Is it just me or are others troubled by the Obama phenomenon?

The people I talk to (The highly articulate, intellectual, an educated Starbucks crowd.) say they are troubled too. They don’t get why everyone is wild about Obama, and, like me, they feel something is wrong with this guy, but like me, cannot put their fingers on the reason.

I have listened to several of his pre-campaign and campaign speeches. They are summarized as follows:

“Dream, dream, hope, dream, change, hope, can do, change dream, bring us together.”

This reminds me 100% of Schwartzenner, who fooled everyone by promising to make an end business as usual in Sacramento, and to make sweeping changes (remember the broom he carried to events?). He never said what the change would be. Even rational people voted for him hoping he’d be better, and, because he was wealthy, they thought he could not be bought off by corruption. (This is stupidthink.)

Look what we got: For a couple of years, the worst Republican governor imaginable until the liberal Left finally exposed his vanity and greed. Not only was he bought off by corruption all up and down California, he already was the corruption. He was the moral cancer people feared coming in "sheeps' clothing."

Some are seeing Obama in the same “promise of change” light. I feel the same trepidation now as I felt then, but even more. I see Arnie as a clever buffoon, I don’t see Obama as a buffoon, but he may be a fraont for a lot of people we don't like. Why did the power brokers settle on him a year ago? What is going on?

According to the HSUS scorecard, Obama scored 40% in 2006 and 60% in 2007. Hillary scored 100+% both years. This is based on voting on five specific bills.

Hillary dumped her cat when she left the Whitehouse and is buddies with Tyson Foods. Obama has promised his daughter to get a dog after the election.

Personally I would like to see her as president because I don’t trust him. She says where she stands (rather, where she wants people to think where she stands); he stands on “hope.” I wouldn’t be surprised that Obama turns out to be a worst-case Republican. There are even large groups of crossover Republicans backing Obama because they think he can be bi-partisan. In my opinion, after eight years of extremely right-wing Republican partisanism, we need at least eight years loaded to the left.

In the meantime, we can all cross our fingers. However, I am going to renew my passport.


Anonymous said...

As much as I'd love to see a woman president, Hillary is a Republican man, or that's what you would think if you look at her voting record. I have always thought we would have no war if only women ran the countries, but it is obvious that Hillary would be a war president.

In 2002, she sounds exactly like Bush/Cheney trying to encourage the invasion of Iraq:

She didn't even bother to read all the information before voting to send our troops into a never-ending hell. This is her war. She is just like Bush as far as I'm concerned (they're both war pigs and corporate whores), no matter what comes out of her lying mouth now as she tries to get votes at a time when the war is very unpopular.

I'm not passionate about Obama, but I think what we're seeing in many of the votes for him is a vote AGAINST Clinton. John McCain would actually have a pretty good chance at beating Hillary, but there's no way he could beat Obama.

Dennis Kucinich was the far superior candidate in every way. He's smart, conscientious, compassionate and peaceful. He can't be bought, and he reads what he votes for, actually pondering the consequences of those votes, which is why he always votes RIGHT the FIRST time. But unfortunately most of America do not have minds of their own or he would have run away with it. We can only hope and pray that he keeps his seat in Congress, especially when you consider he was the LONE vote against AETA. Pretty scary! So I figure Obama is the best of the worst, as depressing as that is, and he got my vote.

Anonymous said...

He scared me the first time I laid eyes on him. He never answers a question except with rhetoric. He has little to no experience to draw upon. I will consider leaving for Canada if he is elected.

Anonymous said...

I voted for Obama in the primary because Samantha Power is a senior campaign advisor. She wrote the recent book on genocide and has been a leading voice on the situation in Darfur for a long time. And it would be nice to have a president who is able to look at the continent of Africa and see people, rather than disposable Dixie cups.

Also, recently the Times featured a Clinton quote where she talked about killing a duck, I assume on one of those dress-up "Hey, I can be a redneck too!" campaign appearances. Made me want to throw up.

I will not vote for anyone who even dresses up as a hunter ever again.

BTW, I won't be voting for Antonio Villaraigosa, or any of the current L.A. City Council or Board of Supervisors ever again. What they do is worse than hunting, which is saying something.

Obama keeps his cards very close to his vest, but given the fact that he has an outsize chance of getting shot just for being a black man, I'll let him do things his way. He's at least achieved a slightly higher level of political discourse than Clinton or McCain. And really, even if he is more conservative than we hope (and there's a 50/50 shot he's more liberal, too) I can't imagine he could be worse than Bush.

And Clinton's 100% I assume doesn't take into account dumping her cat and cozying up with Tyson. Hard to see those as pluses.

Anonymous said...

Ed, I hope you were joking when you referred to "The highly articulate, intellectual...educated Starbucks crowd."

Because that's pretty funny. How much intellect does it take to pay five bucks for coffee with enough saturated fat to give an aneurysm to a walrus?

But in case you weren't joking, I'd like to point out that I'm a daily reader who doesn't fit that demo. I'm articulate enough, but anyone who refers to him/herself or their friends as "intellectuals" makes me think they just escaped from a 1970s Woody Allen movie.

I don't think it helps us to think of ourselves as an inherently intellectually superior crowd. What it in fact does is help people who want to marginalize us, make us appear disconnected from the concerns of others. These are the people who get all up in arms when a Michael Vick scandal erupts, telling us, "Why don't you people get mad when people kill PEOPLE?" The answer being of course that we do, but no one minimizes human-on-human crime the way they do human-on-animal crime. The police exist largely to protect humans, but animals are pretty much on their own.

What makes me part of this community is that I care about animals, and I care that they get some protection because they're so vulnerable, and because people who make changes in our society often don't care about them because they can't vote.

Plus, dogs and cats are too smart to wait in line to pay five bucks for coffee (:

Ed Muzika said...

Of course I was kidding. This is why I so seldom put sarcasm in my posts, readers take what absurdities I say literally.

Th Starbucks I go to is filled with homeless people who buy a cup of coffee and spend the day staring off into the void.

Anonymous said...


I'm glad it was a joke because if I was going to have to start dressing nice to read this blog it's all over...