One of the reasons why I believe that many independents liked Obama was because he stood on a reform platform, and yet Obama’s recent flip-flop undermines his credibility with respect to reforming politics-as-usual. For those voters who are interested in reform of Washington — usually those who consider themselves independents — McCain now is much more likely to win over this electorate due to his consistent support for campaign finance reform (such as the McCain-Feingold bill) and his decision never to seek corrupt earmark funding or pork barrel projects.

As the general campaign moves forward I am increasingly disappointed in Obama, and accepting the unfortunate reality that he is for more of the same corruption that pervades Washington, D.C., and Obama has illustrated his politics-as-usual reality by (1) making an agreement with the Teamsters Union to end federal oversight concerning mob influence and corruption; (2) agreeing to appoint John Edwards as Attorney General notwithstanding his campaign ties to indicted racketeers Mel Weiss, Bill Lerach and Dickie Scruggs; and (3) cozing up to Bill and Hillary Clinton who are among the most corrupt politicians of the modern age — when I saw Obama on the stage with Hillary at the unity rally in NH last week I wanted to throw up, and that was when I realized that Obama is just another schmuck.

Go Nader!

Lets not be mistaken, I’m also annoyed that he didn’t keep a, lets be honest, very blatant promise. However I also believe that there are levels of urgency we should be concerning ourselves with.

My personal view on morality is that the more an action hurts someone else the greater of a moral wrong that action is. For example, the lying Bush did that got us into Iraq, needlessly hurt many many people and is thus just as wrong. However, as I annoyed as I am that Obama didn’t keep this particular promise, I feel it’s a decision that ultimately doesn’t actually hurt anyone. Except McCain.

I’m well aware that the concern is “But if he didn’t keep this promise – what OTHER campaign promises wont he keep?” So far, Obama has not made a decision that was out to hurt someone else. If that day were to come, I’ll save my outrage for then thanks. Otherwise, I’m no less for Obama 08 than was before.

Lets not be mistaken, I’m also annoyed that he didn’t keep a, lets be honest, very blatant promise. However I also believe that there are levels of urgency we should be concerning ourselves.

My personal view on morality is that the more an action hurts someone else the greater of a moral wrong that action is. For example, the lying Bush did that got us into Iraq, needlessly hurt many many people and is thus just as wrong. However, as I annoyed as I am that Obama didn’t keep this particular promise, I feel it’s a decision that ultimately doesn’t actually hurt anyone.

I’m well aware that the concern is “But if he didn’t keep this promise – what OTHER campaign promises wont he keep?” So far, Obama has not made a decision that was out to hurt someone else. If that day were to come, I’ll save my outrage for then thanks. Otherwise, I’m no less for Obama 08 than was before.

Where is the transparency? Where is the promise of reform? Astute followers of the Democratic battle royale will recall months of Obama surrogates attacking Senator Clinton for her failure to release her White House records and tax information from her husband’s presidential library. When Obama obfuscates it’s not hypocrisy, it’s “change” (I doubt I could get away with that).

It’s time for a short walk down memory lane, Obama style, flip-flops and all. June 29. 2006: “I strongly support public financing.” On March 3, 2007, an Obama spokesperson, Bill Burton, told the AP his candidate would “aggressively pursue an agreement” on public financing (a notion John McCain accepted). Nearly one year later, in February of 2008, Obama penned an op-ed in USA Today, calling for “aggressive” negations to guarantee a “publicly funded general election in 2008 with REAL SPENDING LIMITS.” Four months later Obama told the USA Today editorial board he will pursue an agreement with John McCain, the presumptive Republican Party nominee, but, to date, has failed to do such. In fact, he’s completely thrown the aforementioned promises (note, that’s plural) out the proverbial window.

Given Obama’s latest reversal, he should immediately remove his co-sponsorship of the Fair Elections Now Act and the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 – both of which deal with, you guessed it, the public financing of campaigns.

Obama’s decision to forego his promise to accept public financing is the latest in a troubling serious of political maneuvers obscured as “change.” If I can paraphrase the freshman senator from Illinois (and I will): “The brilliant staffers in my finance department have created an entirely new version of public financing. Private financing!” Political virtue and superiority, indeed.

Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, prefers to call his candidate a “reformer” whose “transparency,” “openness,” and “bipartisan” bona fides are unparalleled by his Republican counterpart, Senator John McCain. However, it was McCain who reached across the aisles in an attempt to solve the immigration crisis, not Obama. It was McCain who reached across the aisles in an attempt to solve the undue influence of corporate lobbyists, not Obama (who I might add has just effectively undermined this system and everything it stands/stood for).

Obama’s thinly veiled excuse for breaking his promise is as thin as his Senate record. To say the least, I’m less than convinced the junior senator represents “change,” by any stretch of the imagination, gay or straight.