It all seems so long ago.
However, it appears the first question of the evening, from Provo, Utah's Zach Kempf, finally got an answer . . . one year later.
Zach Kempf: So my question is: We have a bunch of leaders who can't seem to do their job. And we pick people based on the issues they that they represent, but then they get in power and they don't do anything about it anyway.
You're going to spend this whole night talking about your views on issues, but the issues don't matter if when you get in power nothing's going to get done.
We have a Congress and a president with, like, a 30 percent approval rating, so clearly we don't think they're doing a good job. What's going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes and the stuff we're used to hearing? I mean, be honest with us. How are you going to be any different?
You may want to review what Kempf said one more time before moving on to Barack Obama's answer because Mr. Pretty Words dances around and you may forget what the actual question was. Okay, you're re-read it. Here's the response.
Barack Obama: Well, I think the questioner hit the nail on the head. As I travel around the country, people have an urgent desire for change in Washington. And we are not going to fix health care, we're not going to fix energy, we are not going to do anything about our education system unless we change how business is done in Washington.
Now, part of that is bringing people together, as Chris said. But part of it is also overcoming special interests and lobbyists who are writing legislation that's critical to the American people.
And one of the things I bring is a perspective as a community organizer, as a state legislator, as well as a U.S. senator, that says: Washington has to change.
Barack said, "Washington has to change." And noted he was a US Senator, and that he did this and he did that (traveling and voter registration drives really aren't resume credits). Blah-blah-blah from Mr. Pretty Words. A lot of hot air that gave a non-answer.
The CNN-YouTube debate pitched questions to certain senators. Questions did not always get responses from all candidates. That question went to Barack and Senator Chris Dodd. Dodd's response included, "Speeches are easy to make and rhetoric is easy to expose here. But I think the idea of looking back and saying, 'What have you done?' --if you want to get a good idea of where someone is going to lead or how they're going to lead, I think it's very appropriate to say, 'What have you done? Show me. Demonstrate to me the ability to get these things done that you've championed in the past'." On that, Dodd is correct. Mike Gravel, in a later question, made a comment about the first question so we'll note that as well, "Zach asked about change. You're not going to see any change when these people get elected." In what may have been a comment later in the debate on that first question, John Edwards declared, "But I -- if you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change? And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't."
Dodd was correct and it turns out Gravel was correct about Barack Obama. And it turns out that the "compromise, triangulation" which John Edwards decried was actually Barack's way of doing business.
And he was correct last week when he voted against the expansion of spying on American citizens. That vote took place June 9th. Presumed Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign issued this statement: "A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill that includes immunity for American telecommunications companies that had been asked by the government to participate in the program. Today, the U.S. Senate will approve legislation providing the immunity Barack Obama supposedly opposed, and despite his promise, he will not support a filibuster. What Barack Obama will do is show that he's willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office." The McCain campaign goes on to highlight this statement from Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton in October 2007, "To be clear Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." To be clear.
Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr declared, "Nearly three years ago the American people became aware that the president was systematically breaking the law by spying on phone calls and emails without seeking a warrant under the Constitution or even the relaxed standards of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Instead of holding the president and his aides accountable for violating the law, Congress has ratified his conduct by approving amendments which weaken FISA’s requirements. Unfortunately, failing to uphold the law creates a golden invitation for future administrations to similarly take the law into their own hands." Barr went on to reject Barack's nonsense that the police state legislation was a "balance" by adding, "To the contrary, the bill grants the government unprecedented power to surreptitiously spy on the phone calls and emails of American citizens in our own country, so long as the government claims to believe that they are communicating with someone not in the U.S."
Cynthia McKinney's website is down and we'll assume that's due to a big spike in traffic due to excitement over her winning the Green Party nomination Saturday. The Green Party called out Barack in June on his belligerent speech regarding Iran, but they issued no press release on the FISA vote (possibly due to the fact that they were putting together this weekend's convention).
Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign declared following Barack's new-found support for increasing the spying on American citizens (and the bill Barack voted for also included immunity for the telecommunications companies breaking the law):
What to do now?
Drop a five spot on the real deal.
Donate five dollars for Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
Five reasons:
Telecom immunity.
Gun control.
Death penalty.
Campaign finance.
Faith-based funding.
On July 4, the New York Times documented Obama's flip flops on each of these issues and then proclaimed Obama New and Not Improved.
When we ask our friends who support Obama about his recent flip-flopping on these and other issues, they say something like this:
You have to pander to become President.
Or:
It doesn't matter where Obama stands on the issues -- it's the symbolism of change that matters.
Okay, so if it's the symbolism of change that matters to you, and not the substance, then please go and support Obama.
But if you actually want a candidacy that stands steadfast for shifting the power from the corporations back to the people, then please drop a five spot now on Nader/Gonzalez.
Let's return to where we started. July 2007 when Zach Kempf asked Barack (and Chris Dodd), "What's going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes and the stuff we're used to hearing? I mean, be honest with us. How are you going to be any different?" Chris Dodd cautioned that you have to look at the record. His record on the vote this month reflects he was just where he said he was last year. Dodd stuck to his word. Barack, a year later, indirectly answered that he only has "all the platitudes" and that he's one of those candidate that "we pick . . . based on the issues they that they represent, but then they get in power and they don't do anything about it anyway."
Kempf stated, "You're going to spend this whole night talking about your views on issues, but the issues don't matter if when you get in power nothing's going to get done." Whether he grasped or not, he was describing just what Barack intended to do one year later by voting for the immunization of the telecom industry from lawsuits, for the continued spying on Americans and for the expansion of that spying.