Numbers expose the Obama hype

I love numbers because they don't lie.

One would think that I also love controversy because I certainly seem to draw more than my share. I realize that this diary will likely draw more controversy but I cannot hide from it. When I examine the Obama hype and see that it is based, to a huge degree, on faith rather than fact, my fear that Americans are, once again, making the mistake of casting their vote based on emotion overrides my fear of controversy. And by golly, this is personal to me!

I was excited when Obama announced his presidency and I even wrote about it on Texas Kaos because I thought that, at last, America could move forward. But his candidacy does not pass my scrutiny for progress.

What I see and what I hear regarding the thought process in selecting hte next leader of our country looks familiar.

Obama is just really cool, as evidenced by that football comment. He's not programmed and scripted like these other politicians. That style, ignore it at your own risk, is a big part of his success.  He doesn't sound like he's been in Washington for the past 20 years (hint, hint).

That is very close to what we heard in 2000: George Bu$h is not one of those politicians. He's just a regular guy like me and I'd like to have a beer with him.

Here's a reality check:

If you believe in fairies, clap your hands.

All politicians prepare for these debates by anticipating the questions they'll likely be asked, and the answers that they'll give. Clinton, Edwards and Obama are all lawyers; they're trained to prepare for any eventuality.
Yes, there's some ad libbing, but have no doubt that they're well-rehearsed on whatever topic they're speaking. As politicians and lawyers, each knows how to re-direct a question/answer and how to make sure a conversation moves in the direction they want it to.

Obama may very well have watched the football game and known the results. It's also just as likely that he had a one-liner prepared and that an aide gave him the results before he walked out on stage. All he had to do was wait for an opening to use it.

Here is another example that I received in an email from a good friend. She read Obama's books and is using that, and the fact that he says he is for change and wants to unite the country (the great uniter), for her basis in selecting a president.

Obama is a real Christian, the good kind. I think he will surprise you.

Compare that to the 2000 proclamation that George Bush is a good Christian.  

Change everybody wants it and everybody seems to be selling it. But, are they really? Let's look at some numbers and facts:

New Hampshire Primary - Democrats agree with John Edwards on the Issues

This is an analysis of polling and the results in Iowa. It looks so familiar to me. It looks like 2000 when people voted for Bu$h based on HYPE not facts. Do we never learn?

Here's the money quote from the op-ed:

This Zogby poll tells me that people in New Hampshire who are voting for someone because they agree with what a candidate will do on the issues are voting for John Edwards. There are a lot of political orators throughout history who have Sexcited people. Some of them have been good politicians, some bad and everything in between. Where people got in trouble is when they voted for someone who was exciting without carefully examining the policy positions behind that excitement. When people in this election examine these detailed policy positions, the person that gets their support is John Edwards.

Watch this video of Bill Moyers and Ron Walters. Walters admits that it is John Edwards and not Barack Obama who is addressing the difficult issues.

It's a good thing that young people are turning out in droves to vote for the first time and that they are voting for a Democrat. It's a tragedy that they are basing their vote on HYPE and not taking the time to research his record. They are too young to remember being fooled once so they can lead us all into being fooled again.

To quote my friend Glen: "The election turns on the stupid and goes to the rich." Are we going to do this again?

FACTS:

• Obama has the 2nd highest level of contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries
• His healthcare coverage plan is receiving pretty low marks
• His history with energy companies is mixed at best
• He uses right-wing talking points on important issues like Social Security
• On Climate Change, he seems to talk out of both sides of his face. His issues page doesn't match hisrecord of supporting liquefaction of coal.  Coal is still coal and it's NOT progress. Only after he was confronted with the fact that coal emits more CO2 (green house gases) than other petroleum based fuels, did he remove that option from his issues page.  He also sponsors nuclear and ethanol legislation, and takes contributions from these industries.
• He took $250,000 from nuclear power industry. Edwards alone opposes nuclear power plants.

• He capitulated on the "Health Care Justice Act," due to pressure from his lobbyist buddies.
• He continues to fund the Iraq war with his Senate votes
• He supported Condi Rice
• He didn't fight against Roberts or Alito but suggested compromise and reason instead ( How's that working out for us? )
• He supported tort reform
• The list goes on... is anyone paying attention?
  

For comparison:
Source Watch: Barack Obama/Campaign Financing
Source Watch: John Edwards
MONEY WEB
Friends of the Earth Action Challenges Obama, Clinton on Seabrook Station.  Praises Edwards for his opposition to new nukes
Watch TV ad  SCARY!

The corporate media is AGAIN preselecting our president with their blackout of Edwards and hype surrounding Obama. Once again, the selection of our president boils down to who has the most money and can buy the most TV ads. The media has anointed Obama.PROOF
Help Edwards get his message out with your donation.

Obama gives the appearance of change until you look past the surface. Looks shouldn't factor into choosing our next leader.

Edited to include this chart: