Ricky D., our perennial Clinton supporter from Brooklyn, New York offers his latest assualt on Sen. Obama’s record and honesty. Although I know that Obama supporters will be shocked and horrified, I must say that now that the Senator from Illinois is spending nearly three times as much as Senator Clinton in the states of Ohio and Texas it needs to be asked just how this new “transformational” polticis is ANY different from the old politics he claims to disdain. Ricky D. does so…and more

“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’s some people might be comfortable doing that, but I’m not one of those people.”

– Barack Obama, November 8, 2004

Where were you two months ago, Jack?

The closer one looks at Barack Obama, the less there is to see. And what there actually is to see is unpleasant - often in the extreme. I started out leaning toward Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee simply because I thought she had the best chance of defeating whoever the GOP might run. As it looks like their candidate is going to be John McCain, I am more convinced of this than ever. Clinton could beat McCain handily. Obama couldn’t. And it’s not so much that McCain would win as that Obama would lose - probably big time. Hell, Obama could probably lose to Huckabee.

Some recent clippings:

David Ignatius in the Washington Post:

If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government? … The record is mixed, but it’s fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. … Obama worked on some bipartisan issues, such as a state version of the earned-income tax credit, after he was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. But he also gained a reputation for skipping tough votes. The most famous example was a key gun control vote that he missed in December 1999 because he was vacationing in Hawaii. The Chicago Tribune blasted him and several other vote-skippers as “gutless.” One Chicago pol says that “the myth developed that when there was a tough vote, he was gone.”

Except it wasn’t a “myth”.

Joe Wilson at Huffington Post (his whole piece is accurate and astute):

Obama’s gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

From Ali Abunimah at The Electronic Intifada:

On Friday Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago. It had been much anticipated in American Jewish political circles which buzzed about his intensive efforts to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors who up to now have generally leaned towards his main rival Senator Hillary Clinton.

Reviewing the speech, Ha’aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama “sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.” …

Obama offered not a single word of criticism of Israel, of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. …

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. … I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.”

Such pandering to both sides is a bit too reminiscent of the CTV story that the Obama campaign told a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy that “when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.”

From Sean Wilentz in the New Republic (who is finally saying what I’ve been asserting all along):

While promoting Obama as a “post-racial” figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the “race card” were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the “race-baiter card” before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada–and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters.

All of the above are well worth reading in their entirety - especially if you are mindless supporter of Barack Obama. Michael Moore’s reservations from early January are also worth noting:

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There’s no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he’s for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn’t think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan — the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He’s such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won’t even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We’d like to believe they would. We’d like to believe America has changed, wouldn’t we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves — and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he’s changed, too. But are we dreaming?

Finally, from TexasDarlin at MyDD.com (the original includes sources as foundation for all ten questions):

On the eve of March 4th elections, some voters would appreciate more detailed answers from Barack Obama to questions that seem to be accumulating as the primary season heads into Spring and Summer.

In no particular order, the questions for Sen. Obama are:

1. a) What has the SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS accomplished in the 14 months you’ve been Chairperson; b) Is it true that you’ve never traveled to Europe or convened a policy hearing as Chairperson of this Subcommittee; and c) If you have not had time to lead this important Subcommittee due to your presidential bid, why haven’t you stepped aside to let another Senator chair who will have the time?

2. a) Why didn’t you back up your 2002 speech opposing MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ with strong opposition once you became a U.S. Senator; and b) Why does your voting record as a U.S. Senator contradict your original opposition?

3. a) What did your SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISOR AUSTAN GOOLSBEE say to the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago regarding your NAFTA intentions; and b) Why does your campaign refuse to provide a straight answer?

4. a) Why did TONY REZKO’s wife buy the lot next door to you, on the same day you bought your house, when the Rezkos were in near financial ruin; b) Why did you participate in any transaction involving Tony Rezko when you knew he was under criminal investigation (saying that this was a “boneheaded mistake” does not sufficiently explain your actions); and c) Will you release all records related to Tony Rezko, as the Clinton campaign has requested?

5. a) Why don’t you take the high road and publicly denounce the harassment, pressure, and threats being made on BLACK SUPERDELEGATES to switch their allegiance to you based on racial loyalty; and b) Would you similarly remain silent if white Superdelegates were pressured to support Hillary Clinton?

6. Why won’t you state that you clearly and unequivocally reject the endorsement of LOUIS FARRAKHAN? Your response in last Tuesday’s debate to Tim Russert’s question fell short of rejecting Farrakhan’s endorsement. This may help your electability with the Jewish population in the General Election.

7. A) Why do you continue to associate with REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT of your controversial church, Trinity United Church of Christ, when Wright has praised Louis Farrakhan; and B) Why didn’t you address this part of Tim Russert’s question in last Tuesday’s debate?

8. Why is your campaign employing a strategy that encourages REPUBLICANS to change their registration for only one day, vote for you in the primary, then switch their registration back? Is it because of the facts outlined in this article: A Number You Probably Haven’t Seen?

9. Why do you consistently accuse the Clinton campaign of NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING, painting Sen. Clinton as divisive and yourself as a uniter, when your campaign has played the race card and employed numerous strong-arm tactics against Sen. Clinton?

10. On the theme of “unity,” what specific accomplishments in your legislative record back up your claim of BIPARTISAN COLLABORATION?

Perhaps some of Obama’s supporters would like to answer those questions, assuming they know anything at all about their idol.

I have been in Ohio for the past three days campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Not because I’m that big a supporter of Clinton, but because I have now moved into the “Anybody But Obama” camp - and I feel it is vital to the future of our country to do everything in my power to make sure Obama is not the candidate. So Sean and I and a friend we managed to drag along have been tromping around the suburbs of Cincinnati, knocking on doors, and doing our best to put our money where our mouths have been. It’s been encouraging to see how many people here are focused on the issues and are, therefore, supporting Hillary Clinton. But I fear it’s going to be too little too late,especially in the face of a well-engineered media campaign against Clinton.

We have met a number of interesting people who are also volunteering on the campaign, including an older couple from Iowa (yeah, older than us, even). They had an interesting story. It appears that there may be even more to these primaries than just Republicans coming out in droves to vote against Clinton. In Iowa, apparently, not only can anyone vote in the primaries, but they don’t even require ID at their polling places; not only do you not have to be a registered Democrat, you don’t have to be a registered voter. Hell, if they’re not checking IDs, you don’t even have to be a freaking citizen. People can just turn up, walk in, and vote. They could be from another district, another state, even another country. And, according to this couple, Obama’s campaign was busing people in to vote by the hundreds, perhaps thousands - and no one knows where they came from. It may be bullshit - I have no firsthand knowledge. But would I be surprised by a colossally ambitious career politician trying to rig an election, even if he gives good rhetoric? Um, no. Unlike many Obama supporters, I wasn’t born yesterday.

Why am I so opposed to Obama? Because I hate phonies. I hate liars. I hate hypocrites. I hate panderers. I hate candidates who are all hat and no cattle. I hate arrogance. I hate vaulting ambition. I hate political dirty tricks. And I really hate corruption. Need more? I hate politicians like George W. Bush. And Barack Obama, as a politician, is the closest candidate in the race to George W. Bush. I’m not talking about policies - I’m talking about, well… phoniness, lies, hypocrisy, arrogance, ambition, lack of substance, dirty tricks, and corruption. In short, I believe with all my heart, with all my soul, and with all my mind that Barack “I’m not one of those people” Obama is totally and utterly full of shit. I have been playing close attention to politicians of all stripes for close to forty years and, if nothing else, I know BULLSHIT when I see it. I don’t care how much honey drips from it. Shit is shit.

Indeed, the closer one looks at Barack Obama, the closer one comes to suspecting that he’s some sort of diabolical fifth columnist, a quisling, or, at the very least, so blinded by his ambition that he can’t see how fragile is “popularity” is. Frankly, any Democrat that continues to support him is a dupe, probably a bigger dupe than Bush supporters who thought he would bring change to Washington, reach across the aisle, restore dignity to the White House, and be a uniter, not a divider. After all, most of them didn’t believe Bush’s bullshit - they just thought he’d make them richer - and keep all them fags and niggers and atheists and baby-killers in their place. But the dupes that are supporting Obama actually seem to be swallowing his shit. Should they succeed in undermining Sen. Clinton (and it looks like their dirty tricks are paying off in spades), they’re either going to lose the election for the Democrats or give us one of the most ineffectual presidents that the party has ever produced.

Thanks, morons. If Obama is your candidate, you’ll get exactly what you deserve. And I will take no pleasure whatsoever in saying, “I told you so”. Not that you’d hear me anyway - you’ll all be too busy continuing to whine and play the victim. You have, after all, had plenty of expert coaching in that.