Obama: The Candidate of Change?

There's no denying that Obama ran a campaign of change. He touted his lack of experience as a positive; he was the definition of outside-the-Beltway. However, let's look at that: what has he really changed?

In the recent bestseller Game Change, Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod described what the voters were looking for: "A president who can bring the country together, who can reach beyond partisanship, and who'll be tough on special interests. Obama could embody that sort of change, but Hillary could not."

There's no doubt that the election of Obama was an historic event. The first black president in a country with a shameful history of racism. In this sense, perhaps, Obama did bring the country together. He helped us collectively move past our dark history and perhaps into a post-racial nation. But that's about it. Obama's radical legislative agenda has actually helped drive our country further apart. He sparked the Tea Party movement, perhaps the biggest protest movement since Vietnam. His poll numbers are flagging. Candidates for whom he campaigns are losing. Obama is not a unifying force, he is a divisive one.

Obama pledged to move past partisanship. And sure the other day he met with GOP leaders in Baltimore. Good for him! Perhaps he is actually going to make good on this promise after a full year in office. But in his first year he was anything BUT non-partisan. His first meeting with the opposition party had him smugly declaring "I won." He promised to negotiate the major policy of health care reform in open on CSPAN (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/). Not only has he not kept this promise, the health care reform was negotiated in closed-door sessions without ANY Republican representation!

And lastly, Axelrod claimed that Obama would be tough on special interests. This might be the closest that Obama has come to fulfilling Axelrod's prophecy. He claimed that he would end the revolving door of lobbyists and former officials, and of course he hasn't (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/). He claimed he would set up an internet database of lobbying reports, and of course it hasn't happened yet (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/230/centralize-ethics-and-lobbying-information-for-vot/). Sure he seems tough on special interests, but in reality he is only tough on special interests he doesn't like, i.e., Big Business. He is completely in bed with Labor Unions, and that is just one example of special interests Obama courts. Who knows his true relationship with the Weather Underground, right?

So Axelrod claimed Obama could do these three things and Hillary couldn't. Well, he was wrong on one of those counts. Obama was not a Candidate of Change. He was a politician as usual: breaking promises and sleeping with the special interest groups. So it appears that his lack of experience in Washington was just that, lack of experience. It didn't signify someone who would step outside of politics as usual in our Capital. Maybe if Axelrod was wrong about Obama he was also wrong about Hillary. Maybe Hillary could, and can, achieve what Obama can't. Maybe she should try and show us in 2012. Now wouldn't that be interesting?