Yesterday, hillariously, Obama supporter, Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, got pinned down by Chris Matthews and was forced to admit that he supported Obama despite the fact that he couldn’t name a single thing that Obama had ever accomplished.
Here’s the video if you’d like to watch Watson being humiliated,
But, wait — it gets better! How?
Well, after the fact, Watson actually tried to come up with a list of Obama’s “accomplishments” after the fact. So, imagine it: Watson is highly motivated because he has made his candidate look bad on TV, so he does heavy research, he talks to his fellow Obama supporters, and he probably even called Obama’s campaign.
So, what did Watson manage to come up with? This is it…
* Senator Obama’s fight for universal children’s health care in Illinois.
* His success bringing Republicans and Democrats together (a huge selling point for me in general) on bills such as the one in Illinois requiring police interrogations and confessions to be videotaped.
* His leadership on ethics reform in Washington (the bill that lobbyists and special interests are complaining about right now has his name on it).
* His bill to make the federal budget far more transparent and accessible to Americans via the Internet — we could use that openness in Texas.
* And his vital work with Republicans to lock down nuclear weapons around the world.
So, we have two Mickey Mouse items from his time in the state Senate of Illinois, an ethics bill that was weaker than what Republicans like Jim DeMint wanted, and a couple of bills that Obama tagged along with Republicans on, that would have been passed with or without his support.
That’s it? You mean, you take that unimpressive set of “accomplishments” and combine it with repeating “change,” “hope,” “unity,” and “yes, we can” 4 million times, and that’s good enough to make you President of the United States?
Two bits of good news on immigration. The NIGHTMARE Act is out of the picture for now. But, like all
Question: “Arlen Specter recently introduced a bill into Congress that would allow for the Supreme Court to be televised. Your