I originally supported Edwards and then looked to Obama after Edwards dropped out. It is not Obama’s words that have turned me off, it’s his actions. There is no way I can support this man. My biggest complaint about Obama is that while his soaring oratory espouses “Change You Can Believe In” his actions demonstrate he suffers from “Situational Ethics.” Here are a few quick examples.

Obama pledged to use public financing in the presidential campaign if he was chosen as the nominee of the Democratic Party. Now that he is raising gigantic sums of money no one could have foreseen, things have changed. Asked to confirm he would live up to his commitment to use public financing in the presidential campaign, all he could do was equivocate and mumble that he would meet with McCain to work something out etc.

Wrong answer! There is only one answer. Live up to your pledge or prove you are no different from anyone else in Washington.

The plagiarism dust-up is interesting because on the surface this seems like a small issue. Let’s bottom line this, if you can’t trust people to be honest on the small things they won’t be honest on the big things either. Obama’s original answer to the charge he had used a concept and words from the current Massachusetts Governor’s speech was, “it was only one paragraph!” As this issue got media coverage, his answer morphed, multiple times (with the help of the adoring media in the background) into, “everyone does it, including Hillary.”

Wrong answer! You did use someone else’s words, without giving them credit and you should have said that. Bringing anyone else into the equation does not excuse your actions. People teach by example, bucko, in case you’ve forgotten. What do you think you have taught students all over this country? All you had to say was, “I made a mistake. It was not done intentionally. No one should take words of someone else, without giving credit to the source.” This was so simple and you blew it.

The cornerstone of Obama’s campaign is that he did not support the war and, therefore, because he gave a speech, not a recorded vote, but a speech against the war in 2002 and that this demonstrates he has superior judgment to Senators Clinton and McCain. What a crock! If we had real reporters in the country instead of pundits and entertainment reporters, Obama wouldn’t be able to get away with this. If he does become the DP nominee, do you really think the Republicans will let him have a free ride on this one?

Let me point out the obvious. A few weeks ago, I said the NY Giants would beat the New England Patriots. Being right, didn’t make me an NFL coach. Obama’s 2002 speech against the war didn’t automatically make him a better choice for Commander in Chief either. It is an asinine concept on its surface, one that anyone with half a brain should be able to see. In 2004, Obama admitted that he didn’t know how he would have voted in 2002. Hark! What’s that I hear in the background? Ah, tis the media chorus drowning out the obvious!

What counts is what Obama has accomplished since he became Senator and the answer is not much. To suddenly find out in a debate, that he has been the Chairman of a committee capable of investigating the Bush administration’s neglect of Afghanistan & the war and did nothing is stunning. We threw the Republican bums out of office because of their mismanagement of the war. So, when the Dem’s get into power and Obama’s committee has the ability to subpoena witnesses, get answers, etc. does he hold hearings and showcase the issues? No! Why? Because the chairman, Senator Obama, has been, too busy running for President!

During the same period Obama has chosen his political career over the best interests of the country, Senator Clinton has been working on two subcommittees in addition to running for President. She also has a better attendance record in Washington than Senators Obama or McCain.

If there are any real reporters still left, you may want to check into whether any other member of Congress have voted “present” 100 times and why Senator Obama will release a list showing who got earmarks in his district in 2007, but not for 2006 or 2005. Oh, ya, he is change we can believe in … change when it‘s convenient!



Filed under 2008 Election, Barack Obama, cable networks, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, political party, politics, Uncategorized

3 responses to “OBAMA . . . TALK IS CHEAP

  1. Pingback: OBAMA . . . TALK IS CHEAP

  2. Here’s what is happening to Mr. Obama, he wants to win. Badly. And so he is doing what most candidate do, and that is drifting on some of his stances because he sees an advantage for himself by doing so. Not thrilled to see this, but not surprised either.

  3. sportsone234

    Here’s the problem with Obama “drifting” on his stances. The Republicans won’t call it drifting, they’ll call his drifting “flip flopping” Anyone forget the numerous political ads used against Kerry and his “flip-flopping” in ’04?

    There are a lot of people who believe that Hillary shouldn’t be fiercely competing in order to win the nomination . . . because (sound of shock and horror) McCain & the Republicans will use her campaign ads against Obama if he ends up being the DP candidate for president. Horse hockey!

    You’d better believe the Republicans have their play book against him ready now. The real pros know they don’t need to use his middle name as a wedge issue. They only need to use his own words. IMHO, he’s sitting duck and doesn’t it. You think Hillary plays hard. Just wait.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s