E.J. Dionne's column in the Washington Post asked this question about Barack Obama: "Is he Adlai Stevenson or John F. Kennedy?" In the New Republic online, John Judis wondered if Obama might be "the next" George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee who lost in a landslide. Both are interesting questions. But there's a more relevant and important one: Is Obama who he says he is?

This matters because Americans choose an individual, not a party, to fill the presidency. If voters elected the next president by party preference, the White House successor to George W. Bush would almost certainly be a Democrat. But we don't. And in 2008, as political scientist James Ceaser has noted, "the choice of the person will loom large"--indeed, larger than usual.

Senator Obama, the most exciting presidential candidate in decades and the likely Democratic nominee, is the main reason. He's running a strikingly personal campaign that places far less emphasis on ideology or a partisan agenda than on the man himself, Obama the person. He's running as a new kind of national leader who rejects "the same old politics" and intends to change the way Washington works and the country is governed.

This self-description is idealistic, lofty, and extravagant. He further characterizes himself as someone who unites political foes, rejects partisanship, will end polarization, and is neither a liberal nor an elitist. If what he says is true, he comes close to being what most Americans say they seek in a president. But is he telling the truth?

Let's look at Obama's claims for himself without either flyspecking them for flaws or setting the bar too high. No one should expect a politician to be brutally candid in talking about himself. That's asking too much. Exaggeration is acceptable. Dishonesty isn't.

Is it fair for Obama to call himself a uniter who brings people together? That depends on whether you're talking about his presidential campaign or his three-plus years in the Senate. An impressive coalition of liberal (John Kerry, Chris Dodd) and moderate Democrats (Sam Nunn, Oklahoma governor Brad Henry) has come together to support Obama's candidacy. He's also proved attractive to independents and to a surprising number of Republicans.

But as a senator--and this surely is a more important test--Obama has been anything but a uniter. Instead, he's a reliable Democratic vote. He infuriates Republican senators when he campaigns as a Democrat willing and eager to compromise with them. It's practically never happened.

The most notable instance of bipartisanship since Obama entered the Senate was the Gang of 14, seven Republicans and seven Democrats who reached agreement on judicial nominations. Obama lauded the group but didn't join it. Why not? Because the senators allowed several conservative nominees to be confirmed.

Obama was a minor player in the bipartisan Senate bill on immigration that failed last year. But he violated the spirit of the compromise. After authors agreed to put an item in the bill at Obama's request, he proceeded to vote for poison pill amendments favored by liberal groups, amendments that, if passed, would have killed the bipartisan deal.