I'm not trying to pile on here, but this clip of an ardent Barack Obama supporter (state Sen. Kirk Watson of Texas) -- who can't name one thing the Democratic front-runner has done as a U.S. senator -- really illustrates that it's the "idea" of Obama more than anything else that clearly is so popular right now ... (Hat tip to Andy)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
I don't dislike Obama, but...as far as being capable for arguably the most important job in the world.....maybe it's telling that Asian-Americans (the Americans with the highest I.Q.s) are never voting for him.
here's what mr watson had to say about his own "performance"
http://www.kirkwatson.com/media/whats-new/2008/02/20/msnbc-and-me/
I would rather have someone with a short list of accomplishments and a original vision for the future than a candidate with a long list of accomplishments that have served a great number of lobbyists and a vision that is status quo.
I'm so embarrassed for him. That is sink-in-your-seat cringe worthy.
I think this really illustrates that this particular Obama supporter can't name Obama's legislative accomplishments. Dunno if it really illustrates much else. This guy probably didn't know much about Bill Clinton's legislative accomplishments before voting for him either.
To date, Clinton has run a terrible campaign. Obama hasn't. Perhaps that's why this guy likes Obama.
Assimilate Kenneth. Resistence is futile.
Jonas --
It is REALLY embarrassing to watch. The point (obviously) being that if you're going to go on national television, YOU should be versed in these things, even if the average voter isn't.
I completely disagree with you about assessment of the Clinton campaign. Hillary has run a wonderfully smooth operation with very few mistakes. Her problem isn't her campaign. Her problem is she's got the (Bill) Clinton machine without the Bill Clinton charisma and personality. And that was a HUGE part of what won it for him.
I watched that clip earlier today and was embarassed for Watson. I'm not an Obama supporter but geez, if you're going to go on national television, get your ducks in a row!
I'm really hoping Hillary can turn it around in TX. It's been interesting to see who is lining up behind her and who is lining up behind Obama.
I'm actually surprised that amongst my friends, we're split. And in our lively discussions over dinner (I think we're going to stop having dinner), the Obama supporters can't argue fact. What's really scary is that there are some McCain supporters within the group.
surfstud: If that's all you'd rather have, then you might as well elect ME as President.
Judging whether someone should be elected president because of a single interview with someone who was either poorly prepared or froze up in front of the camera is bullshit.
This whole "Obama supporters are mesmerized" business is also bullshit. I voted him, I read up on his positions and his background. He is very qualified for the position. For me one of the selling points was that he went to work helping poor people after he graduated from college. This tells me a lot about his priorities and goals in life.
Without looking it up, would anyone mind rattling off three or four -- heck, even ONE -- of Clinton's accomplishments in the Senate? Perhaps one that doesn't have her name in the title, for instance? Just so we're doing a fair comparison, that is.
yeah compared to the last moron that held the office most anyone is qualified.
and how the f can you say everything will be staus quo if Clinton takes office, really put the koolaid down.
I agree with Homer, but do the "poor" people you're referring to include Tony Resco, who used the money he made off of poor people as a slumlord to get the Obama campaign off the ground, or other "poor" folks?
Oh, Obama worked for poor people? I've done that myself. Me for President, again!
Not that I'm jumping on your case, Homer. Just have to remember, when electing a President, that even the candidate being a nice person (or not) is still secondary to capability.
Obama is such a 'Media Darling." I want to ask Wolf Blitzer if he is capable of saying anything bad about Obama. Such a double standard that Hillary has had to face.
Someone should point out that he has won in mainly Republican states while Hillary has won in Democratic states like NY and CA. There isn't much chance of a red state going for Obama in the general election.
Just wait, the Republicans won't be so polite come November when he's the nominee and they add a proposal for slave Reparations to the ballads.
Here's a link to an article written by someone who, as the title says, "refused to buy into the Obama hype": http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
She looked into Obama's record in the Senate and compared it to Clinton's. She found him to have accomplished more, worked on a wider range of issues, and garnered more support from both liberal and conservative corners for his bills. His work in the Senate backs up his "post-partisan," "yes-we-can" rhetoric.
He just had a bad surrogate on TV. Compared to a lot of the really vicious and laughable people Clinton has had on TV, I still prefer Obama.
dear anonymous,
I don't think it's possible for Obama to have 'accomplished more' during his 1 Senate term than the woman who brought Universal Healthcare to the national spotlight before it was popular and before anyone ever heard of Obama, except Maybe his protegee Oprah.
What turned me off to him was when he stated during a debate that, when he went to Africa, he was tested for AIDS, then he hastily said, "as was (his) wife." In that second he looked really uncomfortable, like he has a real problem with gay people. Remember that Oprah had a gay brother who dies of AIDS and yet she has done virtually nothing to support gay causes.
One wonders if Barak would even get a second look if it weren't for the color of his skin. That kind of reverse discrimination will never fly in the general election.
Anon 8:34 : That article in defense of Obama is from the Daily Kos. Enough said.
I'm a senior in college majoring in Sociology and this whole election is extremely exciting and interesting to watch and be apart of, yet I can't help but wondering if bandwagon behavior is playing a large part in this election.
According to the Websters dictionary, the Bandwagon effect is roughly "a popular party, faction, or cause that attracts growing support," or "a current or fashionable trend."
Although, I'm confident most of the Obama supporters who are outspoken enough to respond in a blog comments section are well versed in his accomplishments, most of the general public has been statistically shown to be more apathetic, or no interested or concerned, to those same accomplishments.
So it begs the question, if most Obama voters and supporters in the general public are not well versed in his accomplishment, than why are they voting for him? I see it as a classic bandwagon effect, because of his charisma and media portrayed image. Which is scary to realize, because the bandwagon effect tends to wain after something loses its novelty, as we saw with Hilliary Clinton in late 2007.
There are two types of Obama supporters: the first group that never bothered to read up on Obama's resume, and the others that just can't name anything, because there's nothing to name.
Obama is a fraud. He's a used car salesman. This is embarrassing. His speeches sound like a kid running for class president, and he has not one bit of substance on anything. If I hear change, one more time! Change what? The guy is so naive. No guy with no resume, should EVER be running for president. We already had one dingbat learning on the job. We don't need another one.
His wife's comments that she's never been proud of her country until now, just was the most serious blow to Obama. What are these people thinking? If they can't get their interviews right, what can they actually do in office? You'd have to be retarded or insane to say such a thing.
This is not the first rabid Obama supporter to be put on tv, not able to answer a single thing about Barack. The Kool-Aid drinkers are scary. They're fainting at his speeches. WTF?!
homer, he's done NOTHING. You read his web site. It's ridiculous. He says the same crap everyone else says, except anything knew, or any experience to back it up. Sorry, you're completely WRONG.
Barack also telling gays to treat homophobes with respect because they don't yet know that they're wrong, sorry, doesn't cut it for us.
Chuck Baum:
Barack is the only one who has said that he would look to overturn Clinton #1's ridiculous Executive Order of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and legalize the open acceptance of gays in the military.
Last night in his acceptance speech--as he has in many of them--the need to accept all people including gay people. Hill's has lacked open dialog of the gay community unless she is at an HRC event.
PS -- can anyone list anything that Congress has gotten done in the past 4 years? I can't.
The last time the country voted based on who they like personally, we got George Bush. Obama supporters cannot name one thing this guy has done. He has missed so many votes in the his 2 years in the senate. He blasts Cheney's energy policy, but leaves out that he voted for it. He didn't not vote for war with Iran. He voted "present". He doesn't want universal health care, and he wants to privatize social security. He's the same old tired thing, only dumber than Bush, in that he has no clue how to do anything. He loves Reagan, and blasts liberals of the 60s. He exclaims that he can't handle Washington bureaucracy, and will have to hire smarter people than him to work in the White House, to help him.
Can America ever elected ONE competent person? Jesus!
it looks like obama supporters on here are divided...some say he has accomplished little and that's ok because he makes them feel good, and others say that he has accomplished more than clinton. Both are seriously misguided.
You're in for a rude awakening, Obamabots. keep drinking the hope soda.
pandemicsoul - i ask that question all the time and get the same response you've gotten here. i'm no hillary fan but i genuinely care about our future and would vote for her if someone could convince me she's the best option.
sadly, the most common response to a call for her accomplishments is a reference to universal healthcare which was mentioned here. she introduced this nationally 15 years ago and has pretty much been in a position of power ever since, yet we still don't have it nor are we anywhere near getting it. if this is her strongest selling point, she should bow out now.
obamabots malfunctioning. lol.
I'm really sad that so many gays are opposed to Obama. I can't figure out why it is. Unlike Clinton, Obama actually talks about gay people, and in places that aren't so gay-friendly. Like the other night in Houston. Clinton(s) just use us for our votes and then sign "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
Obama will polish her off tonight and win easily in November, putting formerly "red" states in play for the first time since ... well ... Bill ran the first time.
morgan:
Obama has NO CHANCE in November. The states he won in are as red as they get and the Republicans there would NEVER vote for a black man with an Muslim sounding name. Never.
If he does get the nom, at least we'll be rid of him and the media stroking him as he will become just another Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, John Kerry loser and public joke.
I'm sad you don't realize that in order to get anything done in DC, you need to play ball like the Clintons have. The eternal question really is on you:
Why do you like Obama? Because Oprah likes him? Would he have gotten half as far if he were white?
Being gay in America today is what being black was 50 years ago. Perhaps we are not happy because no gay person would EVER be given a the free ride like Obama has gotten. We suffer just as much discrimination but never get any free passes.
Chuck et al...
You have to be kidding me right?
"Being gay in America today is what being black was 50 years ago"
50 years ago white gay men--like my uncle--were allowed to go to most colleges, black people where not. That is all I'm going to say about that.
Secondly, I am so confused about this idea that Obama has gotten a "free ride". I don't think his limited level of experience is a secret. I know he is only in his 4th year as a Senator. Woodrow Wilson was only the Gov of NJ for 2 years before he was elected President. He had no other political experience prior. What I like about Obama is that he does not join the Clintonion speak that you simply must be corrupt to be successful in Washington. He and Hillary have the same plans. The question is, will people listen to her to move things through. My thought is that the Republicans who still hold a decent percentage of the Congressional vote will not for Sen. Clinton--she's been trying for a while.
Thirdly, Hillary will NEVER turn a red state blue. If you think those same Republicans who wont vote for Obama will vote for her you are misread. Take a look at the last election WI--Obama won 8% of the Republican vote in an open election in a Red state in the midwest and an even higher percentage in the southern state of VA. Clinton won no percentage of that group. That's a problem people. If the Democrats can not send a national candidate who can win the Independant and moderate Republican vote, the Democrats will have a repeat of 2004. The blue states will stay blue...Mass, Conn, Md, etc. TX will always be Red. The question, is who can win WI, KS, IL, VA, OH and a few other swing states. Take a look at Barack's success in those states during the primary vs. Clintons and even McCain's. It is all numbers everyone and the "Obamabots" kind of get that.
Chuck-
So you don't like Obama because you're bitter and jealous that a black person got a free pass and we queers can't? Someone call the waaaambulance. Hillary's a loser because of a mismanaged campaign that squandered a seemingly insurmountable lead.
I like Obama for the same reason I liked him when he ran for Senate in '04. He and I agree on policies, most notably education policy. His website is chock-full of well-crafter policy statements that I agree with 95%. It also helps that he's an excellent speaker, clearly the most intelligent candidate, and someone who offers a brilliant contrast to the old, uninspiring Republican.
Do you honestly think Clinton would have gotten this far if she weren't a) a woman and b) the WIFE of a former president?
Care to make a gentleman's wager about November?
And PS: I love the argument "I'm sad you don't realize that in order to get anything done in DC, you need to play ball like the Clintons have," which may as well read "It's okay to throw gays under the bus when it's politically expedient to do so."
Oh how far we've come!
I at least hope that you and the others here will be able to vote for Obama in the general election.
It's all what you like I guess. I think we've had enough men and it's time to give a woman a chance. This woman has paid her dues and accomplished more in her life than Obama has. But you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
ca:
Just because the discrimination isn't as blatant as being denied admission to a college, don't think it isn't just as real.
Post a Comment