Despite Obama’s message of change in Washington, some of his recent actions look more like the old politics.
For example, Obama recently recorded an endorsement for incumbent Congressman John Barrow of Georgia. Never mind that Barrow is an extremely conservative “blue dog” Democrat whose pro-war, pro-big-business, pro-eavesdropping, pro-telecom-amnesty and pro-Bush positions are what Obama has been promising to change. In contrast, Barrow’s primary race challenger Regina Thomas is a progressive whose opinions are firmly in line with Obama’s stated positions. So why is Obama supporting Barrow?
This is too reminiscent of Obama’s endorsement of Joe Lieberman in his race for the Senate, against anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont. Now of course, Liberman is paying back the favor by endorsing McCain (some say even trying to become his VP).
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/obama/index.html
Finally, there is Obama’s troubling support of the FISA bill (even if you include his weak-kneed promise to try to remove telecom immunity from the bill). This is a bill that has been engineered by telecom lobbyists, for telecom lobbyists, and represents the old corrupt Washington ways at their worst. How can this be Change?
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_backing_fisa_compromise.php
UPDATE: Atrios names Obama “Wanker of the Day”.
UPDATE 2: Glenn Greenwald’s analysis of Obama’s support for the FISA bill. It ain’t pretty.
One Comment
See Nate Silver at 538.com’s comment:
“…As for Barack Obama, I’m not sure that he had much choice but to come out in support of the legislation. Was he really going to throw Nancy Pelosi under the bus and pick an intraparty fight when she was as instrumental as anybody else in Washington in getting him the nomination? Was he really going to run afoul of the Blue Dogs when they are probably his swing voters in passing some version of national health care legislation?
This was certainly a political decision on Obama’s part — but not necessarily one that had very much to do with his own electoral prospects. The FISA issue simply isn’t high-profile enough to register at the national level. Instead, it was a decision made with the politics of governance in mind: not a 2008 decision, but one for 2009.”
I find this more heartening. The man is a pragmatist with ideals,not a naive idealist, as his opponents wish to portray him. He knows how to pick his battles,
One Trackback/Pingback
[…] and many other Obama supporters were dismayed during the election when Obama voted for the FISA bill to give retroactive immunity to telecoms for tapping the […]