The Obama Delusion

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: libby the kid @ 02/20/2008 8:45:26 PM

    Dick Morris is a clinton hater and not at all objective

  • Posted By: mksl1 @ 02/20/2008 8:44:25 PM

    Hillary schmillary.
    She's just a deer caught in the headlighs now.
    That won't happen to O-BLAMA-LAMA until he has to answer questions like-
    Without U.S. forces in Iraq how do you counter balance Iranian influence and prevent a middle eastern arms race?
    OR- At a time when even the chinese communists have low tax rates where on earth in the 21st century did you get the idea that tax increases simulate economic growth?
    Then it will be O-BAMA-LAMA's turn to get that deer in the headlight look.

  • Posted By: libby the kid @ 02/20/2008 8:39:53 PM

    I think Obama can give a good speech but is a lightweight who is really an empty vessel who has way left wing views that are not in the mainstream of voters. The republicans will have a field day with this man and we will see another republican president because mccain can draw mainstream independent voters that will not be attracted by the most left member of the senate when he finally outlines a position

  • Posted By: chyke1 @ 02/20/2008 8:23:42 PM

    A very poorly written article. You couldn't even hide your hatred of obama. A very poor piece of journalism to say the least! Next time, try harder!

    • Posted By: coolrepublica @ 02/20/2008 8:38:48 PM

      How strange. All articles putting down Hillary are great articles. Articles questioning Obama, not even putting him down, just questioning his abilities to lead are poor pieces of journalism. Where does the madness stops? It's like 2000 all over again. I guess fanatics are just that fanatics. . If people i the media questioned bush in before he went to war, if they asked the most basic of questions we would not be wheer we are now. So please applaud he writer for having a discussion on Obama's ability to lead instead of calling his article poor.

  • Posted By: mksl1 @ 02/20/2008 8:35:54 PM

    paset.
    "Yes we can!"
    Can what?
    Put a motivational speaker in the white house by sticking our head in the sand,ignoring his warmed over mondale ideas and immaculate abcense of accomplishment and just like wing it dude!
    Yeah,that's the ticket!Take over the ship of state and fly by the seat of our pants!
    WhEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
    It's just the presidency dude!
    Hey,save ME some of that doobage.

  • Posted By: libby the kid @ 02/20/2008 8:33:01 PM

    Bravo, Why s it that no one can critcize Saint Obama, iThe Republicans will not be held back by the idiot political correctness that plagues the left democrats

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 02/20/2008 8:32:51 PM

    IF CLINTON AND OBAMA HAVE SIMILAR AGENDA's WHy IS CLINTON'S AGENDA NOT categorized as narrow.

    OBAMA's AGENDA IS WIDE and promotes unity. NO ONE IS Hypnotized, THEy just want CHANGE. AMERICANS HAVE ALWAyS resisted jet lag. CLINTONS BUSH CLINTONS. OBAMA is the only candidate tha can actually get his AGENDA through CONGRESS AND the SENATE. REMEMBER HILLARy WILL BE WORKING FOR OBAMA, so DO NOT WORRy. THE NATION's major problems will be TACKLED and CONQUERED by an OBAMA presidency. IF ARNOLD CAN MAKE IT CALIFORNIA THERE's NO TELLING HOW FAR OBAMA CAN GO and HOW MUCH HE CAN ACHIEVE.
    I AM GLAD OBAMA IS NOT MAKING promises he can't keep.

    LET's LOOK AT THE FACTS.
    OBAMA has shown he can organize millions of people into an organized and effetive political force.
    He has made the correct judgements consistently throughout his campaign.
    HIS TEAM IS A REFLECTION of HIM ORGANIZED HONEST AND HARD WORKING.
    CONSISTENT, GENUINE.

    LET"S LOOK AT HILLARy's campaign.
    A lot of fighting and divisivness.
    A lot of firing's.
    A lot of bad JUDGEMENTS
    CONFUSION AND pANIC as a result of bad judement and wrong decisions.
    THE BLAME GAME. IT's your fault not its his fault, that's it you are FIRED.
    LET GO RACIAL My destiny is more important.
    It is a reflection of her style. BROAD AGENDA's, BIG plans, only to have them blocked because she was unable to unite factions in order to implement her agenda. COMBINE THAT WITH SCANDAL and you are left with no HOpE and a BUSH in the OVAL OFFICE.

    BEING president IS ABOUT UNITING THE COUNTRy. THIS IS WHy not just anyone can become COMMANDER N CHIEF. BEING president involves making real time decisions very frequently. OBAMA HAS proven time and time again he has a "nack" for making a calm cool correct decisions in a real time enviornment. BE HONEST LOOK AT THE CONTRAST in CAMpaigns. THE FACTS ARE THERE.

    THE MEDIA NEED TO REALIZE THAT THEy are a tool of indoctrination. ANy GOOD politician can manipulae the media in their favor. OBAMA AND BILL ARE VERy good politicians.

    OBAMA is not a fortune teller he cannot have plans ready until he has his complete team together. ONE step at a time. TO GO INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL is a political trap because things change. OBAMA IS A pro and will not fall into that trap.

  • Posted By: pellum123 @ 02/20/2008 1:45:45 PM

    Finally, a story that makes sense. I can see Obamas rhetoric from a mile away. He runs on the premise of change yet he has no real solutions for change. What are we thinking as a country? Why would we put someone into office that has very little experience as a statesmen or as a leader. He is not seasoned and he is not ready for the presidency. I said the same thing about President Bush; not qulaified, not ready. Why are we thinking about doing this again. When Obama speaks, really try to listen to his mesage...there is nothing there, not change, not experience, not wisdom, and certainly not the qualities we should be looking for in a President. Think of it this way; if you were interviewing someone for the Presidency what questions would you ask? One of the biggest questions I would asked is tell me about your experiences and what experiences qualifies you to be President? I believe Obama would fall way short. I will not vote for Obama, he simply is not ready. We are in a full scale war, potentially in a full scale recession and things as a whole need great care to get back on track. We need someone that is ready to go from day one. Clinton or McCain are miles above Obama in terms of being ready for the Presidency. It will be a sad day in our nations history if we put a non qualaified inexperienced person into the Oval Office. We just spent 8 years of the republican version of Obama and our country has been set back generations because of it. I am a dedicated Democrat but I will not vote for Obama. If it is a choice between McCain and Obama I will probably vote for McCain.

    • Posted By: Obamaisagoodtalker @ 02/20/2008 8:32:43 PM

      But Obama is such a good talker...

  • Posted By: mksl1 @ 02/20/2008 8:31:42 PM

    OK!
    Everbody's agreed.
    O-BAMA-LAMA is a"good talker".
    Oprah should give him a show.
    Then he could step aside and LET SOMEONE,ANYONE WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING HANDLE THE SHIP OF STATE!
    Because the presidency of the United States is not a job for talk show hosts or motivational speakers.

  • Posted By: firehouse2645 @ 02/20/2008 1:47:18 PM

    Wow some one from the media who actually ses the empty suit> Thank you for being original and speaking out on it. I know no one will put it out in the open. There is a lawsuit on Obama and David Axelrod about Obama and his drug use and homosexual behavior well beyond his teenage years.
    Larry Sinclair vs Obama David Axelrod

    • Posted By: Obamaisagoodtalker @ 02/20/2008 8:31:08 PM

      Obama, by his own admission, did drugs, but never heard about the homosexual thing though. Maybe he and former Washington, DC Mayor Marion BARRY could get together sometime since it appears Obama plans on being in town for awhile.

  • Posted By: Paset @ 02/20/2008 8:29:35 PM

    I admire your opinion and the scrutiny you give to Obama. But in the american history when new, young and vibrant leaders emerged dreaming....there were people who viewed differently. They desired and embraced the "negatives". they shunned hope, they cried against a brighter and a better future. They put their sharp mind into "good" use by tainting the innnocent minds of the populace. Lincoln, Rosavelt, Kennedy and Luther had to face this "sharp minds. In fact most of those we honour today suffered great deal for the hope they preached, instilled in others and lived for. so today we hear many chanting against hope and a better future. Clintonites, Mcaines, and now the editors of this papers!

    Yes we can! and how about you?

    george

  • Posted By: BGRI @ 02/20/2008 1:53:22 PM

    I find it interesting you don't critize Clinton for side stepping questions and being vauge about some of her proposals, you don't also point out that McCain is stumped when it comes to economics, Bush has basicaly bankrupt your country, your country is more devided now that ever. Which of the 3 Candidates is in the best position to unite, Clinton has bagage, McCain has bagage. John Kennedy was suppose to be too inexperience to be president, he was also cathololic, as it turned out he was one of your best presidents. Why single out Obama now is it because he could win and be the first Black president of the USA.

    • Posted By: Obamaisagoodtalker @ 02/20/2008 8:25:44 PM

      Obama is Black?! You don't say. There I was thinking he was simply a human being who likes to give motivational speeches instead of sharing specifics about his CHANGE agenda. So, America is racist because they decide they want to vote for someone with substance instead of a good talker--Obama could always travel around the world and give motivational speeches--seems the good talker is very good at talking/

    • Posted By: Shadoe01 @ 02/20/2008 3:14:24 PM

      Have you not forgotten that JFK was one of the biggest womanizers in history? Have you not forgotten the Bay of Pigs? Have you not heard that JFK almost got us into a nuclear war? Check your facts and if you think Obama is great, don't compare him to JFK. While he was a good president the same as Bill Clinton was, he also did a lot of wrong things!

  • Posted By: dano909 @ 02/20/2008 1:53:30 PM

    You made no mention of the war in Iraq. Obama say out in 90 days. Clinton favors a gradual withdrawal over 1-2 years. Obama's plan saves billions of dollars that can be used for the programs discussed in your article. Billions to care for Americans health and well being. Not to mention the young American lives that will be spared by exiting that Middle East quagmire.

    • Posted By: Obamaisagoodtalker @ 02/20/2008 8:21:07 PM

      Obama is a good talker; thank goodness he talks about how to handle the Iraq War instead of actually fighting it like an American patriot. Some people are simply better at talking than leading.

    • Posted By: miamiman @ 02/20/2008 2:06:36 PM

      It is indeed Naive to think that we can just get up and leave iraq. As much as i despise Hillary her plan is much more pragmatic. Obama's plan highlights his Naivete and idealism which does not actually work in the real world.

    • Posted By: jetnet27 @ 02/20/2008 1:59:56 PM

      Widrawal in 90 days? Obama is a Noob! Did he even though about the logistics & Security (moving ALOT of CARGO) of this? He a a Joke and liek to make joke too.

  • Posted By: chyke1 @ 02/20/2008 8:19:44 PM

    To the writer, if your attempt was to bring down obama, you have failed woefully!! I could not find any substance in your write up. You ended up sounding like you've been paid to to do the hatchet job. A very, very poor article indeed. Next time, try harder!

  • Posted By: mksl1 @ 02/20/2008 8:17:40 PM

    dentrekin,
    Did Ronald Reagan offer any ideas?
    What are you like,four years old?
    His ideas about deep tax cuts and deregulation and strong military and foriegn policy were all different from both Carter and Ford.He wrote about those ideas in a weekly column available to anyone would could read and for years before he became president.He campaigned on those ideas.He put those ideas through the congress.And those ideas-
    Rescued the economy and put it on a course of growth that has gone on now for almost thirty years.
    And brought an end to the Soviet Union ended Mutual Assured Destruction,unleashed a peace dividend,liberateda billion people and gave the global economy a major boost.
    But Obama's just gonna wing it baby!!!

  • Posted By: JimF @ 02/20/2008 4:10:43 PM

    Hallaluah! Thank you.

    Perhaps you can do a parallel piece on Obama's sad lack of accomplish in Illinois and subsequently his near zero-footprint in the U.S. Senate.

    • Posted By: StrongArm @ 02/20/2008 4:26:28 PM

      Please explain what Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush did PRIOR to becoming president. You are like the rest of the doubters. You seen to have a short memory span.

      • Posted By: mfgillia @ 02/20/2008 4:45:44 PM

        They both were governors and ran their states. Can you please quote just one substantial accomplishment by Obama? He made lots of similar promises to Illinois. So please tell me what has he changed there?

        • Posted By: OH-IO for Obama @ 02/20/2008 5:05:22 PM

          One achievement is that he helped to expand healthcare for kids in the south side of Chicago, the area he represented as State Senator of Illinois for 8 years. He expanded it to cover 150,000 more children without health insurance. He admits that he won some of those battles but lost some too because of a lack of political will and political power...see in America/democracy, it takes a majority to pass legislation...hard to do when the US senate for the last year that the Dems have been in the SLIM majority have endured record fillibustering by republicans...I actually watch the Senate and House debates on c-span

          • Posted By: mfgillia @ 02/20/2008 5:17:23 PM

            Read the New York Times article about the biggest change he championed in Illinois.. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?ex=1359694800&en=f2cec53f8b5de3bc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

            • Posted By: OH-IO for Obama @ 02/20/2008 5:42:19 PM

              OH, should I read another slanted piece like this one? That will prove YOUR point? C'mon, I respect your right to your opinion, but being foolishly led by some editorial piece is what got us GW in the first place. I don't read those pieces the same way that you may. I watch the actual legislative speeches and debates, I watch who votes what way. There's this great website, it's c-span.org, and you can find repeats of speeches and debates on whatever agenda is up for debate in the congress. And I get an e-mail called MegaVote from the House of Representatives that alert you to your own state and federal reps' votes on the issues debated perhaps while you were at work, like I usually am. That way I see for myself, and then I read opinion pieces and watch the "spin cycle" on the evening cable news channels, so I know what's slant and what's not. I will check out the piece you suggested, but I strongly urge you to do the same here...

              • Posted By: OH-IO for Obama @ 02/20/2008 5:46:31 PM

                A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

                • Posted By: OH-IO for Obama @ 02/20/2008 5:52:22 PM

                  Why would REPUBLICANS water down a bill like that???? I wonder...and they are the ones telling you to be skeptical of change???? You need to be skeptical of them! Barack for President!

                  • Posted By: mfgillia @ 02/20/2008 6:06:20 PM

                    The New York Times isn't credible? Not exactly a right wing republican publication..

                    • Posted By: OH-IO for Obama @ 02/20/2008 8:17:36 PM

                      Hey, the New York Times didn't right that piece, some dude did and we as humans are in fact fallable, and journalists are SUPPOSED to seek to be objective...obviously, these days, most aren't...but again, why would REPUBLICANS want to water down a bill that protects people from drinking water that has been contaminated by nuclear leaks and then have to fight against republicans tooth and nail to get it done? See, what he's doing with all of us supporting him is building a majority so that GOOD legislation, good ideas like his and responsive gov't is not blocked by partisan hacks...think about it before you respond

            • Posted By: OH-IO for Obama @ 02/20/2008 5:49:57 PM

              Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

              By MIKE McINTIRE
              Published: February 3, 2008
              When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state???s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.
              See you've proven my point, and if you re-read this article considering what I suggested, you will see that you've just proven OUR collective point. Those of us that are supporting Sen. Obama are not blind, we are not sheep, we are not stupid, we are trying to choose the BEST person for a job that has become so challenging for the next in line, that it's going to take someone special and someone brilliant. It's not too late to jump on the bandwagon! UNITY = CHANGE

      • Posted By: mfgillia @ 02/20/2008 4:52:15 PM

        They both were governors and ran a state. Can you please tell us one substantial campaign promise he actually achieved in Illinois? Just one thing of importance that he has already accomplished?

  • Posted By: gmawheaties @ 02/20/2008 8:14:28 PM

    First honest reporter/blooger/pundit I have heard. America is becoming a debtor nation and now they want to get us in deeper? Obama is all talk, he has people watching and reading everything Hillary says then changeing the words as if they are his. Not much change there! Oh thats right he didnt mean to say that.

  • Posted By: mksl1 @ 02/20/2008 8:02:34 PM

    coolrepublica,
    You shouldn't compare Obama to a dictator because he's not advocating mass murder,the abolishing of democracy,forced collectivization at gunpoint or setting up a mass gulag.
    Get a grip dude.
    He's a fuzzy liberal.
    Not a Nazi or Stalinist.

    • Posted By: coolrepublica @ 02/20/2008 8:14:22 PM

      I hate saying what I am about to say, but it neds to be said. Obama followers are morrons with a Capital M. Do you think that Hitler and Lenin and Stalin and Aristide and Marcos came to power n their countries inspiring their followers by telling them they were going to kill to hold on to power. Of course not. I am not saying that Obama is going to kill anyone. Iam not an Obamanian. I am not stupid. What I am saying is in both instances the followers of these leaders suspended logic just so they could drink from the hope fountain and go burned. I will bet my first born that it is going to happen again. Call it insticn. I called it with Aristiede in 1990, Iam calling it with Obama in 2008.

  • Posted By: kenmorris17104 @ 02/20/2008 1:58:31 PM

    You are just like all the rest of the nay sayers. You all say he can't do this and he can't do that. What you all fail to realize is that many of us believe he can. How far his campaign has gotten so far against all odds is living proof of that! I'm sure if I had said 2 years ago that a young black man would run for president and win, you would have laughed. So to you and all the others who doubt, I say "YES WE CAN."

    • Posted By: Obamaisagoodtalker @ 02/20/2008 8:13:06 PM

      Jim Jones, anyone?

  • Posted By: chiinformed @ 02/20/2008 1:59:52 PM

    The most impressive thing Obama has done is to refuse to take any PAC money. While Senator Clinton is touring our rust belt in Ohio and promising economic revival, she is soliciting and accepting monies from the very industries that shipped the jobs south or offshore via NAFTA . Obama was always against the war and Clinton voted to authorize it. Obama's passed Ethics Reform but Clinton proudly found a loop hole that allows lobbyists to buy her meals if she is standing while eating. Obama will beat McCain in a blow out and the world will notice our placement of leadership once again.

    • Posted By: LuLuBelle @ 02/20/2008 3:10:06 PM

      You are SO wrong! You better check your facts about what money Obama has accepted. You are reading what he CLAIMS not what he has actually ACCEPTED!

      • Posted By: Obamaisagoodtalker @ 02/20/2008 8:11:45 PM

        Good post! The good talker Obama claims a lot of things...

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse