It's been a long while since I've blogged regularly, so it's going to take a week or two to get back into the swing of it. However, this article pretty much says what I have always feared would happen with Barak Obama.

How Do You Like Him Now?

Here's the "too much to 'splain so I'll sum up" quote:

He has made his calculation. He believes the liberal base, after eight years of chafing under Bush and presented with his historic candidacy and a great shot at winning the White House, will ... gleefully throw themselves under his bus.
He's probably right.

Comments are interesting. Particularly the ones along this vein:

• "Change doesn't come all at once. We have to take it one step at a time ..."
  
• "Progress comes in drips, not floods."
  
• "... compared to McInsane, I have no probs with him."
  

I thought Obama wasn't supposed to be about small change, small steps, small progression. He was supposed to be about REAL CHANGE! CHANGE NOW! A NEW WAY! This is why Hillary couldn't have the nomination. Because she was about incremental change, and political expediency, and ambition, and running to the center to court the independents. All that was BAD BAD BAD because golden boy was the REAL DEAL who was going to change everything.

So what happened?

Now it's ok to sacrifice principle for the ambition to the presidency because Barak Obama does it? It's ok to pander to the right by supporting Bush's FISA bill because Obama does it? God forbid HRC made a bad decision on the war when the information provided was false. She is forever to be hated for that. But it's ok to spy on American citizens without a warrant because GOD-BLESSED BARAK OBAMA is ok with it?

And faith-based initiatives are now the new black? Because Obama supports it? Oh it's different because it's Obama. It's not the continued erosion of the separation of church and state because Obama would never let that happen. His way will be ok because he says so.

And wait, I thought Obama was about not being beholden to special interests, yet he rejects public financing. Which means he's completely beholden to the folks who contribute to his campaign. Do his blind supporters really think that their five dollar pennies in a basket are what he's after? Did they miss his courting of HRC's major money supporters? So it was bad when Hillary was beholden to big money contributors but it's good when Barak is?

Listening to Obama-niacs is making me seriously question the rules of reason and logic. They got their boy in, and now no matter how he turns his back on them, it's ok. Even though we could have had an experienced/intelligent/highly connected/powerful panderer/ambition machine in HRC, we had to have the same thing in a person without any experience, voting record, or history of successful endeavours. I'm not getting that.

I will be watching. On November 1 I will decide if I'm voting at all. Right now I of course am. But if this trend continues, I may, for the first time, not vote in an election. I'm being a bit dire at this point, but signs are disturbing.