Obama sucks-up to George Soros

In many ways, I like Obama. He's smart, well-spoken, occasionally makes sense, which, for a liberal, is worth noting. But he IS a liberal. Indeed, I think he's way too liberal ever to be elected president.

I also think the American people are not ready for a President Barack Obama. That's the sort of name many activist Black men have changed their names to -- from, say, Ronald Williams or Tyrone Smith. But, no, it's Obama's real name.

Obama's killer problem, though, is the near total lack of a resume. He's been a senator for less than two years. That's it, the entirety of his experience at the national level. Worse, the Senate is a legislative body. The Presidency is an executive job. The president is supposed to manage the far-flung Federal bureaucracy. Obama has never had to manage anything except his own over-weaning ambition, and he doesn't seem to be doing a jimcrack job of that right about now. The thing that's going to kill John Edward's presidential ambitions is his resume -- a mere one term in the Senate. In 2008, Obama won't even have that. The American people understand that on-the-job training isn't appropriate for a president; they want their presidential candidates to be men of proven experience.

Consider the pre-presidential careers of our recent presidents:

Bush 43: Two terms as governor of Texas, one of the largest and most diverse states in the nation.

Clinton: Many terms as governor of Arkansas spanning three decades.

Bush 41: One term in the House, a number of important Federal Government jobs (Ambassador to China and Director of the CIA, to name two), and eight years as vice-president.

Reagan: Two terms as governor of California, THE largest and most diverse state in the nation.

Carter: Governor of Georgia, following a long career in state politics.

Ford: Nearly three decades spent in the House, many of them as minority leader, and about a year as vice-president.

Nixon. Four years in the House, two years in the Senate, and eight years as vice-president.

Against this, Obama can boast of a grand total of 23 months as a member of the Senate and already he's the Democratic Party's Great Black Hope. This can only be interpreted as a sign of increasing desperation on the part of many party leaders who want to stop Hillary. The larder is almost bare with regard to plausible alternatives. Gore and Kerry are damaged goods. The American people aren't quite ready for Dennis Kucinich, the first president of the People's Republic of America. Evan Bayh of Indiana would make a terrific candidate because of his demonstrated moderation and good judgment, but he suffers from Lieberman Syndrome, i.e., he could never win the nomination due to, well, his demonstrated moderation and good judgment.

So that leaves the field to Obama and Clinton.

May the best man win. (My money's still on Hillary.)

screw the stereotype that is "liberal"....what has BUSH done? (that unfortunate republican who i voted for). he's pushed forward into this war with full belief and the publics belief (which is the ultimate deciding factor)....but at leaST Hes done it with conviction, if lacking in the ackowledgement if his own mistakes....How can you say that a fledgling candidate isn't ready ? in some of the most notorious cases of history, it is the young kings who live up to their obligtions like none before them....why not give a fresh open minded face a chance?

Vittoria, I wish you had not brought Bush into this, because my point, initially, was that Obama seems to be treating his nascent candidacy as though it's a great joke, and that he has fallen under the sway of George Soros. The latter, if you do not know his background, promised to spend his entire fortune to defeat "W" in the last election, if that was necessary. There are two problems with that statement: (1) he chose to back John Kerry, whose negatives were all too well-known, and (2) Soros lied about spending his entire fortune, as evidenced by the fact that he is still filth rich.

I have real problems with the way Mr. Soros operates, much less his cockamamie one-world ideas. Too much about the man is un-knowable, and the part that can be known--presumably the best about him--is not so good.

My esteemed colleague Tom Bonsall brought up Bush's vast experience, relative to Obama's, and even though it was beside my original point, it made sense. Now that you have chosen to react that THAT, vice the original point, I must reluctantly address what you've said...

If President Bush, with all his experience, has done such a poor job, how can we possibly expect that a rank political neophyte like Obama will stumble upon the truth? Particularly since he has already become the darling of the Leftist good old boy network.

Are we so desperate that we will latch on to anyone-but-Bush?

Obama has spoken about the war in Iraq, and depending on your viewpoint you may have judged him eloquent on that point. What he has failed to do is address the rapidly-forming alliances among the tyrants of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China and North Korea, each of whom has individually vowed to destroy the USA. Even if you ignore the non-government-aligned Islamofascist element, at least five nations' leaders have all but declared war on the USA, and have not even bothered to be secretive about the fact that they are now plotting together.

In defense of Bush, our current situation is terra incognita. The one thing we can know with certainty is that appeasement did not work for Neville Chamberlain, and it will not work for America. Not in a situation where our enemies have openly vowed to destroy us.

Young Mr. Obama possesses nothing more than "charisma," and while I admit that works for Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, charisma has proven disastrous for the US Presidents who have relied upon it (JFK, Carter, Clinton, and to a lesser degree Reagan).

Personally I think this upcomming election is a washout. Billary scares the hell out of me. I'm not saying that a woman can't do the job, just not that one. Obama is just another Al Gore... Who else is running... Edwards.. are you kidding me? Biden? Who's that? The rev Sharpton, hasn't he gotten the hint yet? OK, for the other side... Brownback? Wasn't he in Brokeback mountain? Romney? McCain (which one?) I liked the old one, but who is he now? He's just another John Kerry! Changes his mind every 3 seconds! Giuliani? Well here might be our best bet. All in all, I say OTHER! Clinton set us back so far it's rediculous, Bush tried to answer the slap back that we've been begging to give terrorists for so long. He did this only to be dealt with the fact that our armed forces are running thin due to the reduction in forces Clinton brought about. Stuborn as hell, he refuses to admit that we need to give it up. We fix something, they blow it up. This could go on forever. You can't help someone that doesn't want to be helped. The fact is that I live in a state of confusion. We had a governor that built up the state, got us a surplus cashflow, increased learning potential in our schools and we elect an idiot who let Baltimore run down more than it already was. O'Malley SUCKS! IDIOTS, who voted for him! Now we're facing bills that make no more sence than Nancy Pelosi (what a ditz!) Maybe Britney should run for office, she might have more common sence! I think perhaps Oprah should run. She'd definately win. She'd have the black and woman vote and wouldn't worry about screwing us out of more tax money like some of these people love to do. I stillsay vote other this year... or Giuliani. Good luck my fellow Americans we really need it!

Dave

When it comes to politicians, remember these three rules:

1. Take a firm two-handed grip 2. Acquire a good sight picture 3. Squeeze the trigger, don't jerk it.

Actually TomB I think Obama's real name is Barry. Personally I am fed up with the fanaticism over Obama. It is only getting worse.