"An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry."-T.S. Eliot
This is such a shame. I expected more from Barack Obama then to see him look us all, but most pointedly Ohio and Texas, in the eye and lie. And lie he did. Although you might see the word "misleading" most often as opposed to lie... as if that makes a real difference. Barack Obama is leading Hillary Clinton according to most polls, and if she doesn't take both Ohio and Texas in the upcoming primaries her bid will be effectively over, so why do you suppose Obama is resorting to not just kicking his opponent when she is down, but also resorting to "taking a page out of Karl Rove's play book?"
I don't like what I see in this man. I don't think personal charisma is enough of a reason to vote for him. I don't want fantasy, I want reality. I don't want promises, I want truth and a solid future. I have heard folks say they are voting for him because he has "charm," because he is a "brother," because he represents "change," although that one makes me laugh because he and Hillary basically stand for the same thing... so what's the difference? You tell me.
It's true that Hillary Clinton has sent out some mailers that were "questionable" as well. Let's face it... they all do... unfortunately that won't be changing anytime soon, but I think there was just something about seeing him rationalize his lies last night on TV that just turned my stomach. He reminds me of Bush Jr. more and more everyday. Sigh. I guess it's apparent that Republicans aren't the only ones who are willing to drink the Kool-Aid when it is served up on nice charming platter. "Change You Can Believe In?" Or is the just more of the same?
Obama Mailings 'False'? (FactCheck.org)
(If your interested in reading the truth about Hillary Clinton's Health Care Plan)
-OndineMonet
1 comment:
Not sure about this one. I'll acknowledge up front that I didn't see the specific comments from Obama that prompted you to write this, so that part I'll stay out of. But here are my thoughts on the rest of it:
If we're going to write off Hillary's use of "questionable" mailings as being a matter of "let's face it, they all do," then Obama's use of them shouldn't raise any more of an eyebrow. I mean, either it's a problem if ANYONE does it, or it's NOT a problem BECAUSE everyone does it.
But I read the FactCheck.org link -- which includes an update since you originally linked to it -- and it makes it clear that one of the mailings Obama sent out included a characterization of Clinton's position that was retracted AFTER the mailing was sent out, which means that at the time, it was not in serious question.
It also mentions this:
"[Clinton has] been described by a biographer as privately opposing NAFTA in the White House."
I have a problem with any politician showing a public face of approval on something while simultaneously "privately opposing it."
I respect Clinton's refusal to characterize her Iraq vote authorization as a "mistake," because she feels at the time that she made the best decision she could make. If that's what she believes, and if at the time she believed the evidence presented, along with the answers she got when she asked her OWN questions, then it WASN'T a mistake for her to vote the way she felt was best.
But in the case of NAFTA, I can't respect a politican who supports something only to secretly oppose it. If you oppose it, don't support it. Otherwise, you aren't being transparent.
I agree with you that personal charisma is not enough of a reason to vote for him. I also want truth, and in the case of NAFTA, Clinton's "private opposition" seems a little on the dishonest side.
With respect, the majority of those who support Obama are far more from drinkers of Kool-Aid; it's the fact that we're tired of the same old Kool-Aid being served with the expectation that we'd drink it all up in the first place that has made him such an appealing candidate.
Post a Comment