Let's speak of one misleading statistic used by Obama: the often-cited statistic ("Presidential support") that John McCain voted with President Bush (in a vote where Bush took a position) 90% of the time during the Bush era. This is based on a vote study from Congressional Study; what the DEMagogues don't say is that his "party unity" vote is 81%. Obama's figures are 40% and 96% respectively. (To contrast, Veep candidate Biden's numbers are 52% and 93%, which are probably indicative of a "typical" Senate Democrat.)
McCain's Presidential support numbers in 2007 were undoubtedly boosted because of McCain's support of the surge (something he had advocated since 2003) and immigration, both of which can be regarded as change votes, the surge being a change of the status quo in occupied Iraq which has resulted, under General Petraeus' strategy, in markedly lower civilian and military casualties. Immigration reform, which eventually failed, placed less emphasis on familial ties and more on merit.
If what you mean by "change" is an end to partisan gridlock, on the other hand, the numbers you want to look at are the "party unity" numbers. I've applied a basic eyeball heuristic of PS>50 and PU<90: Baucus (MT-D), Bayh (IN-D), Byrd (WV-D) g14, Carper (DE-D), Coleman (MN-R), Collins (ME-R) g14, Conrad (ND-D), Corker (TN-R), Domenici (NM-R), Dorgan (ND-D), Hagel (NE-R), Johnson (SD-D), Landrieu (LA-D) g14, Lieberman (CN-D) g14, Lincoln (AR-D), Lugar (IN-R), Martinez (FL-R), McCain (AZ-R) g14, Murkowski (AK-R), Nelson (FL-D), Nelson (NE-D) g14, Pryor (AR-D) g14, Smith (OR-R), Snowe (ME-R) g14, Specter (PA-R), Stevens (AK-R), Thune (SD-R), Voinovich (OH-R), Warner (VA-R) g14. The g14 members are active senators from the Gang of 14. Three members were not predicted by this heuristic: Salazar (PS 49), Graham (PU, 92), and Inouye (PU, 92). Two Republicans were not reelected in 2006.
Most notably, Barack Obama is not classified as a bipartisan legislator based on this heuristic.
The Democrats have one key hope for the election, from a Congressional standpoint: they are looking to flip 5 Senate seats to get past the 60-vote cloture, with Senate turnover prospects good in Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia (although Stevens has a shot on Palin's coattails at retaining his seat, and Dems have shots of flipping Minnesota and North Carolina seats).
The point is that Barack Obama talks a good game regarding post-partisan politics, but to quote a popular 1980's commercial: "Where's the beef?"
Obama's Bipartisanship Claim for Nuclear Weapon Nonproliferation
One of Obama's examples is sheer chutzpah: his claim of bipartisanship with Indiana Senator Richard Lugar for Public Law 109-472. Some background is required: there's the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs, initiated in 1991, which helps Russia and other former Soviet republics dismantle old WMD programs. Then there's the Bush Administration's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), initially unveiled by John Bolton in 2003, which involves the cooperation of some 70 nations to detect and intercept WMD's/components (the most notable success being an intercepted shipment to Libya in the fall of 2003).
Lugar aides claim that Obama had a part in writing a key portion of a standalone bill in April 2006, which mandates the President's reporting on proliferation detection/interdiction assistance within 6 months.
In September 2006, Lugar introduced Public Law 109-472, without sponsors, "at the request of the administration", which directly deals with PSI, i.e., the program for which Obama is misleadingly attempting to coopt credit. Obama was not a US senator at the time PSI was developed.
The standalone reporting bill (in which Obama had a part) was merged into Public Law 109-472 and signed into law by Bush in early 2007.
Isn't it ironic that Obama has been running against the 8 years of Bush, but wants to take credit for a Bush Administration initiative?
By the way, McCain has been a strong supporter of Nunn-Lugar since inception, even when later Russian backsliding caused political resistance, and is on the record for increasing funding for nonproliferation programs and for strengthening PSI.
Obama's Bipartisanship Claim for the 2006 Federal Funding and Transparency Act
Then Barack Obama takes bipartisan credit with Tom Coburn for the 2006 Federal Funding and Transparency Act, basically allowing public disclosure of entities and organizations receiving federal funds. Barack Obama doesn't disclose two other sponsors of the unanimously passed legislation: Tom Carper and one John Sidney McCain. I don't think you'll find that mentioned in an Obama ad.
Conclusion
Barack Obama's claims of bipartisanship involves two areas (foreign policy and political reform) on which McCain has a visible track record and acknowledged expertise. In addition, McCain has launched multiple large-scale bipartisan initiatives (campaign reform, climate change, lobbyist reform, immigration, etc.) not to mention his leadership position in the Gang of 14 which defused a Senate crisis over judicial nominations. McCain has delivered change, not just promised change.
If Barack is really going to argue that 10% change against Bush is not change, shouldn't we really be arguing 4% change against Democrat partisanship is not change from partisan gridlock, but just more of the same?
