I (and many others) have noticed over the last several months that Senator Obama seems to be the “Teflon” candidate. No matter what happened, nothing stuck. He got a free pass from the media on absolutely everything. He was propped up as the ‘golden’ candidate, despite having a dismally thin resume.
However, in the last few weeks, he has finally started coming under fire from even the media. The “Teflon” has apparently worn off. He has desperately tried to brush off the criticisms, but I believe many people are finally starting to see through the facade that he built.
Senator Obama is, without question, a great orator. He sounds fantastic when he delivers a speech. But what has he really said in those speeches? I haven’t personally heard much of a plan for America, plans for the economy, plans for Iraq. The only constant in his speeches is “change.” He’s going to “change” Washington, “change” America, and “change” politics. He delivers this speech to great fanfare, but never seems to explain what he means by “change.”
He has tried to paint himself as a different kind of politician, one who is above the fray of everyday “down and dirty” politics. But in recent weeks as he has come under fire for his dubious associations, his reaction has been that of the quintessential politician. He wants to brush off his relationships with less-than-stellar companions as “unimportant” to the American people, and, in my opinion, whine about actually being asked a serious question in a debate. Is someone who whines when confronted with a serious question actually qualified to “answer that phone at 3 a.m.”?
First, does it not seem arrogant to say in a speech following the last debate that it ‘took 45 minutes to get to anything that Americans are concerned about’, when the first 45 minutes concerned questions about his relationships with a racist pastor and a domestic terrorist? He even went so far as to say that he thought Americans were “smarter” than to think that his relationships with those folks would affect his own thinking, the inference apparently being that if you did think it might affect him, then you weren’t “smart”. I personally am very concerned that the man who would be President has a “friendly” relationship with a man who admittedly wishes he had done more in his domestic terrorism days.
And then there was the infamous gaffe about discontented Americans clinging to their guns and religion. He has tried to explain that away, but this also seems to be sticking.
My hope is that the last few weeks will show people that Senator Obama is fully unprepared to be President, that there is nothing on his resume that qualifies him, and that he is no different than any other politician. The fact that he sounds better doesn’t necessarily mean he has anything of substance to say.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Sep | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Obama is a populist. He is pandering to voters’ emotions. His economic “plan” for the country makes little sense. He wants to raise taxes just as the economy is showing signs of slowing down or contraction. “Hope” won’t help raise GDP or alleviate our economic woes.
There is no doubt that Obama has gotten more passes from the media than any candidate that I can remember. Then, when the questioners at the debate actually ask difficult questions, both Clinton and Obama throw a fit. Is that what Libs really want? Candidates that can only hit the change ups?