Personally I have almost no idea what Obamaism means, or what it stands for (if for anything), but quite some Americans seem to believe that Barack Obama’s call for change actually has some substance to it.
Kevin Sullivan is one of them and in “Wind At His Back” he takes a closer look at Obamaism, and specifically at Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan. I disagree with Kevin on Obama – who is in my humble opinion nothing but an empty suit – but it’s an interesting read. Head on over to Independent Liberal to read his post.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Michael — with all due respect (and I wouldn’t bother asking the question if I didn’t respect you) –
Why do you think he’s an empty suit?
PoliMom:
- his website does explain his stance on some issues, but – and this is a major but – we all know that these issues are written to a large degree by advisers
- when you hear the man speak himself – in speeches and debates – there’s truly no substance whatsoever to anything he says
Combine the two: empty suit.
I have not noticed that in his speeches at all, and his web site does help provide far more detail than he could in his speeches.
If you are concerned that the web site is written by advisers, read his books, which he did write himself.
His web site is filled with platitudes and promises, but details are lacking. And without details it’s all “…and a pony!” pie-in-the-sky. The kindest analysis of the total amount of “new” money required for a minimal fulfillment of those promises is $800 billion, a minimum 30% increase in federal spending. Oh yeah, AND he’s going to balance the budget too! No word on how to pay for it all, of course.
It’s the old routine of promise everything but be vague on the details, and toss it out there all sugar-coated, so later you can say you delivered it all when you tossed in a bone.
Now if he were a Republican, he’d be promising to cut federal spending…and be very vague on the details….