While watching the debate last night, something occurred to me. Obama talks a good game, but there is no proof to back up what he says. McCain punched home his experience when answering the various questions. He pointed out not only what he wanted to do, but examples where he has done something similar in the past. Obama? Not so much.
Why is this important? Because anyone can say anything they want, but the 'proof is in the pudding.' We need to see actions from a candidate, not just rhetorical devices. From McCain, we have a history of voting in the Senate, and a history of service to his nation even before that. We can look at bills and laws he's supported and compare that with our positions to determine whether we will vote for him.
With Obama, we do not have that same history. Obama has not even served an entire term in the Senate and has never held an executive office in government positions. Even the possibility of related history, such as educational background and past work positions, is unavailable. More importantly, there is a strategy by the Obama campaign to hide the work he did do. We've heard about McCain's grades. Where are Obama's? Where is a copy of the thesis he wrote? What about details on the work he did for the Chicago Annenburg Challenge? ALL of this is being withheld, by choice.
Now remember, evidence is the real mark of who someone is, not sophistry. We need to see it to believe it. So far from Obama, we haven't seen much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
I reserve the right to remove any and all comments I deem offensive. No ad hominem attacks. Only factually based arguments are allowed.