In 2008, WaPo gave this glowing endorsement of Obama. Years later, it proves revealing and pretty laughable. It only reveals the larger agenda. This was their basic conclusion:
Abroad, the best evidence suggests that [Obama] would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.
But remember that up until that point, Obama had no experience. So this and all other uber-confidence in him was just that, empty. Funny as well that a chief criticism of theirs against McCain was his choice as a running mate. Inexperienced and incompetent were the buzz words for Sarah Palin. Yet in a following paragraph of the endorsement, openly admit that their confidence in Obama was solely a matter of hope.
If this is how the left picks their candidates, is it any wonder why we end up with what we have? They stand in lockstep in a parade of hope, even as Rome is burning. In fact, the only hint of experience in foreign policy was his position on the NATO oversight committee, where he had not held a meeting before his campaign. Then scarcely had a year in national office before running for the oval office, with no experience in tow for any of it. The guy actually had to use his campaign for his résumé .
Yet this and other mainstream media geniuses went head over heel for him. But that wasn’t even the worst of it. They could try to explain their endorsement by such terms as hope, while at the same time applying a full-court opposition to Sarah Palin, running at the bottom of the Republican ticket. It was so obviously hypocritical and even in face of that, they continued to justify their support for empty-suit Obama.
It was a culmination of a 45 year insurrection by ’60s radicals. Most of us knew that, including media sycophants. Yet they did it anyway, unapologetically. This is just one text book example of it, and how far they were willing to go to condemn any opposition to a guy totally unqualified for the hope they bestowed on him. Almost as if they knew it was a complete charade. (if they didn’t they should have)
[Their charge was that Bush]… “has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.”
Political Wilderness? So a unique peek into their collective mind. They wanted a complete insurrection, not just a Leftist radical. They wanted a total insurgency of Government, from those who best understood the radical nature of insurrection, radicals. A reformer – as McCain billed himself — was not what they had in mind. If they had to put all their confidence in a blank resume from an empty suit, then so be it.
They wanted a total makeover, and America got totally screwed. Maybe the latter was the motivation for the former.
The best though, was how they opened their endorsement:
“Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president. The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama’s relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.” (my emphasis)
That’s right, did you see that 180. It was so quick. But you cannot miss that kind of contradiction. From blaming their decision on Palin for not being ready for the presidency, to their “enormous hopes” in Obama . What is enormous hope, for what? Was their hope the same as Barry’s? I don’t know how many times I’ve said it since then: the irony was the secular left ran a “faith-based campaign” — and they never even defined what hope was supposed to be. They were never forced to. It’s a nostalgic embarrassment and an insult to the foundation of America now, and matters nothing to the Left. Hope wins.
Obamacare is a perfect metaphor for Obama. Who cares if the thing is right, if it works, or if it does what they claimed it would? Once done, it’s done. The biggest defense of ObamaCare now is that it is “the law of the Land” and you cannot undo it — no mater how it got there. Sound familiar?
Then they elaborated on Obama:
At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation.
And there you have it, “we believe” — their faith-based campaign of “hope and change”…. “change you can believe in”.
Who cares what hope and change meant then? It’s an evolving, subjective term. It can mean something entirely different now than it did then. And they still ask people to just keep believing — many still do? To them, it was justifiable insurrection.
They were talking about McCain here:
“He hasn’t come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive.” — sounds very familiar. They later added: “IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship.”
And they finished it off this way. (oh the torture of it all)
ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama’s résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.”
But Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; *preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
How about that for a closer? Creative. His temperament is okay, forget the lack of any formidable experience, or proven ability.
“Eloquent master of substance and detail”. You can’t even say that about his speeches, which was the only thing he ever had — “Words, just words?” Note, they even had to project, based on his book, what he might do.
“Eager to hear opposing points of view?” Where did that come from. He never was, and he got a lot better at it with more practice. Absurd. And their “faith-based campaign” endorsement was complete. Obama could have sported a Che Guevara tee-shirt with a scythe in his hand, and they still would have endorsed him.
“The preternatural is that which appears outside or beside the natural. Preternatural phenomena are presumed to have natural explanations that are unknown.”
Say no more….
As bad as the campaign and gushing, incompetent voters were, it was only the setup for the next stage.
RightRing | Bullright