The Obama File
By Wes Clark
The texts below describe what I was thinking about Barack Obama in 2008 and 2009. It is now 2016 and I have the benefit of eight years to put this administration into perspective. It's easy to do.
Barack Obama was the worst U.S. President of my lifetime.
I do not write this lightly. After all, there is LBJ (Vietnam), Richard Nixon (Watergate), Jimmy Carter (everything), Bill Clinton (the libido of a goat with the morals of an alley cat) and the Bush Family (genteel failures) to consider. A friend of mine once came up with "Obama: Making Carter Look Good since 2008!" and he's right.
Recently, when I expressed my view of Obama's Administration, I was laughed at. No way. How could you possible think that? Here is my evidence, in no special order save as I think of it:
(1) The Economy - In a word, it sucked. From thegatewaypundit.com dated 4/28/16: "Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5%. Barack Obama will be lucky to average a 1.55% GDP growth rate. This ranks Obama as the fourth worst presidency on record. Barack Obama will be the only U.S. president in history who did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth. According to Louis Woodhill, if the economy continues to perform below 2.67% GDP growth rate this year, President Barack Obama will leave office with the fourth worst economic record in US history. Assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of 1.55% growth. This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)." Even Donna Brazile, the DNC's biggest cheerleader, stated in a February 2016 e-mail uncovered by wikileaks, "I think people are more in despair about how things are — yes new jobs but they are low wage jobs. HOUSING is a huge issue. Most people pay half of what they make to rent..." Despair... that's the word she used.
Obama started his administration with an Jobs Council (nonpartisan advisory council of 25 private-sector business and labor leaders) that he disbanded. Why? He already had a job.
(2) Open borders - An American President is supposed to uphold the laws that Congress creates. This one didn't, and ruled instead by Executive Order. It was especially telling in the open borders he created with Mexico. But illegal immigration doesn't bother a Democrat. They figure the refugees from socialist countries will always vote for the welfare state candidate, and the voting statistics indicate they're right. Under Barack Obama - and considering the usual Democratic winked-at voter fraud - we have reached a state where it is asking a lot for a voter in the U.S. to be a citizen and alive.
(3) Syrian refugees - Obama's own intelligence officials have gone on record stating that they do not have the data or the means to adequately vet the immigrants - illegal and otherwise - pouring in across our borders. How many jihadist terrorists are in the U.S. planning attacks? How long until the United States sees the chaos Syrian refugees are now creating in Germany, Scandinavia and France?
(4) Foreign policy - The end result of the Obama foreign policy is that our enemies are unafraid of us and our allies mistrust us. (Why pick a fight with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East? How is that consistent with American foreign policy?) He has done as much as anyone to make the world the dangerous, unstable place it is today. How many jihadist attacks have there been on American soil since he took office? I lost count. ISIS developed on his watch. And then there's Benghazi, an unmitigated disaster. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, making it the first time since 1979 that a U.S. ambassador was killed in the line of duty. (The 1979 is significant. Think Carter.) Strangest of all, Obama has a hard time calling Islamic terrorism what it is. "Workplace violence," "It was caused by a YouTube video," etc. Anything to dodge admitting that Americans are less safe now in the United States than ever - and that includes during World War II.
(5) Welfare - Obama quietly dropped the work requirement for welfare payments that was passed in the Clinton Era. The result? Record numbers of Americans on welfare and disability. The total number of disability beneficiaries in the United States was 10,996,447 in April 2014, which represented a new all-time record. The number of Americans receiving disability benefits now exceeds the populations of Greece, Tunisia and Portugal, and is approaching the population of Cuba. Only a fool thinks this is sustainable.
(6) Credit rating lowered - Another dubious achievement on Obama's watch was the 2011 Standard & Poors credit lowered from AAA to AA, the first time ever for the United States. Given the out of control spending on welfare and the ever-increasing debt, what choice did they have?
(7) "Obamacare" - Tens of millions of Americans lost the health care plans they were happy with as a result of this law, Obama's main legislative achievement. "If you like your doctor you can keep him, period" was a bitter lie. And the endless tweaks Obama did to the law after it was passed over the heads of an inert Congress were a hallmark of his imperial ambitions; he did what Nixon could only dream of. Seven years on, the so-called "Affordable Care Act" has made health care more expensive for just about everyone and the exchanges are crashing to a halt. Obama did more than anyone or any entity to wreck health care in the U.S. And let's not forget MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, a key Obamacare architect who let the cat out of the bag regarding any sense of the promised "transparency" in passing the bill making it law: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass." In other words, the more the average "stupid" American knew about Obamacare, the less likely it was to pass. And Obama calls himself a Democrat?
(8) Race relations - I never would have thought that race relations in America could get worse than what they were in 1968, but Obama has proven to be the most divisive and polarizing President of the modern era. The "post-racial American President?" Hardly.
(9) "Hope and Change" - As a candidate he promised to unite America, work with both parties and usher in a new era of bipartisan achivement on common goals. But as a President his style has been more an uncompromising "my way or the highway." Again and again during his terms in office he has proven that he is nothing more than an arrogant, petulant academic.
(10) Political failure - Obama was not just a disaster to the nation, but to his own party as well. Witness: "...it is Barack Obama who holds the modern record for overall losses, at least through 2014. President Obama has presided over two devastating midterms for his party. From 2008 to the present, Democrats in the Obama era have racked up net forfeitures of 11 governorships, 13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 913 state legislative seats, and 30 state legislative chambers. In the latter three categories, Obama has doubled (or more) the average two-term presidential loss from Truman through Bush." - Larry J. Sabato, Director, U.Va. Center for Politics December 2014. Here's more or less the same information shown graphically. The best quote is this one, from some article I read on the Internet. (I failed to get the author's name.) I agree with it: "Obama's legacy is cemented forever in history, the worst President ever, bar none who got one thing, and only one thing right. He left the Democrat Party in ruins."
(11) Drone assassinations - It is a signal failure of the American pacifist and anti-war Left to not call President Obama on the carpet for his drone warfare killings. (Clearly, if the President is on your side politically then it's acceptable, but if he's a Republican then it is not.) Here's one as an example: President Obama denied due process of law and a fair trial - Fifth Amendment constitutional rights - when he ordered the targeted killing of the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen. This was apparently the first time since the Civil War the United States government had carried out the deliberate killing of an American citizen as a wartime enemy and without a trial. (We didn't even do that in the vastly more desperate World War II!) In the words of an attorney friend of mine, "...he could have been tried In absentia and convicted and had his citizenship revoked and then been killed, but they did not do this so... it is straight-up murder." While I cannot cry crocodile tears over the death of this terrorist, the question is, if you kill one American without due process what's to keep you from killing others? Or trampling upon other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights? Hello ACLU? Hello, Civil Rights people?
(12) Politicized government and the Buck - The President of the United States is the Chief Executive, which means that he presides over the enormous federal workforce. He is ultimately responsible for everything that the federal government does. There is a long-standing prohibition against politicizing the government, or putting party politics into government functionality. The United States government must not be seen to advance the Democratic or the Republican party; in fact, it's illegal (I refer to the Hatch Act). But Barack Obama has done exactly this and used the Internal Revenue Service to wage bureaucratic war against conservatives and the Department of Justice to provide coverage for Democrats in trouble. As a friend says, "...using the IRS as a political police force and a Justice Department as a criminal protection front." These were scandals during the Obama years, as was a badly failing Veterans Administration, which ran hospitals that veterans were literally dying to enter while waiting for medical attention. My favorite Democrat, Harry S. Truman, had a sign on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here." But during the various scandals of his administration, President Obama constantly shifted the blame to others - there was no sense of the buck stopping a mile near him. And again and again what we've seen is an Obama appointee saying, during the course of a scandal, "I take full responsibility." But what they're really saying is, "I will say I accept responsibility but I have no intention of resigning nor do I expect to be asked to resign."
(13) Beggars and the Homeless - Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but in my area's intersections, streets and public transportation centers I've noticed a real uptick in panhandlers and beggars in the last eight years. They're everywhere - and they didn't used to be. And as I type this I hear a radio report describing an increase in the numbers of homeless in American cities. I suspect this has a connection with #1, the economy. Millions of Americans have simply quit looking for jobs; I suspect a chunk of them took to the streets. On Obama's watch.
(14) The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! - During the 2012 debate with Mitt Romney, a snarky Obama told Mitt, in response to a warning about Russia, that "...the 1980s called - they want their foreign policy back." Now this silly lame duck Chief Executive is attempting to delegitimize his successor's victory in the 2016 election by claiming that the Russians meddled in it to Hillary Clinton's disadvantage. Ridiculous and pathetic! Even the Rolling Stone doesn't buy the story. It's a shabby farewell, but entirely representative of this failed man.
(15), (16), and, and...
Why go on? It is November 17, 2016 as I type this and the Obama Legacy recently got torn to pieces by the voters in the election. Donald Trump won and retained GOP control of the House and Senate, to boot. What's more, as his nominee will be in the Supreme Court, the court will remain majority conservative. It was a repudiation of the Obama policies, big government, globalism and the Obama status quo (which Hillary Clinton represented). It also repudiates George Soros and the liberal media, most of whom were in the tank for Hillary.
Finally, I am not alone in my beliefs.
My case is made. I need write no more!
From the 3/17/2009 Huffington Post:
Democrats in Congress are organizing to squash a White House proposal that would require veterans to use private insurance to pay for treatment of their combat and service-related injuries. ... The Obama administration has insisted that they are non-committal when it comes to a final decision on the actual policy, and White House officials will meet for the second time with veterans groups on Wednesday.
Dunce... What. A. Dunce. This is shameless. Even his fellow Democrats - aging anti-war protestors that they are - recoil from this repulsive proposition.
10 December 2008: "On a series of wiretaps, the 51-year-old Democrat (Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich) who earned nearly $180,000 a year as governor was recorded talking in Al Capone-like displays. At one point, he says bluntly that his family is hurting financially and adds, "I want to make money." He discussed with an adviser that he wanted someone to approach an unidentified adviser to Obama - widely speculated to be incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel - about having the president-elect help get a nonprofit foundation set up for Blagojevich to run."
Rahm Emanuel, Obama's take-no-prisoners Chief of Staff. This is beginning to look, and smell, a lot like the
But I'm not expecting little incidents like this to occur again in the next four years, however. I think this is purely an artifact of the waning days of a Republican Administration. When the Democrats politicize the FBI - remember the Clintonian Justice Department? - stuff like this won't be allowed to happen. It's a feature of the one-party rule that the American electorate foolishly gave the Democrats.
And I had to laugh last night watching the "Situation Room" coverage with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. (I normally wouldn't bother watching, but I was a captive audience in a line at a McDonald's.) Various talking heads were assuring viewers that there's no possible connection to Barack Obama. Richard Nixon got no such benefit of the doubt from the Newsies during the Watergate Era.
The important question now is, how is the next senator from
I nominate Al Franken for
Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said he was unaware of the criminal investigation into an alleged attempt by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to trade an appointment for Obama's Senate seat for financial gain. "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening, " Obama told reporters today in
Translation: "Please make this story go away."
9 December 2008: "Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich wanted President-elect Barack Obama "to put something together...something big" in exchange for going along with Obama's choice to fill his vacant U.S. Senate seat, according to a FBI affidavit unsealed following the governor's stunning arrest. "I've got this thing and it's f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for f***in' nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there," Blagojevich said in a phone call secretly..."
8 December 2008: "
On this one I'm willing to cut Obama some slack. Smoking is a bad habit, period, but I can see why people fall into it when bored, tired, depressed, stressed, etc. However, unfortunately for him, what with the Presidential Physical Fitness Program in schools and all, he either has to quit smoking or lie about the smoking he does. Far better to decisively quit.
1 December 2008: "President-elect Barack Obama on Monday officially introduced the members of his national security team, including former Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state and Robert Gates, who will be remain as defense secretary."
I suppose every Democrat has to have a Sleeze Element in his Cabinet, and Hillary Clinton certainly fulfills that role. I well recall the days of the Clinton Misadministration, when subpoenaed documents mysteriously appeared on the table in the White House Library, or in a suitcase in the trunk of an abandoned car somewhere in
Scratch that last sentence. Like everything else associated with Bill Clinton it sounds like a bad double entendre.
I suppose, given the extreme ethical challenges of the Clintons and Hillary's well-developed sense of hubris, it'll only be a matter of time before Obama has to tell the nation that he can no more disavow his new Secretary of State than he could, say, his pastor.
Oh, wait, he did.
26 November 2008: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates will keep the top Pentagon job for at least the first year of the Obama administration, FOX News has learned. There was very strong support for Gates among Democrats, said one Democratic source in the Senate whose boss was intimately involved in bringing Obama and Gates together to see if they were compatible."
This is exceedingly curious. I thought that Democrats were foaming-at-the-mouth opposed to anything George W. Bush did defense-wise - at least I was led to believe that the left wing of their party was. I would have figured Bush's Defense Secretary would be at the very front of the chopping block, to repudiate the Iraq War. "Very strong support for a Republican among Democrats?" I don't know how to interpret this. This may be a commendable effort from Obama to move parties closer together or a suggestion (as my friend assures me) that there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.
19 November 2008: The news today is about the estimable Senator Ted Stevens (R- Alaska): "Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, narrowly lost his re-election bid Tuesday, marking the downfall of a Washington political power and Alaska icon who couldn't survive a conviction on federal corruption charges. ...Stevens' loss was another slap for Republicans... It also moves Democrats one step closer to the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters in the Senate. Democrats now hold 58 seats, when two independents who align with Democrats are included, with undecided races in
...a statement that makes a cold shudder run through my body. As I stated below, I believe that no one party should have control of the House, Senate and White House, and certainly no party should have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. What new socialist nanny-statism will the likes of Chuck Schumer and his cohorts ram down Americans' throats?
Elsewhere in the news: "There is a certain slice of
Yeah, right. Get real, Mayor Fenty. Obama is a Democrat, which means that he's a champion of public schools - for our kids. The outspoken champions of the public school system invariably send their kids to private schools (as when the
And this: "
Oh, yeah... the Marc Rich pardon. Crooked billionaires getting pardons by Democrats. But that's okay, Holder has issued his repentance statement, which makes it cool for him to become the attorney general.
"The kind of change we can believe in."
Let's see if Republican senators are happy being in the political minority and roll over and play dead for Obama and Holder. I bet they do.
17 November 2008: "CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama and vanquished rival John McCain met for the first time since the November 4 election on Monday, pledging to work together to face the financial crisis and other national challenges."
Yawn - Obama and McCain vowing to "work together." As if anyone cares. John McCain is fully entitled to enter into the ash heap of history as far as I'm concerned. He was a lousy candidate and can merge back into the Senate as one face in the crowd of 100 (which includes John Kerry's cadaverous puss).
14 November 2008: A reenactor I know tells me that the upcoming Obama Inaugural Parade will include local Civil War reenactors. (Of course... what's a social occasion without Civil War reenactors?) When I asked if this would include Confederates, he suggested not. While unifying the Blue and the Red might be a priority for the new administration, unifying the Blue and the Gray is not.
There's also talk of Hillary Clinton becoming the new Secretary of State, to which I quote an old Mad magazine: EEEECCCCHHH. Exactly what definition of the word "change" encompasses those arch-crooks the
10 November 2008:
Gee, what a surprise. This admission is convenient timing, now that the election is safely over. But even the most crazed liberal must understand that the conservative Washington Times is now the paper to go to for complete coverage and investigative reporting of the Obama Administration. The Post and the New York Times won't do it - they go into protect mode. (Actually, they remain in protect mode.)
Also, I see on November 5th Ann Coulter wrote: "...we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president. Starting tomorrow, if not sooner." I see we were thinking along similar lines that day...
8 November 2008: President-elect Barack Obama called Nancy Reagan today to apologize for the careless and off-handed remark he made during today's press conference, said transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. Obama was asked at his press conference today if he'd spoken to all the "living" presidents. "I have spoken to all of them who are living," he responded. "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances."
The president-elect's first major press conference and he insults an 87 year-old widow. Classy. What surprised me about this comment was that it seemed to come from nowhere, right out of the blue. I have a feeling Barack Obama has a hidden mean streak.
7 November 2008: Yesterday I mentioned the historical nature of the Wednesday papers; this morning outside the Metro station a guy was selling special reprints of the Washington Post for $1.50 each. The Post endorses Obama, he wins, history is made, and special edition papers are sold in a heavily African-American city. Very tidy. Will the half-baked socialist op-ed writers for the Post classify this as another example of capitalism run amok?
I must be politically more flexible than I think, or a more optimistic soul than I think. I was watching television last night (depressing statistics about the economy - the worst October in retailing for 35 years), and, of course, the topic of the upcoming new administration was discussed. I was surprised to find myself feeling hopeful, rather than pessimistic, about Obama.
The morning after the election I asked a Bolivian guy at work what he thought, did his man win or not? He paused for a while, and said simply, "Change is good." The more I think about it, the more I see the wisdom in this simple expression. Certainly a change in management is called for. Whether a change in the prevailing political philosophies of the nation is needed is an entirely different question. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas, writing immediately after the election, maintains that
From a news article: "Obama, who bested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made it clear he will rely heavily on veterans of her husband's eight-year administration, the only Democratic presidency in the past 28 years. (John) Podesta was President Clinton's chief of staff, and several other former
6 November 2008: The newsies are having a heyday with this election; I see they're still using large font headlines with the word "historic" in order to sell papers. (I saw a news report last night about people collecting yesterday's papers for historical reasons. The papers have clearly caught on.) I saw a headline this morning that really annoyed me: "Bamalot." Being an avid reader and admirer of Arthurian literature, I have always been extremely annoyed with the media's connection of King Arthur with John F. Kennedy (and, by extension, other young Democrats). Last I read, none of Guinevere's hand-maidens ever cooed "Happy Birthday King Arthur" wearing a skin tight, flesh-colored gown a la Marilyn Monroe. The whole thing is due to the fact that the Kennedy Administration roughly coincided in time with a Broadway musical version of T.H. White's "The Once and Future King," a favorite book. The musical was, of course, "Camelot," which JFK reportedly admired. (Too bad "Urinetown" wasn't wrtten then.) The journalist Theodore White connected the two in a December 6th, 1963 LIFE magazine article. I suppose the pressies are now going to resurrect it, a New Camelot - gag me with a spoon. Frankly, if I were Barack Obama I'd find this whole thing a bit ghoulish. The Kennedy/Camelot myth began only after Kennedy was assassinated. Geez, the guy is only 47 - cut the youngster some slack!
5 November 2008: The great American electoral temper tantrum has subsided and Barack Hussein (may we use his middle name now?) Obama is the president-elect. Kenyans are exultant and we have boldly met the expectations of the French. Joe Biden (R. Emmett Tyrrell calls him the delightful Joe Biden) of the semi-demi-state
By the way, I had an interesting conversation with a fellow who used to meet with Sen. Biden and various generals and other brass on armed forces sub-committees. He said that Biden was always "the dumbest guy in the room." If so, and none of his published comments thus far lead me to believe otherwise, it will be interesting to watch if the newsies give him a pass they never gave Dan Quayle.
Everybody I voted for lost.
Last night was an awful blow to the conservative movement, but to call it a death blow would be premature. Every sweeping victory like the one yesterday has within it the seeds of a future defeat. Democrats, controlled as they are by the Loony Left, will surely overplay their hand or misread the electorate sooner or later. Besides, hubris is in their DNA; it comes with their moral anointment. And Obama can no longer get away with voting "present" while sitting in the Oval Office. A higher level of engagement will be expected of him. I'm guessing that with the present economic problems the American people will have little tolerance for the extensive on-the-job training this most inexperienced of president-elects will require. So conservatives should do what the liberals did in 1980, bide their time and look for opportunities. Let's see how long the honeymoon lasts. It will be extended by the press who helped put him in office in the first place, of course. (I can't help but think of that SNL skit about the fawning press corps.) But as Bill Clinton learned, more than anything else, the newsies crave news. And if it's negative, oh well... at least the guy reading the copy about malfeasance looks important doing so.
I am greatly sobered by the emerging threat to American security last night's election results presage. While America-hating terrorists may be under funded, desperate and, right now, on the defensive, they surely must be encouraged by Obama's election. Like the Viet Cong war planners of a generation ago, reading about American anti-war protests, they now know that our hearts really aren't in the fight. The election of Obama to the position of commander-in-chief is a big white flag of surrender to them, and, thus heartened, they may attempt to attack us again. But you needn't take my world for it. From the delightful Joe Biden: "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the
There are certain advantages to being in a minority political status. For instance, I'm looking forward to not feeling defensive about members of the Bush Family any more. (I think Bush Senior was the Gipper's biggest mistake.) And come January, the Democrats will control the White House, the Senate and the House. The recession, global terrorism, etc. will become their recession, terrorist attacks and other problems. Blaming Republicans won't go far.
Thank goodness, however, that the electorate fell short of giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. That would keep me up at night.
I now become a member of the Loyal Opposition to my elected officials. I could write that I grant them the same hopes, prayers, wishes, support and encouragement that the Democrats offered to George W. Bush and his associates as the loyal opposition, but it would be transparently obvious that I'm being disingenuous and really hoping for the worst. While I have been known to bite my nose to spite my face (that's in my DNA), I really do hope that the Obama Administration will do well for
I remain, however, a political cynic.
4 November 2008: I voted this morning. Heavy turnout; the line was all the way to the front door of the elementary school, something I've never seen in eleven years of voting in my precinct. The inside line was a bit shorter for the paper ballot option, so I cheerfully went low tech this time.
I have never voted with such a resultant sense of gloom. Tonight I tune in and watch the newsies wet their pants over the prospect of acclaiming Obama The One (while half-pretending to kinda sorta seem objective).
From Wondermark. I won't miss the robocalls. One day we got home and found no less than eight of them on our answering machine.
27 October 2008: It appears that Mr. Barack Hussein (his middle name is a hush-hush thing, uncomfortably resembling as it does the name of a former Muslim tyrant) Obama, helped greatly by a national Press Corps who is obviously ga-ga in love with him, is going to win the general election next week. (The hapless George W. Bush didn't hurt matters, either.) This means that the House, Senate and White House will all go to the Democratic Party - a terrible mistake, in my opinion, and something the American electorate doesn't do very often. It is my belief that Americans, who are generally ignorant about history, will re-learn why this is, hopefully by the mid-term elections in 2010.
The House, Senate and White House... I am a conservative Republican (even though these days being politically Independent is a better match for my views), and I wouldn't even want to see the GOP have this much power. I think compromise is behind the success of the American representational democratic political experiment, and I like politicians to have to fight, argue, scrap and haggle over everything - and, in the end, compromise. I think this results in better laws and public policy. So I am not one of the people whining for comity in Congress. The heck with that. Duke it out!
Having lived through eight disreputable years of the Clinton Mis-Administration, it seems like a good idea to catalog the mistakes of the new administration - something I wish I had done the last time a Democrat was (chasing skirt) in the White House. Hence, this Obama File, where I plan to document the follies of incoming administration, and comment.
I am one of the many Americans who would earnestly like to be able to vote "none of the above" in the upcoming election. The primaries this time gave us four very inferior candidates. And I am truly stunned by the ridiculous, Oprahesque adulation given to Obama - "the One" and all that messianic nonsense. My political views contain a strong dose of cynicism. Politicians are, after all, only human, and rarely rise to the level of their ceaseless rhetoric. True statesmen are few and far between.
Is everyone thrilled about the prospect of a black man coming to presidential power in the
Perhaps what gives me the greatest pause about an Obama Administration is the fact that, 1.) Our global enemies, terrorists, would prefer him over his much more bellicose opposition candidate, John McCain, and 2.) The Europeans are rooting for him as well. When have the Europeans ever gotten anything right (other than table manners and British comedy)?
And so I await the election, when I will trudge to the polls as I always do, pinch my nose tightly, and yet again vote rather against somebody than for somebody.
Oh, well. If it makes Michelle Obama proud to be an American I suppose it's worth it.