What about the man charged with heading up his VP selection process, Jim Johnson? When the questionable activities of Johnson were first brought up it was “a game” that was being played. But when Johnson’ s sweetheart compensation packages and mismanagement on various corporate boards was set in clear contrast to Obama’s self-righteous rhetoric on the mortgage crisis, Johnson was soon relegated to the ever crowded space under the proverbial bus.

Obama follows the same pattern on issues. When John McCain suggested that Obama should visit Iraq in order to get an up-to-date briefing on the progress their before making promises about withdrawal Obama’s foreign policy advisor labeled the idea “garbage.” And yet Obama recently announced that he was planning to visit Iraq and Afghanistan during the campaign.

Obama’s famous promise to personally meet with unrepentant dictators required a great deal of attempted nuance and clarification – and historical misrepresentation – before he basically admitted that he would not meet directly with America’s enemies without preconditions.

The list goes on and on: from wearing a flag pin to the status of Jerusalem; from lifting the federal supervision on the Teamsters to the threat from Iran; from his family’s role in World War Two liberation to his protectionist rhetoric on NAFTA. Time and time again, Obama says one thing and then does another; makes one promise or statement only to change it based on political expediency.

Obama supporters laud him as a different politician; as someone who can change the way Washington works and bring real solutions to our problems. But how can you trust a candidate who so easily capitulates in the face of criticism and regularly breaks his promises? Is this really change you can believe in?

I can’t believe it, but maybe Hillary was right. Maybe Obama’s campaign is “just words.”