"Obama Pays Lip Service to Good Ideas, But Doesn't Follow Through"

by Erica C. Barnett
The Stranger news, Seattle

I was thrilled to see Hillary Clinton taking the lead in New Hampshire Tuesday night, and not—as you might think—just because she's a woman . It's because of the two frontrunners, Hillary's tougher, more experienced, smarter, and more specific than Obama. (Given the dismal showing by my favorite, John Edwards, in New Hampshire—locked in at 17 percent—it's safe to say he's out of the running.) It's not just that I've failed to be electrified by Obama's "dynamic" personality and message of "hope"; it's because, on policy grounds, he isn't saying what I want to hear from a Democratic frontrunner going into an election that's the Democrats' to lose.

Savvy, battle-tested voters in New Hampshire didn't seem as taken by Obama's lofty rhetoric, and seemed to be focusing on his flawed policy prescriptions, like me. At press time, the presumed frontrunner lost to Clinton, 36 percent to Clinton's 39 percent. Here are a few reasons Obama's not my guy.

First of all, his energy plan is the least progressive and most status quo of the three. The plan, released last October, includes every pale-green, fake-environmentalist scheme you can imagine: Expanded nuclear, doubling or tripling (!!!) of corn production for ethanol, a carbon sequestration scheme that relies on technologies that don't yet exist, and so-called "clean coal," which isn't really clean at all. Yes, he talks about greener technologies like cellulosic ethanol and plug-in hybrids; and yes, he would implement a fully auctioned cap-and-trade system whose proceeds would pay for investments in clean energy development. But on the whole, Obama's done little more than pay lip service to clean energy and environmental reforms while supporting industries that are fighting them—speaking out against mining reforms, for example, that would have eliminated a notorious mining law that allows companies to mine public lands for free. He also attacked Clinton on ethanol—for not supporting corn farmers enough.

Politically, Obama's an appeaser. He issued a convoluted response when news broke that he planned to make a campaign appearance with Donnie McClurkin, an "ex-gay" homophobe, then allowed McClurkin to use his campaign as a platform to spread his homophobic message to thousands of African-Americans. He's attempted to reach out to Republicans, both by triangulating on several key Republican issues and by stating directly that he would include Republicans in his administration. In 2005, he even wrote that Republicans were not, contrary to what Democrats believed, a "sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners" party, calling those descriptions mere "labels" and "jargon." Um, really? Maybe his positions have changed since then, but I find it alarming that Obama would dismiss as "labels" a description of the Republican Party that was and is undeniably true. The Democratic Party needs people who will fight the Republicans on their own terms, not appeasers more interested in getting along than winning.

And speaking of parroting Republicans (and their talking points): He's bought into the false idea that Social Security is in a "crisis," going so far as to use that word. Social Security is not in a crisis. To quote New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, "This isn't 1992. The DLC isn't the Democratic party's leading edge. The center isn't somewhere between Joe Lieberman and John McCain. I can't understand how Obama can be this out of touch."....

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=479776

The way she uses homophobes on her campaign trail really says to me she's thrown homosexuals under the bus.

Politically, Obama's an appeaser.

That was a direct hit, that.

it's not going to stop me from voting for him, but it was a good analysis. :)

same.

Good speaker, has good speech writer...apparently no ideas of his own.

And come back telling me this statement is still true...

"I was thrilled to see Hillary Clinton taking the lead in New Hampshire Tuesday night, and not—as you might think—just because she's a woman."

http://www.ericacbarnett.com/

What, you think she is a feminazi or something?

If Obama is our candidate, he will soon learn how nasty the Republicans are.

I worry about Obama's electibility for 6 reasons, if its not

A : The muddy shit fling about the muslim heritage
B : The Black racism
C : The lack of Mass experience in Foreign Policy
D : I still can't anything policywise thats substantial yet
E : He's playing to dangerous and unreliable crowds, indies, young votes, homophobes, it seems also

but most importantly

D : Skeletons in the cupboard, how much do we really know about him (Illinois is one of the most corrupt states ever), I've just been on ABC news blogs and people and Obama supporters are lapping up the dodgy land deal hook line and sinker. Hopefully its not true but the facts in the way they are writing it, are making it stink to high heaven.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/comments?type=story&id=41...

Obamas campaign does have a problem though and its a fatal flaw.

If someone manages to prove or makes mud stick by implying anything even romotely looking corrupt or dodgy, his campaign is dead in the water and lets face it he comes from illinois one of the dirtiest corrupted states there is.

He's run an election campaign on change and being, pardon the expression "whiter than white". If that shine comes off, so does the wheels of his whole campaign.

You cannot preach changing the establishment and do the opposite. It would kill his campaign quicker than a knife in the heart and he knows it, its a risky campain he's running.

oh wait...