Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is running as a "different" kind of politician, but he seems to have developed at least one affinity of the "old politics" - passing the buck. He keeps blaming low-level staff for his screw-ups, as John McCormick reports for the Chicago Tribune:
Yet when Obama was criticized this week for opposition research memos critical of Sen. Hillary Clinton's ties to India and Indian-Americans, he was quick to blame his staff.
"It was a screw-up on the part of our research team," he told editors and reporters with The Des Moines Register. "It wasn't anything I had seen or my senior staff had seen."That is starting to sound familiar. It was at least the third time since February the Illinois Democrat has blamed his staff for a glitch.
When Obama assembled his crew early this year, he brought together a team with a long track record for the sort of caustic rhetoric he has pledged to avoid, just as other presidential candidates have done by hiring people similarly talented in the art of opposition research and attack. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) even hired some of the very people that trashed his 2000 presidential bid.
Read the entire story at the above link. One must wonder: would President Obama similarly refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of his staff? And - if he cannot manage his campaign well enough to avoid these repeated "staff mistakes," why should we assume he could manage the United States government's $3 trillion budget and millions of employees?
Another reason Obama is just "not ready for prime time."
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Obama, Primaries
Tags: Democrat, Obama, presidential campaign, primaries
Comments (4)
Another reason Obama is jus... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Tom | June 24, 2007 12:59 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Another reason Obama is just "not ready for prime time."
Does it really have to be said?... OK, I will:
"As opposed to any current presidents one could name...?"
Besides, what does "taking responsibility" mean anymore? It's just words, like "I apologize if I offended anyone..." It just means "I'll say whatever you want to me to say if it'll get you to shut up." Better that Obama should follow the Bush model and give the screwup staffers medals of freedom?
1. Posted by Tom | June 24, 2007 12:59 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 24, 2007 12:59
2. Posted by Neil B. | June 24, 2007 8:29 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
It looks bad, but what if that is simply the truth in those cases? That ought to matter...
2. Posted by Neil B. | June 24, 2007 8:29 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 24, 2007 20:29
3. Posted by Marcel Parcells | June 25, 2007 12:14 AM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
I am okay with this. If I had an underling or two, I'd be blaming them for everything.
3. Posted by Marcel Parcells | June 25, 2007 12:14 AM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 25, 2007 00:14
4. Posted by adam h | June 25, 2007 9:49 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
The reality is -- that if you want to be president in this country you have to play the game of politics. Does that necessarily undermine a reform-oriented politician?
I think it's funny how we always try to make every single news items fit into a pre-concieved, canned narrative.
Obama screws up = Inexperience
Hilary chooses campaign song = Fem-nazi b*tch
G.W. can't talk = stupid
Perhaps we're all just too lazy to report without relying on pre-concieved narrative.
4. Posted by adam h | June 25, 2007 9:49 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on June 25, 2007 09:49