Barack Obama campaigned for his presidency during a time that the majority of Americans wanted anything that was the antithesis of George Bush. Couple that desire with the juxtaposition of the Obama persona with such African-American icons as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, one can surely understand how the combination was a winning David Axelrod formula.
The climate wave was change, hope and the promise of a historic moment. My PUMA counterparts did not buy into it. They had found a suitable candidate in Hillary Clinton. Hillary offered the promise of brains, experience, substance and of course- a historic moment. Hillary offered something in different forms . She was the best man for the job and she would have be the first female President of the United States of America. It was clear that Hillary was more qualified than Barack Obama. Yes there was baggage but I can argue that one can expect baggage with experience. I can tolerate some baggage depending on what kind it is. Okay so, Hillary voted for the war on Iraq. For me, that was a moot point. We were already in it so let’s finish it. I can accept that over a vote for TARP. It was not like Obama really cared about foreign policy. Besides, Barack Obama was not in the U.S. Senate when the vote on Iraq was taken. How did we know what he would have done? He was an unknown quantity. Yes there was some information out there. The kind that was only broadcast on Fox News. The kind that Obama supporters did not want to hear about.
How were we supposed to know how Obama would have handled 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina? An economic crisis? A major oil spill?
How did we know that he was not the same ol’ Washington Politics? Business as usual?
Now we do.
From this article at Townhall.com:
Over the Rainbowsby Jonah GoldbergMay 21, 2010
…He came into office promising rainbows and puppies for everyone and has, like Pizza Hut during a blizzard, failed to deliver. Now, before some intern at a left-wing media watchdog outfit spits Diet Snapple out his nose in outrage over my “fabrications” and “distortions,” and fires off some canned protest e-mail, I do not literally mean to suggest that Obama promised voters rainbows and puppies. Rather, I mean it figuratively. He did literally promise to change the way Washington works, unify the country, govern from the center, work with Republicans and operate the government in a fiscally responsible way. That hasn’t happened. You could look it up.
The White House desperately wants the story to be “Voters Mad at Washington,” not “Voters Mad at Democrats” or, heaven forbid, “Voters Mad at Obama.” But the simple truth is that all three things are true, and Obama deserves much of the blame.
Jay Cost, an indispensable election analyst at RealClearPolitics.com, has it exactly right: ” ‘Change that you can believe in’ has gone from an over-worked campaign slogan to an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Vote for a Dem, you support the President’s agenda for change. Vote for a GOPer, you support the President’s agenda for change.”
This spin has been a long time in coming. After the Scott Brown victory, the White House claimed that the Republican’s win was a manifestation of the same political forces that brought Obama to power, even though Brown opposed Obama’s agenda, and despite the fact that Obama lustily endorsed Brown’s opponent, Martha Coakley. Who, by the way, wasn’t an incumbent. She promised to advance Obama’s “change” agenda, and she lost. But Obama’s just so awesome that what would be political losses for lesser mortals must be more winning proof of his supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness. Because as far as this White House is concerned, nothing is ever Obama’s fault and everything is proof of how much we need him.
It’s an odd position given how the people who need him least are candidates from his own party.
For those of you who claimed to have voted for Obama because he was a fresh, unfettered, unknown quantity – a historic moment… Tell me. how do you feel about your choice now?
Autographed Letter Signed,