It has indeed come very far (in the downhill direction) for Obama, when he rode into White House on the premise of Hope and Change. When you're a clean slate, with no burden to prove what your position is (since you haven't achieved anything yet), it must have been a liberating campaign for Obama, to project himself as the change agent that voters across the spectrum is hoping a new president is going to be like. Back in 2008, Dems want anyone that is not George W Bush; in fact, anyone that is not GOP would fit the bill. So, instead of picking Hillary Clinton who is a known quantity to most everyone, Dem voters, in particular, the young voters pick Obama.
You can hope all you want, and you can talk about change until your tongue gets tired, but hope/change Obama is not. I never bought into the rhetoric of Obama. Deep down, I'm too pragmatic to bet my life choices on just hope, even though I'm an upbeat and hopeful person by nature. I've voted for Hillary Clinton since she's done things that I'd like to see done in the past, even though some initiatives (eg. the infamous "HillaryCare") failed miserably. Time and again, Obama backpedals on issues and campaign promise. Then again, he's a political animal; what do I expect? In fact, I was so peeved by so many 2008 insanity votes for Obama that were based on nothing but fancy, that I've voted for John McCain. McCain might be an old, tired dog, and I would be the first to admit that I didn't feel comfortable giving the White House (and another four years of the country going down the wrong path, again), but the guy has backbone. I don't get the feeling that Obama has. The more lofty Obama's speeches got, the less trustworthy I found him. Talking about insanity vote; I've been there. :)
Having said that, I have not wished Obama ill as he took office. Afterall, if he goes down, the country will go down with him; I would not have wanted to see that happened.
But, such is the hatred that some voters have come to define Obama. The latest West Virginia Dem primary is but the latest episode of such. You should see the right-leaning Wall Street Journal reporting, and more indicative, the readers' forum of almost every article online. A large majority of its readers can attribute every single ill in this country, the world, and their household, to Obama's doing; and I seriously mean every single ill. It's got to such ridiculous point that I can't help but can only laugh about it.
I don't think - and I'd certainly like to think so - that I'm capable of rejecting a person so utterly, when that person has nothing to do with me personally. Those insane lot of WSJ readers have taken things to such personal level that you would have thought that Obama might have stolen their family jewel, or killed their mothers along the way, or something.
The protest vote in the WV Dem primary is indeed loud and clear. What would that mean in the general election this fall, I'm less certain about. Afterall, we're talking about a few thousand votes in the rural areas of WV. How representative are they for the tens of millions voters across the nation that have nothing in common with these rural folks? The talking heads, like the ridiculous Rush Limbaugh, would like everyone to think that those few thousand votes are going to be translated into the presidential numbers. But, remember, it's only a primary; can Mitt Romney carry the day? When it comes to real hard choice, would people pick Romney over Obama, even though both men have likability issues?
I think I'm going to write in my vote to go for Ron Paul this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment