This is very funny, but very sad. It shows Obama on both sides of the fence. Before he was elected, he questioned the wisdom of Bush's wars. Now that he is elected -- surprise! -- he is a full-throated supporter of the wars. This is an excellent example of how the electorate gets foiled. They elect an "outsider" who promises to shake things up -- "change you can believe in" -- but when he gets in power, he falls into the clutches of the power structures of Washington and ends up serving the interests of the elites and not of the people who voted him in.
From an article on Huffington Post:
You can't get a clearer picture of the futility of the American voter than to watch this Obama vs. Obama "performance". How can you make politicians accountable? How can you make elections "real" if what they say they will do isn't what they do when they are elected? What is "representative" democracy all about if you vote somebody in on one set of principles and he ends up governing under another set?
Don't get me wrong: Obama is infinitely preferable to Bush. The point is more fundamental. How can you have party politics when there is no party discipline? When the party can put up candidates who say one thing and do another?