More indications that Obama thinks he’s already President
Here’s another fine quote, this one about Obama’s address in Berlin to mulitudes:
“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.
“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.
“He is going to talk about the issues as an individual ”¦ not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator,” the adviser added.
This is such transparent garbage that my only explanation is that the unnamed adviser realized almost immediately that he/she had placed his/her foot in a big heaping pile of stinking doo-doo, and was trying desperately to extricate it but could not think of a single convincing rhetorical device to do so.
Earth to Obama: You are not President. Please stop acting as though you are. And since what you are is a candidate running for office, every public thing you do is part of your campaign.
“This is such transparent garbage that my only explanation is that the unnamed adviser realized almost immediately that he/she had placed his/her foot in a big heaping pile of stinking doo-doo”
Ah yes, my guess is that s/he has already committed suicide from the sheer humiliation. Probably offed his or her entire family too, just to spare them the disgrace.
SD: if you can’t see the posturing of this world tour as Obama’s campaign assumes he is POTUS already, then you really need to open your eyes and mind a bit.
I was noticing a few weeks back that it looked like in BHO’s mind the coronation had already occurred. The world tour certainly smells like he thinks he’s POTUS and meeting all those heads of state. I wonder if this fantasy wil finally tripp him up.
Have any of you seen the deal on Hardball yesterday where Andrea Mitchell told about how the campaign while BHO is in Europe is FAKING press interviews? Thye bring out a tape that looks like BHO is answering questions, but it is all faked. If someone like Andrea Mitchell is beginning to smell a rat, will the rest of MSM come to their senses??
physicsguy: Missed that one on MSNBC. Used to check in for Hardball every once in a while, but when it began to seem as if anyone appearing had to have sold his soul to the Obama-ites first, I just could not abide the nonsense.
Once upon a time, Hardball was hardball, and the show was pretty good, especially in big election years, even with some partisanship evident at times. Now it’s just an ooh and ahhh fawning fest for BO…
(I’ll quit there because once I get started, it’s not gonna’ be pretty……)
neo:
“Earth to Obama: You are not President. Please stop acting as though you are.”
I think he’s mentally prepping his army of followeres by pre-adopting the sense of entitlement he and they are going to need just incase the electoral college puts McCain ahead by 1 point.
Remember that Obama essentially won the nomination in February, and then spent the rest of the primaries basically running out the clock with a lead, while Hillary kept winning contests, but never by enough to pull even. He may be trying to set up the same dynamic for the general election.
Alternatively, perhaps Change We Can Believe Inâ„¢ only works if everyone acts as if it has already come to pass; you have to live today in the future you want for it to actually happen tomorrow.
Which could make for an interesting four years, no?
McCain should publicly offer Obama a new cabinet position as Chief Community Advisor. A major humor initiative is called for to expose this hilarious fool and his parishioners in the next 100 days.
Excuse me, but I don’t quite see the colossal arrogance of a candidate for president wanting to look and act presidential, to show the voters he can do the job. I read the subtext of the comment “neo” indignantly quotes as saying that Senator Obama intended to show off what he could do as president, rather than trying to stump for support among expatriate Americans in Berlin.
I have to wonder if the interpretation of particular phrases used by a campaign staffer might matter less if reality hadn’t kept letting the McCain campaign down.
Maybe this explains the 8-10 years comment. If we date his presidency from the time he announced he was running, we’re getting close to the 9-10 year mark, right?
“Excuse me, but I don’t quite see the colossal arrogance of a candidate for president wanting to look and act presidential, to show the voters he can do the job.”
The problem is that he seems focused on the imagery of being President, but not the substance. Empty suit. People do want to see a man (or woman) demonstrate a leadership quality worthy of a President, call it ‘being Presidential’ if you like, but seeing someone ‘play’ at being President is unseemly.
I mean, the man outright lied today trying to look important in Israel:
“Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”
The problem here being that he is NOT a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, or any of it’s subcommittees.
This says something about the man, and it’s not good.
I wondered why the “empty suit” characterization has not received more attention until I realized that the suits of the media, with a few exceptions, are so empty that they are as or more empty of content. It is more a reflection of how lacking in content the political scene is, that a person of such limited acomplishment and experience could very well become the Captain of the American ship of state. If Mr. McCain cannot select a reasonable and energetic running mate, and finally mount a very agrressive campaign, an Obama Presidency and acontinued Democratic congressional dominance will be very hurtful to the America’s economy and world position.
it says he has slips of the tongue, since according to Thomas, he may not sit on the committee, but he actually sponsored the legislation. The implication that he exaggerated his role in this bill, an implication pushed in a sloppy or dishonest manner in the conservative media really has no merit.
Read a web log such as Obsidian Wings that supports Senator Obama, and you will find careful analysis of the political situation in Iraq, Iran and Western Asia as a whole. You will also find careful dissection of the candidates’ actual proposals on taxes, particularly in relation to the US deficit and the cost of the war.
He sponsored a bill that went through the committee, and the committee is “his”? That’s a pretty peculiar ‘slip of the tongue’. Clearly, he was trying to make himself look more important and influential. I mean, he made it sound like he was the chairman. Odd thing is he really didn’t need to. It’s also interesting that the legislation he mentioned (s1430) only legislates divestiture on companies with over $20million in investments, and only in the energy sector. Little semblance to the divestiture pushes with South Africa. It also (according to THOMAS) has NOT been passed out of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee- it’s still in committee. Perhaps THOMAS just isn’t updated yet? Well, no. Turns out the bill that was passed, wasn’t HIS bill, it was another Iran divestiture bill, which apparently did utilize a couple of provisions Obama had written in his bill. Interestingly, he did not even vote on it. It is a stretch of the facts sufficient to be called a lie in my opinion. You can defend it all you like, but tell me: What if McCain had made a similar ‘gaffe’? How would you treat that?
douglas: He’s not even a member of the commitee the bill comes from.
Oh, I know. My saying he made it sound like he was the chairman was just pointing out how egregious the ‘misstatement’ was.
Hell, with the short time he’s been in the Senate, and the little time he has physically spent there, he probably can’t even find the committee room without directions.
If he sticks around a little longer, he’ll figure out that you only have to follow the money trail.
He’s way ahead of you. That’s how he rose in Chicago as a ward heeler in the first place.
Obama’s Experience is not sufficient to be President
Would you let a first grade teacher teach a class in a graduate school?
The answer is absolutely not.
Our political system is complex and full of pitfalls. You must have experience in order to maneuver in Washington politics.
In order to accomplish any policy changes, implement campaign promises — one must know the political ropes it takes to pass any legislation.
PS.
The big issue with Obama’s policy changes; the central question is, “Who is the real Barack Obama?” I see the recent focus on “flip-flops” as misplaced, both because the term isn’t very helpful and because voters aren’t surprised by politicians who change their positions. More importantly, it doesn’t highlight the more damaging question: “When will Obama change his position again?” That question forces voters to consider the possibility that Obama is an unknown, is dishonest, or lacks the experience to know where he stands on issues. Like a used-car salesmen who tells you a price in the parking lot, only to change it when you sit down at his desk, Obama is similarly trying to find the right sales pitch to get you to commit to him, even if he’s a lemon. Obama’s critics need to put the possibility of more Obama policy changes front and center, driving voters to choose the more reliable and consistent McCain over the trendy, untested Obama.
Many notes that “the Republican National Committee, in a statement cataloguing some half-dozen recent Obama ‘flip-flops,’ threw up its hands without offering answers,” that challenge should quickly be overcome by a campaign that catalogues Obama’s frequent and conflicting policy positions and does so while raising questions such as: “When will Obama change his position again? On Election Day? In the Oval Office? Or perhaps during unconditional meetings with our enemies? Can Obama, who touts change, be trusted to not change his positions again?” Perhaps most critically, Obama’s critics need to make clear that a political campaign is not the place where America wants its leaders developing their expertise and their positions, and the presidency is not the place for on-the-job training. McCain is experienced, tested, and consistent; Obama is inexperienced, untested and inconsistent. No amount of hope can change those facts.
Second, the campaign must drive home the details of Obama’s inexperience. This should be tied to the policy changes highlighted above. Many states that Obama has 4 years of experience in the U.S. Senate. That’s common rounding, but it’s inaccurate, and Obama’s critics should stop doing it, because it distracts from his dearth of experience (and the significance of his policy changes during his short tenure). On Election Day Obama will have just 3 years and 10 months of experience as a U.S. Senator. It was after just 1 year and 10 months working as a senator that he started eyeing the presidency (as alluded to on Meet the Press). Then, just 2 years and 12 days into his job as a senator, he formed his presidential exploratory committee.
Obviously, I’m splitting hairs by breaking his experience down into days and months – which is precisely the point. If Obama needs the benefit of a few months or days of rounding to seem ready to be commander-in-Chief, he’s got a serious experience problem. Moreover, if he can’t stay consistent during those short 3 years and 10 months, he has a serious experience problem coupled with a serious judgment problem. I did a little informal poll amongst friends, and most of them did not know that Obama had just 2 years of experience as a senator before deciding to run for president. They probably didn’t know that because it has not been consistently repeated. Saying Obama is inexperienced when he’s up against someone like McCain, with decades of experience, is one thing, but Obama’s inexperience is more than just comparative, it’s inexperience – period. No matter which way you frame it, 2 years and 12 days or 3 years and 10 months, both are facts which should be repeated until every voter knows them by heart.
So, given this lack of experience, one would expect some serious accomplishments from Obama during his 3 year and 10 month tenure, accomplishments that would merit nominating him to be president. However, no such record of accomplishments exists. He racked up the Senate’s most liberal voting-record rating and a one-page résumé lacking in leadership experience, not exactly presidency-worthy accomplishments. Of course, in fairness, that’s not what Obama is running on. He’s running on his ability to inspire us, to bring about “change.” Given his vaunted ability to inspire, one would think he would have a legislative record to speak of. But he doesn’t. In his time in the Senate, his ability to inspire his colleagues ensured that just two bills he sponsored were signed into law. One can hope for change, but based on Obama’s record, it doesn’t seem that much is forthcoming.
Now, granted, Obama also has state legislative experience. But how many of us can even name our state senator, let alone confidently say that he or she should be the next President? Local government is great (in fact, I prefer it), but it’s not a proxy for the ability to lead a nation. The 13th legislative district of Illinois, where Obama was a state senator until the end of 2004, has a population of 112,599 (per State Senator Raoul’s office). That’s on par with a city like Peoria, Illinois. Now I’m sure that Mayor Ardis of Peoria is a great public servant, but I’m not about to nominate him for President without some significant leadership experience on national issues – even if Peoria is a community, a region and hometown as unique as its name. Similarly, Obama’s work as a state senator and his 3 years and 10 months as a U.S. senator are not sufficient substitutes for true national experience.
Which highlights the final point. In view of his non-existent record, Obama’s words must merit greater scrutiny because they are the only remaining measure voters have for what Obama believes. Those words have been woefully inconsistent over the totality of Obama’s short career, and are full of generalities like “hope” and “change.” In fact, the only consistent theme in his campaign is one policy change after another. All politicians modify their positions (including McCain), but usually those changes take place over a few years and as circumstances dictate. Obama’s changes on dozens of issues came about in just three and a half years and not for policy reasons, but for political gain.
Obama’s game of musical chairs is filled with the hope that he’ll be sitting in the right place when the Election Day music stops. His critics need to make clear that sitting in the President’s chair is not a game. Consistency and credibility both matter when dealing with enemies and allies. Obama’s 3 years and 10 months of inexperience – filled with generalities, uncertainty, and frequent policy changes – should be a unified theme of his critics. If Obama can’t maintain consistent policies over just a few short years, how can he possibly command the respect of our troops, win the support of our allies, and deter our enemies?