Obama v. Thomas and Obama v. Himself

During the Saddleback Forum this last Saturday, I think one of the most "gotcha moments" for Barack Obama was inflected by himself during this exchange (Click to see the video snippet) If you listened carefully, he said that he wouldn't have voted for Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court because: "I don't think he was as expeh(??)...as strong enough jurist or legal thinker...at the time..."

Obama caught himself and stopped from saying "wasn't as experienced". He went onto define inexperience (without actually saying it) by saying "strong enough" and finished with "...at the time". When he aborted his completion of the word "experienced," he knew damn well that, if he had continued with that line of reasoning, he would have shed light on his own failings as not being qualified to be President. Yet, for Obama, experience was important when deciding upon a member of the Supreme Court. Think what you might about that but, I think it's a bit hypocritical.

When he used the words, "at the time", it was a strange interjection of thought because it sort of implies that Clarence Thomas has, now, become what Obama objected to in the beginning. Does he now mean that Clarence Thomas has become an excellent "jurist" and "legal thinker"? Not listened "on" to what Barack Obama was saying!

I think it was a very interesting moment. It just shows how "crafty" Mr. Obama is as a politician. Totally unwilling to make a firm commitment. This is why, if you listened to him in any unscripted environment, like the Saddleback Forum, he constantly uses "tah" and "ah" as a delaying tactic as he formulates the words that he thinks "you want to hear" and not necessarily what he believes. If he isn't using a teleprompter, he is always in some kind of a dance before his audiences. He can't just say what he believes and go on to substantiate that belief with reasons. Instead, he has to leave the door open on his conviction by making conditional statements like "at the time". That comment, like a lot of what he says, just shows the blanket weakness of his convictions. Or, worst yet, shows that his convictions are so extreme that he cautiously hides them with conditional statement after conditional statement.

As for John McCain, that night, he showed no hesitation or equivocation on "any" of his answers. For that evening, John McCain was absolutely the "straight talker" that he had always been known as. When someone is that direct with their thoughts, as McCain was that night, he was clearly saying what he believes in and not trying to say something that he thinks you want to hear. On the other hand, throughout that "forum", Obama was "strained" on a number of issues. For example, on abortion, he wouldn't define as to when a fetus was actually a human and entitled to any rights. Instead he made his famous "above my pay grade" comment and said that he wasn't qualified to make that judgment from either "a theological perspective or a scientific perspective." Of course, this is just some more Obama B.S. because his voting record certainly shows that no fetus is entitled to any rights as a human until such time as the mother says it can live; even, sometimes, after being born alive (See Full Story).

I think Saturday's Saddleback Forum clearly showed "why" Obama is so able to throw people and ideas under the bus and change his mind so often. He really has no convictions! With that in mind, I defy anyone to actually tell me who Barack Obama really is and what he really stands for! If you do try, my guess is that, within hours to days (and, literally, sometimes, within minutes), he will change his opinion and completely or partially contradict what you "thought" he stood for!

Image by dbking's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. All rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).