Sunday, 17 August 2008


Ken Berwitz

So what do you do if you're running for president and you have no rsum that qualifies you for the office?

You make one up, that's what you do.  Then you hope that you are so beloved by mainstream media that they look the other way when you do it.

Which leads us straight to Barack Obama.

Here is an article in today's Jerusalem Post that lays out the specifics:

The audacity of resume-padding (or, why Obama makes things up)

Aug. 17, 2008
Abraham katsman and Kory Bardash , THE JERUSALEM POST

A exclusive blog

One of the knocks on Barack Obama is that his rsum is, so to speak, paper-thin. But that is not entirely accurate. Obama, in fact, has held some major job titles which are noteworthy all by themselves: United States Senator, Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Harvard Law Review President-each of these titles puts him in rarefied company. Tack on a few Illinois State Senate terms, and his resume actually appears solid. Yet, in spite of these prestigious positions, Obama has increasingly resorted to making claims of accomplishment that are so patently inflated that even his cheerleaders at CNN and the New York Times are taking notice. Why?

It seems that Obama recognizes that while his rsum titles are impressive, his actual accomplishments are weak. It's as if he were jockeying to be the next company CEO with little to show for his prior high-profile management positions. So, he does what anyone else does who has spent years coasting on charisma without doing any heavy work: he pads his rsum--stretching the truth here, stealing credit there, and creating the illusion of achievement during his lackadaisical, undistinguished tenure in previous jobs.

A few examples? Take Obama's first general election ad. We are told that Obama "passed laws" that "extended healthcare for wounded troops who'd been neglected," with a citation at the bottom to only one Senate bill: The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the Senate by a 91-3 vote. Six Senators did not vote-including Obama. Nor is there evidence that he contributed to its passage in any material way. So, his claim to have "passed laws" amounts to citing a bill that was largely unopposed, that he didn't vote for, and whose passage he didn't impact. Even his hometown Chicago Tribune caught this false claim. It's classic rsum-padding--falsely taking credit for the work of others.

Or take one of Obama's standard lines: his claim of "twenty years of public service." As pundit Michael Medved has pointed out, the numbers don't add up. Shall we count? Three years in the US Senate (two of which he's spent running for President), plus seven years in the Illinois State Senate (a part-time gig, during which time he also served as a law professor) equals, at most, ten. Even if we generously throw in his three years as a "community organizer" (whatever that means, let's count it as public service), that still adds up to just thirteen.

Obama's other activities since 1985 have included Harvard Law School, writing two autobiographies (including several months writing in Bali), prestigious summer law firm jobs, three years as an associate at a Chicago law firm, and twelve years part-time on the University of Chicago Law School faculty. As Medved notes, it takes quite the ego to consider any of those stints "public service." Which of them is Obama including?

Obama made yet another inflated boast last month during his visit to Israel. At his press conference in Hamas rocket-bombarded Sderot, Obama talked up "his" efforts to protect Israel from Iran:

"Just this past week, we passed out of the US Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon." (Emphasis added.)

Nice try. But as even CNN noted, Obama is not even on that committee. That is one peculiar "mistake" to simply have made by accident. Again, his claiming credit for the work of others just looks like clumsy, transparent rsum embellishment.

Would someone with Obama's stellar list of job titles resort to making stuff up? He seems to think he has to. In spite of the many impressive positions he's held, he's done almost nothing with them. If he wants to claim specific, relevant accomplishments, his only resort is to stretching the truth.

Look at his record: he's now completed over half of a Senate term; yet, is there even one signature issue he has taken hold of, other than his own presidential run? Similarly, as the New York Times recently pointed out, Obama spent twelve years on the University of Chicago Law School faculty--singularly famous for its intellectual ferment and incubator of scholarship--and produced not even a single scholarly paper. He was President of Harvard Law Review, but wrote nothing himself. Even as a state legislator for seven years-or community organizer for three years, there is little that shows his imprint. OK, to be fair, he did write two books. About himself.

For all his glowing job titles, Obama has never gotten much done. Is it any wonder that his spokesmen respond with sweeping generalities when asked what Obama has actually accomplished relevant to the presidency?

Obama has held several serious positions from which a serious man could have made a serious impact. But Obama made none. He remains a man of proven charisma, but unproven skill--and not for lack of opportunity. He's treated his offices as if they were high school student council positions-fun to run for, fun to win, affirmations of popularity, heady recognition from superiors, good resume-builders for stepping up to the next position of power, andwell, that's about it-actual accomplishments are not expected; heavy lifting is never on the agenda.

Obama's record of accomplishment is thin not because of lack of opportunity, but in spite of it. For twenty years, Obama has walked the floors of the most prestigious institutions in the nation, but has left no footprints other than those from his runs for whatever office came next.

It's been said that some people want to be President so they can do something; and some want to be President so they can be something. Obama has accomplished nothing noteworthy despite the golden opportunities and positions he's had; why should we believe he'd be a different man in the White House?

No company would hire anyone with Obama's empty track record, pattern of underachievement and padded rsum to be CEO. Is America really ready to hire him as President?.

There are the facts.     

How much clearer could it be that a mainstream media which does not present you with these indisputable, easy-to-come-by facts is a mainstream media in the tank for Barack Obama?


Ken Berwitz

This piece was written by Michelle Malkin.  You have to love it because it so completely exposes the hypocrisy of Howard Dean:

By Michelle Malkin    August 16, 2008 07:01 AM

Howard Dean slammed the GOP as racist this week, scoffing: If you look at folks of color, even women, theyre more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican party. As Allahpundit reminds us, The Screamer has engaged in this racial demagoguery before. Hes done it despite admitting his partys own lack of skin-deep diversity in Maryland, where GOP Senate candidate Michael Steele gave the libs a big scare. And hes done it despite his own DNC leaderships glaring lack of non-white faces. He says to look at the Democratic party to see that folks of color and even women are more successful. So, lets look at the official Democrat Party leadership page and judge Dean by his own standards:


Looking a little pale there, eh, Howie?

Tell us some more about how Black people make out in leadership positions, Mr. Dean. 

Then ask Colin Powell, or Condoleezza Rice, or Alberto Gonzalez or some of the other minority members of President Bush's cabinet how they feel about it.


Ken Berwitz

So how did Barack Obama and John McCain do when asked the same direct hard questions by the same interrogator in the same place on the same day before the same audience?

Well, I've read the comments from Chuck Todd's analysis on MSNBC - a venue that certainly can be construed as favoring Barack Obama.  And he seems to feel John McCain was a strong winner.

Click on that link and you will read the following:

Every Obama answer was certainly thoughtful enough but he seemed to want to explain himself too much and went out of his way not to offend folks who disagree with him.

Don't get me wrong, this will play well with some but McCain's directness and snappy answers that were on message allowed him to look commanding on that stage.

Warren may come away from this experience liking Obama more and respecting the fact that he seemed to take pains to not offend him and respect their disagreements. But I'm betting that if a focus group of undecided voters were watching this, they'd come away having a clearer understanding of McCain's beliefs.

Candy Crowley at seems to feel the same way.  It's not that Obama did poorly, but John McCain was crisper, more direct and more in command.

If this is a preview of the debates, Mr. McCain is in very good shape....and Mr. Obama had better upgrade his learning curve fast.

I wonder if he can do it.


Ken Berwitz

P.J. Gladnick of has scoured the leftward blog sites to see how they felt about Barack Obama's performance last night.

If you are an Obama supporter the news ain't good.

Here is what he uncovered:

Leftwing Blogosphere Disappointed in Obama Saddleback Forum Performance

So just how bad was Barack Obama's performance at the Saddleback Church faith-based forum last night? To read the cautious mainstream media reports, such as CNN, on the event you would think that Obama was merely "thoughtful" as reported by Michael M. Bates here on NewsBusters today. However, in a few media outlets a much blunter appraisal of Obama's performance can be found such as in the U.K. Telegraph. The very title of their article, "Barack Obama fails to shine alongside John McCain," gives a good idea of writer Alex Spillius opinion of the event (emphasis mine):

As a regular church-goer comfortable talking about his faith, Mr Obama is ostensibly better placed than most recent Democratic candidates to win over evangelicals.

But his support of abortion, a non-negotiable issue for many conservative Christians, remains a considerable obstacle, and he drew disapproving noises from the 2,800 audience at Saddleback in Lake Forest, California when he gave an evasive response to the question of when human rights begin for a baby.

"Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade," said Mr Obama.

Spillius contrasted what he called an "evasive answer" with John McCain's response:

Mr McCain, who has always been against abortion, in contrast gave a swift response: "At the moment of conception", drawing a loud round of applause.

Perhaps the best measure of Obama's performance can be seen among a group that normally includes his strongest supporters, the leftwing blogosphere. Despite some brave attempts by some in that arena to put a happy face on Obama's appearance at Pastor Rick Warren's forum, even they were forced to express disappointment as you can see in both the Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos. The very title of the DU thread, "I won't win cool points for this, but McCain is doing excellent so far, better than Obama," expresses something less than a vote of confidence for Obama. Here are a few examples of just how disappointed the DUers were in Obama last night:

...I honestly can't remember hardly any of Senator Obama's answers to the questions that were asked, while McCain has had at least SOME memorable answers.

I think it was a mistake for Senator Obama to do this forum.

I've been shocked at how well McCain has done compared to what I was expecting. That very well could be it.

I don't know why Obama went there - he comes across as a poor second to our "McZero the hero".

Meanwhile, the Kossacks tried not too convincingly to believe that McCain didn't really win as you can see from this thread title, "Why McCain's 'win' wasn't really a win at the FBF." The author of the thread might be trying to convince the other Kossacks that McCain didn't win but many others weren't buying it as you can see:

McCain beat our a** tonight.

We have been here before. You don't bring Karate to a gun fight. You bring an Uzzi. McCain brought an Uzzi. Obama brought a pocket knife and got ambushed. It's time to stop this crap.

His answer "above my pay grade" will be in an ad tomorrow. He appeared to give non answers to me. And he must have said uh and um a hundred times!


Try as the MSM can to avoid mentioning just how poorly Obama performed last night in comparison with McCain, many on the left, as you can see, are very upfront in expressing their disappointment. You can see an even larger sampling of leftwing depression over Obama's performance at the DUmmie FUnnies.

Needless to say, this feeds directly into the concern that, without a teleprompter to guide him, Mr. Obama does not do very well.  Concomitantly, it indicates that under identical circumstances Mr. McCain is very, very good.

Is this a one-time fluke?  Or is this an example of experience trumping inexperience?  Well, the fact that Mr. Obama turned down McCain's offer of a series of extemporaneous townhall meetings would lead you to choice #1, wouldn't it?

I can't wait for the first debate. 


Ken Berwitz

To anyone who tried unsuccessfully to access this site:

You were unable to do so because the nice folks (and they really are) who host were moving to new offices and had to shut down their equipment for a number of hours. 

Sorry about that.  But now we're back up!!!

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!