Just got through listening to Obama's speech at Valley Forge High School in Parma Heights Ohio, on C-Span. It was somewhat impressive, and even comforting to a point. It's easy to see why he impresses the crowds that he continually draws to what you can describe as an event more accurately than a mere political rally.
Okay, so for a Democrat, he's not so bad on gun rights. When one woman stood up and asked him a question pertaining to this issue, however, I noted she seemed to be one of these strident, cold and shrill bitch type moms. It made me wonder, are these questioners really inside plants meant to convey a certain archetype? If so, it was effective. He managed to reassure the apparent Shrill Hillary clone as to how crime can be fought (giving due credit here to Bill Clinton's 100,000 "Cops" program, which he promises to reinstate) but also reassuring gun advocates that he believes in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Well, somewhat reassuring. He did mention closing the "gun show loophole" and having a federal tracking system of guns used in crimes to trace where those guns were purchased as a means of insuring gun dealers obeyed background check laws. By the same token, he never mentioned the old bugaboo about "assault rifles".
Overall, I give him a B- as far as his stated current position on gun owners rights, which is about as good as you can hope for from an allegedly liberal Democratic Senator.
On immigration and border security, pretty much the same drivel you can expect from most Democrats, and many Republicans-including McCain. However, he did throw in there somewhere that there needs to be an increase in border guards and border patrols, so for that reason, in addition to his promise to crack down on people purposely hiring illegal immigrants, I give him a C+.
He slipped up once in mentioning health care reform, referring to it as "welfare reform", though he quickly corrected himself. Still, I had to wonder, where the hell did that come from?
He promised to have open hearings on the subject, at which he would bring all parties to the table, including insurance and drug companies, wryly adding that they wouldn't, however, be able to buy every seat at the table. He chastised them for diverting so much of the money derived from their current tax breaks, allegedly needed for supposed research and development, into marketing, such as in commercials where people are happy and dancing in fields of flowers in commercials where you never know what drug is advertised, "except for that one. Yeah, you know what that one's for". That brought a pretty good laugh.
He's going to begin to bring troops home beginning his first year, though he swears not to withdraw precipitously, but slowly and deliberately. This would take two years, he said, which would put the Iraqi government on notice that they need to get their act together. In the meantime, he would continue to help build infrastructure, train their military and police, provide humanitarian aid, etc. There would be a continued presence, just not a permanent military base.
On the really positive front, he would end tax breaks to corporations that send jobs overseas, but would keep them for companies that keep jobs here in America. Hard to find fault with that. Well, for me it is anyway, so I won't try.
As of now, I still doubt I will vote for him, or for anybody else. By the same token, I have to admit, by the time the rally was over, I didn't feel so bad at the prospect of him being the next President Of The United States.
However, I do dread his judicial appointments, the one current fear above all others when it comes to Democratic candidates that I just cant seem to shake.
I'll say this. He has gotten a bad rap as far as being big on rhetoric and lacking on specifics. True, he spoke in pretty broad generalizations, but he gives the impression that he does have strong, compelling ideas, without feeling the need to go into minutiae, which would probably doom his campaign. Overall, I give his performance a B-. That's about as good as it gets with me for any politician of any party, so be impressed.
Though the man does have obvious rhetorical gifts, I was struck more by the cerebral policy of his address, his casual and yet assertive tone, his commanding and yet comforting demeanor.
Frankly, I tend to believe that if he gets the nomination, he will win the general election, though it might well be a close one. Why? Well, put it this way. Whenever a candidate who has great charisma runs for the presidency, he almost always wins. This has been a fact since the days of radio. Call it the "Harding Effect". I can't think of one time it has ever failed.
2 comments:
The more I learn about Obama, the moreI like him. McCain is lucky that I cannot vote in America elections, because at this rate, I might have turned into a complete Obamamaniac by November and he would lose my vote.... which he won't have anyway because I am not a US citizen... So there...
He might well be the real deal. Who knows, maybe he can wash off the stench of the Chicago Democratic Dailey machine if elected. It might be a bit more difficult to wash off the stench of Teddy Kennedy, but that's a different matter.
I find myself feeling better about him as well, though I still have my concerns, as I noted.
On the other hand, many of the great statesmen of the past started out as political hacks. That's just part of the standard routine they all have to go through to get started, I guess. Lincoln is an example of this. He started out as a railroad lawyer, and quite a mediocre one or maybe two-term House of Representatives member.
Anything is possible, and any politician has the potential to rise to greatness if the situation warrants. It all depends on how much they are willing to put on the line to do the right thing.
Unfortunately, the one thing that most serves to keep them as honest as possible is the very same thing that keeps so many of them at the level of hacks. They all want to be re-elected.
Post a Comment