I'd like to feel better about voting for Obama.
Most recently I finished a book called “Washington’s Crossing,” winner of a Pulitzer Prize in History. I love reading about this country’s founding principals/principles. I wondered “Why do they say that Washington was such a great leader? What did he do that made people say that?” One example was how he treated the Hessians, German troops hired by the British to control the colonies. They were brutal, often killing and sometimes torturing captured rebels. Washington (on the field) and John Adams (in the Congress) had the same response to witnessing the brutality: we will never do this to our enemies. When Washington’s troops captured Hessians at Trenton, Washington ordered that his troops treat them not as enemies but as friends, as "they have been forced into this war." The Hessians were struck by the benevolent treatment. Some of the Hessian prisoners were escorted south to be held in Virginia. At the Pennsylvania border the POWs were told to go on without escort. A few days later when the captain caught up with them, all Hessians were present. This is the kind of leadership I look for. Obama says he wants to track and kill Bin Laden even if he is located across the Pakistani border. I think this is dangerous. It’s narrow focused and places too much emphasis on one man at the risk of the whole. Pakistan is an ally. We need diplomacy not vengeance and hatred.
Another example of Washington’s leadership was not that he was so smart and that he had the right answers but that he gathered and listened to all viewpoints before making a decision. After each battle, he convened a Council of War in which he invited not only his officers, but enlisted men and local townspeople to get their thoughts. Often it was the locals that had the best advice as they knew the territory. This was the downfall of the British Top-Down management style...ignoring the advice of subordinates (Bush/Cheney's a current example). I'm encouraged that Obama chose Biden as his VP (I wrote to Biden 3 years ago to ask him to run for president). This was his first executive decision. It is also telling that McCain’s first executive decision was to select Sarah Palin, someone unfamiliar with our constitution's separation of powers. (How can we take serious someone who takes the oath of office to protect and defend the constitution when they do not understand the founding principles of our government? Or, in fact, when they have been found to have violated the powers of the office they currently hold?).
Regarding religion, it bothered me when, at 13 years old, I heard my pastor preach that only Christians would go to Heaven. I had the courage to tell my pastor, face to face that this religion was too narrowly focused... that I thought Christianity was one path but that there are other paths as well. I was 13 or 14 years old. It bothers me that for 20 years Obama attended and then raised his kids in a church lead by Reverend Wright. Wright’s speeches are far more angry and judgmental than those at my old church. It’s very disappointing. I don’t want our leader coming from such an angry place. Recently Obama quit the church. I hope he did it because he saw the church from a new perspective and not quit it for political gain. But geez, he was 47 years old when he made the decision to quit...after he raised his kids in the church. It seems naïve to assume that it took 20 years for Obama to realize that his church’s message was unacceptable and it seems more probable that he quit for political gain. It isn’t Obama’s religion that bothers me, it is his judgment that bothers me: i.e. to tolerate Wright's preaching for 20 years and expose his kids to it.
“Change” is a common slogan to run on...even Bush ran on “change” in 2000 (his morals vs Clinton’s morals, Washington insider vs Washington outsider) so that slogan is not persuasive to me. I currently see the Dems and the Republicans as favoring corporate interests above representative governance (Republicans more so than Dems but not by much). I just wonder how much change Obama can or is willing to bring. His health plan only modifies but does not change the current and corrupt for-profit healthcare system. Hillary’s plan would have changed it.
Those are my concerns. At this point, I wish there was a box on the ballot that I could check that says “I am voting for this candidate because I am not voting for the other guy.”
I want to vote for Obama but would really like to feel better about it. Maya Angelou wisely says “When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.” I see stuff I do not want to believe. If you have any thoughts please respond. This is meant as an honest inquiry, not to bash. I'd like to feel better about voting for Obama.
--Jack
Bill Maher often talks about this, and he phrases it nicely- sometimes we need our leaders to tell us something we know isn't really true. We know it isn't true, but we need them to say it anyway. Like when Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale. Thats what we wanted to hear, and he was as honest as he could be.
Two things:
On Obama and Pakistan. Regardless of the rhetoric, who do you honestly believe will win the goodwill of the rest of the world? The cranky isolationist, or the guy who grew up for a while in Indonesia?
I have no doubt that Obama "gets" Pakistan and will make the right call. And if he inflates the rhetoric a bit for the voters, I'm okay with that too. It isn't really dishonest, he is demonstrating the facts- he can and will do what is necessary, despite the fear of some that he won't protect the country.
On Obama and the church. You know what? I don't think Wright ever said anything that bad. And for the anger that he represented at times, I am glad that Obama was exposed to it. If he doesn't experience some anger, he has his eyes closed.
I am glad that Obama had a muslim father. I am ecstatic that he saw Said speak.
On going to church in general, I'm a little less excited. Bill Maher would go so far as to say Obama doesn't really believe in God, and he is just telling us what we need to hear. I wish that were true.
But I am definitely prepared to forgive him for believing in God. It is just one more diverse element forming a world view that is larger, and more intellectually curious, than your typical politician.
Jay,
"who do you honestly believe will win the goodwill of the rest of the world?"
That's a good point. I do think that Obama has a positive presence in the eyes of the rest of the world and that's a good reason to vote for him.
I hope you're right about Obama doing the right thing on Pakistan but he has repeated his statement many times that he would take Osama out if he had him in his sites even if OBL was in Pakistan. I hope this is just verbrato to assure those who doubt his willingness to use force.
Thanks for the input. It helps.
Excellent post JAck and well thought out response Jay.. here is my 2 cents on why you should feel better.... I am an independent, so the following does not come from any side.. just how I see things and I how I feel much better going for Obama/Biden.
Palin.. are you kidding me? I mean seriously, this should be the only reason most people of even average intelligence and awareness should need not to vote for Mccain.... It is not a joke or rhetoric to think or say that Mccain will most likely NOT make it through his first term.. the man's medical history is bad.. he is old and losing it fast... most likely Palin would step in as president... think about that for a second and if you have even seen one interview with her... it should be all you need to go for the other side... If Palin somehow became president of this country.. we as a nation are finished beyond any comprehension you could ever imagine....
I couldn't agree with Jay more... I Truly believe Obama will make the right call on pakistan AND on Iran.... Let's face it. Mccain is ready to drop a bomb on Iran now....
Old Mccain vs this one... I would have had no problem voting for the old John Mccain.. you know the respectful senator that was at one point AGAINST the war, Against George bush and his policies... ya that one... that guy I could see voting for.. not the guy that has taken back everything he has said about Bush and kissed his ass ... and once again let me state his judgement saw it fit to have Palin as a 72 year old heartbeat away (ala Jack Mccaferty) from being president... to me this is all you should need to feel great about going for Obama...
Thanks Fiddlesticks. I agree with all you have said...all great reasons... but these are reasons to NOT vote for McCain. And yes, when McCain named Palin it clinched the decision to vote for ABM to ensure she gets no where near the office of VP or POTUS. I also used to like McCain...but not the new one.
This article about preparations for the transition makes me feel good about voting for Obama.
The endorsement from the New Yorker makes me feel better about voting for him as does the Esquire article (where they were reluctant not to endorse McCain because they had admired him for a long time but....
Also, Warren Buffett (who is now the richest man in the world - wow - what a title)...etc.
Do any of these help you?
Thanks Jillbryant2003,
Very, very helpful. The Huffington article on transition prep: Obama's preparation, thoroughness, seriousness... all great traits. The New Yorker reminder about appointments to the Supreme Court: If the appointment of Biden is an example of his judgment then I'm confident he'll choose wisely for the next justice. The WEsquire article...compelling reasons to beleive that Obama is the only hope we have...and a good summation of the tragedy of McCain.
thanks a heap...these are links worth passing on. --Jack
i feel good about voting for obama because he has shown tremendous calm, intelligence and, for the most part, leadership over the last 20 months under what might be the most intense microscope outside of lawrence livermore.
his speech on race was not simply political calculation designed to get him out of a jam-- he went against conventional wisdom and attempted to have an adult dialog with the american people about the painful complexities of race. his acceptance speech at the dnc also took things beyond the political "wisdom" in that it made an explicit case against trickle down economic theory and did not cower on social issues like abortion or civil rights for gay and lesbian people. and his economic speech just yesterday went beyond blaming greed and proposing government-led solutions-- he called americans on our profligacy and asked us to be more responsible. some hear mere speeches-- i feel good about voting for someone who is not afraid to speak uncomfortable truths, to accept and then attempt to explain the complexity of an issue, or to ask us all to participate in finding solutions.
that race speech, obviously, relates directly to your concerns about wright; i have to say that i heard nothing hateful, racist, anti-semitic, or intolerant in any of wright's speeches (i've listened to and read full sermons). his church was welcoming to all races, accepts gay and lesbian members, and is part of a predominantly white denomination. so when we talk about what obama exposed his daughters to, are we saying that we question the wisdom of exposing children to a perspective on america that refuses to overlook its racist, sexist, violent, homophobic or elitist warts? i see, instead, that the obamas exposed their children to a tolerant community with an emphasis on community service (ministries on prisons, schools, elder care, health), self-love and pride, which is no small thing in an american culture that continues to glorify the most ridiculous and stereotypical images of african americans. wright served this country in the marines and navy, so as far as i'm concerned, he has earned the right to both love and be critical of america. while much of his criticism comes from a theological frame that i don't agree with, i generally deem sincere critique as a form of patriotism...that's probably why many of us come to a blog like this. i disagree with wright's religion-- with theists in general-- but a) i don't think his interpretation of history and current events is completely without foundation, b) i don't think, despite the obvious performative aspects of his preaching style, he was being sinister or insincere in his critiques, but rather was using politics as a way to inspire, bind and motivate his congregation to continue to strive in the midst of a very difficult urban environment, and c) i don't think that children should be sheltered from a world of diverse ideas-- it is up to parents to have conversations to balance whatever kids encounter (personally, i find the shit in disney movies more problematic than what wright said). i think his comments on clinton and music were stupid and perfomative, his comments on aids without credibility (tuskegee not withstanding), and basically his ego a problem. but none of this, for even a second, causes me to question obama's judgment when it comes to policy or governing. our personal relations are complicated, and when people grow up without a parent, it is common for them to gravitate to people who fill that role however imperfectly. i see it as proof of nothing other than obama being human (despite all of mccain's 'the one ads). his ability to work with and to be respected by people that might be considered the opposite of wright-- lugar, coburn, lieberman, webb-- should put these fears to rest, especially if results over the next term or two is what we are concerned about.
as for pakistan, i don't think obama has said anything about scuttling diplomacy; in fact his entire foreign policy is built on restoring diplomacy in our foreign policy arsenal. i view pakistan in the context of what every democrat must do in the current political climate-- prove they are strong on defense and terrorism. i interpret his statements to mean that if pakistan is unwilling to get the job done despite our $10 billion of aid and military assistance and political support, AND actionable intelligence exists that will get OBL, then he will authorize that kind of limited action under those specific conditions. that does not sound like a hothead to me who will disregard pakistan out of hand or focus myopically on one person-- such conclusions could be reached only if we disregard everything else obama says about his foreign policy, everything his team of mostly clintonites has advocated over the years, everything his colleagues over the last 12 years in state and national office say about his working style, everything we have seen over the last 20 months of this campaign where he has made only a handful of missteps, and, lastly, how he carefully consulted with advisors from diverse economic perspectives and then rolled out a sober, coherent economic plan without the drama of say suspending his campaign.
i think you hit the nail on the head with the first executive decision these candidates made. palin was a cynical, expedient, irresponsible choice. biden was the choice of a person who doesn't want to be surrounded by yes men and women, who understood that he was selecting a person who needed to be ready to be president, and who wanted someone who could actually help him accomplish his legislative agenda via good, bi-partisan relationships throughout congress.
for the record, i don't like obama's afghanistan policy, don't agree with several of his domestic and social policies, and am concerned that he has over promised on large agenda items like health care and energy independence. nonetheless, i am happy to vote for a person who was not born privileged, who only became a millionaire 3 years ago and did so on his own merits, who knows what it is like to be on welfare, who knows what it is like to work his way through school, who knows what it is like to earn $15k a year, who has traveled the world and seen lots of different kinds of people, who has seen abject poverty first hand, who identifies as a human being with family connections on four continents, who is intellectually curious and enjoys deliberative debate, who is secure enough to be in a passionate and healthy marriage with a woman that is his equal, and, perhaps most importantly, seeks common ground in his language, tone and framing of issues when impasse appears to be the only option.
i'm happy to vote for a democrat with a real chance to govern given the congressional composition that will manifest-- in a post-bush/gingrich/delay era, it is my hope that these donkeys have learned their lesson and won't squander this majority the way kennedy-led democrats sabotaged the carter presidency... we'd likely already have health care and be energy independent if they had not.
so that's my case. no pol is perfect just as none of us are perfect; obama, however, is more than just a far superior choice to mccain-- he is a person who has demonstrated during the course of this campaign that he has the temperament, grasp of issues and vision necessary to govern capably, while also having the ability to inspire and challenge us as a nation to step fully into the twenty-first century. peace gkp
GKP,
Thank you most sincerely for taking the time to provide a very thoughtful and in-depth response. I have read your comments quickly due to the hour but will return again to reread so I can absorb all you have said.
Best, Jack
GKP,
Thank you most sincerely for taking the time to provide a very thoughtful and in-depth response. I have read your comments quickly due to the hour but will return again to reread so I can absorb all you have said.
Best, Jack
i hope it is somewhat coherent and somewhat helpful to you.
two other mentions: 1) his energy plan is excellent, particularly his focus on green collar jobs and solar, wind and geothermal. he mentions nuclear, clean coal and off-shore drilling because he is building a consensus to move more difficult alternatives onto the table, but almost anybody in energy (except the coal industry) agrees that effective carbon capture & sequestration (so-called clean coal) is 10-15 years away, as is a real solution to nuclear waste storage. storage for intermittent energy (wind, solar, wave) is pretty much already here. i think he is setting the table for more aggressive action once in office (i actually have the same sense about his health care plan-- he took a feasible angle early on because universal=socialism to many americans, but he miscalculated the post-sicko popularity of the universal plans that clinton and edwards put forward; i think he will angle towards their plan when he is in and has a big congressional majority). back to his energy plan, i see it, combined with his emphasis on rebuilding infrastructure, as a green new deal for america at a time when our industrial base needs reconstituting. the fact that he will have a governing majority and a country that has stomached spending over half a trillion dollars rebuilding iraq leads me to believe that he can actually deliver here. if energy independence is reasonably in sight after his second term (he proposes 10 years), then he will have done more for american security and global environmental well-being than any president in our lifetimes.
2) his plan to expand educational benefits for domestic public service is, similarly, peace corps 2.0 and exactly the kind of civic engagement that can restore our eroding democratic institutions. i am excited to vote for a president who welcomes the participation of all citizens as opposed to just the half of the country that agrees and voted for him. i am excited to see what a 21st century president whose campaign masterfully used 21st century technology to raise unprecedented contributions (over $250 million from donations of $200 or less!) and build an unprecedented ground game will do with 2 million citizens willing and eager to work in their communities. I really think there is tremendous potential here for a renewed sense of democracy in a country that has been dominated by two multi-millionaire political families for the last 20 years, and has watched congressional and cabinet seats become only for millionaires (over half of congress and about 80% of bush's cabinet). yes, it is obscene that between these two candidates, more money will be spent on getting elected president than the entire bailout package, and no, obama will not be able to change this (unless he returns to his work on campaign finance with feingold and advocates for a true public finance system... but i doubt it)... but the call to service in exchange for college benefits will bring tend of thousands of young people into our schools, elder care facilities, national parks, community centers, hospitals and governments... i think that is a vision worth getting excited about and something that is politically feasible in his first term. peace gkp
GKP,
Thanks again for the additional post. My delay in responding is because I took time to reread your posts, listen again to Obama's speech on race in its entirety, and also revisit reports in caucus fraud. My view about Obama has improved. But I think the change in my view towards Obama is proportionate to the willingness on my part to drop angers and resentments over a very flawed Democratic primary that selected the lesser candidate for the party's nominee. For those who supported Obama from the start, it will not be apparant. Just as Obama's strong points were not as apparant
Sorry, I hit "send" before finishing...
As I was saying... But many who saw Hillary as the strongest candidate, also saw overt media (aka corporate-controlled media) bias and results from caucus states that defied statistical sense. (Google "lynette long" "caucus analysis" to see some discussions on this). The end result is to feel the election was again stolen and the tendency is to assign guilt to the last candidate standing, Obama and stop there. I am trying to move beyond that stopping point.
I am very concerned that Obama will not know when to hold firm and when to seek the common ground. His solution to our Health Care system seeks common ground which will not solve the problem of a for-profit healthcare system.
In rehearing Obama's speeches and listening to him, I still agree with the majority of the Democratic party that Hillary was the stronger candidate, but I do feel better than I did before about Obama.
I will continue to revisit this string to read and consider.
Thanks, by the way, Norm for hosting this forum.
--Jack
Jack,
GKP hit most of the good stuff. It's highly unlikely that any of us will ever have a candidate with whom we completely agree.
Quite frankly, Hillary Clinton said she's obliterate anyone who attacked Israel, and she had some questionable campaign tactics herself. She does have a tremendous grasp of the issues, though, and I would have supported her had she been the nominee.
As for a little extra Obama support, forget that he has laid out economic policies that favor the middle class rather than the upper crust. Forget that he supports a woman's right to choose. Forget that he does have a viable and palatable health care plan, and that he took a good cue or 2 from HRC.
No matter what shit has been thrown his way, Barack Hussein Obama has responded with great leadership characteristics. His speech on race was one such example, and his speech in Berlin is another. He has shown a cool head in the face of the barrage of "terrorist" cries and whiny cries of media bias and that his race wan an advantage to obtaining the Democratic Party nomination. As you noted, Obama has the foresight to consult with terrific resources. I believe he said (basically) "It's not so much what you know or don't know, or that you realize what you don't know. It's realizing that you may not be aware of what you don't know." Thus Obama will seek out facts and opinions of those who are well versed in different areas of expertise, even if they were coming from a different political view than his own.
It seems that most folks are now ready for a leader with a cool head who is willing to delve into the nuances of problems. The choice in this election is clear.
Jack- For the record, I agree that Sen. Clinton was an incredibly strong candidate; after the first three debates, I was prepared to vote for her. I should also note that, among the three Democratic front-runners, John Edwards was the closest candidate to my political perspective (glad we dodged that bullet). I don't think it is productive for me to re-hash why I ultimately chose to vote for Obama in the primary, but I do wish to submit to you that there is much more to Sen. Obama's win than media bias and a flawed primary system. Simply put, media ridiculousness (i don't even like to call it bias as that accepts the false assumption that any media is truly objective) towards both candidates is well documented, and both were subject to the same flawed primary system-- the question is who succeeded within these constraints? The fact is, Sen. Obama built a much more modern, nimble, disciplined and effective grassroots political machine than Sen. Clinton, and as a result, his ground game dominated in caucus states, and his multimedia communication strategy-- paid for by his Dean 2.0 fundraising strategy-- drowned out the mainstream media nonsense. Remember, Sen. Clinton had the top Democratic official-- from governors to u.s. congressional leaders to mayors to state legislative leaders-- as the chairs of her campaign in every state; almost the entire Democratic establishment was supporting her, and Sen. Obama's campaign still generated the success that it did. I think that is remarkable and a testimony to his leadership abilities, his judgment in terms of the team he surrounds himself with, and his ability to execute. so leaving "lesser" aside, his leadership instincts and skills give me confidence that he will govern well... that he will know when to "hold firm" and, perhaps more importantly, that even when you hold firm (like on abortion), you must simultaneously highlight the common ground (nobody is pro-abortion). And in terms of what is good for the country, I am confident that since a majority of Obama's advisors have strong Clinton ties, and since Sen. Clinton puts her country before her ego, the experience and judgment that made Sen.Clinton such an attractive candidate will not be wasted over the next 4-8 years.
I appreciate your honesty and hope we are all pleasantly surprised by a federal government with effective, wise and ethical leadership-- a tall order for any single politician, man or woman. peace, gkp
Thanks GKP, This has been a great discourse. Obama's campaign was most the most successful during the primary. And, during this election cycle his skills have only improved. He has done more than "handle" the expected "swift boat" tactics...how he has responded has been inspiring...he has not let those attacks set the agenda.
I sincerely hope our leadership begins to respect intelligence and appeal to the better natures in all of us. My 15-year-old twins have known only the lies and abuses of the Bush/Cheney regime for their cognitive years. I just wonder what the longterm effects will be of these past 8 years.
I deeply hope the country chooses Obama because choosing McCain, with his nose-thumbing choice of a running mate, would be to choose more of the same.
As the brilliant "Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich" episode of South Park taught us:
"An election is always between the douche and a turd, because they're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics."
http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=808
Maybe this will help you feel better about voting for Obama
To Barack Hussein ObamaThe New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about "race" contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without "preparations" at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered "I would" to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without "any" preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a "Captain" of a platoon in Afghanistan "the other day" when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a "professor of Constitutional law" when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you "taught a law class" and never mentioned being a "professor of Constitutional law." You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America.
During your campaign, you said: "typical white person." "They cling to their guns and religion." "They will say that I am black." You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America.
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.
The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America.
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you "changed" your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America.
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America. Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America.
Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
You lied to America. You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with "Country first." Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for "change" like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.
Mr. Obama, you are not the "change" that America deserves. We cannot trust you.
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
Michael Master
McLean, Virginia
Find More Truth
Gee... I wonder who you are voting for? It should be suffice just NOT to reply to your Neo Con Fox News Rhetoric (is this Sean Hannity by the way.. if not, sure sound like him!)...
So it is because of Obama what people are and not teaching in schools? WHAT A LIE AND DISTORTED NON FACt..
What proof do you have people are teaching first graders about sex? I still have to see this proof.. and Sean Hannity started this rant a long time ago
Obama's dishonest character??? How bout Mccain and his 3, or 4 or was it 6 houses and 11 cars? HOw bout Mccain and forgetting things he said and then saying the complete opposite.. How bout the 2 brain cell idiot that is Palin and her numerous lies..... how DARE YOU even call anyone else dishonest when Mccain is running that shit
Wow - I'm too busy to read the whole thing but...
Paragraph 1)
I just read the first NY Times article you quoted - YOU MUST BE KIDDING. It seems the big complaint is not that Obama is a radical - it is that he is not progressive enough (a complaint on this blog, too.)
I can't find the article from the Chicago Sun Times you quoted on May 8....
I'm not going to do all the work on paragraph 3. Where in his speech did he contradict his statement (link please) on the 14th.
4th paragraph - preparations and preconditions sound like two different things to me.
5th paragraph - links - too vague...BTW - I don't think the "surge" is what's working - I think it's paying the Sunni's $250,000 a year to join forces with us in the CLCs.
I don't have time to go through the rest of this garbage. There are probably some valid comments there - I don't think any of us could stand up to absolute sunlight and we're not even politicians - but, I would guess it's chickenfeed compared to the deceit of McCain so if your big concern is being deceived - you better start your McCain/Palin list up.
Obama '08
Miss Bryant;.. you said it so much better than I tried to!
Michael Master, I find your response riddled with judgments based on parsed statements/events to suit and support your biases so I find none of your arguments persuasive. Thanks for taking the time to write extensively but I think your time would be better spent in reading.
Michael,
You said, "Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not."
I won't take the time to got through your entire list since some of it is stuff I agree with, some of it is trivial, and some of it is b.s..
I will say this though, anyone who does not vote on "personal political issues" over "character" does not understand they are electing someone to a political office. As the great Michael Franti once said, "I don't care who they're screwing in private, I want to know who they're screwing in public."
Also, if you want to go on character, and base this character analysis on who has lied the most, I think you'll find John "No... I mean yes, Bush tax cuts" McCain and Sarah "Yes... I mean no thanks, Bridge to Nowhere" Palin are quite formidable opponents when it comes to the game of lying.
I am not a fan of Obama and have called him out an many things in the past, but I am still baffled how anyone at this point could feel in a fair judgement of "character" that McCain has much to go on. His campaign has been derided by many on every side of the aisle for it's distortion, lies and contradictions, he's been called out many times by all sides for going against many of his core beliefs just to win favor with the radical element of the right (i.e. torture, taxes, regulation).
I don't expect you to be excited about Obama - as I share a similar distrust of him - but I'd at least like to think someone capable of putting together such a long laundry list of accusations about Obama would be equally capable of giving such a critical eye to McCain.
Couldn't agree more Git; Obama has his issues and so does Biden..all of which I have called out as well... but with the lesser of two evils being OBama and Biden... It's unreal anyone judges Obama with the "Character" attacks when the other side is just as if not more guilty.
Oboma DID NOT WIN, ABC,CNN,CBS,MSNBC,NBC,S&L Wins, America LOSES America was suckered by there Liberal News Agenda
The process of evolution can and will destroy a country from the inside out and all the while appear to be simply a neutral or natural phase, neither beneficial nor adversarial. When the time for accountability is realized, the country finds itself like a boat without a rudder as they allow the process of evolution to have free reign, unchecked and unrestrained. It is not a Revolution, it is a process of Evolution but the results are the same. 2012 The Evolution articulates the potential results for this horrendous scenario.