Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Breaking Down the Obama Myth

There's an incredible, yet unexplained, phenomenon in politics that simply baffles me. It's neither based on history, fact, logic or rational thought. It's largely propped up by infatuation and, in some cases, hysteria. It's the notion that Sen. Barack Obama is "the great uniter," bringing together America. The great healer. The one with the message that's resonating among so many diverse voters. The candidate Americans are clamoring for in their collective quest for change. There's only one problem with this perception: it's patently untrue.

The euphoria among some Democrats over Obama's ability to connect is terribly misguided and based on pure myth. This irrational exuberance is part of what some consider the Democrats' "problem" right now as we head into the primary season's fourth month without a clear victor. While I'm sure this piece will not make me too popular with about half of the Democrats out there, the other half will like it just fine. And that's my whole point. Because the simple truth is, Obama, unlike Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Carter and others before him, will not achieve the minimum number of delegates to win the nomination. He will be the first front-running Democratic candidate in modern history to go to the convention not having convinced enough voters to support him. Let's be real people, Obama has not united the party. Has not brought Democrats together. Just the opposite. Both he and Sen. Hillary Clinton have divided Democrats virtually straight down the middle. Obama's message has resonated with the rich, the educated, the progressives, blacks and white males. Hillary's connected with the traditional Democratic base: the poor, middle and working well as women, seniors and hispanics. And neither has been able to successfully penetrate the others' territory. Yet no one is really looking at the landscape from this perspective. So much Messianic-like praise is being lavished on Obama and, quite frankly, it's just plain undeserved.

While some Democrats believe we are in the most exciting presidential race in decades, others view it through the lens of misogyny, racism and Debbie Downer-like negativity. They say that this protracted battle between Clinton and Obama is ripping the party apart. I could not disagree more. Let's keep the proper perspective here. We are not in this battle because of Hillary Clinton's narcissism or her sense of entitlement, as some claim. We are in it because it ain't freakin' over yet. Because both Clinton and Obama have so far failed as candidates. Failed to reach the necessary majority unlike every Democratic nominee in decades before them. Failed to craft a universally-accepted platform. Failed to unite. Therefore, we're in this hotly contested race because Obama and Hillary each present a viable candidacy to only half the party. How then that Barack Obama has this JFK-like mythical aura surrounding him is truly puzzling.

There's also the belief among some that the Clinton/Obama slugfest is giving the GOP's John McCain the uncontested ability to campaign for the November election and gain ground with voters. If only this were true. If only Americans focused on the election eight months in advance. That's another fantasy. Want a dose of reality? Go into your workplace tomorrow and take an informal poll of 20 random people across socio-economic lines. Ask them what John McCain did last week. From some, you might get "John who?" And from the others, I think you'll be presently surprised.


Anonymous said...

Neither Democrats are uniters. This is very upsetting because we've wanted a uniter for years.

Half of the country absolutely hates Hillary Clinton.

Obama's voting record, when he wasn't merely voting 'present' is the most liberal. He has a 100% liberal rating.

Neither of these options are going to unite the country.

I'm voting for the moderate John McCain. McCain has a proven track record of reaching across the isle to work with Democrats. He is basically a Dem in regards to environmental, illegal immigration, etc.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Dem, but I know Obama will never win in November. We are looking at a President McCain.

Al Gore needs to save us big time.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Excellently written post, Andy. Bravo! However, you miss the entire point. He's viewed as a uniter because of his perceived ability to bring into the party disaffected Republicans and Independents and those who have never participated in politics. Furthermore, he has what historians call the "presidential voice." While Hillary will give you a laundry list of policy proposals, Obama will attempt to implement many of the same proposals, but will be better able to persuade the people by using his vast rhetorical abilities to capture the popular imagination, while speaking to us as adults. (And give speeches that will be read and studied by students and scholars for generations.) People call him a uniter because he pays much respect to those with whom he disagrees, and attempts to respectfully disarm them of partisan fervor, before going in for the coup de grace. The most successful presidents have had this ability. You base your entire post on an inaccurate view of the "uniter" argument. Also, don't forget that Hillary has near universal name recognition, so there's a great deal of comfortability with the Clinton brand among low educated, low income voters. Of course she had a natural advantage among people who pay little attention to the horse race. These people will come around once Obama secures the nomination. Come November, nearly all Hillary's supporters would support Obama (and don't throw any recent poll at me as emotions will subside come the fall and people will be worried about McCain's expressed inability to grasp basic economics).

Additionally, your historical analogy to JFK is inapposite. You say, "[h]ow then that Barack Obama has this JFK-like mythical aura surrounding him is truly puzzling."
First, JFK was not deemed a uniter, so his relevancy to this post is suspect. Recall that he barely eked out a victory over Nixon in 1960, and owed much to Mayor Daly's shenanigans. Second, if there's a parallel to JFK, it's because of Obama's ability to inspire people with his words and to capture the imagination of the young, thereby giving them a sense of civic spirit. Obama has achieved this, whereby Hillary has not. Along these lines, Obama has matched the JFK standard.

Trust me, when all is said and done, Obama will be the nominee and he will unite the Democrats, and many independents and Republicans of this nation. You may not swoon for him, Andy, as the throngs of college aged "zealots" and latte-sipping liberals and even former Republicans, like myself. But once Hillary's candidacy recedes into distant memory, and you and other Clinton supporters have the opportunity to really take in Obama's strengths, you'll come away with greater admiration and respect, even if you guys don't swoon like the zealots.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who votes for McCain is not paying attention. Why would you vote for someone who has clearly stated he will continue the Bush agenda?

Please wake up. McCain is not the radical he use to be. Don't you remember him sucking up to Bush in 2004? How could you forget them hugging all over the place?

Anonymous said...

andy's right Obama is not a uniter,Obama supporters are using the fact that because independents and republicans say they voted for obama in the primary,they'll vote for them in the fall.BULL,ain't gonna happen,these same people who call obama a uniter use the above fact to claim he's a uniter in some states and use the same independents and republican cross overs to make it look like they voted for clinton in the cross over vote where obama lose's,the only reason you have republicans crossing over is to keep the dem. primary going,it's to their advantage,your being played

Sidney Condorcet said...

"the only reason you have republicans crossing over is to keep the dem. primary going,it's to their advantage,your being played."

God, how cynical are you? Furthermore, how would you know that this is the "only reason"? So you speak for the hundreds of thousands of Republicans who have voted for Obama in the primaries? You can safely say for sure that this cynical ploy was the ONLY thing driving them, especially as many of them voted in January and February, long before anyone expected it to drag on this long? Your argument is pathetically weak and generalized, and so undeserving of attention.

Anonymous said...

The reason this race has gone down to the wire, unlike prior Democratic nomination processes, is because there have been two excellent choices. In 2004 there were none.

Gore blew 2000, and look at the results with Dukaksis, Mondale and Carter. Thank God this time IS different.

Two very good candidates. Down to the wire. Unless there is a big surprise/crisis, Obama will have more popular vote and more delegates, the Super's will follow the lead of the people and he will win.

I repeat. Quit being poor sports.

If Hillary supporters fail to support Barack after he has won fair and square, that's a different issue.

And, if you can't acknowledge that Barack Obama has the charisma and natural leadership we've not seen since the Kennedy brothers, you are not being honest with yourself or anyone else.

Anonymous said...

10:14's post is not that unrealistic. I can say that I am fueling both sides of the Democrat fight on various blogs and will never vote for either of these Dem candidates because they are both too weak to be President.

I have to say its kind of fun watching the peace-at-all-cost liberals tear each other apart while their candidates spend all their money on the primary. It's too easy to make Democrats fight each other.

Sidney Condorcet said...

"Too weak to be President"?

You may want to check out McCain's response to the mortgage crisis. It was the very definition of WEAK. McCain is WEAK on nearly every domestic policy issue. And if you think that his unflagging support for a disastrous war means he is STRONG, then you are WEAK-minded...Apparently, you think that people who have poor judgment and throw around military might and waste American dollars and lives, are "strong." Sheesh, quit sniffing glue, son.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Wow, you certainly have a sense of proportion, don't you? You compare apples to thermonuclear weapons. I mention McCain's continued poor judgment and WEAKNESS about a HUGE foreign policy blunder that will have cost us thousands of american lives and THREE TRILLION DOLLARS, while accomplishing NOTHING postive, and you throw back at me Obama's pastor who has said a few foul, insensitive remarks? Unless Rev. Wright personally killed thousands of people and/or stole trillions of dollars from the US treasury, the analogy is COMPLETELY RETARDED. Clearly, you do not care about what becomes of our country, as evidenced by your devotions to McCain (who has failed to educate himself about our economic woes, and wishes to invade Iran, and wishes to stay in Iraq for a hundred years).

Anonymous said...

Clearly, Al Qaeda grew, planned, and attacked us without fear of retaliation during the previous Democrat administration. Thousands of lives were lost due the previous Democrat administration's lack of action.

Obama's Hate Preacher is some of the only testament to the judgement that Obama is claiming to have. His voting record shows that most of his votes were 'present'. He couldn't take a stand on issues. Where was his judgement?

Maybe you don't think removing Saddam Hussein was a positive. Maybe you also don't believe that the millions of Iraqis who voted freely was a positive either. Your sense of proportion can be easily challenged. Even your peers on this blog have made substantial challenges to your logic.

And by the way, lets not forget Bill Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. If Iraq was such a positive place before 2003, please tell me why the previous Democrat administration signed this bill.

Lets also not forget that while we are spending more money now, we were spending over a billion a month during the previous Democrat administration. Remeber the no fly zones? What was the exit strategy? Remember our Air Force being shot at? Remember Operation Desert Fox and it's clearly documented goals?

Democrats are trying to pretend that Bush screwed up a perfect world. Somehow you think that by sticking our head in the sand everything will go away. 9/11 happened because the previous Democrat administration failed to act.

Remember TWA Flight 800? You want to go back to terrorist attack coverups?

Sidney Condorcet said...

In pre-invasion Iraq, most Iraqi citizens had electricity all day. Today, most residents of baghdad are allowed an hour of electricity all day. Even government meetings are subject to the rationing of energy. Pre-invasion Baghdad had a functioning sewer system. Today, human waste often flows in the streets. Voting is nice. I'm glad they excercised the right to vote. But millions of Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. The country teeters on the brink of civil war. The nation lacks basic vital services that they had under Saddam. I'm sure most Iraqis would trade their right to vote for working toilets and sewer systems, energy to light their homes and streets, and peace (as opposed to finding headless bodies in the streets.)

Last time I heard, the no fly zones and sanctions did not cost thousands of American lies, trillions of american dollars and our diminished standing in the world, so your logic is flawed.

You're right, though, that Bush didn't screw up a "perfect world." He just made an imperfect world even more chaotic and perilous. Your tired Neocon arguments have been relegated to the status of outright buffonery by reality and the march of events. You and your ilk at the Project for a New American Century wanted an American Empire, well, you've got it. But you've also mismanaged it to disastrous consequences. Without political reconciliation, Iraq will revert to civil war whether we leave next year or 20 years from now. The longer we wait, the more resources and lives we waste. The NeoCons have sacrificed America's honor and name on the altar of imperial hubris.

Anonymous said...

I have to say that I'm somewhat disappointed in your response. You resorted to name calling.

There are safe former soviet countries that don't have electricity all day and have rationed electricity and septic services. Your sense of proportion has now been radically challenged. You think humans would rather be ruled by an evil dictator as long as they have electricity and western quality sewage services?

Saddam's rule resulted in just as many or more Iraqi deaths as the current war. Include Iranian deaths and the ruler that you prefer for Iraq is comparable to Hitler.

If you respond, feel free to leave out the baseless name calling. Just because I disagree with your politics does not make me a Neocon. I'm surprised that I would have to tell this to an attorney.

Sidney Condorcet said...


Since you are fond of committing American lives and resources to purging the world of "evil dictators", and you think it's America's business and right to invade other nations to toss of the yolk of oppression on behalf of the oppressed who did not rise up themselves, please illuminate me as to where and how we invade next? How do you deal with the slippery slope of your argument? Why havent we (and should we?) invaded North Korea, Russia, many of those ex-Soviet republics of which you speak fondly, though many are run by little dicators, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and on and on and on. That's the major flaw in the NeoCon argument vis-a-vis the Iraq invasion. Whatever happened to the Republican realist foreign policy? It is not in our national interest to invade other nations just because their leader is a despot. And yes, I do believe that humans would rather not wade through human feces and die as a result of endless sectarian violence. Tito in Yugoslavia was a despot, but he also managed to hold that nation together and prevented the civil war that ravaged the territory in the 1990s. The fight for freedom, if it is to be successful, must be organic. In Iraq, it was imposed on them by an arrogant Bush administration who tried to play God in the middle east. I'm afraid we'll now be sifting through the sands of Arabia for generations with little benefit to American interests. I'm sorry if I care more about America's own self-interest than you do. We'll be paying off our chinese and singapore investors for a generations because of this little Three Trillion Dollar boondoggle that you're so proud of.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Of course I meant the "yoke of oppression" rather than the "yolk"...The only ones with yolk on their face are the remaining 20-odd percent of the American public who believe the Iraq misadventure was justified.

Anonymous said...

Add this to another one of your anti-Obama rants, Andy.

You exhibit Clintonesque traits in being artfully avoiding any major post wherein you state your case endorsing Hillary. Instead, all you do is bang, bang, bang on Obama. I guess if he is nominated, you'll play like the NY Times, who editorially skewered Clinton to the point that no one in their right mind who did so would ever consider endorsing him, but endorse him they did.

I suppose you've played the Clinton nuance game regarding your devotion to Hillary because if you do come right out and endorse her in a major piece, fairness would dictate that you'd have to tick off her weaknesses and a clear statement of those make it clear that she'd be one of the most unelectable people since McGovern.

The woman is a liar par excellence. She has poor character, she has little commitment to any ideology beyond advancing her own personal selfish cause, and cares little about the party other than using it as a vehicle for herself.

Write about that, why don't you? Write about the fact that she'd kneecap her mother to win the nomination if that's what it took.

I'd love to see some balance in these parts for once.

The Ostroy Report said...

Anon 12:26 writes....
"The woman is a liar par excellence. She has poor character, she has little commitment to any ideology beyond advancing her own personal selfish cause, and cares little about the party other than using it as a vehicle for herself....she'd kneecap her mother to win the nomination if that's what it took."

Alas, we agree! But if you think your description doesn't apply to every other politician in the history of politics, you are truly quite naive.

Anonymous said...

Now I "speak fondly" of former soviet countries because I stated that some have rationed electricity and septic services?

You are falling apart quickly.

You question if we should invade North Korea. Have you ever heard of the word "armistice"? Why would I invade North Korea right now? I'm also not sure why I would invade Russia, former soviet countries, and so on and so forth.

Your line of attack assumes that anyone who disagrees with you must be a neocon and your credibility is fading fast. I should also point at that you make no attempt to even comment on the facts of my previous posts. Your rants are becoming silly and tangential.

Anonymous said...

love it,love it,I just love it. the great uniter.DON'T YOU MEAN THE GREAT DIVIDER.Sidey hates hillary so much anything and anything he can throw at her he does,if 10% of what he throws is true he points to the 10 and tells you the other 90% has to be true,which we know isn't and the greatest news a republican could hope for has become reality,hillary clinton said she will stay in the race for atleast 3 more months.With Obama supports spreading their hate and some even making death threats to hillary supporters,What more could a republican ask for,well that was deleivered by hillary yesterday by bringing up Obama's preacher all you democrates have a circler firing squad or is just this cycle.You people took a 65% win and turned it into 3% loss to mccain

Anonymous said...


If you say really believe that Clinton is just like all other politicians, then there is nothing to distinguish her - especially when the outcome is a bloody divisive war that puts our party at risk in the Fall.

But you really can't believe that Clinton is no different than other politicians when it comes to truth telling - every poll out there gives McCain and Obama huge leads over Hillary on the issue of personal honesty and integrity.

And then there are seniors from the party who know it:

“Clinton’s an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?” Bob Kerrey [D-Neb.], Esquire, 1/96).

Now that was Bill he was talking about, but you don't believe for one minute that there is a hairwidth worth of difference between the two on the issue of personal integrity.

Face it - this woman is a world class liar. She and her husband are committed solely to their own quest for power and the ideology that is important to us comes a distant second, if that at all.

Anonymous said...

Polls are so much BS but here's one for you to chew on Andy,

"According to the just-released poll, 28 percent of Clinton's supporters would back McCain should the New York senator lose her quest for the Democratic nomination. That compares to the 19 percent of Obama supporters who say they will favor McCain should Clinton be the party’s nominee."

Way to go Clintonistas! You're all such real, devoted Democrats!

Anonymous said...

Seriously! DEMOCRATS have gone to the polls and at this point are supporting Obama BY A MAJORITY.

One thing you continually gloss over Andy is that democracies vote by SIMPLE MAJORITIES. We are not a parliamentary system.

The fact that all these alleged Democrats will jump ship because their candidate lost in a clean and fair manner is pathetic.

Anonymous said...

yes, we live in a democracy not a parliamentary govt. but not, in the dem's primary process, we dont have a "simple majority" vote. you are DEAD wrong. we have a system of delegates, and a candidate needs a minimum number to be nominated. and yes, when that number isnt reached, the party's own parliamentary style system (superdelegates) kicks in. you can rant all you want and kick and scream and say we are this or say we are that, but what i described above are the current rules of the democratic party. the same rules every dem candidate has won by since the fifties I think.

Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sidney Condorcet said...

"Your line of attack assumes that anyone who disagrees with you must be a neocon..."

Not at all. I assume you are a neocon based upon your statements that Iraq was a worthwhile endeavor because Sadam was a despot, that it was a success as evidenced by the fact that Iraqis were given the right to vote. I assume you are a neocon because you minimize the costs of this war by comparing it to the era of no-fly zones and sanctions. I assume you are a neocon because you dont even bother to superficially gloss over the costs to the Iraqi public, i.e. the tens of thousands of dead, the hundreds of thousands of wounded, the millions of refugees, that members of the professional classes (doctors, teachers, lawyers, bureaucrats...) whose presence is necessary to a stable nation have fled the nation in waves, the complete laying to waste of Iraq's infrastructure, the rise in internecine strife, the lack of security. Sure, Iraq wasn't a paradise before our invasion, but by invading it, we completely destroyed a country whose people neither requested our assistance nor rose up on their own initiative. The fact that you do not seem to even take seriously the tragedy of that Iraq has become and that it has imperiled our nation's ability to project force in another part of the world should it be needed, causes me to assume you're a neocon. That you don't even care that America will be paying the tab for this war for at least two-three generations, and that it will hinder our ability to afford to tackle other major issues, such as health care, energy independence, social security, education, and rebuilding our own infrustructure, is just further proof that you are another blind cheerleader of a war that has doomed the nation that we love. That you choose to minimize all of these grave concerns, while in the same breath impeaching the honor of Senator Obama over of a few patently absurd statements uttered by his Pastor, renders your own character and judgment questionable.

Prius said...

Once again Andy hit the nail on the head, Andy you really are good. What is going to happen is anyone's guess, Dean has this thing so screwed up he doesn't know what to do. The media keep hammering that Hillary "can't win", to that I say, why can't she? They need 2,025 delegates, those are the rules and since Dean insists on playing by "the rules", then the rules stand. With out our votes here in Florida and those in Michigan the 2,025 mark will never be reached.

Dean and the powers that run our state and Michigan mucked this all up and now they don;t have a clue how to set things straight. With every day that passes it only gets worse but I'm done worrying about it, I cast my vote here and that is all I can do. Writing to the DNC and the candidates fell on deaf ears.

My biggest concern is that the hurt will run deep on both sides and people will be so pissed that they will think, "What the hell is the use?" Then McPain (Bush) gets the White House and we have 4 more years of this crap. I can only hope that the party members get so pissed at McPain that they say, "What the hell, I'll vote for whoever is the Democratic candidate, I just can't let McPain get in." This is how I'll feel, we JUST CAN NOT let the Bush people back in office, no matter what.

Anonymous said...


This is the truth: there is the pre-WRIGHT lead for Obama and the post-WRIGHT evaulation of OBama by the voters. Had those who gave him his ascendency early on known about Wright, Obama would not have ever acquired to many popular votes or delegates.

He is no longer considered a savior or a viable president for America. Everything has changed. People should not base their opinion that he is unstoppable on his early victories.

Now, he cannot win

Anonymous said...

I recommend the following Glen Greenwald article, and the Charlie Rose interview embedded within, discussing the fact that the American media does not give you the full picture of Iraq:

Anonymous said...

Indeed, primary contests are not entirely about simple majorities.

So let's just look at the math.

Obama currently has a 167-vote lead among pledged delegates. There are 566 pledged delegates yet to be selected. To overcome Obama's lead, Clinton must win just under 65% of all remaining pledged delegates. That just isn't going to happen.

If you look at the states in question you see why the math is so daunting. Let's say for the sake of argument that Obama doesn't win any other state. Assume he gets only 50% in the states where he has an advantage or is tied in the polls (North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Montana and Indiana). Then let's assume Hillary blows Obama out -- and gets 70% in each of the states where she has an advantage in the polls (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky, and also Puerto Rico). And we'll throw in Guam for good measure.

Even in that unlikely situation, Hillary STILL doesn't catch Obama. She makes up only 122 of her 167 pledged-delegate deficit.

But despite these FACTS of where we are now in a fair battle, her minions appear to be preaching louder and louder that they far prefer a Republican over the Democratic nominee. Welcome to Lieberman Land!

Blaming Howard Dean for Clinton's losses is ridiculous.

Sidney Condorcet said...

As much as I fear that the selection of Hillary as VP would tarnish the Obama brand and alienate the independents and republican crossovers that have come out for Obama, I think Obama just needs to suck it up and announce publicly that Hillary is his choice for Vice President.

Anonymous said...

Do you just make shit up as you go? You are now claiming that I am a neocon based on statements that I never made. Did they ever teach you reading comprehension in law school?

Where on Earth did you find "your statements that Iraq was a worthwhile endeavor because Saddam was a despot, that it was a success as evidenced by the fact that Iraqis were given the right to vote." ??

You invented these statements after I pointed out your flawed logic and your use of absolutes in your statement that "NOTHING postive" came out of the Iraq invasion. I pointed out two positives that you claim did not happen. To quote myself (when quoting, remember to use statements that were actually made), "Maybe you don't think removing Saddam Hussein was a positive. Maybe you also don't believe that the millions of Iraqis who voted freely was a positive either..."

You have no ethics and this thread shows that when faced with facts you cannot intelligently debate, you will make stuff up and resort to calling names.

Good job, lawyer. How's it feel to be one step above politician when it comes to occupations organized by slime factor?

Anonymous said...

Sidney,that will never happen.Too many people of your way of thinking blew that out the door weeks ago.No one in their right mind would join a ticket where the other side threw death threats at them,called them every name in the book and do you really think she'd take that ride.Be a cold day in hell before that happens

Anonymous said...

5:21, Oh gosh, it's the "death threats" guy. I'm 100% positive that neither Senator Obama nor his campaign threatened the lives of Clinton and her supporters. If the choice is VP or Senator from NY, Hillary will likely take VP.

As for the only Iraq supporter who isn't affiliated with the Bush Administration, it was you who initially compared Obama's poor judgment on Wright with poor judgment as to a collosal failure of a war. I do not feel the need to justify the manner of my argument to someone who thinks along such patently ridiculous lines. Your continued inability to acknowledge that the magnitude of Bush/Cheney/McCain/Clinton's failure in judgment dwarfs Obama's error vis-a-vis Wright means you are not a serious, reasonable thinker. Your continued fealty to the war and its proponents makes your criticism of Hillary's or Obama's judgment ring hollow.

You seem awfully consumed by my occupation, but sadly I am at a loss as to yours. I'll assume, however, that most of your day's work involves falling off turnip trucks.

Anonymous said...

It came out of Ms farrorro's own mouth on fox news,

Sidney Condorcet said...

So? It's not like an Obama campaign sanctioned threat. I think you're making a bigger deal of this than it is. The Clinton campaign isn't even making an issue of this, and the Clinton campaign makes an issue of everything...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:40,
A translation is needed on your statement, "it was you who initially compared Obama's poor judgment on Wright with poor judgment as to a colossal failure of a war."

Obama does not have a clear track record at all. He voted 'present' on most of his opportunities to take a stand on issues. When he did vote, he got a 100% liberal rating, so he's not a uniter by any standard.

Obama's judgment is one of the 'assets' that his campaign has decided to promote. I want to know where his judgment has been documented.

- His lack of judgment is clear when he sat for 20 years in the pews of the Hate Preacher.

- His judgment is in question by his inability to take a stand on issues.

- He never had the opportunity to take stand, like Hillary did, regarding a vote for or against the Iraq invasion.

So if I can't reference the Hate Preacher, tell me where he showed LEADERSHIP and decision making abilities as well as where/when he showed that he has the judgment to run this country. You won't find any of these answers in his track record.

At least Hillary has a track record and you know what you are going to get. Obama is a marvelous orator in an empty suit.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Sidney, It doesn't matter if Obama ordered the threats or if those with his campagin ordered them. The fact that the people in this country who support Obama, and there are many, are terrorists who want to get their way by threats and consequent violence. Obama obviously has not united the population.

And, what do you have against people who raise turnips, and drive them to market in trucks? You Obama elitists are blatent snobs and closet threateners.

Sidney Condorcet said...

10:54pm, is yet another republican troll. He says that many Obama supporters are terrorists and then takes a commonly used metaphor regarding gullibility (falling off a turnip truck) as an elitist comment against turnip farmers. I made a mistake responding to this guy, let's all do our best to ignore him from now on.

Anonymous said...

Once again you let your bullshit get the best of you. You have no more evidence that 10:54 is a 'republican troll' than evidence that 10:54 is a fanatic Clintonista.

You obviously are not a civil rights lawyer. Your McCarthy tactics are becoming very predictable.