Change you can, er, believe in

THX1138

Politician says thinks & does things that appeal to the electorate what ever next.

Ann

Numberplate doesn't think that the US presidential candidate being a disgusting weasel who changes his position more often than a weathervane on a blasted heath in the Orkneys is anything worth commenting on.
Oh, dear ...

THX1138

Have a look at some real beach wear foot wear.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BPyKpcivQYQ

Oh dear

d1carter

But you know the NYT can't really be mad at one of their own...

Bill M

Unfortunately, this man is to be taken seriously though the fact that he would receive any votes is beyond belief. Who is to know what he'll do once he gets into office as he’s provided no reason for trust? Well, we can look at from whom he’s disassociated himself over the past six months--his decades-long friends and associations. We can look at the support he receives from and influence of George Soros. We can read his books. We can look at the comments of his wife and her university dissertation. The guy has left enough of a trail to offer a good understanding of what makes him tick. The best his primary supporters can hope for is that he'll return to his primary promises after selling his way into office on his new-found positions. What credibility is there in this diabolical empty suit?

The shame is that he will be our next president reflecting the continued Oprahfication (or vaporization) of the American mind and our continued search for a feel-good messiah to feed our narcissistic souls.

Joe Strummer

The liberal media in the USA will, of course, gloss over Obama's little mistakes in memory and concentrate on their real job of piling on the emotional blackmail to the American people that not voting for this charlatan Barak Obama is tantamount to "racism".

JohnA

Looks a bit like Bill Clinton, but without the strong moral principles.

Hal

Melanie Phillips's list doesn't amount to much. The only one that really matters is FISA, and if one is really concerned about the US government trawling for information from US citizens, which candidate is more likely to take a hard look at the civil liberties implications?

As for Obama's other changes of position, THX1138 got it right at the outset.

After almost eight years of Bush, a president who took habeas corpus and the separation of powers seriously, and who wasn't looking for the next war to start, would be practicing a new kind of politics. I'll take that.

Verity

Ha ha ha ha! Change I just couldn't believe in.

This old-style Chicago hustler would never be where he is without Oprah Winfrey. An old Chicago hand.

EH

Just PODS side effects.

CK

Heavens. Anyone would think he's running for president or something. *clutches pearls, swoons*

George

THX1138 - there is a big difference in a politician having a genuine change of opinion over 15 years and the "follow the way the wind is blowing" sudden change of Obama over less than three months.
Barak Obama is not a refreshing breath of change, he is an inexperienced politician who as yet appears to have only campaign slogans with no policies behind them. The thought of him being the President of the USA in 6 months time is positively frightening.

Truth

Thats okay, he has time to flip a few more times... :lol:

Geoff Miller

This man will begin the breakdown of American society.

Perhaps the Americans need a President like him, as we need Broon, to get it into the "attention deficit" minds of the populace that there are many people on the Left who would destroy our civilisation and bring about an age of darkness that will see the loss of all that our forebears achieved as we sink into a totalitarian world order.

This man has many seriously bad associates and, however much he "distances" himself, you always know that "you can tell a man who boozes by the company he choses".

The same old proverb goes for politics and politicians!

Water

I've been a firm Obama supporter all along but the last three changes are a bit much for even me.

Ann

And Andrew Sullivan posts his usual orgasmic encomiums in the ST - about the 'most inspirational, courageous, blah blah leader of our generation'. He must buy this rubbish by the yard from Obama's speech writers.

Neil Saunders

Frankly, I couldn't give two hoots who becomes next President of the United States. It is a complete non-issue.

This is because, as here, the mainstream parties in the U.S. do not provide any genuine alternatives (and their stooges in the mainstream media do not report the issues honestly).

Either party (and any President) will pursue the same toxic combination of free-market fundamentalism and political correctness, keeping their borders effectively open to the overwhelmingly illegal Mexican immigrants who are engulfing the U.S. and dispossessing the host population.

(Change "Mexican" to "Muslim", and the status of the immigrants from (technically) illegal to (mostly) legal (and encouraged) - does this remind you of somewhere else?)

For a more accurate picture of the true situation in the U.S. than that provided by the mainstream media, consult the American Renaissance web site passim.

Morgan Sullivan (no relation)

A PhD from Harvard and on a nice number at the ST? Mr. Sullivan would appear to be doing more than "quite well" in his chosen profession. LOL.

GEG

A leader who decides one thing, then realises the electorate doesn't like it and changes his mind

That does sound familiar...

Marwan

Obama's a shifty opportunist. Unfortunately he'll win. McCain is a genuine hero and a decent man but he sounds like Elmer Fudd on helium. Presentation is all darling.

Mohamed of Pompey

Well melanie, Obama wants to keep Jerusalem undevided capital of Isreal,even aipac blushed at that. He is your guy,no? lol. Even worse he is an amateur, he is here thanks to media affirmative action and the most explicit misogyny of any major campaign. I would vote for a hypnotised kangaroo anyday than elect this obama dramaqueen.

William Norton

Change you can believe in? No, beliefs you can change in.

Verity

Obama is a man of no accomplishments. I mean, surely you should have proved yourself in one area or another before you put yourself forward to be the leader of 300m people? All this guy has ever done in his whole life is run for office. And wangle his way into the famously corrupt Chicago party machine. And if you haven't read it elsewhere, since he got into national politics a mere two years ago, he's been so busy plotting his glorious future that he has been seen in the Senate sleeping his way through debates on national security.

Well, one thing we can bet the ranch on, he will never throw Oprah under the bus.

Re Andrew Sullivan, I cannot read him any more. He's an intense bore. Yet he used to be such a rivetting, lucid writer.

Barney

Melanie, as an avid listener to American radio I can also add his flip/flop over Iraq. When fighting Clinton his ticket was "All out by 2009". Now, his strategist (Axelrod I believe) is now spreading that 'of course he would consult with the generals and discuss any phased withdrawl". He has gone from unilateral withdrawl to the same withdrawl conditions that Bush and McCain would use. The talk is that he said whatever he needed to do to build up synergy against Clinton and now he has the nomination he's saying right things to get elected. Don't Trust This Man. He'll tell you what you want to hear. BTW he flip-flopped over Jerusalem status too.

elixelx

Barack´s old soubriquet: Mr. Left Over!
Barack´s new nom de plume? Mr. Over Easy!

leo solomon

There should be some kind of political traffic ticket for the offence of swerving, at such speed ,into the opposing lane.
The famous line,"was he lying then or IS HE LYING NOW!!!uttered by Charles Laughton in a courtroom scene from a Hitchcock film,springs to mind as being an appropriate question to be asked of Obama.

leo solomon

There should be some kind of political traffic ticket for the offence of swerving, at such speed ,into the opposing lane.
The famous line,"was he lying then or IS HE LYING NOW!!!uttered by Charles Laughton in a courtroom scene from a Hitchcock film,springs to mind as being an appropriate question to be asked of Obama.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

"Obama wants to keep Jerusalem undevided capital of Isreal," Mohamed, assuming you mean Israel, it took Obama less than a week to back off of that one.

THX1138

Can anyone please tell me a politician who hasn't changed his or her position either for electoral advantage?

Bush has, McCain has; Gordon Brown has; Tony Blair has; David Cameron most certainly has; Margaret Thatcher has they all have. I 'll let you all into a little secret it's what they do to get elected they say things we want to hear otherwise we won't vote for them.

As Alan Coren said "Democracy consists of choosing your dictators after they've told what you what you think it is you want to hear"

As Richard Nixon said

President Nixon explained to me that a candidate for the presidency had to appeal to his core voters during the primaries; this pushed Republican candidates towards conservative positions and Democrats towards liberal ones. If he won the primaries, the candidate then had to win the national election; he had to move his campaign back towards the centre.

From William Rees- Mogg in Today's Times

Exactly. I thought you lot were grown up realists & the reality here is that Obama is no Walter Mondale Liberal sap he wants to be President & it looks increasingly likely that he is going to get his wish & so am I.

Georgina

Yes THX, we know other politicians have contradicted themsleves, but what many of us struggle to graps is why Obama is not being subjected to the same level of media scrutiny that they were.

The mainstream media has simply decided that this candidate can go through on a bye.

The contest has been cancelled.

Ann

William Rees- Mogg? ROFL. That sad little hack?
Neither he nor you appear to have the apparatus for grasping that most people want more from a president than to be an accomplished liar. We have estate agents for that.

Ann

Oh Pleaseeee...Ms. Phillips...do your homework. If you're going to spread such "propaganda" (otherwise knowns as misrepresentations and LIES), then I think it's fair to say you have indeed had too much "champagne for YOUR brain".

FLAG PIN: Do you wear one? If not, Are you patriotic? Stop the nonsense!!

HANDGUNS: He's against the MISUSE of handguns, but not against individual rights to "LEGALLY" own a handgun.
FISA (revised bill): He has always been, and still is, against retro-active immunity, and has made it plain that he will work with those (Sen. Dodd, Sen. Kucinich, etc.) who are currently fillibusting the bill because of the 'immunity clause'. He even wrote to his supporters explaining his stance (found on his site www.barackobama.com) READ IT; or is that a 'lost art' nowadays for bloggers and so-called journalists.

NAFTA: He never 'rubbished' it, as you so callously put it. He never said he would scrap or scratch-out NAFTA, he recognizes that trade is important; He also recognizes that as it stands, NAFTA has to be re-worked and amended to insure that Americans benefit from it more than they currently do (does job loss in this country, USA, ring a bell for you).

PUBLIC FINANCING: In 2007, he said that he would 'consider' public financing if the other presidential candidates would agree on it; John McCain never agreed, and McCain waited until Obama opted out, and then, as true to his republican tactics, declared his option to take public financing in order to make Obama look bad. Turns out, Obama's grassroot financing is exactly what 'public financing' should look like if it were true to it's meaning; not finance from special interest groups, and lobbyists like those connected with John McCain's campaign. (May be you should take a stroll over to www.huffingtonpost.com and get the scoop on John McCain's 'flip-flops' that are actually REAL, not made-up or contrived.

Ahmadinejad MEETING: What a misrepresentation!! You must be a republican, because you seem to be spitting out all of their 'talking points' (LIES). Anybody with common sense knows that a president would not just go 'meet with anyone in another country, such as this man, without being briefed on the "ins and outs" of it. You are taking it out of context, and I believe you, and others like you, do it to deliberately mislead the public (typical Republican moves)

I'm sorry Melanie, but you and your Republican friends are not going to FOOL the American public this time around, the smears won't work, the half-truths won't work, the misrepresentations won't work, the outright LIES wont' work...not this election...NOT THIS TIME !!

WE THE PEOPLE, We the American peopls, want the truth THIS TIME. We're tired of bing mislead, and lied to, in order for John McCain to score political points. There's too much at stake this time, to many issues that affect us all (economy, Iraq war, gas prices, housing concerns, education, etc.).

OBAMA is OUR MAN this time around. He IS the 'change you can believe in'.

Water

"Yes THX, we know other politicians have contradicted themsleves, but what many of us struggle to graps is why Obama is not being subjected to the same level of media scrutiny that they were." this is the point that's getting me now as well, the man seems very insulated.

Water

This isn't to say he hasn't faced scrutiny over his past associates but that aside.

THX1138

So if we can all agree that all politicians change & re-emphasis their opinions for electoral advantage ( I await the one that hasn't) then this just a non story & more about Mel's irrational hatred of Obama , hate is not a word I use easily but having read her increasingly desperate attacks this is the only conclusion I can draw.

No doubt once Obama gets into power he will change again & then change again this is not about lying but rather the practicalities of running a country, electorates understand this & vote on very broad policies & the character of the candidates & not the minutiae of policy & who said what when.

Ann 7:16 I agree that Rees-Mogg is a bit annoying but it wasn't him I was quoting rather Richard Nixon who knew a thing or two about winning & losing US Presidential elections & especially losing to charismatic Democrats.

kitchener

The American people have seen enough of Obama already....they will not be fooled by a preening,effeminate poseur and snake oil salesman !!
The Obama express runs on emotion and hysteria and will be out of gas long before Election day...no amount of smoke and mirrors stage management will save this shallow,unqualified,two dimensional cardboard cutout!!
OBAMAMANIA is a plague of the mind!!...this too,shall pass!!
Have faith in the good common sense of the American People...there are not enough political idiots to get him elected!!...Obama is a fugative from the law of averages!!
This ''Summer Of Love'' for Obama will be'' MUCH ADDO ABOUT NOTHING''

kiernter

I really enjoy Melanie's comments and I guess I haven't been visiting the site long enough to begin to understand the frenzied reaction of leftists in the comments section. If a Republican switches a position, he/she is a hypocrite. If Obama does, he is just being a saavy politician. I am really curious to see how this all turns out. Will Obama really be able to fool all of the people some of the time (at the voting booth) or will the mask drop before November? Given the state of the media, I'm not hopeful. Imagine if Cindy McCain said that she was proud of the US for the first time in her life, and the reason for that pride was her husband's election campaign? We would never hear the end of it-- just like we will never hear the end of how the GOP "stole the election" if Obama finally crashes and burns.

Water

Yes a candidate who doesn’t change his story form beginning through to end would be sight. Though certain changes echo of inexperience, his lack of significant experience in, diplomatic, military and foreign affairs has shown (and this is a point that concerns me). For he said with regards to Iraq (on his website):

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” But after his trip to Bagdad he says he going to “refine” his approach, seems rhetorically inclined and ominous. But then he says “That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position” though then he later goes on to say “I will always listen to the advice of commanders on the ground, but that ultimately, I'm the person who is making the strategic decisions” yes and this seems axiomatic and I’m a firm fan of contextually accuracy so I will leave spin aside and say this infers (I re-emphasize infers) a margin for leniency as regards that stance (though he claims not to have changed but this is clearly indicative of change) and as obvious as it is that he should have authority on all strategic commands considering the position he’s going for any refinement seems to echo once again of inexperience. Now the standard rebuttal would be, as David Axelrod states, Obama “always said that he's never said that this withdrawal would be without any possibility of alteration based on events on the ground” but has he, if you take the website as the point of reference it doesn’t even show this supposed fact. Though he does say “He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation” which would infer that instability could spill over 16 months and thus troops would not be removed. The only point that comes close to a formal declaration of troops remaining behind seems to be this bit on the website which states that “He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats” but this is axiomatic and happens everywhere, you even see armed guards in London outside number 10 and Buckingham palace. Also if the troops are to be out in 16months then (as the website state) “Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq” but if there are not any permanent bases and the troops may indeed be pulled back this isn’t to say that they won’t be sent back out there, in which case if he has such hesitations maybe permanent bases should be built…I am not saying that they should or they shouldn’t it just seems very ambiguous. Again he contradicts himself on the pdf attached to his website where he states “There is no military solution in Iraq. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to begin immediately to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year –
now.” Thus this is not as prudent as Axelrod claims.

Also as regards Obama’s stance on the surveillance of foreign terrorists the wall street journal highlights something that made me chuckle they stated that “We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.” I wonder what could they possibly be alluding to here? For after all Obama has grabbed a vast amount of Bushes policy on the surveillance of foreign terrorists prior to getting into office, which makes me think with regards to Mc Bush who would have condoned this all along and would not have had to come to this conclusion so late in the day. Take for example that in October he stated that he would (to quote Mike Allen) “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor. Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn’t an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus”. So politicians do change their stories, but when they change their stories in accordance with policies that the opposition held already pretty much then it makes you want to go with the opposition. But conclusively it’s the leniency that has been shown towards him by the media that gets me.

THX1138

So any criticism of Mel's increasingly desperate attacks is frenzied is it that does seem rather overheated, it seems to me that if the word frenzied Is to be banded about would be better put use describing some of the more ridiculous attacks on Obama from the blogs like this one & those that comment on them.

Such as "OBAMAMANIA is a plague of the mind!!" Sorry but that just sounds just a bit unhinged.

Why do you all insist on blaming the media for all your woes, the majority of the MSM along with US electorate likes what is sees in Obama & what's wrong with that the US has a free press it can write what it likes & you lot can all sit in your little bubbles fuming that the world isn't fair & no one will care.

Without a doubt if anything negative does comes to light about Obama the MSM will report it & to think otherwise is frankly ridiculous & paranoid.

The reason that Obama is going to win is that he gives people a real sense of hope in a better future & real sense of change after the eight dead years of Bush & the GOP have fielded an old man with nothing new to say.

Of course Obama is going to win & if your all waiting for some smoking gun to save you it ain't going to happen.

Water

I don't know that he's going to win , maybe, who is to say he won't but I have very strong reservations about him now and it isn't a desperate attck on my part. Once the republican machine goes to town it will be interesting to see, given some thoughts with regards to obama comments such as "OBAMAMANIA is a plague of the mind!!!" seem to resonate.

steve

THX1138- Some thoughtful posts and I think you've captured the essence of Obama's appeal. He represents hope and optimism and at the moment the right can't compete in that area, hence the resort to fear. The problem is that it won't play this time because the Republican brand is so badly damaged after 8 years of the Bush admin.

Water

"The problem is that it won't play this time because the Republican brand is so badly damaged after 8 years of the Bush admin" this is what I have been inclined to think, but Bush after all is a different man, hopefully (for their sakes) the American public will be able to see this. Though to be quite frank if such changes continue the hope may soon be dashed (either before he come into office or afterwards). But the truth of the matter is Obama appeals to a young audience who may make (what seems like for all intensive purposes) the wrong decision. Thus I'm inclined to agree with you steve he may get in due to the phenomena he conjures, but Obama girl won’t do it for me. In the most recent Spectator the old Irish saying is quoted with regards to Gordon Brown, about the light at the end of the tunnel, well the same could be seen to be applicable about Obama.

Ian C

Water, I see you are getting wiser as you get older.

For what it's worth my view is that Obama is too liberal for conservative USA nad that he will be fully over-expposed by November. The front-runners in US elections rarely make it all the way because of publicity exhaustion and little new to say come the later stages.

That is not to osay he can't do it. It is the Dems. to lose and the fact that 'Wright-gate' did not knock him out is amazing (Clintons' screwed up there).

If you watch Obama he is pitching his appeal to the younger audience. he is hoping that a combo of Blacks and younger people turning out in bigger numbers will do it for him. It will be fascinating to see if he proves right.

Make no bets or forecasts on the outcome until late September. That's when US elections get their 'shape'.

Water

Ian C your opinion is always respected, thank you for your compliment.

anglicus

Thoughts from America.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obama_seen_as_a_muslim_oversea.html

The real regular Ann

Oh, great: yet another hysterical, screeching, ignorant rant from someone pretending to be me.

Ann

I am glad that Numberplate has told us what he saw in his little crystal ball. It's nice to be such a know-all prophet. Although some people have a medical term for that.

J. Isaacs

Just seen on the BBC's Newsnight a video of Jessie Jackson saying to a black friend, "He (Obama) talks down to black people." The friend replies, "I want to cut his **ts off."

J. Isaacs

Sorry, it is now on YouTube and it appears Jackson himself says he wants to do the cutting.

Verity

J Isaacs - How do we find it on You Tube? Do you have a link? I actually have a soft spot for Jesse Jackson. He is such a terrible rascal, but he was very handsome when he was younger, and he is one of the best orators I have ever heard. Head and shoulders above anyone in the Anglosphere making speeches today.

How would I find your referral on You Tube,if you don't mind?

J. Isaacs

Verity - Sorry, I'm not much good at hyperlinks, but I just typed "Jessie Jackson Obama" into the You Tube search function and got two videos to choose from with the word **ts in the title, which I clicked on. You get some good extras of him trying to explain away his open-mike faux-pas, but clearly the TV networks are not falling for it. He certainly seems to have developed a spare tyre in the You Tube shots and I suspect his recent love child has rather tarnished his "Reverend" prefix, but good luck anyway.