Op-Ed
Obama's Record: A True Fairy Tale
Email: 
Share: 
Bill Clinton’s use of the phrase "fairy tale" in reference to Obama and his position on Iraq, not his race, instantly generated spurious accusations of racism. Like Clinton, I also try to focus on the issues and not race, but that proves hard when CNN’s election coverage myopically focuses on which Democrat has the black vote, and which has the white (and occasionally they care about Latinos and Asians, too). With so much focus on race, and the repeated use of the mantra "experience versus change," Obama has received sparse coverage on what really matters: his record. For once, I will agree with Bill Clinton, albeit for different reasons — Obama deserves more scrutiny from the media.
Clinton speaks on Obama's "fairy tale"
On abortion, Obama could not be any more radical in his views. The reason goes even beyond Obama’s desire for public funding for abortion, which forces all taxpayers, pro-life and pro-choice, to support abortion without a choice of their own. Simply put, Obama will not protect infants who are born alive either from live birth abortions or botched abortions. Congress and President Bush overwhelmingly passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, but in Illinois, Obama blocked similar legislation. He claimed in a Senatorial debate that he would have voted for the national version, but not the Illinois version, because it encroached on Roe v. Wade. However, the sponsor of the bill, Illinois Senator Richard Winkel (R), offered to amend the bill, making it identical to the federal version. Even with this amendment, Obama, chair of the Health and Human Services Committee at the time, refused to put the bill up for a vote. He instead let the bill die in committee, putting politics over the life of not the unborn, but the born. Not even Santorum could match that on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Obama’s stance on abortion offers a preview of how liberal he really is. John McCain, the probable Republican nominee, earned the endorsement of Joe Lieberman. Bush’s 2004 GOP convention featured a keynote speech from Zell Miller, a former Democratic Senator from Georgia. However, Obama could not follow McCain or even Bush, and instead opted for endorsements from John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and MoveOn.org. While these endorsements do not disqualify Obama, one has to wonder if he has been reaching out to America as a whole or rather the fringe left. Considering that the National Journal recently ranked him the most liberal Senator, just like Kerry in 2004, it has to be the latter. In fact, when Republicans and Democrats compromised to fund the Iraq war in May, Obama, who frequently emphasizes bringing the country together, voted against one of the rare bills that did connect both parties by siding with Kerry and Kennedy instead. The main difference between the three is that Obama can give "pretty" speeches.
However, voters sometimes may not agree with the candidates but still appreciate their character and leadership. For example, when no one wanted to support the surge, McCain stood up for it, risking his political career. Now that the surge has worked, even if people disagree with McCain on the overall success of the war, they still give him credit for his leadership. On the other side, when Obama voted against the compromise bill to fund the Iraq war, he could have proclaimed his opposition from the start, taking the lead on the issue. Instead, he kept silent, waiting until the last moment to cast his "No" vote. One month later, Edwards chastised Obama in a debate for legislating rather than leading. And for Obama, this has not only come up on Iraq. Back in December, a New York Times article documented how on several issues, including some controversial ones, Obama "voted 'present,' effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator." That may make Obama a good politician, but not a good president. Presidents cannot vote "present."
While Obama may oppose the war, he refuses to let his Republicans equate not supporting the war with not supporting the troops. He raises a valid point, but unfortunately his actions do not line up with his rhetoric. When MoveOn.org labeled Gen. Petraeus, a decorated military hero, as a traitor, Obama had his chance. He could have stood up, boldly proclaiming that while he opposes the war, he also opposes those who attack the honorable leader of our troops. Instead, he kept quiet again, refusing to vote on a resolution supporting Petraeus and condemning MoveOn.org. Obama would rather avoid ruffling some feathers at MoveOn.org than stand up for Petraeus, and his efforts seem to have worked now that MoveOn.org has endorsed him. But in earning this endorsement, Obama has once again shown his inability to stand up and lead.
Obama brands himself as a man of hope and change, but in reality his fluffy rhetoric hides the true ideologue and partisan hack in him. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, eventually the media will have to cover his votes, his courage and his stance on the issues. Obama will struggle to survive the scrutiny. Obama’s biggest Republican challenger so far is Alan Keyes, which hardly says anything. Against McCain, his candidacy will truly be a fairy tale. And lest I be branded as a racist like Bill Clinton, let me make it clear that I am referring not to his race and historic candidacy but to his record and character. Do not even try to Swiftboat me on this one!
Mike Wacker is The Sun's Assistant Web Editor. He can be reached at mwacker@cornellsun.com.
Sun Podcast
- Artist: Mike Wacker
- Title: Obama's Record: A True Fairy Tale
- Album: The Cornell Daily Sun - Contributing Columnists
- Year: 2008
- Length: 6:34 minutes (6.01 MB)
- Format: Mono 44kHz 128Kbps (CBR)
Barack Obama Votes Present
The notion that Obama voting "Present" on controversial policies was an act of "sidestepping" by Obama is a notion that has little credibility and can easily be expelled with minimal research. The tactic of voting "Present" is a common one used in the Illinois legislature. Not only is voting present used to signal approval of a bill but disagreement with some aspects of the bill it also signals a legislator's willingness to work on a bill and make it "passable." More importantly, voting present is a tactic used to protect weaker legislators who are afraid of taking a controversial stance on an issue. For example, legislators might be afraid to vote "Yes" for a bill because they do not want that vote to be a part of their public record. So, rather than vote no and possibly kill the controversial bill, they vote "Present." Barack Obama was asked by Planned Parenthood to participate in this present tactic. They hoped that if he voted "Present" weaker legislators would follow and do the same. I might add that this strategy proved successful. Thus, Barack Obama's present vote was a tactical maneuver and was used to secure the rights of women to choose.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/obama-present-votes
This link includes statements from the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood. Through the statements, they make clear that they ASKED Obama to vote present and they also make clear that they did so as a tactical manuever. Of course, this link debunks your theory that he was sidestepping major issues when he voted present.
I am sure this article could have been found with minimal research. Given that you did not mention the facts surrounding Obama's present votes (other than the fact that he indeed voted present), I hesitate to believe that any other aspect of this article has been properly researched and encourage all readers to read your article with a grain of salt.
I appreciate your well written article.
In a colorblind society where merit should hold ultimate sway, OBAMA isn't even qualified to be assistant majority whip. He's missed a 1/3 of his votes during the 2005-2006 session, and he hasn't held a hearing as member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His policies are also awful for the nation. He believes in granting drivers licenses to illegals, he wants to ease burdens on employers when it comes to checking the status of workers, he wants to raise taxes on the middle class by trillions of dollars by eliminating the cap on social security contributions, he fails to protect our troops from the iranian revolutionary guard and then attacks his opponents for doing so EVEN WHEN HE MISSED THE VOTE, he was the only person to vote "present" instead of yes or no on bills banning adult shops near schools, and sealing court records of victims of sexual assault.
Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing. But the fact is that Barack Obama does have a record to run on and its a record of vote dodging and triangulation. Barack Obama talks about the audacity of hope... but how about the audacity to show up and vote.. and not criticize others over resolutions you conveniently missed while campaigning
I was elected yesterday, Obama said. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. Ive never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow Im immediately going to start running for higher office just doesnt make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that Im the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. He further elaborated: Look, Im a state senator who hasnt even been sworn in yet. My understanding is that I will be ranked 99th in seniority. Im going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.
So, in four years, Obama went from figuring out how to use the telephones and finding bathrooms, to becoming a foreign policy expert, while missing 1/3 of his votes and failing to hold a single hearing as the CHAIR of Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on European Affairs. Right?
John McCain has been a much better senator than Barack Obama. He has been a serious, substantive lawmakers who has worked effectively across party lines. Obama has some accomplishments under his belt, but many of his colleagues believe that he has not bothered to master the intricacies of legislation or the maze of Senate rules. He talks about independence, but he has never quite bucked liberal orthodoxy or party discipline. When you consider two candidates for one job, you compare their resumes and weigh their latest experiences most heavily. Whoever distinguishes themselsves with their work ethic and garners respect amongst their colleagues is probably the best qualified for the job they seek. If Obama's colleagues feel he is an opportunist who is more about using his present job to build his resume rather than to actually work for substantive change, then he is just hype, and he is underqualified for the Presidency.