“Barack Obama says if he doesn’t win in 2008 he will never run again. Obama says he and his wife will be different people in eight years and not as able to connect with the concerns of the average American. It was just five years ago that the Obama’s still had law school loans to pay off, and were living in a small condo.”The news reminded me of the time Oral Roberts went on the air and told his followers that God would call him home if they didn't send money quickly!
Is Obama kidding or is he merely throwing the adult version of a temper tantrum?
How is he going to change? Is he going to acquire great wealth and not be able to connect with the concerns of 'the little people?' Will he be too old to understand what 'average' Americans want/need? Assuming he stays in the Senate, is he planning to forget about the people who sent him there? What gives, Obama?
Maybe Obama should take a closer look at his Iowa audience and then tell everyone with a straight face why he won't be able to connect with them in eight years.
I think there is a different motivation behind his comment. He has presented himself as the agent of change. Suddenly he is faced with having to respond to a very difficult international crisis. And during times of crisis a natural response is to gravitate toward stability. It isn't necessarily a good time to be talking about change.Obama's troubles were compounded by an inept response to the assassination of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. And then a feeble attempt by his campaign to spin their way out of it.
Even Chris Matthews, an Obama cheerleader, had to admit the statement was "cold."
Probably sensing trouble brewing about the remarks, Obama's chief political strategist David Axelrod tried to deflect attention away from his candidate by claiming that Sen. Hillary Clinton was to blame for her part in a series of events that resulted in Benazir Bhutto's assassination. (Taylor Marsh has a series of posts on this.)
Here is Obama's response to Wolf Blitzer:
Unfortunately for Obama, the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto has caused some to take a second look at the junior Senator from Illinois. And his actions suggest that he might not be ready for prime time.
It's no secret that I support Sen. Hillary Clinton. I think of all the candidates she is the best qualified to lead -- and here is an example of why I believe this to be true:
6 comments:
In fairness to Obama about the "coldness" of his response, he was not involved in the Bhuto stuff at all. It is very hard to honestly give an emotional response to something you aren't involved in. In my opinion, he gave a measured response to a tragic event about which information still today is still changing. Hillary did give a better response, but she was more personally involved because she had worked with Bhuto when she was prime minister.
As for Axelrod's comments, it sounds like (can't tell for sure because there is no full quote, just the spun comment Blitzer threw back at Obama) he was trying to deflect a question that was designed specifically to boost an opponent back to that opponent's weaknesses. It wasn't necessarily well handled, but I have the feeling the spin is adding a lot more to the comment than there really was.
Also, can you point me to where that NBC station got that quote? Googling for it only returns your blog. I have the feeling that, once again, a quote is either being mis-represented or taken completely out of context. My gut instinct, without any further context, says that Obama believes either the country's outlook would be different in eight years and his platform from now wouldn't have the same strength, or that the nation's view of him, after he has been in office for twelve years and he would be suffering from the same doldrums Dodd and Biden are in. But again, there is not context and there are no direct quotes, so it's hard to tell.
And for full disclosure, I do support Obama out of the current Democrat contenders. His judgment and mindset (at least what is shown in his books and speeches) match mine, and I don't feel I can trust Hillary as her time in Congress has shown a lack of consistency between what she wants her supporters in the party to believe and her voting record.
BAC,
What a great post! Excellent and proof of why we blog- to read, to learn and to exchange thoughts and ideas. Thank you.
Well I am not an Obama supporter nor am I a Hillary supporter. Of course, if either won the nomination, they would get my vote.
For the record, Hillary is way too hawkish for my taste and too pro-Israel, in the sense that the AIPAC money is a big issue for her.
I like Obama before, but I think he has been molded and shaped poorly by his campaign.
And what was that crap about how he and his wife will be in the future?
I have supported Kucinich and have had interest in Edwards. Frankly I wish I had more enthusiasm over any candidate than I currently do.
That said, I think that Obama was so oddly stiff and yes cold! That was so damned awkward it was hard to watch. WTF was up with that?
I think it speaks to their "scripted" roles- how I wish there were someone with real passion and conviction from their heart and not from what they think people need/want to hear.
However, that seems to be lacking in general. You do get pieces of it from each of them, the ones I like too. Kucinich comes the closest to that, and while I support him because his ideals so closely match my own, I too question his ability to truly lead.
So many words later here, I am not sure I have said so much, but I continue to think, read, study, ponder and work towards building a better world.
Lofty? Maybe, but I am not giving up yet.
John - your opening paragraph speaks to why Obama may not be ready to lead. He has virtually no foreign policy experience, at a time when it is desperately needed. On this one point I don't think we have time for on-the-job training.
Fran - I think what many interpret as Hillary's "hawkish" stance is the position 'We the people' have place her in as the first viable woman candidate. For her to have a chance in a general election she has to present an exterior that is much more "hawkish" than she might truly be.
The challenge for her all along has been to present an image that would help her win a general election, all the while working to secure the Democratic nomination.
I am an unabashed female chauvinist, and I want her to win.
BAC
John - about the NBC quote, I also looked for it's reference but could not find it. I'm hoping that the NBC site will have it up today. The local NBC station is owned by the network, and has a good reputation in DC. They are not prone to tabloid-type reporting, which is why the story resonated. Their web site is www.NBC4.com.
BAC
I talked to my wife about the NBC quote and it was actually Obama's response to his wife saying she doesn't want to do this again. This is probably a bit of NBC's spin on what he said, and him spinning what his wife said about her frustration with the campaign.
As for the experience issue, though he may not have any direct diplomatic experience (thus wouldn't personally know foreign leaders), but, depending on who he choses for Secretary of State (my personal pick would be Biden, who has more experience than both Clintons together), he could have two things we need in a president on the international stage: an international perspective, which no other candidate has in the same way, and someone with the direct knowledge of current foreign affairs.
Personally, I would love to see a female president. But I am going to jump at the first opportunity without looking at everything. I respect your position, but looking at the whole picture, I can't trust what Hillary's position.
John - It's still quite a comment to make right before the voting begins ... sort of a "take me now 'cause you'll never get another chance." It just doesn't strike me as a mature thing to say, and I would not have made a comment this that about Obama before hearing this.
BAC
Post a Comment