RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Barack Obama: Day Tripper! (and Blatherer)

By SusanUnPC on December 23, 2007 at 2:07 PM in Clinton, Obama, Presidential Candidates, Republicans

Further to the point that Obama lacks the seasoning and the smarts to be President, please watch Obama turn in a Bush-esque performance, brought to us originally courtesy of Taylor Marsh.  We are talking moron territory here, people.  Obama cannot provide a clear, cogent answer to why he declined to vote in favor of allowing sexual abuse victims to have their court records sealed and their privacy protected.  My god, folks.  Can we afford another dummy in the White House?

There’s NO excuse for Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights expression. Imagine what Karl Rove will do with that. It’d turn into Democrats’ worst nightmare in a general election. Notes Taylor Marsh, radio host: “Mr. Obama was the only Illinois state senator to not vote in favor of allowing victims of sexual abuse to have court records sealed to protect their privacy. Explain that one. Unfortunately, he can’t, because, frankly, nobody could. … People are starting to wake up and smell the coming onslaught. … Better late than never, as my mama always said.”

This video defies description. Is Mr. Obama kidding? His answer, actually the lack thereof, doesn’t come close to passing the presidential election test. People actually believe he’s ready for the national meat grinder of a general election campaign? The more he’s asked about his own record the worse it gets.

Then there’s “Does a day trip to London qualify you to be president?,” from Tom Baldwin of the London Times:

Earlier this week I wrote [a] story about Barack Obama’s relative lack of foreign policy experience.

I pointed out that he has made just one official visit as Senator to Western Europe – a one day stop-over in London on the way back from Russia where, along with other members of the Foreign Relations committee, he saw the then Prime MInister, Tony Blair.

He was later reported as saying, in the manner perhaps of a privileged but nonetheless excited tourist on his first visit to London, that “they let me sit in Winston Churchill’s reading chair!“

Continues London Times columnist Baldwin in “Does a day trip to London qualify you to be president?“:

A single quote can, of course, be misleading. But it is the only one that I can find on our database from this brief British trip and, for all his many other qualities, this remark really does not have the look of presidential timbre.

Nor can I find anyone from Downing Street who remembers much about the day in 2005 when the Senator came-a-calling …

:::::::::::::::

P.S. Now the WaPo‘s David Broder is rhapsodizing about Barack Obama — joining Karl Rove, Rove’s aide Peter Wehner, David Brooks, Robert Novak, and The McLaughlin Report gang.

If Broder’s fawning doesn’t scare Democrats, it should. He’s the candidate the conservatives are praying for.

Meanwhile, rumors among political experts have it, Sen. Clinton’s numbers are rising in Iowa while Obama and Edwards are duking it out in Iowa, attacking each other. [UPDATE: There's more on Obama's attacks on Edwards.]

TV WATCH: I read somewhere this morning that Obama will be on Meet The Press next Sunday. Let’s see how he handles the sex shop and other questions from the pro Tim Russert.

  • Michael Lafferty

    Yawn. Broder: in a moment of dimished dementia, notices that Senator Obama is a gifted, charismatic public speaker. Where has he been all these last many weeks, when just about everyone else had already taken notice? What he fails to notice, is that there is little apparent substance underpinning these bold—but therefore relatively hopeless—initiatives.

    And, David, what is this? “Then he touches the erogenous zones of various Democratic constituencies…”

    Seriously, is there anyone who really pays attention to David Broder anymore? Other that maybe Broder, himself? He seems to tack from column to column between senile and silly, navigating in the reasonably consistent path toward irrelevance and obscurity.

    Bon voyage, David…

  • http://burkefile.blogspot.com/ Lauren Burke

    Obama is a day tripper huh? Interesting. What incredible world knowledge did George Bush before being elected? What did Bill Clinton and Reagan have. Jimmy Carter? Actor, Gov. of Arkansas? Bush made the more experienced Cheney his Veep, a fmr. Defense Secretary, to offset the problem. How is that working for us? What blazing experience does trial lawyer Edwards have? And you want to believe that Biden and Dodd are electable? You see, it’s not just who has been on the foreign relations committee for 20 years. It’s who is E-L-E-C-T-A-B-L-E, which is why Sens. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are at the top of the polls. And why Mitt Romney (what foreign policy experience does he have?) continues to show up on top of the polls despite all the flip flopping. Unfortunately Condi Rice and Colin Powell aren’t running. Neither are anyone in the diplomatic corps or Robert Gates. Remember there is a difference between dumb and inexperienced.

    • Shirin

      “Unfortunately Condi Rice and Colin Powell aren’t running.”

      Unfortunately?! Are you joking?! Condi Rice , the serial failure?! Colin Powell, who lied in front of the whole world?! Oh yeah – we need one of THEM as president. THAT would be a BIG improvement!

  • campskunk

    i have never seen a bigger disconnect between scripted eloquence and extemporaneous incoherence. if i were hiring a newsreader, he’d have the job in a second. but president? i need someone who can think on their feet. the more anxious he gets, the more garbled his thought processes.

    • TeakWoodKite

      You noticed that too?

  • DCDemocrat

    Ronald Reagan had the same problem this guy has. When he had a teleprompter in front of him, he was the great communicator. When it was just he and the questioner, he sort of swallowed his tongue. Really, folks, we just plain don’t need this guy.

  • Christian

    Regarding your assessment: “Obama cannot provide a clear, cogent answer to why he declined to vote in favor of allowing sexual abuse victims to have their court records sealed and their privacy protected.”

    Having actually worked on state legislation in the criminal justice area I can attest that his answer is cogent. These “hot button” issues – those that involve sex and violence in particular – are those most likely to generate lousy legislation. The fact that these laws are political no-brainers and everyone will support them without actually examining them closely removes the incentive for actually making sure the bill is drafted in a constitutional manner!

    There are few state legislators in the country willing to do the right thing and protest when bills like this are drafted poorly. When such a law gets struck down in court real people suffer, in this case victims of sexual assault. The sad fact is that most legislators don’t give a damn how the bill is written, they leave all that to underpaid staff anyway. They just care about the press conference and the lauding media they get from these “sexy” issues.

    Obama obviously cares about the content enough to make a stand even when it is politically dangerous to do so.

    Your one dimentional analysis is pathetic.

  • Christian

    Actually, it is ironic that your ignorant blather is on the same page as the incredibly informed piece on Robert Novak. Interesting.

  • Matthew Gerring

    Yes, Obama does give nuanced answers to questions, and no, he does not hate Republicans to the degree required by the rabid Left. This has been established since before the campaign began.

    *turning off the chatter, knocking on doors, making phone calls.

  • Fred C. Dobbs

    Obama seems to be the walking, open-air Poster Boy for the term, “dilettante.”

    I’d say, “Harry Belafonte with a J.D.,” but that would get me labeled a racist…