Inspiration, Motivation, Screeds and Attitude

Liberals want a winner and they want something called CHANGE - even if they are not quite sure what that means? Many who are coming out to support obama don't seem to want to be bothered with the facts.

They just want to FEEL good and Obama and motivation and style makes them feel good. A candidate like Barack Obama really turns them on. They're not going to be persuaded by economist Paul Krugman who writes for the New York Times, by radio host Taylor Marsh who is only available online at the present time, by Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, or former CIA officers Larry Johnson and Valarie Plame - both of whom support Clinton, or journalist Paul Street, among the MANY others (including myself) because they don't want to be confused with too many details. Obama is their man. Don't give them substance, give them inspiration.

"Obama generated excitement among people fed up with politics as usual in the U.S., and he promotes himself as representing "generational change." But his campaign has been plagued--at least until recently--by the correct perception among most people that this is all style over substance. His proposals don't depart at all from the moderate-to-conservative ones pursued by mainstream Democrats over the last quarter century." (Paul Street 12/13/2007 - See Paul Street's articles in Zmag and Alternet)

The Obama Illusion

Obama lovers want the the tall handsome black prince, leading them out of the bowels of purgatory to a new land of milk and honey. And to do that Obama has coop-ted the anti-war movement, which he has never been part of nor ever participated in an anti-war march to protest U.S. imperialism. He wasn't in the Senate to vote for or against the war resolution and we don't know what he would have done if given the same information that was provided to other members of the Congress who did (thinking also that Bush would use the resolution to pressure Saddam and would not take them to war without the real threat of another terrorist attack on the U.S.). Obama's campaign sent out a mailing which said, "From the very beginning, Barack Obama said No to the War in Iraq. Join the movement to end the war and chance Washington" (Obama for America 2007) equating himself with the anti-war movement.

In late July of 2004, Obama admitted to the New York Times that he did not know how he would have voted on the 2002 Iraq war resolution had he been serving in the United States Senate at the time of the vote. Here is what the NYT said, "In a recent interview [Obama' declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.' But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'WHAT WOULD I HAVE DONE? I DON'T KNOW.' (emphasis mine) What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made'" (New York Times, 26 July, 2004). If he had been privy to Senate Intel, he is however not sure. AND neither are we. But that doesn't stop him from lying about it.

The anti-war movement is opposed to THE War just as the movement is opposed to `naked and one-sided U.S. imperial aggression' which has been the history of the U.S. for 200 years. Obama is not part of that anti-war movement. Instead Obama criticized what he called "dumb wars" as opposed, we must presume to wars which are not dumb. He never mentioned the war was motivated by oil and imperialism nor did he mention the death of over a million Iraqis because Obama's calculations are based on political exigency and his political gain, not truth.

Qualification for his run for the presidency came in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote address, the one which propelled him onto the national political scene. That was his first and only exposure on the national stage.

"In the part of his famous 2004 Democratic Convention Keynote Address (generally credited with producing his national celebrity) that came closest to directly criticizing the Iraq invasion, Obama suggested that the Bush administration had "fudged the numbers" and "shad[ed] the truth" about why "our young men and women" were "sent into harms way." He added that the U.S. must "care for [soldiers'] families while they're gone, tend to the soldiers upon their return, and never go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world." (ibid)

"Morally cognizant and reasonably informed listeners were left to wonder about the considerably larger quantity (well into the tens of thousands) of Iraqis who had been killed and maimed and who lost income as a result of the criminal U.S. invasion of their country by the summer of 2004. What about the massive harm U.S. forces were ordered to inflict on Iraqis, considerably greater than the damage they experienced?" (ibid)

Liberals and some Republican cross-over voters who now back an Obama presidency are not appalled by that speech, as THEY SHOULD BE. Many, I would guess don't remember the actual content. Obama is a war monger. He is deceptive. And those who are falling in behind him now just want to be inspired. They want another Martin Luther King. He is no MLK. They want another JFK. He is no JFK, and if he was you would not want him. JFK was not the great leader which has become legend and there is no Camelot and never was one.

Radioactive Leak

Obama Lies About Legislation to Regulate Nuclear Plants

When Exelon Corporation made a public admission that one of their nuclear plants had a radioactive leak and residents in Illinois were concerned, Barack Obama introduced a bill that would require plant owners to notify the state and the local authorities immediately about even very small leaks. AND Obama hasn't failed to boast about it while campaigning for president.

The problem with that is Obama doesn't tell the whole truth. Obama did introduce legislation, however he watered it down to satisfy Senate Republicans, regulators and even Exelon, the company with the leaks.

"The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks." (NY Times, February 3, 2008 - "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate" by Mike McIntire)

"Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." (ibid)

That is the part Obama neglects to mention. And surprise, surprise:

"Exelon, the country's largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama's largest sources of campaign money." (NYT)

"Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers." (ibid)

"Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry's lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon's support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate." (ibid)

"In addition, Mr. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod's company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues." (ibid)

Is anyone surprised? I'm certain Obama supporters would rather not hear this. This is typical in Obamaland. Obama is a liar. And Obama takes money and gives as good as he receives. He received from Rezko also and he gave as good as he received.

"Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed." (NYT)

Articles of Impeachment Against Bush

Obama has been opposed to bringing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. Now I hear from the Obama choir how bad impeachment would be and some even say there ae no grounds for impeachment. A month ago some of these same people were in favor of impeachment but if Obama says it, it must be true. It is clearly amazing how quickly things change (but still stay the same). Things still do stay the same in the general scheme of things. Another-words, the rich will continue to get richer and the poor will get poorer and be joined by the quickly disintegrating middle-class.

And Obama is winning hearts and minds with his pontificating for a new America where there is no racism because we already came 90% of the way, according to a previous statement by Obama, and both Democrats and Republicans love each other. Well, that isn't my world. It doesn't appear to be anyone's world but it may well be the Obama vision of the world - because Obama never paid those kinds of dues. Although it is hard to know since anything really critical is glossed over by the media.

That isn't to say the truth about Obama hasn't been partially revealed, at least, and if you start digging for it you will find why the Republicans will win the general election if he is nominated to be the Democratic candidate. As a candidate his message is minimal and amorphous. He would be an on-the-job training president and his mistakes will be our mistakes. There have already been enough mistakes with Bush.

Has everyone forgotten how well off they were during the Clinton presidency simply because of how bad the Bush presidency has been? There were a lot of things wrong with the Clinton presidency and I was always among the first to say so, but fair is fair. One of the things I remember so well was how much better off I was and so was my handicapped son. Today all that has changed. And the disabled are really feeling the cut backs. As a veteran I have seen and felt some very important cutting back. And a lot of middle class people (maybe you are one of them) have lost their businesses and their homes and many have been forced into bankruptcy at greater numbers than ever before - and that was not happening with Clinton, but does seem to happen whenever we see a rightward shift in government - AND, Obama is a right wing Democrat and he really likes the Republicans and says they have ideas. So do I. Get rid of the Republicans and take Obama with them.

In a general election if Obama is the nominee there will be a lot of Democrats crossing over or staying home. What will you do? Or, do you like Barack (Hussein) Obama and if so, why?

Mantra for Change

Obama is like a rockstar

Every generation has their stars. Some are better than others. I'm not impressed but I have lived far longer than the young groupies and idol worshipers who are catapulting Barack Obama to prominence.

But as to differences between the two remaining contenders, there are many over policy issues. BUT in the Senate they are very close to following the liberal line. Both of them. They are both very careful to follow the party line. Obama sided with Republicans against Democrats 97% of the time in his first two years in the Senate and during that time Hillary did so 94% of the time. They agreed with each other 93.2% of the time on all votes in the Senate in 2005 and 2006. (per CQ senior reporter Greg Giroux)

Political scientists at the U of Ca-San Diego, Keith T. Poole, analyzed 93 percent of roll call votes in the 109th Congress and found Obama and Clinton had essentially the same vote record. Both candidates are in the Democratic center.

Personally, in my view, I don't think Ted Kennedy and John Kerry's endorsements for Barack Obama are going to help him as much as some may think. I think there will be negative consequences as people look at who is supporting these candidates. It isn't in the polling, but I suspect there will be a number of Democrats who dislike Kennedy and Kerry enough to cross-over and vote for the Republican nominee, especially if it is the more centrist McCain, in spite of his pro-war position on Iraq.

There is a lot about Obama which puts him squarely on the right of Hillary Clinton. His refusal now to back Hillary Clinton's moratorium on home fore closures and a freeze on mortgage interest rates is anti-progressive. Hillary also has a better position on health care which she wants to take universal and Obama, who is a staunch capitalist and supporter of the health care industry over health care consumers is opposed to legislation which would not be beneficial to that industry. After-all he has a vested interest in high profitability for the health care industry, since his wife is firmly embedded for which she receives over 300,000 dollars a year and no doubt that corporate payola contributed to his acquisition of a $1.6 million dollar mansion.

Where is Obama on movement of jobs out of the country. And stopping fore closures. Stopping higher interest rates and extending the freeze until long after the recession has ended. It is not on his agenda to make too many changes in the status quo even as he repeats his mantra for change.

Unconventional Wisdom?

Candidate Barack Obama told 6,000 people at Arizona State University, "I'm not running to uphold conventional wisdom. I'm running to change the conventional wisdom."

"I'm not running to uphold conventional wisdom. I'm running to change the conventional wisdom.'" [East Valley Tribune, 10/19/07] So, what might that conventional wisdom be Senator Obama? What is conventional about wisdom? Is it the prevailing view that you are challenging or the standard conventional Republican wisdom - and how might that differ from the standard conventional Democratic wisdom. I would like to know.

Obama has always struck me as being "thin on substance" and his criticism of welfare puts him squarely in the conservative camp. His economic advisers (from Louis Proyect's essay), include Austan Goolsbee, U. of Chicago neoclassicist and critic of Michael Moore's "Sicko", which points out the advantages of single payer health care. Obama's other economic advisers are Harvard economist David Cutler who believes that high health costs are good for the economy and Harvard economist Jeffrey Liebman who co-authored a paper vis-a-vis the feasibility and favor-ability for privatizing social security.

Obama tells us his candidacy is "challenging conventional wisdom." What he should be telling you is, is candidacy is challenging conventional wisdom of Democrats. He wraps up and puts a ribbon around conservative positions and sells it as unconventional and indeed it is. It should appeal to Blue Dog Democrats and for the mainstream and the left it is still the same old conservative line of march.

Yet the challenge to convention is his rationale for running and it sounds good to all those young voters who, like him, do not have the experience of Democratic administrations and most barely remember, if at all, the prosperity enjoyed under Clinton when for the first time the budget deficits were eliminated and people were earing more relative to inflation what they are now and jobs were being created in numbers which would not only keep up with the natural increase in the labor force but exceeding it. With Bush we have negative job growth and income has fallen. Bush is destroying the middle class. During Clinton's administration the middle class increased and there was more job security. Is that the conventional wisdom he eschews or is it social security and entitlements, the old mantra of the right?

It is strange that he now says he didn't mean it as a compliment when he said the Republicans were the "party of ideas" and when Reagan was "challenging conventional wisdom" it wasn't what he meant that he is now "challenging conventional wisdom." Are we to believe those terms mean different things and we should just take his definition at the time depending on the criticism he receives for saying them - and they must mean entirely opposite things - one thing for Democrats and one thing for Republicans? Does your head hurt yet?

Should we say to Obama nice endorsement from Ted Kennedy too, but Kennedy's plan which he and Bush co-supported and he ushered through the Congress for "No Child Left Behind" left all the children behind? And maybe Kennedy's judgment is not so good after-all.

"It's time to get off of the conventional wisdom and try something new," he told 500 people at Roosevelt Middle School in NE Cedar Rapids. [The Gazette, 7/30/07] BUT, what is the conventional wisdom? Is it time to try some Democratic wisdom, in which case it is a good idea to elect a Democrat, but why someone who has never been to Europe? Why you? Why not someone with experience? Someone who is in favor of universal health care, not budgeted health care, not much different than we have right now. Your health care plan is conventional. Your plan is conventional and misses at least 15 million people in addition to those who will still be under-insured. Hillary's health care plan is the unconventional for the U.S. which is the worst in the industrialized world when it comes to providing health care because you see UNIVERSAL single payer - which is what Clinton prefers, is the conventional everywhere else BUT HERE.

Why is there a media blackout about slumlord Tony Rezko's arrest? Obama is so thick with Rezko they could be living in the same house. Oh, that's right, they live next door to each other and Rezko arranged it (and the price of his million dollar mansion was hundreds of thousands below what it cost the last owner). Rezko is in trouble for taking and demanding political favors. And he lied to the Feds. Ex CIA agent Larry Johnson on NoQuarter.Com writes:

Rezko (a native Syrian)..."claimed in November 2006 he had no assets and was virtually broke, but in April 2007 he received $3.5 million from a company owned by an Iraqi billionaire who also happens to be a convicted felon. The man's name? Nadhmi Auchi."

"So what does this have to do with Obama? Well, buried in a footnote in the motion for an arrest warrant, we learn that Auchi was denied a visa to the United States because of his conviction in France on fraud charges. Auchi's buddy, Rezko sent a request to the U.S. Department of State in November 2005 for a visa waiver. And Rezko asked unidentified "Illinois government officials" to ask for clearance as well. How much you want to bet one of those officials was Barack Hussein Obama?"

The Rezko trial begins on February 25th (2008). That is when I believe we will hear a lot more unless there is a gag order to keep the press from reporting the trial. In the interim Barack Obama is attempting to nail down the Democratic nomination. What do you think the Republicans will do with this?

As Larry points out, first comes the "...Rezko trial and we learn Obama was doing favors to get an Iraqi felon a visa to the United States. You know, he is just helping out one of his major fund raisers. Will his story line about a new day in Washington still sound plausible? Will folks still believe he's serious about not being beholden to "special interests?""

Hank Roth

All (if any) quoting per the Fair Use Doctrine
for educational and discussion purposes pursuant to
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, Copyright Law.