The fact that Barack Obama isn?t much of a progressive should be considered a truism by now. But even among those who will admit as much, few would question his essential righteousness or purity of intentions. His political lapses are necessary to get elected, his leftist apologists will say. Give him time, and the real Obama ? the one reminiscent of his commendable past of activism on the streets of Chicago ? will win out.

This argument, quite simply, has been bled to death. More than a year into the campaign, the Illinois senator has been unable to substantively distinguish his platform from his seminally centrist opponent. He has morphed into a reliable sellout, and nowhere does this shine through more clearly than on his pro-corporate economic record.

His distinctly un-universal health care plan is especially notable in an era when the times are finally favorable for real change on the issue. It would leave millions uninsured and leave the essential parts of the existing for-profit system in place. It?s not a plan the insurance companies are complaining about, and that should be telling.

House Resolution 676 ? the single-payer bill introduced by John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich and supported by at least 75 other congressmen ? was opposed by both Mr. Obama and his corporate supporters. The plan would have eliminated billions of dollars of administrative costs that accompany the health care business, making total costs cheaper for most Americans.

The senator?s support for Tort ?reform? is similarly lamentable. In 2005, he joined Senate Republicans to pass the

Class Action Fairness Act, which limits the ability to sue in state courts. The proposal ? long supported by the Bush administration ? forces cases into less sympathetic, backlogged, Republican-dominated federal courts, where banking and crediting interests have a much easier time winning. The bill was vigorously opposed by consumer advocacy and civil rights groups, who convinced most Senate Democrats ? including John Edwards and Hillary Clinton ? to vote against it.

This vote is consistent with his behavior in the Illinois Senate, in which Mr. Obama voted to cap the damages that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. In effect, the bill overrides the decisions of juries, mandating that the compensation for pain and suffering is not too high and best decided by the Legislature.

Mr. Obama?s support for the recent bankruptcy bill ? a splendid gift for big business ? is also problematic. He

even voted against an amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. The amendment would have been at least some consolation for those concerned with the increasingly out-of-control, predatory lending industry. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Obama once again found himself a minority in his own party.

The senator has also proven himself a friend of the mining industry, having voted against the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act last year. The bill would have mandated environmentally sound clean-up around sites and protected the health of citizens in Western states with a large mining industry. CBS News later reported that a close Obama advisor is a lobbyist for several mining companies.

But at least he?s against NAFTA, right? Sort of. Unlike Ms. Clinton and the administration of her husband, Mr. Obama has been publicly skeptical about the free-trade agreement, stating, ?I don?t think NAFTA is good for Americans, and I never have.? Campaigning hard in working-class Ohio ? a state hit hard by rising unemployment and collapsing wages ? Mr. Obama assured assembly-line workers that his administration would protect Americans from greedy corporate outsourcing.

But recent events have shown that this is less a strain of economic populism than political opportunism. After another round of lambasting NAFTA, an Obama advisor quietly contacted officials in the Canadian government to assure them that the senator?s talk about renegotiating trade agreements was just ?campaign rhetoric.? Canadian businessmen ?shouldn?t worry,? the advisor said. You?d have to be rather gullible to believe anything the senator says about free trade after this.

Some may accuse me of being overly cynical and expecting too much. But is it really too much to ask for a candidate who offers some substance to protect working-class families from the current neo-liberal storm? Or at least one who doesn?t consistently side with corporate interests?

It?s a shame, too. Mr. Obama ? a guy with laudable left-wing credentials ? has amassed an impressive coalition of progressive Americans unlike anything we?ve seen in some time. The only hope I can see for his presidency is if his distinctly energized supporters remain active and push their candidate leftward. As his political record has shown, we can?t rely on Mr. Obama himself.

Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in history and Spanish.