The Audacity Of Obama’s Padded Résumé
From the Jerusalem Post:
The audacity of resume-padding (or, why Obama makes things up)
By ABRAHAM KATSMAN AND KORY BARDASH
Aug 17, 2008
One of the knocks on Barack Obama is that his résumé 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 résumé 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 résumé–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 résumé-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 résumé 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, and…well, 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 résumé to be CEO. Is America really ready to hire him as President?
Most of this is familiar material to us here. But it can’t be repeated enough.
Allah knows, our watchdog media will never tell us about Mr. Obama’s lack of credentials.
Related Articles:
- Obama Bailed On McCain's Lobbyist Reform
- Obama Ads Cherry-Pick Sources - And Facts
- AP Photo Shows Obama Listed As A Muslim
- New Ad: Obama Wins The Gold At Olympics
- CPUSA And Obama Platforms Are Identical
- US Communist Party Endorses Obama
- Bill's 'Ringing Endorsement' Of Obama
- Obama Slams 'Cheney' Bill - He Voted For
- Obama To Review Bush Executive Orders
- Obama: Surge Better Than Bush Imagined
- Obama Re-writes Vow To Meet With Iran
- Obama On The Surge - Some Video Clips
- Obama's Empathy For The 9/11 Terrorists
- More On Obama And Acorn - 2 Video Clips
- The Forces Behind Obama: Soros, Acorn
- Time To Be Measured: Before/After Obama
- The Questionable Rise Of Barack Obama
7 Responses to “The Audacity Of Obama’s Padded Résumé”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.



August 17th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
CHOOSE YOUR PRESIDENT!—
When do you believe life begins?
Obama: ” Well, uh, you see, uh, some think, uh, blah blah blah and, ah, some think, ummm, that , uh, blah blah blah. And, well, I just think that it is so compli—uh–cated, and I respect that, uh, ah, many disagree with, but, uh, ah…..” and so and on and on…..
McCain: “At conception.”
August 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I hope (wink, wink, wink) that this is the toe that pushes the door open into simply more honest assessment of all the the candidates - Obama, McCain, Barr, Nader, and McKinney.
This is America - it is supposed to be about The People nominating and electing the candidate of their choice - not having the msm sugar coat one candidate, distort the words of another, dismiss another and well just ignore the others.
I know that the msm is in the DNC’s back pocket - but perhaps it is time We The People stop it - for them. Sites like this are the first step to taking back America from the Left, liberals, and other assorted kooks, nuts and downright vile double-dealers who are only putting forth their personal agendas to line their own pockets.
I’d like to keep more of our money to line our own pockets -Thank You all not so very much.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Obama is the poster child for Affirmative Action.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Obama is like the guy who would peel potatoes and dice carrots as prep work for a restaurant and then put on his resume that he was a Master Chef.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:18 am
“ONLY IN AMERICA: the Legend of Barack Obama” hits a bump with “Barack by Night”!
Barack sighed heavily and stared up at the ornate ceiling of the Honolulu Hilton’s Presidential Suite.
“Don’t worry Pumski” soothed Michelle. “It happens to every guy sometimes”.
“Well, it never happened to me before” fumed Barack.
“Huh? Oh, right. Of course not – never” she lied. “Maybe you’re just tired”.
“Maybe” conceded her husband.
“Or maybe you’re worried about the polls”.
“Polls? What polls?”
“You know, the new ones that show you losing ground to McCain, the ones that have you neck and neck with him, where just a couple of weeks ago you were way out in front – those polls”.
“Oh – those polls” muttered the Change We’ve Been Looking For. “Yeah”.
“They don’t look good” said Michelle. “They surely don’t. Maybe they augur a sea change in your – our – fortunes. Maybe the American people are having a second look at you and they don’t like what they see”.
“But what’s not to like?”
“Maybe they see someone from a self-regarding metropolitan elite that’s out of touch with their problems and concerns, which, indeed, despises them and the things which matter to them. Maybe they see a guy who’s done very well out of America but who doesn’t seem to like America very much, certainly not as much as he likes himself. Maybe they see an opportunist, a guy on the make who just wants to big himself up and boss other people around. A talker, not a doer. Maybe…”
“Sheesh, Michelle. Knock it off, will you? What’re you trying to do? Castrate me?”
“Maybe they think that in a dangerous world, where sudden trouble can erupt at any time, Georgia for example, the country needs a leader who’s done more than give speeches and waves his arms…”
“Stop it….”
“Maybe they’re finally starting to get wise to us, to you, and they’re starting to have second thoughts. They’ve had their little fling but now they want to settle down with someone steady…”
“You know, um, you could do that special thing that I like” suggested Barack. “That might work…”
“What? Read aloud to you from one of your own books? I don’t really feel like it, Pumski. Sorry”.
“Alright, fine. I’ll go sleep in the bathtub if that’s what you want”.
“Don’t forget your pillow”.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Many thanks, again, artboyusa! It’s the beginning of a new week and your wit and satire make for a good start!
August 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Rush talking today about BHO’s answer to this question:
“WARREN: What’s the most significant — let me ask it this way. What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you ever had to make and how did you process that to come to that decision?”
“OBAMA: Well, you know, I think the opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision as I’ve had to make. Not only because there were political consequences, but also because Saddam Hussein was a real bad person, and there was no doubt that he meant America ill. But I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and there were a lot of questions that, as I spoke to experts, kept on coming up. . .
So I agonized over that. And I think that questions of war and peace generally are so profound. . .
So all those questions surrounding the war have been very difficult for me. . . .”
Of course, as El Rushbo pointed out, the Obamination was still my senator on the south side of Chicago when the war vote on Iraq was held. And on votes for funding after he was a US Senator he voted for funding the war.
“Gut-wrenching”, indeed. Of course not so gut-wrenching that he mendaciously calls himself the only Dem candidate who didn’t vote for the war.