The question has to be asked: Is Obama really the candidate of change? or is he just an ambitious, inexperienced, rookie? Or is him being new to politics, the fact that he is a rookie, mean that he is the candidate of change? You can think for yourself but this if what I think:
Obama is not the candidate of change. He says that, but what sets him apart from Hillary, or Edwards, or Biden, other than the fact that he is younger, and is not a long time Washington insider? He likes to bring up the fact that he didn't vote for the war, while the others did. Well he didn't have to vote. He wasn't in the Senate. Its easy to say you wouldn't have voted for the war, yet I feel confident, that he would have. And if he is so opposed to the war and truly wants to get our brave men and women home, why was it Clinton, not him, who asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans? Thats leadership, and Obama has not shown any leadership yet, in any circumstance. And his inexperience is overly obvious. To talk to enemy leaders without some pre-conditions is a disastrous foreign policy. Its not that we shouldn't be willing to talk to our enemies, because I believe we should, but the president cannot put him/herself and/or the country in danger. Hillary, Dodd, Biden are all right on this issue as is Senator Barbara Boxer and FMR. Secretary Albright who all have put their input on this situation. And just last week Obama talks about invading Pakistan with or without Musharraf's permission to fight al-qaeda. I accept that position as we should find and kill bin-Laden, but saying it as Obama did further de-stabilizes the Pakistani government. I just don't see what is so great about Obama. I don't think he's the guy to be president. I just don't.
No comments :
Post a Comment