill-qualified, inexperienced shape-shifter as its candidate, and thereby enable the election of John McCain.

There’s still time to nominate Hillary Clinton, who has already WON the key swing states and has already WON the hearts and brains of voters — particularly blue-collar workers who see through charlatans and who KNOW that delivering on promises matters more than speeches.

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable – and necessary – for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.