- Home
- Special Feature: US Election 2008
- Obama is the ringleader of an increasingly rabid cult
Obama is the ringleader of an increasingly rabid cult
- By Cam MacMurchy
- Published February 22, 2008
- Special Feature: US Election 2008
- Unrated
My head continues to spin as we move closer to the day when the Clintons are finally dispatched from Presidential politics (I can only assume she won't run again in 2012, especially against the incumbent President Obama) and the Illinoisian (is that right?) Obama lines up for the main event against Arizona Senator John McCain.
Obama is on a roll. He's won 11 consecutive primaries and caucuses, including the overseas American primary. (And we know that he has ample support here in Beijing). As I've said before, I tend to like Barack Obama. At least, I like what I've seen of him. He has a grand vision for the country. He wants to unite the red and blue states behind his leadership. He wants to bring equality to everyone, and change to Washington. I would reckon even most Republican voters would agree with him on all of those points. But after all of these feel-good platitudes, what do we have left? Nothing. Yet.
Barack Obama has been given the largest free pass that I've ever witnessed in presidential politics. Those who wanted more scrutiny paid to Bush and his National Guard documents, Clinton and her income taxes, or McCain and his pseudo-mistress lobbyist private-airplane friend, seem to recoil when Obama is put under the spotlight. Those who criticize him are "divisive", represent "old-style politics", and might even be "racist".
The reason I bring this up is because I respect many of Obama's supporters. Many of my friends follow the news daily, read up on their politics, and can comment with an informed skepticism on Chinese affairs, the US trade deficit, and the Pakistani elections. But many of these same people have no problem blindly following a politician who's given them not a whole lot to follow. Whatever fairy dust Obama is sprinkling on these people, I'd like to know what it is.
Despite this easy ride, some say things are beginning to change for the good Senator. I read an editorial a while back, and I've been unable to find the link (my apologies), which stated that Obama's wave is cresting. A politician can not sustain a two-year long campaign on lofty rhetoric alone, and will need to alter his strategy and throw some policy meat to his skeptics (those few that exist) before people begin to tire of his empty repitition.
Karl Rove, who is much disliked despite his strategic brilliance, believes we've hit the turning point, following an Obama speech in which he outlined some broad left-leaning policy goals:
Chris Matthews, a self-described Democrat and a man hailed as a fan of Obama ("I felt this thrill going up my leg"), has also finally decided to ask some tough questions. He had Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, an Obama supporter, on his program this week. When Matthews asked him the simple and fair question - What has Obama accomplished as a legislator? - he had no answer (you can view the video here - warning: it can be painful):
MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?"
State Sen. Watson: "I am. Yes, I am."
Matthews: "Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments tonight if you can."
State Sen. Watson: "Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now."
Matthews: "No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir."
State Sen. Watson: "Well, I'm not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments."
Matthews: "Can you name any? Can you name anything he's accomplished as a Congressman?"
State Sen. Watson: "No, I'm not going to be able to do that tonight."
Matthews: "Well, that is a problem isn't it?"
One commenter, on the Huffington Post, sums up his feelings after watching the video:
Despite these, Obama is now roughly tied with Senator Clinton according to the latest polls in the State of Texas. The Obama train keeps rolling, and even if Clinton can pull out victories in Ohio and Texas, her "final stand" according to her husband, that would merely keep her in the race. She'd still face an uphill climb to the nomination.
Meanwhile on the Republican side, Senator McCain has been blindsided by what could hardly be called journalism on the front page of the New York Times. The article, for those who haven't seen it, basically says McCain may or may not have been influenced by a lobbyist, and may or may not have been romantically involved with her. The Old Grey Lady had been sitting on the piece since last year, and only published it after it learned the New Republic would go ahead with their own story about the Times holding the story.
It was shoddy journalism. If Barack Obama is against this "old-style" politics, why doesn't he say something about the way McCain was treated? Even long-time readers of the Times, according to today's letters section, were embarassed by the writing. Obama can dismiss criticism against himself as "old-style" and "divisive", yet his silence indicates that he welcomes it when used against his political rivals.
This post, and this previous one, may seem critical of Barack Obama. In part, they are. But I don't think I've written anything unfair. Barack Obama may well be a ground-breaking President that changes America for the better. But as of today, he has told us very little about what he would do other than simple platitudes, rhetoric, and cliches. I'm embarassed that so many otherwise intelligent people have fallen so easily for the sweet nothings Obama has been whispering.
I am not an American, and thus can't vote in November (I'm sure the Obama fans just breathed a sigh of relief). I don't know who I would vote for if I could. The job as the Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful and influential country is a big one. I need to see concrete evidence the person is ready enough, mature enough, strong enough, and capable enough to take on the job. I also want to know what that person would do when he or she sits down for the first time in the Oval Office. I think everyone can agree this is fair request -- and we've haven't received any answers yet from Senator Obama.
This is a post in a series focusing on the US Presidential race. As the 2008 campaign has global implications, the writers at Zhongnanhai will be occasionally posting on this topic. You can read more of our coverage by clicking here.
Obama is on a roll. He's won 11 consecutive primaries and caucuses, including the overseas American primary. (And we know that he has ample support here in Beijing). As I've said before, I tend to like Barack Obama. At least, I like what I've seen of him. He has a grand vision for the country. He wants to unite the red and blue states behind his leadership. He wants to bring equality to everyone, and change to Washington. I would reckon even most Republican voters would agree with him on all of those points. But after all of these feel-good platitudes, what do we have left? Nothing. Yet.
Barack Obama has been given the largest free pass that I've ever witnessed in presidential politics. Those who wanted more scrutiny paid to Bush and his National Guard documents, Clinton and her income taxes, or McCain and his pseudo-mistress lobbyist private-airplane friend, seem to recoil when Obama is put under the spotlight. Those who criticize him are "divisive", represent "old-style politics", and might even be "racist".
The reason I bring this up is because I respect many of Obama's supporters. Many of my friends follow the news daily, read up on their politics, and can comment with an informed skepticism on Chinese affairs, the US trade deficit, and the Pakistani elections. But many of these same people have no problem blindly following a politician who's given them not a whole lot to follow. Whatever fairy dust Obama is sprinkling on these people, I'd like to know what it is.
Despite this easy ride, some say things are beginning to change for the good Senator. I read an editorial a while back, and I've been unable to find the link (my apologies), which stated that Obama's wave is cresting. A politician can not sustain a two-year long campaign on lofty rhetoric alone, and will need to alter his strategy and throw some policy meat to his skeptics (those few that exist) before people begin to tire of his empty repitition.
Karl Rove, who is much disliked despite his strategic brilliance, believes we've hit the turning point, following an Obama speech in which he outlined some broad left-leaning policy goals:
Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.
Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.
Chris Matthews, a self-described Democrat and a man hailed as a fan of Obama ("I felt this thrill going up my leg"), has also finally decided to ask some tough questions. He had Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, an Obama supporter, on his program this week. When Matthews asked him the simple and fair question - What has Obama accomplished as a legislator? - he had no answer (you can view the video here - warning: it can be painful):
MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?"
State Sen. Watson: "I am. Yes, I am."
Matthews: "Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments tonight if you can."
State Sen. Watson: "Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now."
Matthews: "No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir."
State Sen. Watson: "Well, I'm not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments."
Matthews: "Can you name any? Can you name anything he's accomplished as a Congressman?"
State Sen. Watson: "No, I'm not going to be able to do that tonight."
Matthews: "Well, that is a problem isn't it?"
One commenter, on the Huffington Post, sums up his feelings after watching the video:
Chris Matthews isn't my hero now that he has finally put Obama under the microscope. He should have been doing it all along. As regards [to] Obama's record: I am still waiting to know what, if anything, he has authored and passed in the U.S. Senate. Usually I am treated to a list the bills he co-sponsed in Illinois. Apparently some Obama backers are banking on the fact that most Americans won't notice the difference between being in the Illinois state senate and the U.S. Senate. Hillary has authored twenty pieces of legislation that has passed into law....in the United States Senate. Not co-sponsered.... authored. Obama's legislative record is very thin, by any standard, and Chris had every right to point that out. If we shouldn't care about the resume of a man that would be President, who's resume should we care about? Not that I think any of this will cause any Obama supporter to think twice. They reject the idea that they are "cultish". Strange, since they demonstrate slavish devotion to Obama and are impervious to arguments based on reason and common sense. "Change" and "hope" are held up as cure-alls. Objectivity is treated like Kryptonite.
Despite these, Obama is now roughly tied with Senator Clinton according to the latest polls in the State of Texas. The Obama train keeps rolling, and even if Clinton can pull out victories in Ohio and Texas, her "final stand" according to her husband, that would merely keep her in the race. She'd still face an uphill climb to the nomination.
Meanwhile on the Republican side, Senator McCain has been blindsided by what could hardly be called journalism on the front page of the New York Times. The article, for those who haven't seen it, basically says McCain may or may not have been influenced by a lobbyist, and may or may not have been romantically involved with her. The Old Grey Lady had been sitting on the piece since last year, and only published it after it learned the New Republic would go ahead with their own story about the Times holding the story.
It was shoddy journalism. If Barack Obama is against this "old-style" politics, why doesn't he say something about the way McCain was treated? Even long-time readers of the Times, according to today's letters section, were embarassed by the writing. Obama can dismiss criticism against himself as "old-style" and "divisive", yet his silence indicates that he welcomes it when used against his political rivals.
This post, and this previous one, may seem critical of Barack Obama. In part, they are. But I don't think I've written anything unfair. Barack Obama may well be a ground-breaking President that changes America for the better. But as of today, he has told us very little about what he would do other than simple platitudes, rhetoric, and cliches. I'm embarassed that so many otherwise intelligent people have fallen so easily for the sweet nothings Obama has been whispering.
I am not an American, and thus can't vote in November (I'm sure the Obama fans just breathed a sigh of relief). I don't know who I would vote for if I could. The job as the Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful and influential country is a big one. I need to see concrete evidence the person is ready enough, mature enough, strong enough, and capable enough to take on the job. I also want to know what that person would do when he or she sits down for the first time in the Oval Office. I think everyone can agree this is fair request -- and we've haven't received any answers yet from Senator Obama.
This is a post in a series focusing on the US Presidential race. As the 2008 campaign has global implications, the writers at Zhongnanhai will be occasionally posting on this topic. You can read more of our coverage by clicking here.
