BackdoorJesus

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

this article brings to light many of the misgivings I have about this man. I agree completely with the author that Obama is all rhetoric & NO substance.

The Obama Delusion
From Newsweek By Robert J. Samuelson

It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the most likely nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I feel that I'm dealing with known quantities. They've been in the public arena for years; their views, values and temperaments have received enormous scrutiny. By contrast, newcomer Obama is largely a stage presence defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views.

The subtext of Obama's campaign is that his own life narrative—to become the first African American president, a huge milestone in the nation's journey from slavery—can serve as a metaphor for other political stalemates. Great impasses can be broken with sufficient goodwill, intelligence and energy. "It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white," he says. Along with millions of others, I find this a powerful appeal.

But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.

By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

* Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).

* Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.

* Expand the child-care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality after-school programs."

* Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goody-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing Obama of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim.

A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far. Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees—mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees—shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscuration. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue—immigration, the economy, global warming—he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media—preoccupied with the political "horse race"—have treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.

___________________________________________

fmb

Yeah, I have to agree with many points in the article. Over the last year or so, I've attempted to see what he has to offer, but the offerings have changed as much as the topics. I think this may be because of his inexperience in the political realm.

I do know this: his success is an example of the ideas that our citizens are tired of the "same old stuff" candidates. I believe most people are behind him now because he is fresh, new, and doesn't have the political experience other candidates have.

My prediction: Obama will stay on the front pages, in front of the TV cameras, and be the topic of conversation around many water coolers; however, I think Democrats will go with someone they feel comfortable with: a DC insider with "experience". In this case, Hillary will get the nomination in the end.

shiiboi

Well, when the primary season began I predicted that Obama would be out before Super Tuesday and that at this point Edwards and Clinton would be neck and neck with the final outcome a Clinton/Edwards ticket.

Boy do I have egg on my face. The nation's embrace of Obama has really shocked me. Usually it takes complete disgust with the political process to produce someone with so little experience or a clear agenda. The last time was when Jimmy Carter got elected after the populace was worn out from the Watergate hearings.

The best that I can figure is that people are worn out from the Terrorism / War debate and they're looking for a feel-good candidate. There's no doubt that Obama is a powerful speaker and charismatic personality (while Hillary is the wicked witch of the west).

Deep down, though, I still feel that the party elites won't allow Obama to be the democratic candidate and the 'superdelegates' will give it to Clinton.

Krasch

As a Canadian observer, I would think that should Obama's trend continue, the superdelegates would be torn between wanting to vote for the DC insider with experience and the clear choice of their constituent states.

After all, while Hillary may be more palatable to the Democrat insiders, it's looking like Obama is becoming more palatable to the public at large, and THOSE are the people who ultimately decide who gets to live in the White House.

Sure, he may lack experience. But is that necessarily a BAD thing? Do people really want the same-o-same-o politicians who know how to work the system or someone who can inject a fresh perspective into Washington?

tsmo

hi,

Im just here for some hope and change.










eriously though. I think "feel good" candidate is a good choice of words.

I could give two shits that he lacks the experience. I actually think it helps him that he hasnt been corrupted by Washington. People are looking for a change.

Im tired of having a president everyone makes fun of because he CANT speak.. now we have someone who CAN.. and people pick on him for it.

funny thats all people can find on the guy to bitch about.

and BDJ.. you arent getting scared are you

___________________________________________
I'm a terminal non-achiever

BackdoorJesus

if you read the opinion piece you would see that people are not "picking on him" because he is a good speaker, the point was that he uses words like "change" and "hope" but in substance offers neither.

Remember all the "change" and "hope" Jimmy Carter was supposedly going to bring to Washington? How he was going to "change the way things are done in Washington"? No, you're probably too young to remember, but trust me - this is the same thing 30 years later. I assure you that if this guy actually gets elected, all this "change" & "hope" you're looking forward to will evaporate shortly after he moves into the White House. Mark my words.

No tsmo, I'm not "scared", but I am disappointed (yet not surprised) at how so many people could fall for these empty promises yet again...people are so desperate for something better they'll buy into anything at this point, I suppose.

___________________________________________

tsmo

Yeah. too young. although Carter n I actually share a B-day.

Its kinda two fold for me. Its like a really bad science experiment. Unfortunately, the country is at stake for 4 years. I want to see him succeed. I do. I want him to make good on all the hype. the hope. the change. I really do.

but there is a smidgen of me waiting.. Can a black man pull it off?

see. He has in his hands the ability to single handedly shut down a ton of rumors on the abilities of a black male. If he fucks this up - my guess is the country will become a wee bit more racist.. alot of I told you so's.. pointing fingers at Al and Jesse and thoughts of great.. he's just another.. *sigh* typical.

but if he pulls it off. If he actually comes through..

Then imagine that.. A black man running our fucking country.

who'da thought..


Was Carter really THAT bad?

___________________________________________
I'm a terminal non-achiever

BackdoorJesus

no man, Carter was not "bad" at all; I think he was (is) actually a good guy with integrity, some excellent ideas and a wonderful vision for the future.

Unfortunately for him as a president (and for Obama as I see it), that dog won't hunt in Washington; a successful president is one who can get things done with the cooperation of the political machine that is in place, not in spite of it. Jimmy couldn't do it & was out the door after four years of making very little headway with the powers that be. This is exactly where I see an Obama presidency leading, but yeah sure, time will tell I suppose.

Black, white or chartreuse, I don't really care - I want to see someone effective in there that can make things happen, not someone who promises everything to everyone but in the end delivers nothing to no one.

___________________________________________

jabber

I, for one think Obama has a huge ax to grind and when he starts bucking the machine,his days are numbered.

shiiboi

Let's see, Carter's foreign policy gave us:

the islamic revolution in Iran, with the Iranians taking over the US Embassy and holding US citizens hostage for 444 days...

the OPEC oil embargo which quadrupled the price of oil, lasted 6 months and was in indirect cause of the Yom Kippur war in Israel, and a direct cause of the worst economic depression in history...

the secret intervention in Afghanistan that set the stage for the rise in islamic terrorism against the US...

Carter's domestic policy gave us:

a revolving door of Carter's cabinet officials going from the white house directly to prison for corruption, along with Carter's own brother Billy who was working as a lobbyist for LIBYA!...

"Stagflation" - rampant INFLATION during a crushing economic recession (something economists said was impossible)...

------

To be fair, every President faces some sort of international crisis, but Carter's problems were exacerbated by his inexperience and naivete in foreign policy. His 'outsider' status ultimately led to his losing the support of his own party by his second year in office, causing a deadlock that caused a lot of unnecessary domestic misery.

It's not 'bad' that Obama is a feel-good candidate and a charismatic speaker. He's a lot like Reagan in that respect. But he's an unknown quantity-- a real 'wild card.'

Obama may sincerely want to produce positive 'change' -- but there's no evidence he has the plans, skills, or support to achieve them. It would be nice if he could point to some sort of record of achievement bigger than local community organizing.

Obama's voting record ( http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cat...php?can_id=9490 ) consists mostly of not voting...

Krasch

Oh yeah stagflation, nothing like DOUBLE-DIGIT inflation numbers...

You forgot gas lines and rationing.

tsmo

I was 6 in 1977. My focus was on Star Wars and legos..





holy shit.. still is..

___________________________________________
I'm a terminal non-achiever

Krasch

I was only 8 in 1977, but a REALLY old 8...

The "6 going on 60" kind of thing.

That's why I actually remember the gas lines of the Carter years.

onlyalad

I think Obama if elected is going to have huge issues if elevted. Many blacks are going to feel that their time has come. A black president means the black man is going to get the utopia they feel has been waiting for since MLK. However, he won't be able to serve only 12% of Americans and when he does what is right for the white man he will be concidered a sell out. His only chance is to do nothinig and then blame everyone else for preventing him from making the changes that he wanted to make.