Obama is all talk and no walk
As a fervent Hillary supporter from the start, I had a feeling that in 2009, I could agree with some of the President's decisions. I honestly believed that everything that had pulled us down since 2008 could start to change.
Then along came someone who claimed to embody just the change I was looking for. With my Clinton loyalties, I was hesitant about Barack Obama Â- and, unlike most of my friends, unfazed by his charm. There was something about him that led me to shy away; all that so-called "change" he spoke of seemed like talk and no walk. Today, my opinion of him remains the same.
Before he was elected to his notoriously brief stint in the U.S. Senate, Obama was first elected to the Illinois State Senate. But that first victory wasn't a real victory at all: His campaign strategy was to be the only choice on the ballot by eliminating his opponents. By disqualifying the petition signatures needed for his opponents to be considered official candidates, Obama's campaigners - paid for each signature they invalidated - effectively left him the only candidate standing, and ultimately, the only choice that voters had.
The team allegedly resorted to technicalities for disqualification - signatures of those who'd changed their names, names written in print instead of cursive, the fact that the person collecting signatures may have been improperly registered to vote. And while his opponents had used mere year-old polling sheets to validate their signatures, Obama ensured that more signatures could be invalidated by using the most recent sheets they could get their hands on. For two of Obama's opponents, who failed to meet the requirement by 69 and 86 signatures, these petty arguments may have made all the difference. And it would have ensured that voters could have had a choice come election day.
Choice, after all, is part of what America is all about. The Washington Times said, "The two important characteristics of a democracy are choice and change." Change is what Obama claims to represent, but in that first Illinois victory, he didn't give voters a choice. "Such tactics," said the Chicago Tribune, "are ... frequently used in Chicago," where corruption is rampant. Yet Obama, who portrays himself as a reformer, disapproving and unforgiving when it comes to old-world Chicago politics, didn't take it upon himself to change anything - instead, he gave more of the same.
Then along came someone who claimed to embody just the change I was looking for. With my Clinton loyalties, I was hesitant about Barack Obama Â- and, unlike most of my friends, unfazed by his charm. There was something about him that led me to shy away; all that so-called "change" he spoke of seemed like talk and no walk. Today, my opinion of him remains the same.
Before he was elected to his notoriously brief stint in the U.S. Senate, Obama was first elected to the Illinois State Senate. But that first victory wasn't a real victory at all: His campaign strategy was to be the only choice on the ballot by eliminating his opponents. By disqualifying the petition signatures needed for his opponents to be considered official candidates, Obama's campaigners - paid for each signature they invalidated - effectively left him the only candidate standing, and ultimately, the only choice that voters had.
The team allegedly resorted to technicalities for disqualification - signatures of those who'd changed their names, names written in print instead of cursive, the fact that the person collecting signatures may have been improperly registered to vote. And while his opponents had used mere year-old polling sheets to validate their signatures, Obama ensured that more signatures could be invalidated by using the most recent sheets they could get their hands on. For two of Obama's opponents, who failed to meet the requirement by 69 and 86 signatures, these petty arguments may have made all the difference. And it would have ensured that voters could have had a choice come election day.
Choice, after all, is part of what America is all about. The Washington Times said, "The two important characteristics of a democracy are choice and change." Change is what Obama claims to represent, but in that first Illinois victory, he didn't give voters a choice. "Such tactics," said the Chicago Tribune, "are ... frequently used in Chicago," where corruption is rampant. Yet Obama, who portrays himself as a reformer, disapproving and unforgiving when it comes to old-world Chicago politics, didn't take it upon himself to change anything - instead, he gave more of the same.
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 9
Chitown lady
posted 10/25/08 @ 1:06 PM EST
so let me get this straight just becuase he actually was against voting fraud ya'll mad cause he was doing the right thing??? then his birth certificate, if he dont have that how can he have a passport the passport is the most 1000% legal document proving someones identity. (Continued…)
MM
posted 10/25/08 @ 2:25 PM EST
To claim that Obama's citizenship is dubious says more about Ms. Huang's own narcissism than Obama's. What gives Ms. Huang, the source of her information, and the anonymous, lawsuit-happy Berg the keen insight into Obama's "questionable" citizenship that has somehow escaped the rest of the country, including the McCain campaign, which everyday is actively seeking a "game-changer" like this? This detail of a lawsuit ignores the countless times in Obama's life that he has had to prove his citizenship: getting a driver's license, applying for a passport, applying to university, registering to vote, etc. (Continued…)
Mike M
posted 10/26/08 @ 5:23 PM EST
Unless we really doubt that Obama is a citizen, I don't know what his birth certificate could possibly say that would make any difference.
There are, however, a lot of reasons to doubt that Obama's all some would have us believe. (Continued…)
Steve
posted 10/28/08 @ 5:20 AM EST
I'm glad you detailed your agenda in your opening sentence. Odd though - your candidate unconditionally supports Obama, despite his being "the lesser of two evils. (Continued…)
John Doe
posted 10/28/08 @ 9:01 PM EST
What a boneheaded article...Could've found the exact same thing on some Internet forum posted by some crackpot conservative. (not that there aren't any crackpot Democrats =] )
Amilia
amilia newsome
posted 10/28/08 @ 9:20 PM EST
are you for real
i mean when you spend your time doing something be for real
Frain Soard
posted 4/17/09 @ 1:21 AM EST
Yes i agree with you , and nice news thanks. This realy nice news , i watch for them .
John Maitland Graves
posted 4/18/09 @ 11:42 AM EST
It would seem to me that Mr. Obama is the first decent and arguably among the most intelligent man ever to have held his office. Now, as we all know, perfection is a static property and Mr. (Continued…)
Frain Soard
posted 6/20/09 @ 1:23 PM EST
Yes i agree with you , and nice news thanks. This realy nice news , i watch for them .
Post a Comment