A true Obamination

I don’t believe in kicking someone when he’s down — or, at least, I don’t believe in launching the first kick once he’s already fallen. I say that because I hope all of you appreciate that I’ve disliked Obama from the get-go. If you check my categories on the side, and look at my Obama posts, you’ll see that I’ve been blogging against him consistently when he was a flash on the horizon and when he was touted as the second coming. I therefore feel completely comfortable in continuing my anti-Obama posts now that he’s starting to slide down popularity’s ladder.

Given my deep dislike for this man, I was only slightly surprised to read Richard Benkin’s long article detailing the fact that Obama, unlike every other Senator or House member that Benkin approached, men and women of all political stripes, was the only person who did not lift a political finger to help Bangladeshi dissident and free speech hero Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury in the fight for his life. This story, if nothing else, should irrevocably tarnish what little is left of Obama’s halo.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Zhombre says

    Gracias, Gringo. Lo tengo. This gives credence to Christopher Hitchens’ depiction of Obama as a naive and anemic candidate who has been given much more of a pass than any serious candidate for President of the United States deserves.

  2. says

    I’d say that both Zhombre and Allen have expressed themselves with rare flair here. Obama, true to his Chance/Being There origins tends to bring out in others things that aren’t in himself.

  3. Ymarsakar says

    I therefore feel completely comfortable in continuing my anti-Obama posts now that he’s starting to slide down popularity’s ladder.

    Unfortunately, what this means is that his supporters and the Democrats will believe Obama fell because the Republicans made him fail and cheated to do so as well. They will not believe that their failures could have been a result of an objective and fair competition.

    How can they, Book, given that their entire world view is predicated upon the assumption that the white man must keep the black man down because the black man would be doing better had it not been for the cheating and racist whites?

    To shatter such a world view is on the same difficulty plane as shattering a person’s anti-war views concerning Iraq. It takes more than words and more than failures. It takes something very close to Total War, like a glimpse of 9/11 or a glimpse of Al Qaeda as seen from the eyes of the Sunnis. However, America is so safe from “foreign invasion’, that many of its citizens have no idea of what Total War can mean.

    And that’s a sad thing in the end, because they may not be interested in war, but war is very much interested in them.

  4. Mike Devx says

    Obama is a very mild guy who takes no tough stands. He’s a brilliant rhetorician and speechmaker but – as Book has pointed out – it’s not the speech, it’s the delivery. He’s not a bare-knuckles fighter, he doesn’t stand up for many causes! It explains his total passivity in the face of a virulently racist pastor when Obama is trying to be “the great Uniter”. Kinda makes you wonder how he would handle the genocidal viciousness of all Arab movements against Israel, doesn’t it?

    But, despite his Rezko/Chicago seaminess, I don’t see him as corrupt. I see him as potentially as weak and foolish as Jimmy Carter, who easily was the worst President of the 20th Century.

    But everyone knows how I feel about corruption, and about the thoroughly corrupt Clintons and their thoroughly corrupt Machine. I hate Nixon for his corruption, I hate Tom Delay for his corruption, and I hate the Clintons for theirs. We recovered from Carter and we can recover from Obama – who perhaps cannot beat McCain in any case? I don’t know that we recover the loss to our souls that comes from inviting and encouraging corruption.

  5. Al says

    I scanned Allen’s comment so fast that I read “empty skull” for “empty soul”.
    If the volume of mass that is Obama is in fact empty of self induced thought, who is doing his thinking for him? He does act like he must be told how to react in any situation.
    Al

  6. Danny Lemieux says

    Al, Obama is part of what John Kass of the Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-johnkass,1,5488029.columnist?coll=chi-navrailnews-nav calls the “Illinois Combine”, a highly corrupt and bi-partisan herd of pigs who scratch each others’ backs for their place at the public trough. You are absolutely correct. If Obama gets elected, there will be many others to do his thinking for him as they loot the public treasury.

  7. says

    Hello Bookworm,

    I’m probably going to blog about this later on today, but here’s fact I haven’t seen anyone say about Obama yet. He has NOT condemned Wright’s extremist lies yet. One minute he pleads to be deaf, blind and dumb (i.e. I’ve never seen it happen); the next minute he said, I’ve already condemned Wright’s “controversial” comments.

    Well, no, he hasn’t. Saying that you have already condemned Wright’s duplicitous remarks is not the same as condemning them. He never names what he objects to. He never condemns it at all. Instead, he rationalized Wright and wags the finger at America for being… well, racist.

    How can we countenance such a man for President?

  8. Al says

    Thanks, Danny. We have a lower level version of the Illinois Combine in southern Jersey, centering around Atlantic City, public contractors, and developers. It makes one almost incoherently angry at times. Both southern Jersey and northern Illinois need a hungry Federal prosecutor. Now wouldn’t that create an interesting “October surprise”?
    Al

Leave a Reply