These are my thoughts on Barack Obama. I liked his speech at the Democratic Convention four years ago. I may disagree with most of the Democratic Party platform, but the speech was good and Obama seemed a likeable chap. Then he became a United States senator with a brief stint as a state senator first.
Senator Invisible is how I would describe his term in the Senate, at least until he decided to run for President. Um, but he wasn’t in office for two years before he made that decision. So it started me thinking about this guy who suddenly rose to prominence at the national level. I think people should be concerned, or at least more cautious.
Barack Obama has clearly been groomed for big things by his party. That is why they had him deliver that speech at the convention, but I’m not too sure the party expected him to be so successful so soon. Yet one must wonder about this wunderkind. Is he what he seems at first glance? Is he even what he says he is? How much can you truly know about any man through his speeches? After all, that is all we really have to go by because his actual legislative record is almost non-existent and he has no executive experience. He's just a smart eloquent guy. Ok, even that might be an improvement. Even I must admit that it would be nice to have a president who can link two or more sentences together in a single coherent thought using real words.
We need to ask, what is the “change” he keeps promising? All I’ve heard is raise taxes, “invest” in social programs, restrict trade and run away from Iraq. These seem to be the standard liberal themes in play. The only thing new on the table is the war. Apart from that, he seems to be offering the same old failed liberal policies. While bemoaning inner city problems, funding for schools and job programs, Obama ignored the abject failure prior liberal policies had addressing those social ills by “investment”. Perhaps if he wins the nomination, he will treat us to some specifics on his plans. Right now, it’s all vague generality. The only concrete proposal is running away from Iraq, which to me is simply a strike for naïveté of his part.
I am concerned that he associates with a pastor who is clearly divisive, while running on a “unity” platform. His speech in Philadelphia rang hollow to me. This is a man who claims that words are not empty, that they mean something, yet brushes aside divisive remarks by a close associate. I’m not convinced. In his speech he laid down a litany of American woe. By the time he finished, we were all victims of the standard evil lobbyists, Wall Street and the GOP. Sorry, I don’t believe I’m a victim.
A real message of racial healing would have included recognition of the real racial gains over the past forty years. That was not included in his speech. Instead, we heard an apology for why his pastor has all this deep-seated rage against the white man and America. Worse was to juxtapose Geraldine Ferraro’s recent remarks as the “other end” of the spectrum from Mr. Wright’s statements. Fact is, he would not be viable candidate if not for race, just as Ferraro would not have been on the ticket with Mondale had she not been female.
Now is the time to start carefully analyzing Obama’s words and his associations. I’m thinking he is not entirely who he claims. His wife and his pastor have both made disparaging remarks about America. Can we really believe that he shares none of their anger or hatred? I’m suspicious. I’m waiting and listening. It is shaping up to be a floor-fight at the Democratic Convention. Time will tell. Is anyone else looking a little closer?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I guess I'm unclear as to what your fear might be. Certainly, no one - least of all a political candidate - is who he or she seems. That's why there's fuss over releasing financial information and hacking into passport accounts.
Do you think that Obama as president will further exacerbate the racial debate? Put into legislation racially unfair policies?
If you're going by track record, Senator Clinton certainly has more to stand on. But I get the impression that you, yourself, wouldn't vote for Clinton or Obama, on party grounds. So what do you think of McCain? What is he hiding?
Aerin,
Well to start, the guy has yet to finish an elected term in anything. While in office he has done little of note. Hillary was far more active in her first two years in the Senate.
I have serious reservations about his foreign policy decisions, starting with his campaign pledge to set a date-certain withrawal date from Iraq.
Hillary simply has too much baggage. Again, she too is pandering to the electorate with her similar pledge to pull troops out of Iraq on a date-certain timeline. But if I were to choose between the two, I'd take Hillary...gag gag...yep I said it.
But, choosing between the three, I'd take McCain. Much longer and admirable track record. Liked by Democrats in the Senate. John Kerry tried to recruit him to jump parties to be his running mate in 2004, so that could augur well for getting things done.
Post a Comment