An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Barack Obama’s Credibility Problem
I have discussed the candidates with several friends, mostly lifelong Democrats, college-educated women in their 40s and 50s. We just cannot buy what Barack Obama is selling. Many of us are facing the possibility of, for the very first time, voting for the Republican nominee in November. Sen. Obama does not charm me (the more I watch and listen to him, the less I like him) and is clearly not qualified to be president at this time. He needs many more years of experience and a long track record which can be evaluated before I would consider voting for him. If the Democratic Party makes Sen. Obama its nominee, we will be sorry. Should Sen. Obama be elected President, we will all be very disappointed and very sorry.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
196 Responses to “Barack Obama’s Credibility Problem”
It's amazing to see how agitated Democrats and left-leaning voters become over the subject of whether to vote for Obama versus Clinton given that there's not much difference between the two of them when it comes to domestic policy. Much of the “debate” between the two of the have been over non-issues.
The one area where there are clear distinctions between the two candidates is foreign policy, and that appears to be the fundamental reason why Holly is so pro-Clinton and so anti-Obama. Holly, by her own admission is a Democratic “hawk” and has been a vocal cheerleader of the Iraq War.
There is some truth to the argument that Obama has gotten a free pass from the media and that much of the support for him is unwarranted. I have believed from the very beginning that Obama has offered more style than substance and that his appeal to independents and moderates is based more upon his being a “fresh face” than with offering new and innovative policies.
That being said, Senator Clinton has proven herself in my eyes to be undeserving of any sympathy or support. Clinton is not the candidate of change. She's the status quo. She controlled much of the party machinery and had a huge lead in name recognition and support from the party establishment but couldn't close the deal. She was horribly wrong on the Iraq War, and while she didn't go as far as Lieberman did in condemning fellow Democrats who refused to support the war, she did lend her voice in the effort to quell dissenters like Senator Russ Feingold, who was arguing for a withdrawal from Iraq as early as 2005.
Think of how many hundreds of American lives and how many hundreds of billions of dollars could have been saved if Hillary Clinton and other pro-war Democrats had listened to Feingold instead of using recycled Republican talking points to discredit him.
Of course, that was BEFORE the 2006 midterm elections. It's funny how a sudden plummeting in voter support for the war can make a politician completely flip-flop on their position on the war, but that is exactly what Clinton did. Now she uses the Iraq War as an excuse to criticize Bush and the Republicans with nary a word about her own complicity in moving the war forward.
It may very well be the case that Senator Clinton had a genuine change of heart and genuinely opposes the war today, but when it comes who is best equipped to lead this nation, it is a little far-fetched to ascribe the label of “strong leader” to someone who chose to speak out against the war nearly four years into the war and only after some 3000 lives and nearly $400 billion had been spent (these were the approximate figures back in December 2006, when Clinton switched her position on the war).
But even if you're of the mind that the war is legitimate and that Senator Clinton was right to have supported it, the tactics she has resorted to within the last couple of weeks are unforgivable. Her blatant pandering to Jewish-Americans and opportunistic attempt to associate Obama with some kind of tacit approval of anti-Semitism during last week's debate was a new low in her campaign.
“Denouncing” Louis Farrakhan versus “Rejecting” Louis Farrakhan? Talk about a distinction without a difference! These are the kind of rhetoric gymnastics that the American people have grown tired of, and to blame a candidate for the hateful words of one of his supporters whose support he neither accepted nor solicited represents a logical fallacy (imagine if we held all politicians to such standards). It just goes to show once again that Senator Clinton will say just about anything to become elected.
NicRivera, good comments. Though I don't hold Hillary's 2002 Iraq war resolution against her and it doesn't bother me that she changed her mind as the rest of the country changed their mind. (I was against the war from the start, by the way and never supported it.) But as you rightly point out there are other reasons to consider Obama.
On “denouncing” v. “rejecting”. I agree with you. I still don't know why Hillary interjected herself into a question aimed at Obama about one of his endorsements that he denounced. When Obama conceded the point to her, Hillary looked like the cat that ate the bird, as if she had scored some victory. Personally I feel that Obama won that exchange because it showed (as he did on other occasions during the same debate) that he was “big enough” to concede points (when most politicians don't) and to give Hillary credit (as he did on another occasion) where credit is due. She came across as petty (especially complaining about the SNL reference and then being the “first one” to be asked questions). Obama did come across as much more mature an in control.
NicRivera, good comments. Though I don't hold Hillary's 2002 Iraq war resolution against her and it doesn't bother me that she changed her mind as the rest of the country changed their mind. (I was against the war from the start, by the way and never supported it.) But as you rightly point out there are other reasons to consider Obama.
On “denouncing” v. “rejecting”. I agree with you. I still don't know why Hillary interjected herself into a question aimed at Obama about one of his endorsements that he denounced. When Obama conceded the point to her, Hillary looked like the cat that ate the bird, as if she had scored some victory. Personally I feel that Obama won that exchange because it showed (as he did on other occasions during the same debate) that he was “big enough” to concede points (when most politicians don't) and to give Hillary credit (as he did on another occasion) where credit is due. She came across as petty (especially complaining about the SNL reference and then being the “first one” to be asked questions). Obama did come across as much more mature an in control.
NicRivera, good comments. Though I don't hold Hillary's 2002 Iraq war resolution against her and it doesn't bother me that she changed her mind as the rest of the country changed their mind. (I was against the war from the start, by the way and never supported it.) But as you rightly point out there are other reasons to consider Obama.
On “denouncing” v. “rejecting”. I agree with you. I still don't know why Hillary interjected herself into a question aimed at Obama about one of his endorsements that he denounced. When Obama conceded the point to her, Hillary looked like the cat that ate the bird, as if she had scored some victory. Personally I feel that Obama won that exchange because it showed (as he did on other occasions during the same debate) that he was “big enough” to concede points (when most politicians don't) and to give Hillary credit (as he did on another occasion) where credit is due. She came across as petty (especially complaining about the SNL reference and then being the “first one” to be asked questions). Obama did come across as much more mature an in control.
NicRivera, good comments. Though I don't hold Hillary's 2002 Iraq war resolution against her and it doesn't bother me that she changed her mind as the rest of the country changed their mind. (I was against the war from the start, by the way and never supported it.) But as you rightly point out there are other reasons to consider Obama.
On “denouncing” v. “rejecting”. I agree with you. I still don't know why Hillary interjected herself into a question aimed at Obama about one of his endorsements that he denounced. When Obama conceded the point to her, Hillary looked like the cat that ate the bird, as if she had scored some victory. Personally I feel that Obama won that exchange because it showed (as he did on other occasions during the same debate) that he was “big enough” to concede points (when most politicians don't) and to give Hillary credit (as he did on another occasion) where credit is due. She came across as petty (especially complaining about the SNL reference and then being the “first one” to be asked questions). Obama did come across as much more mature an in control.
In a democracy, the side with fewer votes don't get their way. That's how it is; the sky is not falling. It is hard to see your preferred candidate lose, but HRC supporters could take a real lesson from John Edwards' supporters on knowing the difference between an opponent and an enemy.
In a democracy, the side with fewer votes don't get their way. That's how it is; the sky is not falling. It is hard to see your preferred candidate lose, but HRC supporters could take a real lesson from John Edwards' supporters on knowing the difference between an opponent and an enemy.
In a democracy, the side with fewer votes don't get their way. That's how it is; the sky is not falling. It is hard to see your preferred candidate lose, but HRC supporters could take a real lesson from John Edwards' supporters on knowing the difference between an opponent and an enemy.
In a democracy, the side with fewer votes don't get their way. That's how it is; the sky is not falling. It is hard to see your preferred candidate lose, but HRC supporters could take a real lesson from John Edwards' supporters on knowing the difference between an opponent and an enemy.
I hold Hillary's 2002 Iraq war resolution against her. If only because of her accompanying speech on the floor, insisting that it not be used as a justification for war. It is proof that she knew what Bush would do and wanted to have it both ways.
I hold Hillary's 2002 Iraq war resolution against her. If only because of her accompanying speech on the floor, insisting that it not be used as a justification for war. It is proof that she knew what Bush would do and wanted to have it both ways.
I hold Hillary's 2002 Iraq war resolution against her. If only because of her accompanying speech on the floor, insisting that it not be used as a justification for war. It is proof that she knew what Bush would do and wanted to have it both ways.
I hold Hillary's 2002 Iraq war resolution against her. If only because of her accompanying speech on the floor, insisting that it not be used as a justification for war. It is proof that she knew what Bush would do and wanted to have it both ways.
GeorgeSorwell: “I'm sorry Clinton is losing, but there it is. I don't especially blame white women in their 40's and 50's for feeling cheated. If Obama were losing, black people would be feeling cheated right now.”
Actually that's a great point- that if Obama were losing blacks would be feeling cheated.
I'm not sure it's true and I'd love for others to chime in.
The reason I don't believe it's true is that blacks didn't support Obama at first. They never expected for him to come this far. Many blacks felt as though whites would keep him down.
But after it was evident that white America would vote for him, then blacks started to realize that he was not just some “token” candidate that was up there for show.
But that's just a musing, not a fact. I'd love to hear others' ideas.
GeorgeSorwell: “I'm sorry Clinton is losing, but there it is. I don't especially blame white women in their 40's and 50's for feeling cheated. If Obama were losing, black people would be feeling cheated right now.”
Actually that's a great point- that if Obama were losing blacks would be feeling cheated.
I'm not sure it's true and I'd love for others to chime in.
The reason I don't believe it's true is that blacks didn't support Obama at first. They never expected for him to come this far. Many blacks felt as though whites would keep him down.
But after it was evident that white America would vote for him, then blacks started to realize that he was not just some “token” candidate that was up there for show.
But that's just a musing, not a fact. I'd love to hear others' ideas.
GeorgeSorwell: “I'm sorry Clinton is losing, but there it is. I don't especially blame white women in their 40's and 50's for feeling cheated. If Obama were losing, black people would be feeling cheated right now.”
Actually that's a great point- that if Obama were losing blacks would be feeling cheated.
I'm not sure it's true and I'd love for others to chime in.
The reason I don't believe it's true is that blacks didn't support Obama at first. They never expected for him to come this far. Many blacks felt as though whites would keep him down.
But after it was evident that white America would vote for him, then blacks started to realize that he was not just some “token” candidate that was up there for show.
But that's just a musing, not a fact. I'd love to hear others' ideas.
GeorgeSorwell: “I'm sorry Clinton is losing, but there it is. I don't especially blame white women in their 40's and 50's for feeling cheated. If Obama were losing, black people would be feeling cheated right now.”
Actually that's a great point- that if Obama were losing blacks would be feeling cheated.
I'm not sure it's true and I'd love for others to chime in.
The reason I don't believe it's true is that blacks didn't support Obama at first. They never expected for him to come this far. Many blacks felt as though whites would keep him down.
But after it was evident that white America would vote for him, then blacks started to realize that he was not just some “token” candidate that was up there for show.
But that's just a musing, not a fact. I'd love to hear others' ideas.
HillaryGotMyVote: thanks for all the hard work, though I don't agree with everything there… it's good to have a mental check.
Besides, I feel better knowing that there are people out there who put up longer posts than I do!
HillaryGotMyVote: thanks for all the hard work, though I don't agree with everything there… it's good to have a mental check.
Besides, I feel better knowing that there are people out there who put up longer posts than I do!
HillaryGotMyVote: thanks for all the hard work, though I don't agree with everything there… it's good to have a mental check.
Besides, I feel better knowing that there are people out there who put up longer posts than I do!
HillaryGotMyVote: thanks for all the hard work, though I don't agree with everything there… it's good to have a mental check.
Besides, I feel better knowing that there are people out there who put up longer posts than I do!
ChrisWWW: “Just a shot in the dark here, but I think Holly is afraid to reveal the most important issue to her in this election. She will only vote for an unabashed hawk.”
No, I don't think Holly is afraid to reveal that she will only vote for an unabashed hawk. It is an interesting point and observation.
Whereas I'm against the Iraq war from the beginning, I've also stated that I thought Bush was 100% right to go into Afghanistan. He made the mistake of turning his back on places where we knew the terrorists to be to focus on his own private oil field (well what he wanted as his very own).
So you may be right about Holly, but there are other “war” supporters here (and I think there are some folks here who even want us to stay in Iraq, but I'm not sure). It just has to be the right war for the right reason. And I say get out of Iraq so we can concentrate on fighting the terrorists who are a threat to us and so we can respond to other global situations as the need arises.
My position on Iran- we need to really try to negotiate with them before we invade. (What would we invade them with, anyway?)
So, good observation and I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts.
ChrisWWW: “Just a shot in the dark here, but I think Holly is afraid to reveal the most important issue to her in this election. She will only vote for an unabashed hawk.”
No, I don't think Holly is afraid to reveal that she will only vote for an unabashed hawk. It is an interesting point and observation.
Whereas I'm against the Iraq war from the beginning, I've also stated that I thought Bush was 100% right to go into Afghanistan. He made the mistake of turning his back on places where we knew the terrorists to be to focus on his own private oil field (well what he wanted as his very own).
So you may be right about Holly, but there are other “war” supporters here (and I think there are some folks here who even want us to stay in Iraq, but I'm not sure). It just has to be the right war for the right reason. And I say get out of Iraq so we can concentrate on fighting the terrorists who are a threat to us and so we can respond to other global situations as the need arises.
My position on Iran- we need to really try to negotiate with them before we invade. (What would we invade them with, anyway?)
So, good observation and I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts.
ChrisWWW: “Just a shot in the dark here, but I think Holly is afraid to reveal the most important issue to her in this election. She will only vote for an unabashed hawk.”
No, I don't think Holly is afraid to reveal that she will only vote for an unabashed hawk. It is an interesting point and observation.
Whereas I'm against the Iraq war from the beginning, I've also stated that I thought Bush was 100% right to go into Afghanistan. He made the mistake of turning his back on places where we knew the terrorists to be to focus on his own private oil field (well what he wanted as his very own).
So you may be right about Holly, but there are other “war” supporters here (and I think there are some folks here who even want us to stay in Iraq, but I'm not sure). It just has to be the right war for the right reason. And I say get out of Iraq so we can concentrate on fighting the terrorists who are a threat to us and so we can respond to other global situations as the need arises.
My position on Iran- we need to really try to negotiate with them before we invade. (What would we invade them with, anyway?)
So, good observation and I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts.
ChrisWWW: “Just a shot in the dark here, but I think Holly is afraid to reveal the most important issue to her in this election. She will only vote for an unabashed hawk.”
No, I don't think Holly is afraid to reveal that she will only vote for an unabashed hawk. It is an interesting point and observation.
Whereas I'm against the Iraq war from the beginning, I've also stated that I thought Bush was 100% right to go into Afghanistan. He made the mistake of turning his back on places where we knew the terrorists to be to focus on his own private oil field (well what he wanted as his very own).
So you may be right about Holly, but there are other “war” supporters here (and I think there are some folks here who even want us to stay in Iraq, but I'm not sure). It just has to be the right war for the right reason. And I say get out of Iraq so we can concentrate on fighting the terrorists who are a threat to us and so we can respond to other global situations as the need arises.
My position on Iran- we need to really try to negotiate with them before we invade. (What would we invade them with, anyway?)
So, good observation and I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts.
Now now, you don't mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.
Now now, you don't mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.
Now now, you don't mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.
Now now, you don't mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.
The “unabashed hawks” who have been running the country handed Iraq to Iran. They're having a lil lovefest over there right now. Anyone who thinks we can take on Iran and Iraq together now (forgetting Afghanistan and any other situation that might come along) is sadly misshapen.
The “unabashed hawks” who have been running the country handed Iraq to Iran. They're having a lil lovefest over there right now. Anyone who thinks we can take on Iran and Iraq together now (forgetting Afghanistan and any other situation that might come along) is sadly misshapen.
The “unabashed hawks” who have been running the country handed Iraq to Iran. They're having a lil lovefest over there right now. Anyone who thinks we can take on Iran and Iraq together now (forgetting Afghanistan and any other situation that might come along) is sadly misshapen.
The “unabashed hawks” who have been running the country handed Iraq to Iran. They're having a lil lovefest over there right now. Anyone who thinks we can take on Iran and Iraq together now (forgetting Afghanistan and any other situation that might come along) is sadly misshapen.
'Now now, you don't mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.'
AMEN, brother!
'Now now, you don't mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.'
AMEN, brother!
'Now now, you don't mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.'
AMEN, brother!
'Now now, you don't mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.'
AMEN, brother!
I belive blogger may say things like that however a lot of it started when Obama said ” I know her voters will vote for me but mine will not vote for her”.
please tell me how this is any better? Could he be hinting to a “spiteful” vote or “Hell hath no fury as men voters scorned”. It cuts both ways.
I belive blogger may say things like that however a lot of it started when Obama said ” I know her voters will vote for me but mine will not vote for her”.
please tell me how this is any better? Could he be hinting to a “spiteful” vote or “Hell hath no fury as men voters scorned”. It cuts both ways.
I belive blogger may say things like that however a lot of it started when Obama said ” I know her voters will vote for me but mine will not vote for her”.
please tell me how this is any better? Could he be hinting to a “spiteful” vote or “Hell hath no fury as men voters scorned”. It cuts both ways.
I belive blogger may say things like that however a lot of it started when Obama said ” I know her voters will vote for me but mine will not vote for her”.
please tell me how this is any better? Could he be hinting to a “spiteful” vote or “Hell hath no fury as men voters scorned”. It cuts both ways.
How credible is candidate Obama? First he denied knowledge of Wright's more outrageous rantings. Then, he admitted awareness of them, but claimed that they were due to, and understandably directed at, white racism, given Pastor Wright's experience as a black.
Yet, Wright does not qualify his outbursts. He yells “God damn America,” not “God damn white racists.” He charges that America has murdered and infected blacks with HIV, not that white racists are to blame.
Such indiscriminate attacks on America and all whites go far beyond reasonable disagreement between mature adults.
How many non-prejudiced Americans would support and belong to a church with such a pastor for more than twenty years, claim him as a close friend and adviser, let alone, have him marry them and baptize and guide their spouses and children?
William Fox
6605 SW 37th Way
Gainesville, FL 32608
(352) 376-9786
How credible is candidate Obama? First he denied knowledge of Wright's more outrageous rantings. Then, he admitted awareness of them, but claimed that they were due to, and understandably directed at, white racism, given Pastor Wright's experience as a black.
Yet, Wright does not qualify his outbursts. He yells “God damn America,” not “God damn white racists.” He charges that America has murdered and infected blacks with HIV, not that white racists are to blame.
Such indiscriminate attacks on America and all whites go far beyond reasonable disagreement between mature adults.
How many non-prejudiced Americans would support and belong to a church with such a pastor for more than twenty years, claim him as a close friend and adviser, let alone, have him marry them and baptize and guide their spouses and children?
William Fox
6605 SW 37th Way
Gainesville, FL 32608
(352) 376-9786
How credible is candidate Obama? First he denied knowledge of Wright's more outrageous rantings. Then, he admitted awareness of them, but claimed that they were due to, and understandably directed at, white racism, given Pastor Wright's experience as a black.
Yet, Wright does not qualify his outbursts. He yells “God damn America,” not “God damn white racists.” He charges that America has murdered and infected blacks with HIV, not that white racists are to blame.
Such indiscriminate attacks on America and all whites go far beyond reasonable disagreement between mature adults.
How many non-prejudiced Americans would support and belong to a church with such a pastor for more than twenty years, claim him as a close friend and adviser, let alone, have him marry them and baptize and guide their spouses and children?
William Fox
6605 SW 37th Way
Gainesville, FL 32608
(352) 376-9786
How credible is candidate Obama? First he denied knowledge of Wright's more outrageous rantings. Then, he admitted awareness of them, but claimed that they were due to, and understandably directed at, white racism, given Pastor Wright's experience as a black.
Yet, Wright does not qualify his outbursts. He yells “God damn America,” not “God damn white racists.” He charges that America has murdered and infected blacks with HIV, not that white racists are to blame.
Such indiscriminate attacks on America and all whites go far beyond reasonable disagreement between mature adults.
How many non-prejudiced Americans would support and belong to a church with such a pastor for more than twenty years, claim him as a close friend and adviser, let alone, have him marry them and baptize and guide their spouses and children?
William Fox
6605 SW 37th Way
Gainesville, FL 32608
(352) 376-9786
and today Obama is a president of USA, and it is interesting how he will rule USA, how he will provide his politic course for all globe