Tuesdays are Muppet Days
Seattle to Remain Famous for Coffee and Rain
Thanksgiving Pairing Suggestion: Dessert Isn't Just a Meal
Eight Things A Seattle Sports Fan Can Be Thankful For
Mayor-To-Be Schedules Town Halls for Input and Companionship
While the country was busy blindly voting for whoever they fancied, Seattle Weekly writer Don Ward was hard at work being a true patriot and writing an important blog post for the Weekly. We only wish he'd opened our eyes sooner before we so ignorantly cast our ballot.
Ward's post, titled, "The Question for Obama Supporters" asks: "Off the top of your head, name one actual accomplishment, or a bill Obama has passed. Or even fought to pass?" To which the poor "puzzled" Obama supporter allegedly always replies, "You know, I can't think of anything right now."
Sure, Mr. Ward calls Obama a "mediocre politician of no great accomplishment," but his post certainly isn't anti-Obama. That would be too obvious. No, this eye-opening piece of journalistic excellence is really calling into question why we're all voting for Obama in the first place.
See, we're all a bunch of groupies, excited for our rock star candidate with the bulging package of hope. Swoon. But do we know of any legislation he's worked on? No? Shame on us! Shame on us for not knowing off the top of our head that he introduced 113 bills in the 110th congress and sponsored 152 bills in the 109th. Shame on us for not knowing he was instrumental in passing the Global Poverty Act, or the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, or the bi-partisan Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation Signed into Law by the President (tip of the hat to Daily Kos for those links).
Unfortunately the commenters to Ward's post only serve to show their own ignorance:
So freaking what if some Obama voters are voting with their gut?
The country's been run on a dry drunk's upset stomach for the last 8 years. (By YLB)
...In my opinion, Obama's leadership is his strength and that will do more good for the nation than any real or perceived experience gap could do harm... (By xt)
Poor simple-minded commenters commenting about Obama's leadership qualities.
How dare they--nay--how dare we vote for a person based solely on his worldwide support, or his ability to excite new generations of voters, or his endless stream of endorsements by people like Warren Buffet, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark, Paul Krugman, Gordon Brown...
Shame on us.
At least we can rest assured that every single person voting for John McCain (and Sarah Palin) is doing it for the right reasons and that they're all very well informed.
"Barack Obama visits Archie McPhee" by Archie McPhee Seattle.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Let's not forget why I jumped on the O-Train: It's who he surrounds himself with and his acceptance that he is only as strong as his support (fans?): that'd be us.
Oh man. I just had an opportunity to read it. I now know what "dribble" means.
God awful, simple-minded, fecal splattering of writing.
He's right, I only voted for Obama because the lead singer of The Killers declined to run this election cycle, and Obama's policies reminded me of the sweet synth-rock grooves of my favorite mormon rock band.
I can't believe the Weekly unearthed the truth!
The Killers Rule! Whoo!
Matt, it's called a write-in vote. Way to lose the election for all us "Flowers."
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3249/3004031224_df7a1e8fa0_o.jpg
Somebody told me that Mr. Flowers may need some more experience, I wrote him in for Lieutenant Governor.
What more experience? He's been on how many world tours?
He's also fully apologized to Fall Out Boy and The Bravery. That shows class.
He also has an appropriate fear of the number 623.
Ironically,
Also, Joe the Plummer has a PR firm now.
You really don't think that more than a few people are voting for Obama because he's "likable" or has a rockstar persona? You're really not even gonna consider that?
Right or wrong, Presidents win because they connect with the populous. That's why Clinton could win and Al Gore couldn't. That's why Kerry couldn't win against a President with a 30% approval rating.
That's why Kennedy is still beloved even though he brought us closer to nuclear war than anyone before him, and really didn't do alot to advance America.
Good for you if you vote based on "the issues", but let's be clear, presidential election are not won on the basis of superior tax programs and enlightened health care reform (which all end up looking the same in the end...)
More than a couple of your fellow voters ARE voting for Obama for less grandiose reasons that your own, you don't have to happy about it, but don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
BigGreenFrank--You're point is not entirely valid. Yes, image has a lot to do with how elections are won, but there's not exactly a huge difference between image and substance. Kerry and Gore lost because their substantial qualifications were idiotically plaid down by bad advisers. They didn't run on core issues, they ran on a platform foolishly designed to try to appeal to moderates. Kerry didn't exactly run against the war, now did he? In that sense, the election was a perfect referendum on their platforms: Kerry got rebuked for having the lesser platform.
As for Kennedy, you seem to underestimate his presidency. He put a man on the moon, helped the Civil Rights movement, managed not to start a nuclear war, and laid the groundwork for the Great Society programs carried out by LBJ. How that's that an insubstantial presidency in your eyes is beyond me.
Okay, let's be fair. Let's take "The Question for Obama Supporters," replace Obama's name with that of any other presidential candidate in the present cycle, and pose that question to people who supported that person in the primaries.
Quick, name one actual accomplishment while in office of Mike Huckabee! Mitt Romney? Ron Paul? Hillary Clinton? John Edwards? Bill Richardson? (Okay, I can answer that last one, but then, I am a Richardson supporter.) Note that I say "while n office" because getting elected into office doesn't count, since Obama managed that too.
Next question is whether the accomplishment or bill in question is one that you wanted. I can name two bills Ron Paul's introduced in the House, and they're both reasons why I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, much less vote for him. I don't think "sponsored a bill I opposed" is a better reason to vote for someone than "didn't sponsor any bills I was aware of."
And folks could answer the last three. And Paul supporters could too.
It's a valid point, horribly executed by a sub-par writer attempting to be a political expert.
Sound Politics isn't a site known for cultivation of superior analysis.
I've experienced a lot of this over Obama in this election. It upsets people that he can inspire others to vote simply because he is likeable, charming, not your average politician, etc., and the naysayers get a rise out of calling those people out on it.
A friend of mine was criticizing Obama's tax plan and I asked her if she could tell me what tax policies are like currently, and she couldn't. She is a McCain supporter and couldn't even tell me McCain's tax policies either.