Sure, achmed's smart.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Interesting observation.

hursday, May 15, 2008

Obama Impresses, But Fails to Connect

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 8:41 AM

While liberals and the MSM think racisim drove those bitter gun-clingers in Pennsylvania and West Virginia to vote for Hillary Clinton, Obama's aloof personality probably has more to do with it than anything else.

This, of course, is not an entirely original thought. But I think that it is interesting to juxtapose the unique strengths Barack Obama posseses, versus the equally amazing weaknesses he must overcome.

Here's my take: Obama is obviously intelligent, erudite, and charismatic. But he is not terribly likable, and fails to connect with many average Americans.

There's a famous story about two 19th century British prime ministers, William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli, that I think helps illustrate Obama's weakness.

It was often said of Prime Minister Gladstone that when you had dinner with him, you came away thinking he was the the most charming man you’d ever met. Conversely, after dining with Disraeli, one came away feeling that you were the smartest, most charming person in the world.

The great politicians, such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, are like Disraeli. They make you feel better about yourself. Obama is Gladstone -- an impressive politician, but the ability to connect with average Americans is not his strength.

LINK

[Justin5 20]

I would think you of all people would care less about a candidates 'likability'. After all, its not like McCain's strength is his charm.

[CCTAU 3,350]

I would think you of all people would care less about a candidates 'likability'. After all, its not like McCain's strength is his charm.

Did I say I cared anywhere in that post? I only said it was an interesting observation. So many people claim he is smart, but not all smart people are good leaders.

McCain's strength is his strength. People believe he will keep us safe and try and cut spending. He isn't all full of platitudes and hope. He tells the people of Detroit the auto jobs aren't coming back. The unions destroyed those a long time ago. Achmed blows smoke up their ass and claims to want to pump $200 million a year back into their dead economy. Where will he get it? From you and me. McCain knows better.

Whether he can stop spending depends on how hard the American people hit up there reps. But we know achmed will never even try to stop spending. He will increase it on the backs of the rich, who in turn will just pass it down to the middle class or cut jobs. Either way, achmed spits on rural, hard-working, God fearing, gun toting middle America.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Didn't the last time we had a Democratic President we had a balanced budget, and I believe we may have been a little bit in the black.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Didn't the last time we had a Democratic President we had a balanced budget, and I believe we may have been a little bit in the black.

Please look back through old posts. Already been discussed how that was a product of a well led republican congress and an economy base on the dot.com boom. Ole slick Willy rode the tidal wave until right before it hit shore with a recession.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Didn't the last time we had a Democratic President we had a balanced budget, and I believe we may have been a little bit in the black.

Please look back through old posts. Already been discussed how that was a product of a well led republican congress and an economy base on the dot.com boom. Ole slick Willy rode the tidal wave until right before it hit shore with a recession.

I guess he just got lucky in more ways than Monica then.

[autigeremt 6,717]

Hammer meet nail

Another reason for ole "Willy" is the fact that the Pentagon had it's spending cut to it's lowest % in history. That pumped a lot of money back into the bank, as they say. It also set us up for failure when Bin Laden hit in 2001.

[Justin5 20]

Read the 9/11 commission. Then tell me it was Clintons fault.

[Auburn85 432]

The 1st Bush and Clinton's budgets both netted less in total defense.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ng-inside_x.htm

-2% for Clinton

-4% for G.HW Bush

but it is amazing how Bush carries the majority of the blame since he didn't take office until late January of 2001. And the terror attacks happened Mid- September of 2001. A whole 8 months, while the two previous administrations netted less in total defense. Afterall funding is the root of all success right?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Read the 9/11 commission. Then tell me it was Clintons fault.

You mean their report?

[Justin5 20]

Read the 9/11 commission. Then tell me it was Clintons fault.

You mean their report?

Apologizes for my omission. Yes, the 9/11 Commission's Report.

I made a mistake. I blame my lack of morning coffee.

[OldNewby 27]

That would be the 911 Omission Report.