What will Obama’s change do?

February 18, 2008

by Roz Kohls

US Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seems to be basing his candidacy for president on “change.” The question remains, though, change to what?

None of the Democratic or Republican candidates is running against Bush and Cheney, so what is the point of saying “change,” without detailing how Obama will be a change?

Is the change supposed to be to a higher level of intelligence?

The Democratic party is heavily invested in pride of intellect, as James Bowman of the Feb. 12 American Spectator called it. Many in the Democratic party have no political philosophy or program, apart from allegedly being more intelligent than they claim George W. Bush to be, he said

“Among such people, it must seem like a real option to run on a platform of being so smart that you won’t ever have to do anything hard or scary, like say, go to war,” Bowman said.

Also, Obama can’t claim he is a change in experience, because this is his first stint in the Senate, doing the nation’s work. He was first sworn into the Senate Jan. 4, 2005.

“He is experienced in running no enterprise, and yet seeks to run the largest enterprise in the world. He is virtually inexperienced in government, domestic and certainly foreign policy,” said Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder in the Feb. 12 American Spectator.

In addition, Obama can’t claim he is a change for perfection, in that he never will be mistaken. When Obama’s opponent for the Democratic nomination, US Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, boasted she has the experience to govern, “on Day One,” Obama responded, “It is important to be right on Day One.”

“That is not something he can promise, not to be (wrong) without appearing to be a fool himself, or to be fooling the electorate,” Bowman added.

Maybe the real reason Obama cites change as his platform is so no one asks about his record, and just how far left it really is.

Obama was one of only 29 senators who voted Jan. 27 to filibuster the provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reform bill extending immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperate with law enforcement and intelligence authorities.

This means if a telecommunication company cooperates with the intelligence authorities in tracking down a communication from a suspected terrorist, Obama wants the suspected terrorist or the suspected terrorist’s allies to be able to initiate a lawsuit against that company. It also prevents telecoms from cooperating in the first place, so the telecoms won’t be harassed by lawsuits certain to follow.

This is far, far left of most in the electorate.