We started covering Sen. Barack Obama's inability to hire good staffers in June 2007, when he blamed staffers for some opposition research trying to link Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to outsourcing in India; for injecting some venom in the David Geffen/Hillary Clinton fight; and for missing an event with firefighters in New Hampshire.In December, we noted again that Obama was blaming the answers on a 1996 questionnaire on a staffer; and was blaming his touring with "cured" ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin (which antagonized gays and lesbians) on bad vetting by his staff.
Those five buck-passing incidents were apparently not enough.
Yesterday, in an interesting New York Times look at Obama's rise in Chicago politics, we learned that in 2004 some Jewish supporters became alarmed to learn that in a questionnaire Obama refrained from denouncing Yasir Arafat, or from expressing strong support for Israel's security fence.
Reports the Times: "In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that 'none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.'"
So the question to Obama.
Are you hiring incompetent staffers because you are incompetent or are your staffers convenient fall guys for your incompetence?
Tapper has an interesting conclusion....
So, for those keeping track at home, that's ten instances of Obama publicly blaming his staff for various screw-ups.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10!
(You of course could also add Austan Goolsbee, Samantha Power, Gordon Fischer, and retired Gen. Tony McPeak.)
That would be 14. We will continue to keep track.
And for the record, yet again, let me state that I find Sen. Obama's staff unfailingly competent and polite, courteous and efficient, and I once again express my regret that Sen. Obama does apparently not feel the same way.
4 comments:
'Are you hiring incompetent staffers because you are incompetent or are your staffers convenient fall guys for your incompetence?"
Probably a combination of both.
The staff reflects the wisdom and vision of the candidate.
If they keep screwing up it's because they're reflecting the true wishes of the candidate that hasn't been "sanitized" for public consumption.
If he is elected (God forbid) that crap ain't gonna fly. He is the one that will have to take the hit for his subordinates.
For the record, I left the incompetent misspelling for effect although it was originally a typo.
I still think that the phrase "from the mouth's of babes...." is very applicable here.
Post a Comment