Obama's Record: A True Fairy Tale

Bill Clinton’s use of the phrase "fairy tale" [1] in reference to Obama [2] 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 [3], 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 [4], 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 [5], 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 [6] 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 [7] 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 [8] 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 [9]. 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 [10].