No-bama (3)

I suppose what amazes me most is the momentum that such a mediocre public figure has established. I watched all of the "victory" speeches following Super Tuesday, and I've got to say that, of the five candidates, Obama seemed the least animated, the least connected with his audience, the most vague. Obama made Romney seem a paragon of audience engagement. Most of the time Obama spoke in vague oratical terms with not terribly inspiring oratory while he assumed GQ poses and spoke over the heads of his supporters, as though addressing the great visionary vistas. Too bad he doesn't have a vision. (Note to Barack: "Change" is not a vision; it's what of us do with our clothes.)

Obama's running the greatest con job since W's first run at the presidency. His policy proposals are vague compared with Hillary's (and Edwards' makes them look like kindergarten efforts), and he makes little indication either of how he'll enact them or how he'll pay for them. He has very little traction in Congress, mostly because he's served less than two years in the Senate and has done little of any note. Perhaps his most notable act was failing to show up for the vote on the Iran resolution for which he criticizes Hillary's vote. Puh-lease.

More than a third of his votes in the Illinois Senate were "present." Gee. That's what many of my students can claim while I'm desperately trying to get them to participate in the most elementary fashion in my English composition classes. Present. That's just what we need for a president. On the other hand, I guess that puts him a half step ahead of the current occupant of the Oval Office.

I think we should aim a little higher.