Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama’s speech last month at the
Democratic National Convention was not so much a coming out party
as a grand orchestration. Since Obama won the primary in March he
has received a remarkable amount of national and international
attention. From the New York Times’ op-ed page to the
New Republic’s, cover to London’s Economist
magazine, the “skinny kid” from the south side of Chicago has
been showered with praise.
The line on Obama has been as consistent as it has been
ubiquitous. He’s centrist in both style and substance. He’s the
next generation of American politician. His mixed race, his
qualified praise of markets, and his ability to transcend
political labels are evidence of a “third way” (to use Clinton’s
words). He isn’t an African American leader; he’s simply an
American leader.
Rarely is a mere State Senator, who only four years earlier lost
a bid for the U.S. House, been treated as such a national
treasure. Wise observers might think this a bit bizarre: a
too-good-to-be-true candidate rises from nowhere to heights
Icarus himself never reached. Are his wings made of wax? Will
they melt in the hot light?
It is no coincidence that most praise of Obama has been based on
style and biography; very little attention has been paid to the
substance of his beliefs. A mythology is growing around Barack
Obama, and as with all myths, the truth is quickly left behind.
The meme of his primary victory has been that he won 53% of the
vote in a field of seven candidates, proving that he has appeal
beyond the African American community. The truth of Obama’s
victory, as they say, is more nuanced.
Despite the frenetic energy of his audiences Obama had trouble
getting traction in Illinois. During the fall of 2003 Obama was
running an unremarkable third place in the Democratic Primary.
Even as late as February 17, just weeks before the primary, Obama
was a full ten points behind the leader Blair Hull. So what
happened? How did Obama take flight? Allegations arose that Hull
had abused his wife. What followed was what the Chicago
Tribune called “the most inglorious campaign implosion in
Illinois political history.” When the chaos settled the “skinny
kid” from Columbia and Harvard Law was on top. It was no surprise
when the Chicago Tribune later reported that the Obama
camp had fueled these allegations. Obama’s campaign consultant,
David Axelrod, was formerly a political editor for the paper.
The inaccuracy of Obama’s myth of origin is only matched by the
inaccuracy about his stance on the issues. From the beginning
Obama has been allied with the wild-eyed wing of the Democratic
Party. Early on he was compared to Howard Dean — a liberal
outsider. When the online publication, Black
Commentator, published a series of articles criticizing a
supposed drift to the center, Obama dutifully penned a letter
assuring them that he had not abandoned his progressivism. His
repudiation of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council read
like someone denying membership in the Communist Party: “…I am
not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC.” Obama
went so far as to ask the DLC to remove his name from a list of
“100 to watch” posted on their website so as not to confuse
anyone.
Obama, who has authored universal health care legislation in
Illinois, also promised the publication’s readership that he
would do the same in the U.S. Senate. Even Ted Kennedy and
Hillary Clinton learned that universal health care legislation
was a nonstarter. That won’t stop Obama, though.
Obama also promised that he would press to re-open NAFTA and
demand “at minimum, a significant renegotiation.” This
is especially interesting because the downstate Illinois farm
economy sells about $1.5 billion in products to Canada a year —
not to mention increased trade with Mexico.
Then there is Iraq. Like Dean, he opposed the war calling it a
“dumb war” and even opposed the $87 billion reconstruction
appropriation. Not until Obama was pegged to give the keynote
address did we hear anything about staying the course. Like a
good party man, Obama has flopped over to the Kerry camp. Yet, as
with Sen. John Kerry, there’s no reason to believe that his core
principles have altered.
In the area of crime, Obama appears downright pro-criminal. He
cast the lone vote against legislation in 2001 that
would have eliminated time off for “good behavior” for sexual
predators. Obama’s backers have tried to explain the vote away by
tying it to the principle of uniform sentencing guidelines, but
55 to 1 makes that a tough sell. He has consistently voted
against tougher sentences for, among other things, cop killers,
and drug dealers.
Because of the media’s complete unwillingness to explore Obama’s
record in the same manner they explored the civil court records
of his opponents, the Hyde Park Liberal has gotten a free ride.
Democrats tout him as a future President and even Republicans
find themselves charmed and envious of the young star. But his
wings of wax will not last. In the realm of national politics
where merit matters and the press actually vets candidates, we
can be confident that a Senator Barack Obama will become the next
Paul Wellstone — a nice, bright guy relegated to the back
benches of the liberal fringe. If we’re lucky, Illinois voters
will wise to this potential fate before they go to the
polls in November.
