Just because someone is young and has a fresh face...

doesn't make his approach new or 'post-partisan'. I am, of course, talking about Barack Obama.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me say that while I'm not a party-line guy, I usually vote Republican. And while I have no beef with Obama personally, it's not surprising that given my political orientation, I haven't warmed up to Obama the politician. For the last year, I have watched the groupthink media engage in mosh-pit orgies over Obama much the same way they lusted after JFK and RFK. I have watched young people who are allegedly yearning for 'a different kind of politics and a different kind of politician' fill stadiums and jubilantly express their allegiance to Obama. I wish I could be among the 'change we can believe in' believers. But the facts simply don't allow me to do that.

Obama is new, in that he is a new figure on the scene. He doesn't come from old money, or from a royal political family. By any measure, his is a successful story. As Americans, we can rejoice at his success, and be proud of him as an individual for achieving what he has. But beyond the soaring oratory and inspiring story, there is little reason to believe he is a different kind of politician.

Like most other politicians who have run for president recently, Obama has taken on some regretably old school characteristics. Like previous candidates both Democrat and Republican, Obama has largely shielded himself from lengthy interaction with the press in order to maintain tight image and message control. This is quite ironic considering how nakedly obvious the press has been in their affection for him. Like previous candidates both Democrat and Republican, Obama largely plays in front of pre-selected sympathetic audiences that deliberately don't hint of the political and ideological diversity that he and his boosters claim he transcends. Like previous candidates both Democrat and Republican, Obama has had to try and explain or justify unsavory voluntary associations (both past and present) with crooks and other incendiary (to use a charitable word) figures. None of this is 'post-partisan', and none of it is indicative of a new kind of campaign or a new kind of candidate.

But it doesn't stop there. What's most unsettling about the 'post-partisan' narrative surrounding Obama is that his voting record and issue platform are both decidedly partisan. Obama has virtually no record of spearheading bipartisan legislation in his legislative career. Saying that I want to bring people together is not the same thing as actually doing it while in political office. The former is easy, and requires no elbow grease. The latter actually demonstrates one's commitment to it. And on this, Obama fails. One doesn't have to shout and yell in order to be partisan. One simply has to uphold the party line nearly unanimously, as Obama has done, and fail to sign on to the few bipartisan initiatives remaining in Washington.

Again, I don't have it in for Obama, though it may seem like I do. My issue actually isn't with Obama himself. If one wants to be a party-line liberal because that's where one's convictions lie, that's fair enough. What's not fair, or honest, is to be such a person while claiming you're something else. And it's also not honest to portray oneself as a different kind of candidate while actively engaging in many of the same unfortunate tactics and strategies that he says he transcends. This is not the audacity of hope - it's just audacity.

In the end, Obama is a fresh face who is largely absent of fresh ideas and is increasingly not diverging from the status quo to run a fresh kind of campaign. That doesn't make him any worse than either Clinton or McCain. But it doesn't make him better either, and this is where ga-ga perception needs to better align with sober reality.