If you read only one thing this year, read this.
In probably the most important analytical piece of this campaign, The New Republic looks at the Obama campaign's despicable race-baiting:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
I personally felt the charges of racism were overblown but never put the pieces together like this.
Imagine how the Clintons must feel -- how can you, when you're accused of being racist, attack the supposed victim of racism for race-baiting?
And in the Democratic primary, no less?
Ask yourself this one question: why would Hillary Clinton want to divide the nomination process between blacks and whites when she had a DOUBLE-DIGIT lead among blacks in the polls?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Point A to Point B
Who is best suited to take us from Point A (where we are) to Point B (where we need to be)?
Who understands the political process and who has the ability to maneuver through it in order to accomplish the things which this country needs?
Who has a record of maximizing his or her position (be it senator, community organizer, volunteer) in order to get results for the country?
-------
The next president of the United States will face the same wars, the same deficits and debts, the same foreign enemies, the same domestic challenges, and the same media.
Congress isn't going away. Nor is the Supreme Court. The presidency will have the same powers.
When we confine a person to that box, who is best suited to utilize his or her position to get us from Point A to Point B?
-------
The sight of one man or woman isn't going to change the system. Last time I checked, Barack Obama is human and has no magic wand.
Who can get us from Point A to Point B? That's what change is really about.
Barack Obama isn't for change
If words are meaningful, as Barack Obama would have you believe, then let's look at his.
- Targeting corporate CEO bonuses
- Attacking free trade agreements
- Bashing Wal-Mart and its employees (why doesn't anyone pick up on how despicable his attacks on Wal-Mart are? He's basically saying that if you work for Wal-Mart, you're life is unsatisfactory.)
- Raising taxes on the wealthy and using class warfare rhetoric
How do any of the above campaign tenets differ from those of John Kerry? How can you claim to be for change and spew this kind of venom?
Also, how can you lament the state of politics in America and claim to change the game while playing the same game as everyone else. Barack Obama's campaign tries to manipulate the press and win the media cycle just as any other campaign.
Where is the change?
Taking a page from George W. Bush
- If you're for the war, then you can be for the troops.
- If you support the War in Iraq, then you can support the war on terrorism.
- If you're a Republican, then you can claim to be patriotic and for strong national defense.
The above represent some of the false choices which the Bush Administration has propagated.
Why is no one in the press picking up on Barack Obama's equally disingenuous false choice?
If you have experience, you can't bring about change.
- If you support the War in Iraq, then you can support the war on terrorism.
- If you're a Republican, then you can claim to be patriotic and for strong national defense.
The above represent some of the false choices which the Bush Administration has propagated.
Why is no one in the press picking up on Barack Obama's equally disingenuous false choice?
If you have experience, you can't bring about change.
"Name one..."
A prominent Texas state senator had literally no response to this question when asked it by Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
Can you answer it?
See for yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/chris-matthews-humiliates_n_87493.html
Friday, February 15, 2008
Judgment
Judgment, along with the fact that experience has not proven useful (Vietnam, Iraq) would obviously be Obama's first reply to his thin resume.
But on the central issue of the campaign, Iraq, Obama's record in the Senate pretty much resembles that of Hillary Clinton (Obama joined after the Military Authorization in Iraq bill). He has in fact stated that he may have voted for the war had he known what senators like Clinton knew -- they were privy to Senate Intelligence reports. In 2004, Obama also claimed that his post-war stance (the strategy for occupation) resembled that of George W. Bush.
Indeed, Obama opposed the war in a speech in 2002, but since then he has wavered significantly -- in an almost John Kerry-esque fashion. Iraq is a tricky issue, and while Hillary Clinton has faced intense scrutiny for her statements on it, Obama has gotten off easily despite a series of conflicting statements and positions. For specifics, please see this great article in The New Republic entitled "Cinderalla Story":
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aaad0724-dd13-4ffa-810b-d5d3220ff055&p=1
Look, there's no question Barack Obama is a great orator and that he voiced his displeasure, and yes, opposition to the Iraq War in 2002.
But there is a double-standard. He is not the stalwort anti-war hero he is made out to be. His position on Iraq, as the above article displays, is as nuanced as that of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
Why does he deserve a free pass?
Any time Hillary Clinton brings the Iraq issue up, and Obama's wavering on it, the media pounces on her. Can someone ask Senator Obama to explain himself?
Hope is great.
But questions needs answers. Just like problems need solutions.
The first of many grievances
What has Barack Obama done in the past or said during this campaign to demonstrate that he can bring about the "change" which he so artfully describes?
The United States faces countless domestic and foreign challenges today. Barack Obama claims that the power of hope, combined with his ability to bring people together, will provide our great nation with the solutions which we so desperately need. The reality, though, is that Obama has no substantive record of results. When asked about his greatest accomplishment in the Senate, Obama cited an ethics reform bill, which, among other things, bans lawmakers from sitting while dining with lobbyists (yes, they can still stand).
I think Barack Obama will make a tremendous president -- just not now. He's simply not ready. He's calling for change, and he positions himself as the necessary agent of change. Symbolism, though, will not change reality.
I ask the remaining voters, when they are considering whether they should vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, to consider the following:
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would face 435 members of Congress and 100 members of the Senate, with many in the opposition Republican party
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would deal with the same media outlets and radio talk show hosts (whether it's CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or on the radio side, Rush Limbaugh)
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would inherit two wars, with the possibility of conflict with Iran and mounting tensions amongst Israel's neighbors
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would face the fiscal crisis, including a mounting federal debt, a huge national debt, and a trade deficit
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would face the same levels of carbon dioxide emissions, which spur global warming
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would possess the same executive powers
The last of the above considerations is the most important. We hear a lot about changing Washington, D.C. But instead of talking about changing how business is done in our nation's capital, shouldn't we focus on the business itself -- in other words, aren't our problems tough enough that we should get on with finding and implementing solutions rather than arguing about the terms of the debate?
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama don't stand too far apart on the issues. The deciding factor for Democrats in the upcoming primaries should be this: Who has the talent, intelligence, savvy, strength and wisdom to get us from Point A (where we are today) to Point B (where we need to be)?
When we consider that final question, we should direct ourselves to the records of each individual candidates. One (Hillary Clinton), has an overwhelming record of acheivement, while the other (Barack Obama), has done little if anything to enact change.
Does Barack Obama have a magic wand that he'll be using as President that he was not using in his previous capacities?
-------
Check out this article in The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10689547
The United States faces countless domestic and foreign challenges today. Barack Obama claims that the power of hope, combined with his ability to bring people together, will provide our great nation with the solutions which we so desperately need. The reality, though, is that Obama has no substantive record of results. When asked about his greatest accomplishment in the Senate, Obama cited an ethics reform bill, which, among other things, bans lawmakers from sitting while dining with lobbyists (yes, they can still stand).
I think Barack Obama will make a tremendous president -- just not now. He's simply not ready. He's calling for change, and he positions himself as the necessary agent of change. Symbolism, though, will not change reality.
I ask the remaining voters, when they are considering whether they should vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, to consider the following:
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would face 435 members of Congress and 100 members of the Senate, with many in the opposition Republican party
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would deal with the same media outlets and radio talk show hosts (whether it's CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or on the radio side, Rush Limbaugh)
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would inherit two wars, with the possibility of conflict with Iran and mounting tensions amongst Israel's neighbors
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would face the fiscal crisis, including a mounting federal debt, a huge national debt, and a trade deficit
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would face the same levels of carbon dioxide emissions, which spur global warming
- As President, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would possess the same executive powers
The last of the above considerations is the most important. We hear a lot about changing Washington, D.C. But instead of talking about changing how business is done in our nation's capital, shouldn't we focus on the business itself -- in other words, aren't our problems tough enough that we should get on with finding and implementing solutions rather than arguing about the terms of the debate?
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama don't stand too far apart on the issues. The deciding factor for Democrats in the upcoming primaries should be this: Who has the talent, intelligence, savvy, strength and wisdom to get us from Point A (where we are today) to Point B (where we need to be)?
When we consider that final question, we should direct ourselves to the records of each individual candidates. One (Hillary Clinton), has an overwhelming record of acheivement, while the other (Barack Obama), has done little if anything to enact change.
Does Barack Obama have a magic wand that he'll be using as President that he was not using in his previous capacities?
-------
Check out this article in The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10689547
For the Record
- I am in no way affiliated with the Hillary Clinton for President campaign, nor do I speak for her or her campaign. I do, however, support her candidacy for the Democratic Nomination.
- I am an admirer of Barack Obama and hope that one day he will become President of the United States -- but I do not want him to win this election
- I can be reached at stopobama08@gmail.com
- Notice the '08. I have no personal vendetta against Barack Obama. I just cannot bring myself to support his campaign for president in 2008.
This blog was started to vent my frustrations with Barack Obama's current candidacy for President. The media have largely ignored these issues. We should all ask ourselves: "How is Barack Obama going to bring about this 'Change we can believe in'?"
Barack Obama would make an infinitely better president than George W. Bush, but he is simply not ready to be a president who can deliver on his lofty campaign rhetoric.
Simply put, Obama should not be elected president because he does not have a record of acheiving the change for which he calls. His possible presidency, despite its lofty rhetorical stature, would amount to a failure. The presidency, as George W. Bush's administration has shown us (or, in fact, has failed to show us), is about execution, management, and the slow, everyday work of improving lives.
I'm not saying Washington, D.C. can't be changed. I'm simply saying that your eyes are closed if you think Hillary Clinton isn't more qualified to change American politics than Barack Obama.
Democrats, Independents, and Republicans: Who can get us from Point A (where we are today) to Point B (where we need to be)?
Talk is cheap.
Someone ask Barack Obama HOW he's going to fix this country. And don't settle for "hope."
- I am an admirer of Barack Obama and hope that one day he will become President of the United States -- but I do not want him to win this election
- I can be reached at stopobama08@gmail.com
- Notice the '08. I have no personal vendetta against Barack Obama. I just cannot bring myself to support his campaign for president in 2008.
This blog was started to vent my frustrations with Barack Obama's current candidacy for President. The media have largely ignored these issues. We should all ask ourselves: "How is Barack Obama going to bring about this 'Change we can believe in'?"
Barack Obama would make an infinitely better president than George W. Bush, but he is simply not ready to be a president who can deliver on his lofty campaign rhetoric.
Simply put, Obama should not be elected president because he does not have a record of acheiving the change for which he calls. His possible presidency, despite its lofty rhetorical stature, would amount to a failure. The presidency, as George W. Bush's administration has shown us (or, in fact, has failed to show us), is about execution, management, and the slow, everyday work of improving lives.
I'm not saying Washington, D.C. can't be changed. I'm simply saying that your eyes are closed if you think Hillary Clinton isn't more qualified to change American politics than Barack Obama.
Democrats, Independents, and Republicans: Who can get us from Point A (where we are today) to Point B (where we need to be)?
Talk is cheap.
Someone ask Barack Obama HOW he's going to fix this country. And don't settle for "hope."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)