Why Should Obama's Poor Choices Surprise Anyone?

Candidate Obama chose to be friends with William Ayres, the unrepentant terrorist. Yet, the leftist media thought it was more important to "vet" Bristol Palin's boyfriend's family.

Candidate Obama chose to allow Tony Rezko, now an indicted felon, to loan Obama $300,000 to help him buy his big home. The press and Democrat voters thought John McCain's seven homes -- bought without the hint of a graft -- was a more important story.

Citizen and candidate Obama chose to remain in the church of Reverend Wright's, whose diatribes against America are now famous. But, the media and Democrats thought it was more important to demonize President Bush who kept America safe from terror attacks for 7 ½ years.

Senator Obama voted against the Surge. In light of the Surge's obvious success, did the media call candidate Obama's judgement into question? No.

So, why is anyone surprised that a number of Obama's choices for high level governmental posts are ethically-challenged, like Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, Nancy Killefer and Bill Richardson?

Caught up in their bloodlust for President Bush, Democrats chose to deny the reality of who Mr. Obama truly was: A stunningly inexperienced Chicago-bred politician who had made poor choices, in his associations and judgments.

In politics as in life, you get what you pay for.

Comments

[Opt1musPr1me]

Awww Seth!!! Ur so cute! Sounds like something right out of the McCain play book.

[The HunterOrion]

hi, to think you still judge President Obama on all those things. can you mention what was good about the torture that Bush / Chaney / Rumsfeld did? Can you tell us what good was done to put us in this grave financial situation by the last administration? For nearly 3 seeks in office and you seem to be nit picking Obama's cabinet. can you esplain Mr. Brown (FEMA) and Mr. Gonzales (AG / Justice Dept. Performance?
waiting patiently for an answer, thanks