Where Have You Gone, Obamamania?
Look who is asking, Who Is Barack Obama?
Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park….
Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.
I said something similar in the very first post at this blog, on October 12, 2008:
Obama may be everything good, or the promise Obama embodies may just be a figment of our own imagination.
Obama is the perfect vehicle for imagining hope, because he has almost no record. Obama is a blank canvas upon which we can paint our imagined hope.
And again on October 19, 2008:
Barack Obama also reminds me of many lawyers I have dealt with in my career. He’s the smooth talking lawyer on TV who will get you “the settlement you deserve.” … He is a paper lawyer who fools only his own clients.
You see, I was against Obamamania before it was cool to be against Obamamania. Lucky me.
For these missives I earned this e-mail:
My final comment is that I am becoming increasing amused these days by the lengths that some McCain supporters like yourself are going to in this last days of the campaign in producing shallow pieces like your own in order to cover up their own bigotry.
The good news about pieces like yours is that they motivate those of us who arrived at supporting Obama for the reasons he would make a great president to work harder for him, now that we know people like you are out there hoping to spread our infectious viruses. Thanks for identifying yourself.
Why anyone would want to put a piece like you wrote in the public domain is beyond me.
So if I am a supposed racist bigot for questioning “Who is Barack Obama?,” what does that make the person who penned the article linked at the top of this post?
Follow me on Twitter and Face book
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Who is he? Why he's all of this, isn't he?
He has pledged he will withdraw all our military forces and aid and bring home all our P.O.W.’s in his first 90 days as President.
Under our present tax system, wealthy individuals and large corporations often pay little or no tax due to tax loopholes. This forces the average wage earner to pay more than his fair share in taxes.
By saving $52 billion through plugging tax loopholes and cutting wasteful military spending, and rechanneling this money into education, health care, housing, and other things our nation needs, he would create thousands of new jobs.
And to insure that no one need go jobless, he would recommend the creation of public service jobs for as many million heads of households who cannot otherwise earn enough to keep their families off welfare.
Senator believes that “the American people have the right to the most basic human rights — decent health care.” He is co-sponsor of the Health Security Plan introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy. It would provide more doctors and skilled medical technicians at a cost every American could afford.
Senator believes the most urgent moral priority in America today is to end racism in all its ugly forms.
Those positions all came from a 1972 campaign brocure….He's George McGovern
President Carter was a wonderful man – honest, compassionate, almost saintly…. but he was not the DNC "Establishnent" candidate. As I recall, the DNC wanted Ted Kennedy or Gary Hart. Carter came to Washington as a victim of his own purity – BECAUSE he didn't have a long record of dealmaking & trading favors, he didn't have many people in Congress who "owed him"… so Congress – Jim Wright – realized Carter had no leverage over them, and they would do whatever THEY wanted.
Now, we have the same story. Obama is the popular upstart without leverage, Hilary Clinton was the Establishment choice, Pelosi & Reid believe THEY are in charge.
Liberalism has painted itself into a corner. It NEEDS to prove that individual people – even in large groups – are less qualified to make policy decisions than the "experts" are. The public gives Congress about a 25% approval rating. IF Obama intends to honor his "populist mandate" by LISTENING to people (i.e., polls) and doing what they tell him, he MUST defy Congress. If Congress acquiesces to public sentiment, if they agree to do what WE want, they lose the power to do what THEY want. Their only hope is to try to convince us that we should want what they want for us – which is basically the job description of Axelrod & Plouffe.
I may have you beat on the being against Obamamania early 😉 I live in Mass, and we'd elected a smooth-talking, hope and change, nobody (politically speaking) with no experience to be our governor. Our local media drooled over him. He said nothing of substance but made a lot of lofty speeches about hope and change. He was a blank slate. The electorate was orgasmic at the sight and sound of him. The night before the election and the day of the election, a local news outlet finally began to pose the questions: what does he stand for? What are his policies? What is his agenda? Too late. We were stuck with Governor Patrick.
I've been ranting about BO since 2006 when it became clear that he was going to take a page from Patrick's playbook and even before Patrick himself proved to be an epic fail (saw that one coming, too). Sigh.
I read the blog Hyscience and I do know that they had quite a bit to say about "The Won" from the early days, so I was always aware that there were questions about him.
That being said, there are too many questions being left unanswered. My time is spent trying to put all the pieces together, and there are names that come up… these names are Marxists… Communists…. and they all influenced this man.
I do not believe that people were willing to listen to the truth last year, but the scales are falling off some eyes.
On the other hand, there are wonderful people, members or former members of the Democrats who were also very painfully aware that this man was nothing more than a fraud.
I hinted at some of those things in my last comment related to campaign funding. The man had more than $600 million in his war chest raised by PACs. I think this says something about the man. Likewise, the way he surrounds himself by people who are both radical and Marxist should tell people a lot about him.
Last July it would seem that people had not woken up. They were still very much doe eyed where this man is concerned. They were still into the "wait and see" belief…. they have not been willing to investigate the truth for themselves.
Whilst I am not a birther, and I see no value in calling for the long form birth certificate, I do think that what is on that certificate could give a few answers. I am more interested in his academic records for the very reason that he has a poor understanding of history, economics and the law.
All really good con men use their victim's credulity as their chief point of entry.
Look at Madoff, he behaved like a middle school queen bee, and people begged to give him money.
So it is with BO. Liberals conned themselves into believing that he was what they wanted him to be.
Anybody who wanted to know what he really was, had all of the information they needed to see that he was a socialist, anti-American, lazy, narcissistic, and had no executive experience nor talent.
We tried to warn them, but they stuck their fingers in their ears and sang I can't hear you as loudly as they could.
Now the clouds are parting. Say Bunky, can you answer one question for me? Tell me, just who is the rube?
Why if you oppose Obama are you accused of being a McCain supporter? McCain is a slightly less sickening version of Obama in my estimation and for that reason he lost the election.
Ohhhhhh snap! Well played, Professor, well played.