Quote:
Originally Posted by notoldschool
Noone panders more than Clinton or Mccain.  |
All politicians pander. At least, all politicians who actually get elected pander.
What troubles me is Obama's choice to use this particular issue as something to compromise on, and the way in which he does so. This particular type of pandering reduces the actual lives of people to a mere political tool.
Another good example of Obama's pandering is Iraq. Undoubtedly, the war in Iraq should never have been started the way it was started. Undoubtedly, it is of the foremost importance that US troops are pulled back - especially because they are by their mere presence fueling the fire.
However, Obama gives hard time tables for pulling back the troops. Since he does not know the future, there is a very real chance that sticking to such time tables brings the kind of instability to Iraq that could cost many thousands of Iraqi lives.
It reminds me of Bush, to whom Colbert said: "Your beliefs are the same Wednesday as they were Monday,
no matter what happens on Tuesday."
Making these promises means one of three things. He is a liar, he is incapable of recognizing the possibility that something unforeseen happens, or he is someone who sticks to his plans no matter what happens - even if reality reveals his plans to be bad ones.
Since he is not an idiot, either the first or the last is true. Either he is willfully making promises he knows are ridiculous, or he is making ridiculous promises, intending to follow through on them merely for political gain.
Obama panders at least as much as the others. I hope he wins the general election (mainly because Clinton has no chance of getting the Democratic nomination), but the idea that he represents "change" from traditional politics is laughable.