Jun 12 2008

Obama’s Lies Finally Catch Up To Him

Published by at 8:23 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

The silver-tongued little-devil finally got snared but good in his forked tongue (H/T Gateway Pundit):

I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job.

And, I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who may be comfortable doing that, but I’m not one of those people.”

The admissions here are stunning. Clearly, as highlighted, Obama is admitting he felt unqualified and too inexperienced to run as President. Yet he also admitted to run for President he would have to start the very next day (which apparently he did). Obama is going to get creamed over this video because it begs lots of questions:

  1. Senator Obama, did you start running for President essentially as you took your Senate oath?  And was that not unfair to the people who elected you to represent them in the Senate (I am sure there is a great amount of data on all the votes and debates Obama missed while campaigning)
  2. Senator Obama, what experiences and accomplishments did you gain since 2004 that turned you from not being prepared to being prepared to be the President of the United States (this limits the years he can reference to bolster his national security lack of experience – no Boy Scouts).
  3. Senator Obama, who should the American people believe, Barrack_2004 or Barrack_2008?

McCain’s life just got simpler.  Everyone who is uncomfortable with Obama, or is being cowed by the “vote Obama or else you racists!” crap from the news media, or who just wants a good excuse to stick it to the news media, now have a good reason to oppose Obama.  And the reason was Obama’s own words and admission that he was not qualified to be President only 4 years ago, and nothing of any substance has happened since to change that determination.  People who want to oppose Obama can now quote Obama as their reason without being tagged a racist or a traitor to the cause, etc.

Obama is not going to be able to talk his way out of this one, unless he wants to claim that is not the Barrack Obama he thought he always knew!  This is why rookies can’t run for President and the press cannot hoist untested (or un-vetted) candidate on an already skeptical public.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Obama’s Lies Finally Catch Up To Him”

  1. Soothsayer says:

    So do you drink your Kool-Aid HOT this early in the morning??

    Yet what do I see but more disjointed ramblings about all the problems Obama has, as he maintains or increases his lead on Grumpy McSameâ„¢ at a time when the Crazy Old Cootâ„¢ can’t even get Republicans to support his candidacy:

    At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president, and more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator.

    Many of the recalcitrant GOP members declined to detail their reasons for withholding support, but Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) expressed major concerns about McCain’s energy policies and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) cited the Iraq war.

    As Rasmussen notes: Obama takes 47% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When “leaners” are included, Obama still holds a six-point advantage, 50% to 44%. Obama has clearly received a modest bounce since clinching the nomination. Prior to his final victory on June 3, he was essentially even with McCain. Now, Obama has enjoyed a five-to-eight point advantage on each of the past seven days.

    Worse for McSame, Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 42%. The numbers for McCain are 54% favorable and 44% unfavorable. Among women, Obama is viewed favorably by 57%, McCain by 52%. Among men, McCain earns positive reviews from 56%, Obama from 54%.

    McCain’s numbers will get worse, and there is still no real data on how much support Bob Barr’s Libertarian ticket will strip from the senescent senior from Retirementville, USA.

  2. MerlinOS2 says:

    AJ

    You also need to go to the post just before that one. It has a video clip of Jimmy Carter saying Obama wasn’t qualified, even if he is endorsing him now.

  3. Mike M. says:

    I hope it counts against Obama, but fear that it won’t.

    Historically, successful Presidential candidates are not familiar faces. Churchill noted this about 75 years ago. American voters tend to favor a relative newcomer, who does not carry a lot of negative baggage, over the more senior candidate. And others have observed that a potential candidate has about a 12-year time limit from the the time they rise to national prominence (not merely Federal office) to their election. For example, John McCain became a serious national-level player in 2000. He is a viable candidate in 2008. But by 2012, he’s either running for re-election to the Presidency or not running at all.

    Obama is the Brand Spanking New Face. Clinton in 1992, version 2.0.

    And just never mind that the man has pathetically little experience as a Senator, and no experience at all with national security policy or high-level administration. Both of which are essential for a successful President.

    See Theodore Roosevelt’s biography for an example of a truly qualified candidate.

  4. Soothsayer says:

    Good choice, Teddy Roosevelt, a liberal Republican, who busted the trusts and understood that corporations must be regulated:

    He was a 42 year old Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a “trust buster”. . . His “Square Deal” promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance. As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources. After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions.

  5. crosspatch says:

    Every single Democrat pundit I heard prior to 2006 was saying that Obama wasn’t ready and wouldn’t be until 2012 and that this election was Hillary’s “turn”. Something happened somewhere and I honestly believe it was her bigtime fundraiser Norman Hsu being busted that did it.

    The way the Clinton “machine” worked was that Hsu would pour money not only into Clinton campaigns but also the campaigns of supporters and in lobbying efforts on behalf of projects of supports pending earmarks in Congress. When Hsu was busted, all that money dried up and her supporters were no longer “beholden” to her. Obama cranks up his cash machine and all those people move from the Clinton teat to the Obama teat (so to speak).

    Clinton’s death knell was when that cell door in Redwood City clanged shut.

  6. Soothsayer says:

    What happened was that the Democrats constituency, i.e., the actual people that comprise the Democratic party, decided that the pundits didn’t know jack, and that the people would prefer to select their own candidate, rahter than relying upon the Washington Establishment to dictate to them.

    In an admirable show of independence, they organized and financed a campaign that laid poor Hillary low, and is now poised to embarrass the Crazy Old Coot in November, by demolishing what is left of the corrupt carcass of the GOP, and take back the reins of government from the criminal cabal of Bush & Cheney.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had this to say. I urge you to read it, as Justice Kennedy’s opinion is soulful and inspiring:

    The Framers’ inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. . . .

    Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the Executive’s power to detain. . . .

    Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .

    The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.

    If you have a problem with these words, then you really don’t understand what America is all about.

  7. The Macker says:

    Soothie,
    In your ever- so- clever nicknames, you omitted:
    No’bama
    O’bomination
    Carter reprised
    O’sama O’bama
    Gaffs unlimited
    The missing imam

  8. [...] of Obama’s readiness to take on the responsibilities of leading and protecting this nation.  On June 12th I posted on an incredibly video of Obama honestly assessing his own lack or readiness to be [...]