Sphere: Related Content
If you believe the hype, and it’s obvious that many Americans do, then you have come to believe that Barack Obama is a new kind of politician.
You believe that he can unite the nation, despite the fact that he holds political views, that are to the left of those held by the vast majority of Americans.
You believe that he can work across party lines, despite the fact that he has no history of doing so in any meaningful way, over the course of his political career.
Most importantly, you trust him.
When compared to Hillary Clinton, any American politician appears to be a beacon of integrity, and Obama has benefited immensely from the media’s kid glove coverage and his supporter's glorification of his supposed above the fray political style.
However, recently those who follow politics closely have begun to see shades of a more typical pol, peeking out from under the Obama halo.
Questions regarding the candidate’s honesty and the manipulation of facts in order to further his political goals are piling up and the Obamaniacs in the media can’t ignore them forever.
First there was the denial of having been in the pews when Jeremiah Wright made his now infamous inflammatory comments about America.
When asked about this before the scandal blew up Obama said:
“The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.”
When broken down, this statement is probably true, but why didn’t Obama come out and tell us that he had heard other inflammatory statements throughout his twenty-year patronage of the church. He just hadn’t heard those particular statements that were being repeatedly broadcast on cable news and being sold in the church gift shop.
He knew perfectly well that while the statement was carefully phrased so as to be very specific to the comments in question, the American public all interpreted the statement as a flat out denial of Obama having ever heard his pastor say anything which would offend the patriotic sensibilities of most Americans.
It was a political calculation. Obama only admitted having heard his pastors disturbing sermons, once he realized that the story wasn’t going away. But there’s no doubt that he knew that the man was political poison. Why else would he have specifically uninvited his own pastor to stand with him, when he announced his candidacy in 2007?
Next, Obama as well as a few other Democratic spin doctors have made a big deal out of a recent John McCain statement, but have taken it completely out of context in order to make McCain seem like a Warmonger.
Obama has said repeatedly at rallies “John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years.”
But McCain never said that. Obama was adamant that we not take his pastor’s, clearly anti-American and conspiracy theory laden, words out of context, but Obama then proceeds to do exactly that to Senator McCain.
Everyone who is not completely blinded by ideology knows that when McCain used the “100 years” line, he was referring to the possibility that the U.S. might have to maintain a troop presence in Iraq, for quite some time. He never said that they would be there fighting a war. In fact he said that the presence would only be maintained, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”
We have had the type of troop presence that McCain was referring to in places such as South Korea and Japan for half-a -century. It would be interesting to know whether or not Barack Obama considers us to currently be at war with those two nations.
Again, this is a typical politician move, taking someone else’s words way out of context for political gain.
It sometimes seems that Obama has bought into his own press and like his starry-eyed supporters, now believes that whatever comes out of his mouth is Gospel.
Obama recently said the following:
"As most experts know, our economy is in a recession.”
Now, this may be true as well. We may indeed be in a recession, but there is no possible way that Obama or anyone else can make a definitive statement as to whether we’re in a recession or not. At least not until the second-quarter numbers are revealed in mid-July.
Therefore, based on this statement we can only conclude that a.) Obama doesn’t really know what the definition of a recession is and probably lacks a basic understanding of fundamental economic principles or b.) He is intentionally saying something which can not be backed up by facts, for political purposes.
Obama seems quite deft at manipulating facts, even when the statement in question is not an outright lie. For example, the senator recently stated that he does not take money from the oil companies.
Makes sense. He’s against special interest influence in politics, right? That’s what he’s said repeatedly.
What Obama didn’t tell you is that no presidential candidate takes money directly from the oil companies. They’re not allowed to. It’s forbidden by law.
But Obama has received thousands of dollars in donations from top executives of big oil companies, they just didn’t use the company credit card when they made the contributions.
Yet again, we see the typical, slick politician in Obama rearing its ugly head.
Remember when Obama explained his refusal to wear a flag lapel pin:
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. “
Then, all of the sudden, when his patriotism is being questioned for spending two-decades in the pulpit of a guy who thinks that the United States is no better than Al-Queda, Obama can’t find enough flags to surround himself with. I counted eight star-spangled banners behind Obama as he was giving his speech on race.
He abandons the flag when it’s politically expedient to do so and then wraps himself in it when he’s on the ropes.
Hillary Clinton is the most consistently dishonest, high profile political figure that this nation has seen in generations. I'm including her husband and Richard Nixon in that comparison. If she wasn't a woman and a former First Lady, Hillary would be a caricature, representing every negative stereotype that comes to the mind of the average American when they hear the word "politician".
After 16 years the Clinton’s are finally getting their much-deserved comeuppance, for the myriad of bold-faced lies, which they have told throughout their careers in national politics.
This comeuppance has arrived in what is shaping up to be an embarrassing political defeat for Hillary Clinton for a nomination, which would have easily been hers had Democrats felt as though she could be trusted.
If you still believe that Hillary is trustworthy, you are either not paying attention, or you’re lying to yourself in the same way the Clinton’s lied to us for all these years.
Obama’s manipulation of the facts on the occasions which I mentioned are nowhere near as offensive to the collective American intellect as are the Clinton’s collection of whoppers. On the other hand, he hasn’t been around for that long.
On the surface, Barack Obama is different. He’s young, he’s black, he’s incredibly charismatic, he transcends traditional racial lines.
Because of these differences, many people have prematurely jumped to the conclusion that his behavior must also be different from that of the run of the mill politician.
When examined closely, both his actions and his words are closer to those of your typical, deceptive, political office seeker, than those of a…..hmmmm? What’s the word I’m looking for here? Oh right. "Maverick".
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Falling Panda at 1:57 PM