Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role

[Maribelle]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

My take:

Two serious opponents in Illinois self-destructed, smoothing his path to election in November 2004.

Once inside the Senate, Obama was 99th in seniority, in the minority party his first two years.

He voted against the withdrawal of troops and proposed legislation calling for a drawdown only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it.

He did not play a significant role in passing much legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates.

Mr. Obama took few bold stands and diverted little from liberal orthodoxy, for the most part stuck to party lines, with few examples of the kind of bipartisan work he advocates in his campaign.

He disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war; he voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Kerry and Feingold in June 2006.

To others, the mismatch between Obama’s outside profile and his inside accomplishments wore thin. His dropping in only occasionally to closed-door meetings over immigration prompted complaints that he was something of a dilettante. He joined a bipartisan group, that agreed to stick to a final compromise bill, but when the measure reached the floor, Obama distanced himself from the compromise, advocating changes sought by labor groups. The bill collapsed. To some Obama’s move showed an unwillingness to take a tough stand. “he folded like a cheap suit” said Lindsey Graham.

But all the while he had this minor role in the Senate, Obama had lots and lots of star power, and played it up to the hilt. Obama never seemed to let his job as Senator interfere with his higher ambitions

The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious