On Obama: Dollars and Sense Beats Change Any Day

I saw Barack Obama speak today. I shook his hand. I clapped for a few
of his points. But I am not impressed. In fact, I'm scared for our
nation as a whole.

The sheer lack of policy substance and realism in his speech today was astonishing for someone so completely presumptuous about his own victory. Yet even more frightening was the enthusiasm with which our college educated university, interspersed with community members and city leaders, took all he said at face value.

Apparently, to those who don't know any better, voting for Barack means that once he's elected, he'll come out with his magic fairy wand and will sprinkle fairy dust over all the land, and peace and goodness will reign.

Yet at the heart of the rhetoric, there are a few really interesting inconsistencies. First of all, everyone's heard the Obama quote almost Dr Seuss-esque one vote two vote red state blue state not existing, and yet Obama is the senator with the most liberal voting record in the entire Senate, even edging out Clinton herself.



Even today's speech was full of hatred and lack of bi-partisan effort as Obama used multiple issues to blame Bush for all the ills of the world, from Katrina to No Child Left Behind. Yet here too there are inconsistencies, as even Obama's Bush references were flawed.

Yes Bush watched some of Katrina out of a plane before landing and walking through the 9th ward, but Nagin actually locked himself in the bathroom of Air Force One, something that probably would have been no different under any other president. This poses the question- how in the world does Obama intend to get state and local officials on his side? Does the problem of governance only reside in the White House? Was FEMA the only failure in Katrina? Sure, it could be better, but how would only changing one level of government affect all the rest?

Yes No Child Left Behind has its failures, but the only problem Barack had with it was that the money never got where it was supposed to go. How does Barack intend to address this? From what he said today, He'll physically make sure that every earmarked dollar goes from congress to where it's supposed to go. How is this possible? As a friend of mine always said, just don't question it.

Yet we need to question it. Particularly on education, Obama claimed that he could make education more affordable. I like this idea. Yet then he also claimed he would pay teachers more. Then he talked about subsidizing school supplies. How does this work as a package deal? How can you make something simultaneously cheaper yet pay your workers more? And moreover increase the overall quality of the schools?

This is the crux of my issue with Obama's speech. To his credit, there was nothing you couldn't clap for. Education is good, New Orleans is good, Katrina was bad, more needs to be done. Okay. But what is Obama going to do that is going to fix all that?

The Obama apologists I've talked to say it's all implied. Its all behind the scenes. Yet when I go to his site, all I really see there is the political aphorisms which seem to pour out of Obama like water from a hose. Truth is, I can't dig into what he says when it comes to policy. I can't get into it because there's nothing there, no real substance for me to have as my own. I'm not alone in my thoughts. Many of my friends, including some democrats, have the same feelings.

Moreover, any claims he has to bipartisanship are completely countered by both his voting record and lack of discussion on controversial topics, like abortion and gay marriage. While his positions are available to find through his record, he won't talk about them because he won't compromise on them, and that doesn't exactly work well for any of the social conservatives he's trying to appeal to.

The ultimate irony is that Obama really didn't care about Tulane. He didn't care about my libertarian roommate, he didn't care about the undecided borderline democrats, he certainly didn't care to impress me. He only picked Tulane after all our city officials were too sloshed to offer any better location. He only picked New Orleans because it's the biggest media center in the whole state.

That's why he only came here with three days notice. He's only picking Louisiana because he's trying to maximize the delegates Hillary is abandoning by pulling coverage from the rest of the February elections. Even with all of that, he barely spent the time with us we stood in line waiting for him before jetting off to another state.

All Obama truly cared about was invigorating what supporters he had before the speech, to mobilize his voters, who are already convinced by what little information his campaign has put out there. As most of his core voters are those not usually politically active, they don't realize that there is more lacking in the rhetoric of Obama's aphorisms, and that very little actual policy underlies what he says.

I do want to stop here and say that I do not judge all Obama supporters to be entirely ignorant, nor do I promote hatred of anybody, democrat or not. I do however feel that Obama's rhetoric makes a promise no politician can live up to. Its not fair to mislead thousands of Louisiana residents and tell them they can change the entire state's problems just by replacing the level of government with the least amount of influence. I put this blame on Obama.

He spoke of hope, and addressed those who doubt his hope by citing other successful hopeful movements. Yet those movements had leadership and policy and direction. When I left the speech today, I didn't feel like I had any more direction or ability than I did before.

This is because when it comes down to it, Obama really doesn't have the experience to be a true leader. He's a great politician, and he gets people riled up with fluffy statements and lofty promises, but when it comes down to the issues, we won't know what we're getting with him until we get hit by it.