Sorry Charlie...

Like Charlie Brown’s Sisyphus-styled attempts to kick a football that Lucy repeatedly withdraws, throughout history the American voter has been seduced into attaching hope to candidates that ultimately disappoint. And so it would once again seem in 2008.

Barring something extraordinary (and by extraordinary I mean amazingly stupid -read Clintonian(Update)), Barack Obama will be the Democratic Presidential nominee and will face John McCain, the beyond-presumptive Republican Presidential nominee. Like Lucy, both McCain and Obama appear to offer something worthy of our eternally springing hope.

Obama brings an air of hope to the race. McCain brings a strong sense of “truth to power” and independence. Both raise expectations that they will provide the kind of leadership and character that has been so lacking in Washington, but both have already proven to be disappointments .

First we have McCain. Having survived a five year stay at the Hanoi Hilton, during which he was tortured mercilessly, John McCain has earned the right to claim expert status on the subject of prisoner torture. In a Presidential debate on November 28th last year, McCain took the principled stand that the Army Field Manual was the gold-standard and that the CIA should limited to the 19 approved interrogation techniques therein. At that time McCain called the practice of waterboarding "very exquisite torture." He spoke with authority and conviction, and if there were one area where we were sure this former POW wouldn't waiver, this was it. Right? Wrong.

Last Wednesday, after a closed door meeting with GOP leadership, McCain voted against the HR 2082 Conference Report (see sec. 327) (2), a bill banning the use of waterboarding as a CIA interrogation technique. Not so coincidentally, that same GOP leadership (once averse to a pre-convention endorsement of any candidate) publicly endorsed McCain's bid for the Republican Presidential nomination. The ban passed the Senate by a vote of 51-45, was sent on its way to the President's desk to receive its promised veto, and in playing his politically motivated (though unsuccessful) part, John McCain let us all know that he too has a soul for sale. McCain: Maverick? Man-of-Integrity? Nope. On this one and other issues-a big NOPE.

Next we have Obama. If you thought that Bill Clinton was good at parsing words you haven’t yet met the real Barack Obama . If you are a hopeful Independent, idealistic Democrat, disenchanted Republican, or a young voter preparing to cast his first ballot, then Barack Obama knows what you want to hear and has absolutely no shame in all but lying to you to get your vote.

Voters want someone who will bring some sense to a broken system. Someone who will lead an effort to make Washington an instrument of The People’s will, and not the legislative and executive branches of moneyed corporations and special interests.

Voters will likely be disappointed in a President Obama. As any gifted politician would, Barack Obama has figured out how appear to be an “agent of change” while at the same time jumping headlong into the deep pockets of those interests he promises to challenge as President.

In a way that only a Harvard lawyer (or Clinton) could, Barack Obama has managed to technically avoid taking money from Federal Lobbyists. Oh, he’s still getting their money alright, but in a kind of Bill Clinton “definition of what ‘is’ ‘is” way, he’s playing an effective and sadly cynical game of semantic deception.

It may be one of the most openly hypocritical efforts of this campaign season. Barack Obama continues to present himself as someone who will clean up Washington and get the money out of politics, while in back rooms he embraces lobbyists, corporations, and their money. He has worked hard with them to figure out how to funnel huge amounts corporate and special interest moneys into his campaign without violating the letter of his promises. State lobbyists and law firms representing K-Street are not Federal lobbyists, and are thereby acceptable. .

Think Obama is serious about keeping lobbyists and their influence out of his white house? Think again, the parsing on that one began last December. Lobbyists would be most welcome and at home in an Obama White House. A complete betrayal of the spirit of his campaign pledges, but what did you expect really? In the end (probably even in the beginning) Obama is just another politician crassly hoping you are just fool enough to invest hope in him. You’ll find no New Camelot down the road Obama would have us trod, just empty rhetoric and more of the same political gamesmanship.

Just look at his voting record. There’s scarcely a politically charged issue he hasn’t been willing to dodge to avoid taking political risk.

On 20 SEPT 2007 Barack Obama was scheduled to attend a 12:30pm political event in Rock Hill, South Carolina. He canceled that appearance, saying in a press statement the night before that he would stay in the nation's capital to cast "important votes on the future of America's presence in Iraq." One of the three votes in question was on an amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934 ) to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. What the press statement should have said is that Senator Obama would remain in Washington to vote yea on two no-brainer amendments and try to determine which way the political winds were blowing at the time on a more controversial vote. Which way would he vote on the Cornyn Ammendment? Yea? Nay? Neither. Apparently Obama couldn't gauge which position was more politically advantageous so on roll call #344 he decided not to vote.

Vote#344: To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Clinton voted. McCain voted. But Barack couldn't find a pair, so he sat it out.

This is not to say he didn't cast votes on that day. He was there alright- the whole time in fact. He managed to cast yea votes on the politically safe amendments presented on roll calls #343 and #345 ( directly before and after #344.)

Vote#343:To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

Vote#345: To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

Is this something new for Barack Obama? Sadly no. As a State Senator in Illinois, when confronted with a vote that might force him to stick his neck out (even just a little), he engaged in equally political calculation, repeatedly voting "present" instead of casting a yea or nay.

So who are these two really? Time is telling.

McCain the maverick? Gone. Barack the agent of change? Only if he can technically change things without changing a thing. Could McCain or Obama change course and become what America really needs? Maybe…but unlikely.

So Charlie Brown, give it a go if you like, but what you are engaged in is the definition of insanity.

Sphere: Related Content