Barack Obama: Typical Politician
I can’t say I’m surprised. Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama has opted out of the public campaign finance system. Not that I don’t support his decision to forego public funding of his campaign. I would rather presidential campaigns didn’t drink from the federal trough.
What this does show is that despite his acolytes claim that the Illinois Senator brings a new kind of politics, despite his uplifting rhetoric, all we’re getting with this guy is the same old, same old.
Barack Obama is just a typical politician who will say or do anything to get elected.
His economic policy is nothing more than the tried and failed liberalism of the past forty plus years: address every problem with increased federal spending. And now, we see him inventing some excuse to break his pledge to take federal campaign funds “if his Republican rival did as well.” John McCain has pledged to do so.
Having since learned of his fundraising prowess, the Democrat knows it would put him at an advantage if he forewent federal financing. So, in order to advance his own interests, he broke his pledge but tried to dress it up as a problem of a “broken” public financing system. I agree the system is flawed and falling apart, but it’s been flawed and falling apart for some time — and was when he made his pledge.
But, I guess that’s just something else his campaign didn’t know about.
I doubt this latest revelation will stop his followers from swooning over him as the latest incarnation of a political savior.
UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin writes:
It would, of course, be ridiculous for Barack Obama to give up his fundraising advantage. On the other, doing something not in his own self-interest would allow Obama to demonstrate his bona fides as the architect of New Politics. Will John McCain make some hay? Only if he is able to demonstrate a larger theme of “phony Agent of Change” can he make any headway on this. After all, campaign finance reform — despite McCain’s best efforts — was never an issue to seize the popular imagination.
(Via Glenn.)
58 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
My concern is that when Obama started campaigning it was all about hope and change. Now that he has sold that message and only political junkies are paying attention, he has become your run of the mill typical politician.
Your average Obamamanic has no clue about any of this. I can only hope they forget to register, or neglect to vote.
Comment by Leah — June 19, 2008 @ 12:21 pm - June 19, 2008
Ed Morrissey analyzes Obama’s excuses, and has video of Obama proclaiming his commitment to public financing only 2 months ago:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/19/breaking-obama-passes-on-public-financing/
Yup. Meet the New Politics, same as the Old Politics.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 19, 2008 @ 12:34 pm - June 19, 2008
And Ed has more: Obama openly claims (admits?) that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just pandering.
I’m not sure if Obama was pandering earlier when he was against NAFTA, or today when he implicitly favors it, or both. Nobody knows. That’s the Obamessiah’s way: To hide his true beliefs and feelings.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 19, 2008 @ 12:44 pm - June 19, 2008
When is the Republican base going to wake up and put some real support behind John McCain? Sitting back while Obama gains ground is like fiddling while Rome burns. Surely Republicans and corporate America prospered during the last 8 years. Now is the time to allocate some of those resources to help McCain beat Obama. I know some Republicans don’t like McCain, but would you rather see Obama get elected? Republicans … Don’t bite off your nose to spite your face!
Support John McCain NOW!
Comment by Lee — June 19, 2008 @ 12:50 pm - June 19, 2008
This could be the biggest nail in Senator McCain’s political coffin. Even if he opts out of federal funding (something less than $90 million) and tries to raise what he needs, McCain is likely to be outspent 2 to 1 by Obama and possibly 3 to 1. McCain’s campaign hasn’t done well raising money for the primaries and pre-convention period and there’s little evidence that he could do better for the general election.
The Obama people are very open about what they plan to do: force McCain to put resources into red states where Republicans haven’t had to campaign in decades. Obama already has paid staffs organizing in these states and plans to advertise heavily in the fall. If McCain does have limited funds (and he will really be limited if he takes federal funding) and has to defend his own “backyard” he won’t have the resources to fight Obama in the critical swing states.
Unless the polls undergo major changes in the coming months, it looks like the 2008 election will have an unusually large number of swing states.
I might add that I thought Senator McCain had already opted out of federal funding. Some good friends of ours gave McCain’s campaign the maximum $4,600 for the primary. Earlier this month they were asked to donate an additional $4,600. It’s possible the local fundraiser didn’t know they were already maxed out for the pre-convention period.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 19, 2008 @ 2:08 pm - June 19, 2008
By the way, why are so many people surprised that Obama is really an old school politician. After all, he is a product of the Chicago Democratic machine.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 19, 2008 @ 2:25 pm - June 19, 2008
Lee: Some great minds think that it’s not important to stop Obama. I guess the theory goes it is beneath them to vote for McCain and so the risk of a nuclear annihilation is well worth it for them to say “I told you so” as millions die.
Comment by Vince P — June 19, 2008 @ 3:04 pm - June 19, 2008
While this certainly puts McCain at a competitive disadvantage, Trace, this hardly represents a nail in his political coffin. Recall that Obama vastly outspent and out-organized Mrs. Clinton in states holding primaries between March and June and lost the combined popular vote as well as losing such states as Ohio and Pennsylvania by considerable margins even as the media proclaimed him the all-but-crowned nominee.
Money ain’t going to erase this man’s growing negatives.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 19, 2008 @ 5:05 pm - June 19, 2008
This is no surprise to me. The gang running this guy is ruthless and he certainly considers himself above his own word. You mean nobody saw this coming?
I suppose we’re to expect the nation to see through this. Some will applaud that he got away with it. Others might remember it for 5 seconds.
Comment by Shawmut — June 19, 2008 @ 6:15 pm - June 19, 2008
I’ll just say that Obama having two or three times as much money, plus, Republicans who refuse to criticize his many blunders and flaws doesn’t seem to me a promising scenario for Republicans.
Comment by American Elephant — June 19, 2008 @ 9:16 pm - June 19, 2008
I found it rather fascinating that Obama attempted to portray this decision as taking the moral high road. In truth, I have yet to see anything at all of substance to Obama. Indeed, in terms of both his embrace of expediency over any principle and his ability to slide by any sort of tough questions - aided and abetted by a fawning MSM - he reminds me very much of Bill Clinton. At any rate, linked.
Comment by GW — June 19, 2008 @ 9:22 pm - June 19, 2008
GW, great point. He did try to portray his decision as taking the moral high road. As if it must be the high road because he’s taking it!
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 19, 2008 @ 9:39 pm - June 19, 2008
It’s always fun to watch Republicans, even the gay ones who their party wishes would go hide in an airport bathroom somewhere, whine because the Democrat isn’t on welfare.
Comment by John Hartland — June 19, 2008 @ 10:13 pm - June 19, 2008
It’s always fun to watch deathly-moronic noobs thinking they’re saying something smart.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 19, 2008 @ 10:22 pm - June 19, 2008
It’s always fun to see some sanctimonious lefty come on here and act like a 5 year old.
Comment by Vince P — June 19, 2008 @ 10:42 pm - June 19, 2008
Will McCain’s $88 million welfare check come with a box of Depends and a Cadillac to drive him to a whine & cheese party at the local Republican gay bar. And what does a Republican gay bar look like, anyway? Lots of guys in suits trying not to be seen?
Comment by John Hartland — June 19, 2008 @ 10:52 pm - June 19, 2008
If what your candidate did was right, John, why aren’t you explaining why, instead of attacking McCain?
Simple answer: Obama lied, and there’s no two ways to spin that. You can’t defend his behavior because it makes you a hypocrite, so you attack the Republicans instead.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2008 @ 3:15 am - June 20, 2008
Isn’t it funny how much neither he nor his campaign knows or, apparently, understand?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 20, 2008 @ 3:54 am - June 20, 2008
#16: Liberal, political sycophants like John are exactly like the candidates they support. They have absolutely no principles by which to determine their core beliefs, so they just pledge their support to everything their candidate does, thinks or says, even if it changes every 12 hours. There’s no bourgeois analysis of right or wrong, good-idea vs. bad-idea, has-always-worked vs. never-has-or-ever-will-work. They just believe and support whatever Obama says he believes and supports at any given moment. If he says it, they agree with it. If he does it, they support it. When he says and does the exact opposite, they righteously defend him.
I mean, look at what the snarling critter in #16 wrote. 24 hours ago this was about nobly operating within the parameters of publicly financed campaigns for the Presidency. But now that Obama has gone back on his word AGAIN, well now suddenly it’s an “$88 million welfare check.” Hmmm. I wonder if John would be calling it welfare if Obama were still accepting the funds?
Comment by Sean A — June 20, 2008 @ 4:57 am - June 20, 2008
#16: “And what does a Republican gay bar look like, anyway?”
John, a Republican gay bar is just like the other gay bars you’ve been to, except at the Republican one, fags like you get beaten up in the parking lot AND inside.
Comment by Sean A — June 20, 2008 @ 5:04 am - June 20, 2008
An unscientific, but intriguing straw poll conducted by HotAir suggests that people may be getting a clue about the Obamination.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 20, 2008 @ 9:44 am - June 20, 2008
#20 - Hey, if there is a Republican gay bar, point me in that direction! Sure would beat the typical “stand-and-model” bars that seem to pop up like toadstools anywhere there is alcohol, twinks and a drag queen or two.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 20, 2008 @ 11:14 am - June 20, 2008
Obama’s biggest strength is the fact that, among white liberals, his skin color has shielded him his entire life from criticism.
However, his biggest weakness is the belief that the fact that he isn’t criticized means that what he does is always right. Truly pathological — but typical of a Democrat minority member.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2008 @ 12:59 pm - June 20, 2008
The money advantage could either be more significant now than it was in the primaries because you are dealing with a different set of voters. During the primaries, you are dealing with mostly party and overally enthused or loyal voters. Hillary Clinton was able to hold on because she had favorable demographics, but even when she was spending more money…she would not have been able to beat Obama in states with higher AA or Affluent voters. She was able to stop the bleeding in those states but she didn’t win by as much as she could have if she had more money to organize and compete. She was also helped by name recongition and loyality of democratic voters that moved in to keep her going after she was getting trashed by the media.
I would really hasten people to compare the primary with the general election race. The GE is decided by swing voters, who are usually those lest likely to be involved or be actively researching canidates. Obama impressive ability to spend money on ads and deluge states means he will be picking off those people who only get a few political ads to them, and with the Republican brand is a poor state…he will most likely win them over.
I am looking at polls that show traditional red states becoming more divided and trending towards Obama. I just don’t think the gravity of the situation has set for the Republicans, and that will be the downfall.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — June 20, 2008 @ 3:22 pm - June 20, 2008
Yeah, North Dallas Thirty, we liberals just love Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice and Alan Keyes and J.C. Watts and Ward Connerly. We don’t care what they think. All that matters is that they are black, so we automatically support everything they say and do. Do you have any more Republican idiocy to sell, or what that your best shot?
Comment by Hugh Mongoose — June 20, 2008 @ 7:40 pm - June 20, 2008
#22
There’s your project for the Montrose. Maybe you could buy Mary’s, raze it and start from scratch. Talk about neighborhood improvement. Don’t know where the “Village People” who hang out at the door will go, but that’s their problem.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 20, 2008 @ 7:42 pm - June 20, 2008
#23: “However, his biggest weakness is the belief that the fact that he isn’t criticized means that what he does is always right.”
Excellent observation. I remember when I saw Obama speak for the first time, there had been so much hype, but I understood why because he had an authentic humility about him and I could certainly see why people found him so appealing. He used to speak in a more persuasive tone, as if he were trying to CONVINCE his audience that he is right and he hopes they will just hear him out. It’s a quality that I think most successful politicians have had (even if it disappeared after they had been in Washington for 5 minutes). I definitely think Bush had it, and so did Clinton, in spades. Hillary tried to imitate it, but it either came off as inauthentic, or she would go too far and resort to tears. The Clintons thought they could get Hillary into the White House if they swapped identities–she tried to take on his act of the eloquent, self-assured, but humble leader that would stand up to bullies, but still had warmth and seemed to care about each and every American individually. She flopped, big time. (Bill, however, had a very successful run as Hillary—a bombastic, hateful, fire-breathing, harpy bitch.)
But Obama was completely seduced by his own press within a matter of months. That engaging humility (which I think actually was authentic) has completely evaporated. I mean, it is GONE. I first noticed its absence when he made that speech about a year ago (“religion in this country has been Hijacked!”) Now he has two styles: (1) snide, chuckly swagger, as if to say, “Can you believe what ignorant fuck-wads Republicans are? I tell you, they are too stupid to live! He hee hee, ha ha ha…” and (2) measured but palpable indignation, as if to say, “we won’t let those neocon bastards get way with this!” It’s a shame really. Obama apparently decided that his best shot at the White House is to run as Michelle Obama.
It’s a really bad move. The angry, disenfranchized, victim persona favored by Michelle is a real crowd-pleaser at the rallies where the unemployed, extreme-left KosKids hang out, but it’s a HUGE turnoff for those “moderates” that Obama needs to win the general election.
Comment by Sean A — June 20, 2008 @ 9:41 pm - June 20, 2008
Sean A, do all (16 or so) gay conservatives base their votes on someone’s tone of voice, or is it is just you who does that?
Comment by John Hartland — June 21, 2008 @ 1:33 am - June 21, 2008
John: It’s interesting .. someone like you , would probably demands all kind of special “protections’ because you fancy yourself to be a “minority” should then about implicitly mocking that so few gay people are Republican.
I bet you consider yourself to be like a kid with Palsy who was picked on by everyone in regular class. so they move you to the special class and then you become the bully.
Not that I feel bullied because your type with the big mouth and small mind is so common.. i wish there were more of you to annoy general society.. that would ensure a sustained backlash against assholes like you.
Comment by Vince P — June 21, 2008 @ 1:44 am - June 21, 2008
Yeah, North Dallas Thirty, we liberals just love Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice and Alan Keyes and J.C. Watts and Ward Connerly. We don’t care what they think. All that matters is that they are black, so we automatically support everything they say and do.
Actually, Hugh, that demonstrates my point; the first thing liberals try to do with these people you mentioned is to deny that they’re really black. Hence the use of words like “oreo”, “white nigger”, “Uncle Tom”, saying they’re “acting white”, and so forth.
The inherent racism of the Democrat Party is best shown in how they treat the aforementioned people. In the Democrat mindset, blacks should be obedient slaves whose only thought is gratefulness and undying support for their Democrat massas; therefore, any black person who thinks otherwise is jeered by Democrats as a “traitor to their race”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2008 @ 2:16 am - June 21, 2008
#28: “Sean A, do all (16 or so) gay conservatives base their votes on someone’s tone of voice, or is it is just you who does that?”
I’m sorry, John. Perhaps I was unclear. When I first began seeing Obama on television, I observed that he did have a very humble, charismatic quality in his speech and demeanor that I thought would be very appealing to Democrats and obviously that’s turned out to be true. However, since then, I believe he has let that quality slip away and instead acts more like his braying obnoxious wife with every speech. I think the reason you’re confused is you were assuming that because I found Obama to have a charismatic quality at one point, I must necessarily have become one of his sycophantic adherents based solely upon his lyrical voice (like every other leftist Obama tea-bagger in this Nation, which includes you). So, apparently you were under the assumption that I am no longer an Obama supporter because I think he has completely erased the persona that was his best quality? That seems to be your point. So let me clear this up: Even if I had thought Obama’s voice sounded like tiny, perfectly-formed snowflakes whispering down through the delicate petals of cherry blossoms to land on the downy fur of a litter of sleeping white persian kittens, I still would NEVER have voted for Obama in a gazillion mother-fu*king years.
You see, John, you’re just not getting it. You are correct. I am a CONSERVATIVE. Therefore, my vote is based upon the actual WORDS in the speeches that the candidates give (I believe you Obama supporters refer to those things as “LYRICS”). I don’t give a crap how it sounds. I don’t care if a candidate stumbles over a word now and then. In fact, if a candidate had one of those heinous buzzer throat replacement things instead of a larynx, if the buzzer was spitting out specific policies that are good for this country, then I would send that annoying bastard to Washington.
This is a classic case of transference. Obama opens his mouth and all John can hear is an Enya CD, but I’M the one who bases my vote on a candidate’s tone of voice. Seriously, who remembers all those FOOLS on CNN who would listen to an Obama speech and just as these people are doing everything short of smoking a cigarette in the afterglow, the CNN commentator would come over and ask them why they are voting for Obama and they would walk right into a propeller–”because of his accomplishments!” Which accomplishments are you referring to? CUE CRICKETS CHIRPING. How many times were Obama supporters (including guests on news programs) caught not being able to name a single thing that qualifies him to be President? The election is still months away and if I were asked why I am NOT voting for Obama, I think I could literally name 25 specific, fact-based reasons that in my opinion make him absolutely unfit to be the CIC. Maybe 30. It’s easy to have that many reasons because every day it’s another flip-flop, scandal, OR more importantly, a clear statement from him about his policies.
And by the way, John, I just answered your question but you haven’t answered the question I posed to you in #19.
One last thing: John, I’m neither offended nor affected by your tired attempt at sarcasm by insinuating there are only 16 gay conservatives or whatever. First of all, there are a significant and growing number of gay conservatives in this country, and they are sick of people like you who are on the wrong side of the war on terror. Islamic psychos are hanging gays in the public square and bitches like you are barricading yourselves in front of military recruiting stations and calling American troops baby-killers–anything you can to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Iran HANGS GAYS IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE and does it in broad daylight and they have no concern that photos are taken and end up on the internet because to their culture, there’s nothing controversial about murdering gays. Sharia law (Iranian law) requires it. No big deal.
But ignorant fu*ks like you scream bloody murder that Bush is going to turn Iran into the “next Iraq!” just because he has the balls to say that Iran WILL NOT have nukes, period. Meanwhile, Obama plans to go hang out with him maybe a few cool photo ops, yeah, cool, watch gay hanging–wow fascinating culture. Change we can believe in–appeasement of psychotic mass-murdering regimes.
My point is John, I don’t care how many gay conservatives there are because I see myself as part of a group of conservatives. They don’t have to be gay for me to feel like we have the same values and principles and I have WAAAAAYYY more in common with those people than with ignorant fu*k wads like you.
Comment by Sean A — June 21, 2008 @ 5:55 am - June 21, 2008
Sean, was that a “yes” or a “no”?
Comment by John Hartland — June 21, 2008 @ 12:21 pm - June 21, 2008
whine, whine, whine. Obama did the right thing as he knows he’ll outraise McSame 3-to-1. This flip-flop is a two-day old story, at best.
McSame’s flip-flops are more egregious: first he was against bushco’s tax cuts, now he’s for them; first he was opposed to off-shore drilling, now he’s for it; first he called falwell, robertson, et al “agents of intolerance,” now he’s pandered to get their endorsements; he flip-flopped on immigration and releasing his wife’s tax returns. by trying to appease his base, he’s alienated independents.
the end result will be a slaughter at the polls in november. he has zero chance of winning.
Comment by rightiswrong — June 21, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - June 21, 2008
You may well be right, rightiswrong, that this is only a two-day story, but you never dispute the point of the post that Obama is no more than a typical politician.
And you’re harldly one to claim McCain has alienated independents.
Slaughter in November? Victory maybe. But, recall that your man Obama vastly outspent Ms. Hillary in the final primaries and look who won the vast majority of those primaries and the overwhelming majority of those votes.
And once again you betray your juvenility and your inability to see McCain as anything more than your own projections by calling the presumptive Republican nominee “McSame.” He’s no Bush and if you paid any attention to politics, you’d know it.
Once again, your points addresses your own pathologies more than it does my post.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 21, 2008 @ 1:06 pm - June 21, 2008
Do you mean to tell me that you thought Obama was something other than a typical politician? This is the basis of your outrage, that someone from the South Side of Chicago is a “typical politician?” Who in hell ever once believed otherwise?
Comment by John Hartland — June 21, 2008 @ 7:05 pm - June 21, 2008
I think John is talking to Sean but I will say I’m outraged at Obama. I’m outraged that he running a campaign of calculated deception .. that he and his team are playing with fire the way they are appealing to the soul of people
I am outraged by their communist agenda and that they have introduced into the public space all manner of nastiness between races and genders.
He is disgusting.. I can’t believe anyone with a brain actually likes him.
Comment by Vince P — June 21, 2008 @ 7:39 pm - June 21, 2008
Vince, you’d better start believing, because Change is a-comin’!
Comment by John Hartland — June 21, 2008 @ 11:37 pm - June 21, 2008
John: The only change coming is Obama’s political career momentum.
Comment by Vince P — June 22, 2008 @ 12:13 am - June 22, 2008
#32: “Sean, was that a “yes” or a “no”?”
That’s funny, I thought I was unequivocal, but since you are clearly a wide-eyed, bewildered simpleton, please see below:
No, I do not base who I vote for on a candidate’s tone of voice. That is neither the practice of gay conservatives, nor conservatives in general. It is, however, among the five primary factors Democrats (read: anti-American leftists) use to choose which candidate they will vote for–
(1) Party affiliation (must be a Democrat)
(2) Tone of voice (fire, passion and music, preferably)
(3) Skin color (this factor clearly jumped several spots this election cycle; it wasn’t even in the top 50 for Democrats in 2004)
(4) Must avoid giving any details on policy positions until forced; then change policy to the opposite position within 24-72 hours
(5) Must say he is “committed to keeping America safe;” plans to start with immediate withdrawal from Iraq, since there are no terrorists there except the ones we “created”
There are, of course, other major factors in the top 10 for Democrats, i.e., candidate must say that he wants the election not to be about race–later must follow up by predicting that Republicans are going to run a racist campaign because the candidate is black–springs to mind. Otherwise, this is all Democrats need or want to pick a candidate (well, obviously).
So which factor was the deciding factor for you, John. Was it all that fire and music in Obama’s voice? Or was it that letter “D” (and in such an attractive font!) after his name that tipped the scales for you?
Comment by Sean A — June 22, 2008 @ 12:54 am - June 22, 2008
#37: “Vince, you’d better start believing, because Change is a-comin’!”
Yes, change. John we are all well aware that “change is a-comin’”. We are just troubled with the fact that: (1) 99% of Obama’s supporters are too blind and ignorant to even articulate what that “change” will entail; and (2) if they do know what the “change” will consist of, they are keeping it a secret before the election because they know that if they started describing it to the American people, their agenda would be exposed as pure, unadulterated socialism.
P.S. Was that reference to change “a-comin’” your attempt at parodying a negro spiritual or something? Are you black? If not, I find it highly inflammatory and at a minimum, racially insensitive. Do you make such references around your Obama-supporting comrade…er, friends? Because that is not the kind of humor that will be welcome in Obama’s “new America.” You’d better clean up your act or you’ll find yourself thrown under that but (believe it or not, there’s still some room–maybe Obama’s grandmother can save you a seat).
Comment by Sean A — June 22, 2008 @ 1:10 am - June 22, 2008
#38: “John: The only change coming is Obama’s political career momentum.”
Right again, Vinnie P. Since Bill Clinton’s impeachment, it has been crystal clear that for conservatives, it is the future and safety of our nation that is at stake. For Democrats, it’s some lefty-elitist’s political career.
Comment by Sean A — June 22, 2008 @ 1:13 am - June 22, 2008
John: If you’re an Obamacon you should watch this video made by a Obama supporter who is puzzled by Obama’s refusal to stand by his public money pledge and other things that he has started to notice which is making him creep out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6LtKDwVo-o
Comment by Vince P — June 22, 2008 @ 1:19 am - June 22, 2008
#33: “whine, whine, whine. Obama did the right thing as he knows he’ll outraise McSame 3-to-1. This flip-flop is a two-day old story, at best. McSame’s flip-flops are more egregious..”
Thank you for clearly illustrating the issue, rightiswrong. McCain’s policy inconsistencies was a POLARIZING issue during the primaries and has caused significant acrimony within the party–some Republicans are refusing to support him by pledging to stay home in November, and that is something McCain will have to deal with in his campaign, in addition to running against Obama.
This is in stark contrast to the Democrats’ approach which you have plainly conceded. Every few days Obama states a position that is diametrically opposed to an unequivocal position he took 24-48 hours earlier. And his recent decision to stab McCain in the back and waive federal financing is the most egregious of all since his whole candidacy was supposed to be something we had never seen before–the renunciation of corporate influence on elections; running a campaign that should stand or fall based on whether its idea connect with the people vs. who has a bigger advertising budget–OBAMA HAS CONCEDED THAT HE IS A SHAMELESS LIAR AND ALL THIS “NEW CAMPAIGN” TALK WAS BULLSHIT.
But here the real point: your reaction? Ehhh. Old story…next! The fact that you call what Obama did “the right thing” just proves that the Democratic Party has no principles, its candidates have no core values (except ambition), and that you are one of the ignorant fools they have managed to sucker.
Comment by Sean A — June 22, 2008 @ 1:28 am - June 22, 2008
Just as McCain and company found out about the campaign finance issue, you’re about to discover that the vast majority of Americans don’t care about this. It’s a non-issue. This also means that most Americans don’t care that McCain has violated his own campaign finance law. This is just not an issue most people care about except for political junkies and inside the beltway types. You’ll have to find something else to rag on Obama about. This one just doesn’t have any traction.
Comment by Houndentenor — June 22, 2008 @ 10:12 am - June 22, 2008
Sean, you write a whole lot but you sure don’t say very much.
Comment by John Hartland — June 22, 2008 @ 11:39 am - June 22, 2008
Hey, John Hartland, Obama said he wasn’t a typical South Side Chicago politician.
Now you admit publicly that he is.
That means Obama is a liar.
Can you acknowledge that Obama lied when he said he wasn’t a typical South Side Chicago politician?
Or is it normal for Democrat politicians to lie?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 3:38 pm - June 22, 2008
Can you acknowledge that Obama lied when he said he wasn’t a typical South Side Chicago politician?
Obama never said he wasn’t a typical South Side Chicago politician. At least, I didn’t find the quote when I did a Google search. Maybe you can find the quote. When you do, please post a link here. Until then, it’s a stretch, even for a Republican, to accuse someone of “lying” about something he never mentioned.
Comment by John Hartland — June 22, 2008 @ 4:31 pm - June 22, 2008
John: Why are you acting like you’re incapable of making simple connections?
Are you really telling us that you have no idea how to start from this premise “he wasn’t a typical South Side Chicago politician” and work your way to his campaign’s main theme?
That’s pretty sad.
Comment by Vince P — June 22, 2008 @ 5:06 pm - June 22, 2008
Vince, this “North Dallas Thirty” accused Obama of “lying.” How can you be “lying” about something you never said?
Comment by John Hartland — June 22, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - June 22, 2008
John, you yourself said that Obama was a “change” from typical politicians.
Now you’ve reversed yourself and claimed that he isn’t, that no one ever said that he was, and so forth.
Thank you for demonstrating that Obama is a typical South Side Chicago politician, which means he’s corrupt, a liar, and a racist.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 5:49 pm - June 22, 2008
John, you yourself said that Obama was a “change” from typical politicians. Now you’ve reversed yourself and claimed that he isn’t, that no one ever said that he was, and so forth.
What a piece of work you are. I never said that Obama was a “change,” which means I couldn’t have “reversed” myself. And you apparently can’t find any quote that supports your earlier statement that “Obama said he wasn’t a typical South Side Chicago politician.”
You’re a funny guy, North Dallas Thirty. You just make it up as you go along, don’t you? It makes you a great Republican, anyway. And I suppose it makes you a great homosexual in Dallas, too. A lot of make-up must go along with that one, too. If you’re looking for a “liar,” you need to find a mirror somewhere. Wow!
Comment by John Hartland — June 22, 2008 @ 7:41 pm - June 22, 2008
I never said that Obama was a “change,” which means I couldn’t have “reversed” myself.
#37: “Vince, you’d better start believing, because Change is a-comin’!”
Obama must be infectious. All of his supporters believe that, like him, they can say one thing one day and then reverse it the next without anyone noticing him.
I hope you’re black, John, because that’s the only reason it works for Obama — the fact that white liberals cling to their racist belief that black people are too stupid and childlike to manipulate you and lie to you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 11:48 pm - June 22, 2008
“Dallas” did the big guys beat you up when you were in high school? God, I sure hope so.
Comment by John Hartland — June 23, 2008 @ 2:11 am - June 23, 2008
Do you have to be 12 in age and IQ to be a leftist? As well as a complete, mean-spirited scumbag?
Obama could have the voice of Luciano freaking Pavarotti and he will still be a disaster to this nation. What change? Change back to the good old days of Jimmy Carter and his malaise, misery index, and military-bashing? Better start looking for some platform shoes.
Comment by Attmay — June 23, 2008 @ 8:19 am - June 23, 2008
#34: bzzt. wrong again.
mcsame is bushco redux. he’s a filthy war-monger who backed an immoral and illegal war, just like bushco. he’s for the tax cuts for the rich people, his drug-addict wife included. he’s against habeus corpus for detainees like bushco.
on the issues that matter, grampy mcsame is in lock-step with the criminal bushco administration. he has ZERO chance of winning in november…it’ll be a complete landslide.
so, keep on whining. you have the next 8 years of being the minority party, so you’ll have plenty of practice evangelizing regressive policies as this country moves forward.
Comment by rightiswrong — June 23, 2008 @ 11:23 am - June 23, 2008
[...] Once again, Obama is trying to have it both ways, opposing gay marriage so he doesn’t appear too radical to more socially conservative voters, yet favoring the repeal of DOMA to curry favor with gay voters. Another piece of evidence that the dewy-eyed reverence of many of his followers supporters notwithstanding, the Democrats’ standard bearer this year is just another typical politician. [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Where does Obama Stand on Gay Marriage? — June 27, 2008 @ 6:04 pm - June 27, 2008
[...] Obama shows that his followers supporters’ hopes notwithstanding, he’s just another typical politician. As Gerard Baker writes today: Since securing the Democratic nomination a few weeks ago, the only [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » The Change Obama Stands For — July 4, 2008 @ 11:57 am - July 4, 2008
[...] He may style himself some new kind of politician, but, as I wrote in June, he’s just “a typical politician who will say or do anything to get elected.“ [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama the Opportunist — October 29, 2008 @ 3:19 pm - October 29, 2008