by stormbear, Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:37:42 AM EST
by susanhu, Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:51:01 AM EST
The Obama campaign has often summoned the spirit of John F. Kennedy. That evocative association is finally and forever severed in "Ask Not! Why Obama is No JFK," a new Washington Monthly article by Ted Widmer -- who Steve Clemons calls"one of the most insightful historians of early American political history and Director of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University. ..."
[Image top right: Kennedy's book, Why England Slept. Widmer writes: "[Kennedy] had acquired travel experiences that most people take a lifetime to accumulate, richly detailed in
By susanunpcbiographies like Robert Dallek's An Unfinished Life. His father was ambassador to the United Kingdom in the pivotal year 1938, and young Kennedy was in the audience of the House of Commons as the Munich deal was furiously debated (the experience shaped his first book, Why England Slept).]
"Ask Not! Why Obama is No JFK" points out that:
[T]he comparison falls short when voters consider the key question for 2008: foreign policy experience. It's true that Obama, like Kennedy, is a youngish senator (at 46, three years older than Kennedy when he ran for president), but the parallel falters after that. The more one looks into Kennedy's lifelong preparation for the job, the more one realizes how misleading it was, then and now, to describe him as inexperienced. Everyone who has stressed Kennedy's youth, from Dan Quayle in 1988 to Obama today, has bumped up against the uncomfortable fact that JFK was an extremely well-informed statesman in 1960.
Ted Widmer provides"rich detail on key points of comparison between JFK and Barack Obama,"says Clemons. Widmer then examines Obama's claims, and finds them wanting, as have former ambassador Joseph Wilson, Larry Johnson, and others.
by susanhu, Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 05:14:03 PM EST
YOUTUBE VIDEO (which I can't get to display here)
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:
by jedinecny, Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 05:22:46 AM EDT
I'm sick (the summer flu), tired (it's past midnight in Germany) and mad as hell, insulted and outraged!
I just saw the President of the United States of America on NBC Nightly News responding to a question why, after 15 trips to Europe, many still react with protests when he comes. He said he "understands" why people react that way: for Europeans "9/11 was a moment".
How dare he!