The resume
Bookworm on Dec 04 2006 at 11:04 am | Filed under: Democrats, Elections
Here’s the resume:
45 year old male.
Columbia University graduate
Worked with a Church-based group in a poor neighborhood.
Harvard Law School graduate, President of Harvard Law Review
Seven years in the Illinois State Senate, focusing on Earned Income Tax Credit, early childhood education programs, and videotaping confessions in capital crime case.
One year in the United States Senate, where he co-sponsored a bill for an online budget database.
Those are the tangible accomplishments. Here are the less tangible ones:
Photogenic.
Raised by a single mother.
Mixed race.
A good speaker.
Anti-Iraq War
Is willing to admit that he inhaled.
Would you elect this man to run your country during a time of active and covert warfare against your country? I wouldn’t. But then again, as I’ve matured, I’ve left the party of my youth and moved to the conservative side of the political spectrum.
If you’re a Democrat, however, you’re all a’twitter about this inexperienced, untried, pretty man:
Senator Barack Obama’s announcement that he might run for president is altering the early dynamics of the 2008 Democratic nominating contest. The move has created complications for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as she steps up her own preparations and is posing a threat to lesser-known Democrats trying to position themselves as alternatives to Mrs. Clinton, Democrats said Sunday.
The declaration six weeks ago by Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, has set off a surge of interest in Democratic circles, which party officials expect will only be fueled in the coming week as Mr. Obama prepares for a day of campaignlike events in New Hampshire next Sunday.
At the least, Mr. Obama’s very high-profile explorations have contributed to a quickening of the pace across the 2008 Democratic field. On Sunday, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said that he would create a presidential exploratory committee this week. And Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa went so far as to announce his candidacy two years before Election Day, in what his aides said was a calculated strategy to grab a moment of attention before Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton blot out the sun.
The Dems must be really worried about a Hillary candidacy if they can get excited about an Obama one. As it is, Obama’s only virtue right now is that he doesn’t have a track record sufficient to revolt those who actually think about politics. The question then becomes whether the media can, for two years, pump so much effort into this man that he actually looks as if he has heft.
UPDATE: Whatever Soros is for, I’m against it. Okay, that’s not entirely accurate, but it does describe the deep distaste I feel for Soros’ political views and ideology. And this means that, since Barack’s meeting with Soros, I suddenly know a whole bunch of potentially distasteful stuff about Obama’s own political ideology.
del.icio.us
digg it
Email This Post To A Friend
18 Responses to “The resume”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Like the media pumped up John Kerry as a war hero? Now they seem to be going the other way, anti-war.
I suspect this indicates a problem. Obama has done zip for his two years - but what, on the other hand, has Hillary done in her six?
I don’t know. She certaiinly talks a lot - you can’t stop her - but have there been as many as two actual legislative accomplishments?
Has there been even one that is now in force that originated with her?
Bookworm, you will love this new Fox News story.
Can’t find a link. But they were talking about the College Republicans vs Democrats. Republicans said that Berkley had a tradition of rebellion and going against the system. System is now the liberals. The oppression just fires up the Republican revolution.
Hehe.
i’m not sold on obama either but a quick question:
what sort of track record did your crush gee-dub have prior to being apointed by cheney et al as the frontrunner of the gop back in 2000?
per usual, i won’t expect a response.
peace
If you don’t expect a response, dagon mon ami, then there is no reason you should get one, especially given that your question is irrelevant; the subject of the post is the merits or lack thereof of Obama, the liberal white boy who lucked out having a father from Kenya whom he never knew, though visiting the grave made a great photo op. Obama affords white liberals the opportunity to feel good about themselves by supporting a candidate of color who is sufficiently black but looks more Teddy Bear than Snoop Dog. Frankly I think Obama is another lawn jockey for the liberal conscience. If his father was from Iceland, you’d have never heard of this guy.
ANYONE but Hillary so if he can give her the “smackdown” in the primary, more power to him (and then let the Republican candidate win in the general election of course.)
Dagon doesn’t want to waste Bookworm’s time, and I don’t want to see Bookworm waste time on dagon. Good situation all around.
Uh, dagon, I’ll step in for Book - you may recall that GW was a governor…and a successful one…with real-life business experience…who ran a very difficult campaign against a powerful Texas politician. With regard to Obama, he offers very few credentials but don’t underestimate his ability to speak in soft soothing terms, albeit devoid of substance, that sends the mommy wing of the electorate into rapturous swoons. What is questionable, however, is how well his candidacy would hold up to scrutiny.
Book,
Good analysis. Bad resume’.
Many of your readers are probably people of faith.. and curious about Obama’s faith and what he believes in his church.
You will recall my research and writing in which I exposed his beliefs and connections. One cannot separate himself from the beliefs of his church. It speaks volumes.
My post, Barak Obama, Dangerous Neophyte.
http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/2006/06/29/barak-obama-dangerous-neophyte/
Hey, I was called raciest for my post!
ExP(Jack)
BW - do you describe this man as photogenic because you think he is, or because that is how he has often been described? Doesn’t this mean . . . er . . . handsome, sort of? What am I missing? I know I’m past my prime, but I must be slipping more than I thought!
Photogenic means good for the camera, which really means “cameras are all over the place when Obama is around”. Which is true. So, photogenic. It is a different concept than handsomeness or beauty or some such aesthetic.
Some people look good on camera, but aren’t all that great face to face. That would apply as well.
I see your point, ExP. Racism is in the eye of the beholder.
If I had lived in Illinois and had a chance to vote in the 2004 Senatorial race, I would have made the right choice. Illinois residents failed. Oh, not a racist choice, but definitely a true American: Alan Keyes.
Who could vote against him? Well, American voters are as dumb as the MSM will make them.
We must not bury the fact that the Dems are a confused mess with no real leadership. (We’ll see this in January. The Dems will be every shark for himself in the new Congress.) So Obama is just one of the mob seeking personal power.
Does the GOP offer new faces with, of course, better credentials?
I suspect it does have some, somewhere.
JG,
I never think of Keyes in racial terms.
He is a Christian educator. patriot, statesman but not much of a politician… He speaks the truth plainly.
The kind of guy that scares the libs!
ExP(Jack)
He’s not really my type either, Marguerite, but he’s certainly better looking than Harry Reid or Teddy Kennedy. Also, he’s been described as photogenic often enough that I have to believe that there are people who find him attractive. It’s all a matter of visual taste, I guess.
Ken sure ain’t cuddly and cute like a teddy bear.
By the way, dagon asked whether the current President was more qualified when he ran. Well, yes, he was. He’d had military experience (although he never saw combat), he run businesses successfully and unsuccessfully, and he’d been the popular governor of one of our largest states (and a state with a sort of mythological image in the American mind).
But even if that weren’t true, there was one significant difference between 2000 and 2008: we weren’t at war then. And I don’t just mean the war in Iraq. I mean the war officially declared against us on 9/11. Bush proved himself in that conflagration — thank goodness. After all, he might just have turned into a crumpled, weeping ball.
As it is, now that we know we’re at war, we can’t just hope for a leader who might stand up in the crunch. We have to elect someone we know will do so — and nothing in Obama’s record indicates that he is that man.
dagon-
Governor–executive branch
Senator–legislative branch
President–executive branch
Based on this alone, it seems to me that having been a Governor is a significantly better qualification to be President than having been a Senator.
[...] My personal feeling is that, while Obama may one day turn into a something, right now he’s pretty much a nothing: a very intelligent, but as yet untried man, with limited experience, and superficial views. What I’m gathering, though, is that on the Left, this very blankness is what makes him so appealing. He becomes a projection of everyone’s beliefs, hopes and desires. He’s a charming, smart, living version of Jerzy Kosinksi’s Chance the Gardner, in Being There. [...]