Obama’s False Advertising in the Democratic Primary

Photo credits: Getty

If the left-most wing of the Democratic party could sue the Obama Campaign for false advertising, they would likely win their case. You can hear the outraged howling of technology–savvy Obamaphiles across the blogosphere. They spent months stalking Hillary Clinton online to spew sexist, misogynous garbage at the senator from New York to ensure their hero was nominated, and what have they got for their trouble?

Big-time betrayal, that’s what!

The NY Times editorial board on this 4th of July sums up the difference between the haloed Obama of the Democratic primary and the well-practiced, old Chicago style politician who has quickly emerged in the general election campaign.

Titled New and Not Improved, the Times editorial begins:

“Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.”

The Times board laments:

“Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

“Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

“The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.”

You can’t blame the Times for wistfully recalling:

“In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.”

The Times notes Obama’s current cynical political turnabout:

“Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.”

The Times is surprised(?) that the candidate who presented himself as the second coming now supports Dubya’s faith-based initiative?

“The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

“He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.”

Finally the Times editorial board goes after BO’s switcheroo on the death penalty and gun control:

“On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

“Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

“What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

“We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

The Times concludes by pointing out the obvious to Obama’s scattered defenders weakly arguing that his behavior is simply a typical transition:

“We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.”

And about that change we can believe in?

““There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any ‘redefining’ on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.”’

Actually we need Hillary Clinton, the candidate endorsed early on by the New York Times, before the Democratic party elite colluded with the good old boys’ network in the media and its codependent female allies to hand the nomination to Obama - despite the fact that Clinton won the popular vote.

Obama is still the “presumptive” nominee; the delegates have not voted yet. Support the Denver Group in its efforts to keep the Democratic Party democratic by ensuring that Hillary Clinton’s name is on the ballot at the convention in August.