Thinkin’bout Stuff

Thought this would be a good night to republish thoughts from February 12, 2007 –

——————————————————————–

I have to ask. Tough question in a PC world, but I really have to ask. What makes Barack Obama a legitimate candidate for president?

Sure, anyone can be a candidate. According to the United States Constitution, even I can be a candidate for president, although as an Independent it is very unlikely I’d have a chance even if I was the best person for the job. You might point to Ross Perot or Ralph Nadar as people with limited qualifications who were candidates for president; but let’s face it, they were never legitimate candidates. Amusing distractions? Sure. Potential spoilers? Perhaps. But would we have ever seen a President Perot or President Nadar… unlikely.

But Barack Obama is different. This man has a legitimate chance to win his party’s nomination over a somewhat weak field of candidates currently led by another candidate with questionable credentials for the job, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Why?

OK, I admit it, I like the guy. I don’t agree with many of his positions, but he definitely appears to have the charisma to attract followers and presents logical arguments for his positions; but why does that qualify him to be president?

Was it his seven years serving in the Illinois state senate? Quick, name three state senators from your home state. Can you even name one? Can you identify one that you think should be considered for a presidential run? Of course not. There is virtually nothing that a state senator would experience or learn that would provide the necessary experience or establish the necessary credentials that would lead any of us to believe they are ready to be the next President of the United States.

Was it his two years as a United States Senator? Many would argue, me included, that the skill set necessary to be a senator is not transferable to a governance role like president. We have not had a president elected directly from the Senate since JFK for good reason.

Was it his brave stand against the war that he apparently made while an Illinois state senator? The Reuters headline proclaims:

Obama says he opposed Iraq war from start

That was quite the risk he was taking considering all the evidence supporting the contention that Hussein had or was close to having WMDs and planned to use them and share them with terrorists; the evidence that Hussein actually was funding terrorist organizations and paying the families of suicide bombers for the “service” of their sons and daughters; the clear and indisputable human right violations that were occurring in Iraq including torture, rape, and mass murder, something I would imagine Barack Obama would oppose.

And yet, not really much of a risk since he did not need to tell anyone of his opposition until now when the political winds are filling the sails of those tacking to the left. How wonderful life would be if we could all wait until years after a decision is made to announce our position on that decision.

I’m not disputing his claim that he was opposed to the war from the start; I just don’t see announcing historical positions as bolstering his qualification for president. Perhaps he’d like to let us know his position on the D-Day invasion or the dropping of an atomic bomb on Japan to end the war in the Pacific.

But what makes Barack Obama a legitimate contender for the Democrat nomination for president? That’s right, you know it and I know it, it’s because he’s … a celebrity. (You thought I was going to say “African-American” didn’t you?)

You see, we like celebrities in this country; heck, some of us worship them. And yes, his celebrity status is due in no small part to the color of his skin (although that still amazes me that anyone cares what color skin we have…   it’s skin, get over it.) But it is much more than the color of his skin, otherwise we might be discussing Al Sharpton as a serious candidate.

Barack Obama is a communicator; and whether you agree with his positions or not, he is just the kind of candidate who could get elected in this popularity contest we call the Presidential Election. I continue to hope that we will be able to find a president who is qualified to lead and who is prepared to make the tough decisions to ensure the security of our nation; leave the popularity contests to class president and state senator.

Unfortunately, Obama already seems to have lost perspective on who our enemies are and who our allies are (from the same Reuters article):

Obama also had a sharp response for Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a Bush ally who said Obama’s proposals would create chaos in the Middle East.

“I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” Howard said on Nine Network television.

Obama said it was “flattering” for a Bush ally to attack him the day after he formally launched his presidential bid but noted Australia had contributed 1,400 troops to the war compared to 140,000 U.S. troops.

“If he’s ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq,” he said. “Otherwise it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”

Prime Minister Howard was expressing his view that Obama’s proposals on Iraq would aid the cause of terrorists, sending the message that the United States is not prepared to stand by their commitments in the region and will turn and run if hit hard enough. In other words, leaving Iraq would reinforce the message sent to the terrorist community in Somalia under President Clinton.

In response, Obama essentially told Howard to either send more troops or shut up. Is this how President Obama will respond to criticism from our friends? By essentially calling them irrelevant? Interesting that Ambassador Bolton was tough on our enemies, was criticized by the left and driven out of the UN; bet we don’t hear any criticism of Obama’s “diplomatic” approach to one of our top allies.

This highlights the fact that, although a good communicator, Barack Obama has a lot to learn about relationships with our friends and decisions concerning the content of the messages he communicates in public; we can not afford on-the-job training in a world where our true friends, such as Australia and Great Britain, are so critical to our success in the war against the terrorists.

Update:  Aussie News & Views responds to Obama. (Hat tip to Wake Up America)  An excerpt:

Barack Obama is either very badly advised or a complete fool to smear Australia by implying via his comments we are not carrying our share of the load or not putting our money where our mouth is in Iraq.

He has neglected to acknowledge Australia (not Austria, thats over near Germany) also has troops in Afghanistan,Timore,Soloman Islands,Egypt and SAS in the Philippines,it would seem that Obama like so many on the left in the USA and Australia see nothing worthwhile in acknowledging that commitment to peace keeping, in a region of the world where the most populace Muslim nation on earth,Indonesia,is but a stones throw from Australia’s northern doorstep,Darwin, in other words Barack our defence forces are flat out like lizards drinking.

I wonder does Barack Obama know how many personnel Australia has in its defense forces,I wonder does he know the population of Australia and the size of the country, I hope the answer is no he does not, to both questions,that way he could only be labeled an ignorant fool and not a malicious mischief maker attempting to make cheap political capital by smearing Australia’s defense forces for implying they are not doing enough in Iraq.

Today’s Thinkin’bout Stuff is copied, verbatim, from one of my favorite blogs in honor of the plagiarism twins: Obama & Biden:

Republicans have hit political gold with Obama’s choice of the ungracious Biden. There is a wealth of vicious, divisive speeches from Joe Biden on record, as well as his completely erroneous assessment of Iraq. So much for bringing America with an Obama/Biden ticket. Biden is one of the most vitriolic democrats out there.

The only drawback would be that this fella could possibly be the next vice president of the United States. That would be almost as bad for America as Obama being president. I’d wager a bet that the dynamic, condescending duo will turn Americans off and hand McCain the election.

I wasn’t going to tell you the source since that would spoil the whole plagiarism thing, but that just doesn’t feel right.  The above was lifted from Bottom Line Up Front… I’m so ashamed.

Ever know someone who took a joke too far?

Someone who didn’t get that the party was over even when the hosts retired to their bedroom?

Or someone who kept you in suspense for so long you just really didn’t care what the big secret was anymore? 

While adoring fans waited for the release of his next album.. err.. announcement of his veep choice, Obama continued to milk it long after this cow had been sucked dry.  As we all anxiously awaited the most important announcement of a generation, Obama continued to use our unquenchable thirst for anything Obama to build a call list that would put most time-share scammers to shame:

AP - Three days before Democrats open their convention in Denver, officials said the Obama campaign had taken the trouble to print material bearing the names of several potential ticket mates. The result was to minimizing the significance of a report that one company was churning out signs bearing Bayh’s name.

Obama told reporters on Thursday he had made his choice, and aides used the prospect of a text-message announcement to try and attract additional supporters by soliciting their cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Even that became occasion for intrigue.

Late Friday, several officials said the text message announcement would be distributed Saturday morning, a few hours before a scheduled rally at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., where the Democratic ticket would appear for the first time.

Frankly, I was in no hurry to find out who either candidate picked, as long as I know before I pull the lever, who cares… but now I REALLY don’t care who Obama picks… it’s all about the show with Obama; it all seems like a game to him, but who can blame him for not taking this seriously.  Just a few years ago he was a relative nobody with limited qualifications for higher office; now he is a bona fide celebrity… with limited qualifications for higher office.

Whether it’s about promoting someone above his incompetence level in a company, dragging out the suspense of the veep choice beyond our attention span, or running for president with no leadership experience, it’s all about ………….. timing.

Just thinkin’…

According to Linda Douglass, Obama campaignsenior advisor, on Fox News this evening, when asked who Obama would be announing as his running mate:

Well, uh, let’s just put it this way, uh probably not going to share it with you … no hurt feelings are involved in this. We’re gonna share this information with the supporters who have uh uh gone into our website and have asked to be Blackberried or text messaged. Our goal here is to get the information first to the hundreds of thousands of Americans all around the country who have been going to Barack Obama’s website to read about his positions on the issues, to send in small amounts of money,  to volunteer their time, and for our campaign, these are the insiders…

Hmmm…  so if you don’t donate, volunteer or at least sign up to be an insider, you don’t get to hear who our potential next VP will be until after all the important people find out.  He’s not even president yet and he is already dividing the country, albeit in a minor but symbolic way, between those for him and those against him. 

Perhaps those of us not for Obama should be concerned about our standing in society if he is elected supreme commander of the Democratic Repulic of Amerika.

By the way… if he chooses Senator Biden, it would be a good match… both have a history of plagiarising speeches.

I know, I know.. not even close to daily…

Still catching up on the forum hosted by Rick Warren via YouTube…  by the way, if you missed it too, it is being replayed on Fox News Saturday evening.

I found the following exchange interesting in that Obama seems to indicate that we can not have amendments to the Constitution to address things that are not in the Constitution (time mark :29):

Warren: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition.

Obama: No I would not, and because historically, because historically we have not defined marriage in our constitution, it’s been a matter of state law, that has been our tradition.

In my humble opinion, two of the most important amendments to our Constitution would not exist today if we applied Obama’s wisdom to the identification of what is and is not suitable for consideration: The 13th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And the 19th Amendment:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

These amendments could be interpreted as impinging on the states’ right to enact their own laws, the rights of citizens to own slaves, breaking with the tradition of extending the right to vote to only one gender; yet I would hope we can all agree that these were appropriate applications of Article V of the Constitution:

Article V: Amendment Process

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Regardless of whether you agree there should be an amendment defining marriage in our Constitution, (I am not sure I agree, but the mess made by allowing it to be different state by state makes it worthy of consideration), arguing that it should not be considered because “historically we have not defined marriage in our constitution, it’s been a matter of state law, that has been our tradition” is warped…  historically we did not allow women to vote or all men to be free; should these amendments have been blocked before the nation could even take up the debate?

Have you heard about the flag flap?

The design of the DNC Convention Credentials is a hologram that alternates between a photo of Obama and an upside down American flag.  Some have questioned the symbolism, trying to point to some deep message about a nation in distress or another example of Obama’s unpatriotic views (like the lapel pin, not saluting during the National Anthem, etc…)

Matt Chandler of the Obama campaign provides a plausable explanation:

“…it is a stylized flag designed to blend the stars on Senator Obama’s shirt with the flag blowing in the wind.”

I believe him.  I really do.

With Obama, it’s all about appearances, never about substance.  So it makes total sense that the flag should be upside down so that it blends in with the stars on Obama’s shirt… all the sense in the world.

This is great!  Watch the whole video to see an interesting assessment of the potential implosion of the Democratic Party we may be witnessing…