Here is one paragraph from this story:
The Illinois senator, who has become a political superstar and is expected to jump into the 2008 presidential race any day now, spent three years in New York as a young man and graduated from Columbia University - where he barely left a mark.
Then you could add another line that says he spent two years in the Senate....where he barely left a mark.
I don't see it with this guy. He honestly has done nothing on any level. His positions are not super-far left, but nowhere near moderate either.
So, why is the media in love with this guy?
I guess the only answer I can come up with is that he is the first minority who can actually win...I think that is is.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Obama's quiet years in N.Y.C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
It's quite simple, really. He doesn't speak like he's from the 'hood, some find him good looking, and he's black. For those of the leftward persuasion, that's all that's required. And I think he's far more left than most Dem voters realize, but to me, he's indeed ultra-left. I think it's kinda relative, considering how wacky most Dem leaders are nowadays, but yeah, allowing kids who survive abortions to die seems pretty freakin' radical to me.
Game,
Let me say this in a manner for which you might have greater empathy: For the love of Lambeau! Lose that word verification!!!!!!!!
marshall...come on...what is so bad?
it stops me from getting so much spam
OK, well, that's a good reason I guess. Perhaps Jim will explain if he has spam troubles without it and if not, what he's doing different. It's just that on your blog, multiple attempts are required almost always. And there's that message about secure stuff that always comes up as well. At least you don't do that thing where one can't see one's post until the site owner checks it out first. That one REALLY sucks.
Barack Hussein Obama does have a clear voting record, and we'd be best to keep quiet about it if the Democrats do us a favor by nominating him.
Obama has fought hard for many noble ideals. For example, he was the only one in the Illinois Senate to vote against a bill prohibiting early release for sex offenders. Obama voted against a bill that added extra penalties for gang activity. He did not support a bill requiring adult prosecution for children who use guns on school grounds. Obama voted against pornography filters in schools. Obama refused to vote against the abomination of late term abortion, something any centrist voter can find common ground on. Obama voted against having troublemaker students serve their suspensions before being shuffled to another school. And as marshall pointed out, Obama doesn't even want to protect born children who survive abortion procedures.
Obama isn't an empty suit, and our national conservative opinion-makers are making an error by painting him as one. Obama doesn't represent a fresh face/blank slate -- he is a socialist to core in the Carter-Mondale-Dukakis tradition. He's not a bomb-thrower like Alan Keyes, but being from Illinois, I want him nowhere near the executive branch.
Marshall, Game, I get one every once in awhile. Got one today actually, but over the last couple of years I've been spammed maybe 4 times.
Then you have the wonderful string of successes of George W. Bush prior to becoming president and Obama looks pretty good in comparison.
Not by a long shot, Jim. Off the top of my head, Bush has cut taxes for every American who pays any. He's kept those who butcher innocent humans from using my tax dollars to do so. He's reduced the number of despotic murderers in the world. And he's shown the rest of them that not all American presidents have no sack. He's not perfect, but I have no doubt that Obama would not have done these wonderful things. But many of the wrong things that Bush has done, like allowing so much spending by Congress, Obama will do as much there. No sir. For all George's faults, I still see no Dem who's fit to carry his dirty jock. There just isn't any.
Scorpion says---
Obama??? OH! NO!! Would be like getting "jester" Jimmy Carter all over again with more socialist slop.
Jason, if those votes are true you can put obama in the far-far-far left wing of the country....but he is black so I am racist for saying that
Woah Marshall. Hold on. Read the "fine" print. I said "prior to becoming president." That's the point. George W. Bush was a big zero before he ran for president. And yet he was "elected." So saying Obama's perceived lack of experience is an obstacle to being elected seems without merit.
My bad, Jim. I am not up to speed on Bush's accomplishments as gov of Texas. The only complainst I've see regarding same come from Molly Ivins, and she's certifiable. Perhaps I'll do some googlin'. But I would NOT describe the record of Obama, as related by Jason and myself, as "successes" in the least. In fact, I'd use the word to describe what one wanted to see happen made happen. What goals were achieved? The issues he voted on may or may not have been related to goals of his, but of his legislative friends and/or foes.
Read up on Bush's career prior to and as governor of Texas. If you don't like Molly Ivins, and I respect that, find some other sources.
Prior to being elected governor, his personal successes were a college degree and an MBA.
According to what I have read, the office of governor of the state of Texas is one of the least powerful of any in the nation. Most of what he claims credit for as governor is stuff he opposed until the legislature passed it.
Jim, you’re wrong. Bush was an extremely effective and popular governor. That’s why so many Texas Democrats crossed the line (i.e. woke up) and voted for him.
Post a Comment