Is The Same Old Pandering Much Of A Change?

There is a Hillary Clinton campaign ad playing on television here in Texas, and only in Texas if the reporting is correct, that speaks to the lack of experience of Senator Obama as far as national security is concerned. The ad shows young children sleeping peacefully in their bedrooms with parents checking in on them, as parents do. The voiceover poses the question, to whom you would feel more confident answering the middle of the night telephone call with an emergency situation in the world.

It is an effective ad, to be sure. Obama hit back right away, and his response centered around his anti war in Iraq position. It is what he always goes to when other arguments against Hillary don't apply. It's a bit of a farce he perpetuates, though, as he was a senator in the Illinois state legislature, therefore, had no vote on the permission for President Bush to use force. You, as a voter, aren't suppose to think of that. You are suppose to think Obama is a man of outstanding instincts and intelligence, so much more knowledgeable than those actually voting on the issue in D.C. who had been briefed on it all before the vote.

Obama says politicians should stop using the events of 9/11 as 'fear' tactics, for votes. A staffer of his today even said that the phone at the White House doesn't ring at 3 AM. Yeah, there's a voice for Obama to listen to. Apparently the staffer is a bit green, as the candidate, and doesn't realize the President can be and is called anywhere around the clock with situations to handle.

For Obama, the red phone moment is the Iraq vote in the Senate. He thinks that was a decision made from an emergency phone call, I guess. Some smart staffer should remind him that what he wants to criticize is the Bush Doctrine, the strike of a pre-emptive attack.

Obama is all about Afghanistan. So, my question is how much support does he think he would garner to encourage a neighbor like Canada, a loyal fighting partner in Afghanistan, to remain in the fight as he is bloviating about yanking the NAFTA agreement right out from under them? As he blatantly panders to Ohio voters, as does Hillary, and says such insane pledges like he'll re-negotiate the agreement, what does he think Canada and Mexico hear? Sure, he would not have the authority to do such a thing. He knows it, or he should know it and that makes it all the worse. I thought the agent of change wasn't like all the other pandering politicians out there?

And, apparently there is a bit of a truth issue from the Obama camp. Today it was confirmed, the story that broke yesterday, that a top staff member for the Obama campaign called Canada's ambassador and gave him a heads-up before the debate this week. He wanted to reassure Mr. Wilson that Obama's huffing and puffing about NAFTA were not to be taken to heart. It was just for the campaign, don't you know.

The staffer has been identified as Austan Goolsbee, a senior economic adviser. He said his piece to the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago, according to today's article in American Thinker.
The campaign for the agent of change is now reigning Goolsbee in and having him refuse to talk about the conversation and directing any questions to campaign headquarters.

Change?

Funny. In the speeches here in Texas, NAFTA isn't treated quite the same. In Texas, NAFTA is succeeding, as it is in most of the states involved. Not Ohio, true, but Ohio's economic failures are due to such high corporate tax rates and no business incentives competitive with other states. All of those factors have been in play since the 1970's. The economy in Texas is chugging right along, thank you. Sorry, Barack.

Maybe Obama should 'change' some of the nonsense he spouts. Pandering to Ohio or not.