PDA

View Full Version : The audacity of resume-padding (or, why Obama makes things up)



LibraryLady
08-17-2008, 06:08 PM
The audacity of resume-padding (or, why Obama makes things up) (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710381368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

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?

lacarnut
08-17-2008, 06:33 PM
Obama lies more than Bubba and that is saying something; must be a Democratic liberal trait. Kerry did not get away with the lying and this yo yo will not either. American voters want someone that is honest and will tell them the truth; in that vain, Obama will lose the election.

JB
08-17-2008, 06:43 PM
Baffle them with bullshit.

He's got that part down. What an empty suit this guy is.

IanMartins
08-17-2008, 07:23 PM
Baffle them with bullshit.

He's got that part down. What an empty suit this guy is.

Empty suit indeed. The results you get when googling "empty suit" on Google Images (http://images.google.com/images?q=%22empty%20suit%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi) are not particularly surprising.

OwlMBA
08-17-2008, 07:58 PM
Great article that exposes a simple truth - Obama doesn't have the experience to get a middle-management job in any big company. Yet the Liberals think he is qualified to be President?

Liberals are sheep. They are easily led. They are just looking for somebody charismatic to latch on to. They are the artistic, hippie, touchy-feely, emotional types so it is not surprising to me that they let their emotions take over and put all logic and reason on the back burner. Nobody with a logical or rational bone in their body would support BO for President.

But charisma goes a long way. Just ask Germany.

Eyelids
08-17-2008, 09:41 PM
Great article that exposes a simple truth - Obama doesn't have the experience to get a middle-management job in any big company. Yet the Liberals think he is qualified to be President?

I dunno... Editor of the Harvard Law Review and United States Senator? I think he would do pretty well.

LibraryLady
08-17-2008, 09:45 PM
I dunno... Editor of the Harvard Law Review and United States Senator? I think he would do pretty well.


He was President of Harvard Law Review, but wrote nothing himself.


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.



But he didn't DO anything.

Elspeth
08-17-2008, 10:54 PM
But he didn't DO anything.

Exactly Library Lady. That's in fact the problem. He DID little to nothing, takes credit for the work of others, and expects to coast by on titles. (BTW, a law school lecturer is not the same as a professor. Lecturers are hired guns who don't publish; they are typically adjuncts, although they can be FT, but they don't have the clout of professors.)

OwlMBA
08-17-2008, 11:14 PM
I dunno... Editor of the Harvard Law Review and United States Senator? I think he would do pretty well.

False logic. He isn't qualified to be a Senator either, but lots of unqualified people get elected to the Senate with a lot of charisma and cash. That is how he got there.

But there is a big difference between a do-nothing Junior Senator that doesnt even show up to vote on legislation (let alone author any) and the leader of the Free World and the most powerful military on the planet. He isn't even close to being qualified for that.

Obama is similar to people we see in the business community all the time. We always see people with puffed up resumes who are smooth talkers and know how to win people over. They get hired, they fail miserably, and they get fired. Happens everyday. In fact, its usually the smooth-talking, smooth-looking people that are the first ones out the door.

I see Obama everyday in the corporate world.

SaintLouieWoman
08-17-2008, 11:54 PM
False logic. He isn't qualified to be a Senator either, but lots of unqualified people get elected to the Senate with a lot of charisma and cash. That is how he got there.

But there is a big difference between a do-nothing Junior Senator that doesnt even show up to vote on legislation (let alone author any) and the leader of the Free World and the most powerful military on the planet. He isn't even close to being qualified for that.

Obama is similar to people we see in the business community all the time. We always see people with puffed up resumes who are smooth talkers and know how to win people over. They get hired, they fail miserably, and they get fired. Happens everyday. In fact, its usually the smooth-talking, smooth-looking people that are the first ones out the door.

I see Obama everyday in the corporate world.

So do I. They generally don't last. Had one guy who was hired to be head of our IT department. He supposedly had many technical certifications. I had a bid that required a listing of employees with specific certifications. I asked him for a copy of his. He just laughed. He had BS'd his way into the company, had no real credentials. He didn't last long, was gone within a few months.

Scary though to elect BO to the presidency. It's next to impossible to get rid of an empty suit in government. Look at the last impeachment attempt----Bubba. :rolleyes:

jinxmchue
08-18-2008, 12:53 AM
Liberal morons like Eyelids don't care that Obama lies and has not accomplished much. All the care about are three things:

(1) He's hardcore liberal
(2) He looks black (even though he's not)
(3) He's the Democratic candidate for president

Zeus
08-18-2008, 04:18 AM
Ten things above Obama's pay grade (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/ten_things_above_obamas_pay_gr.html)

Helen Cadogan
In no particular order:

1. Cogency, concision, and conviction.
2. Ease of manner without a teleprompter.
3. Maintenance of American defense systems.
4. Pro-American assertions.
5. Rejection of moral and cultural relativism.
6. Decision-making.
7. Qualification to lead the United States.
8. Loyalty.
9. Respecting America and her symbols.
10. Understanding Christian doctrine.

biccat
08-18-2008, 08:18 AM
I dunno... Editor of the Harvard Law Review and United States Senator? I think he would do pretty well.
How do you think the President of the Harvard Law Review is determined? Is it an election, merit-based appointment by faculty, writing skills, grades, or appointment by peers?