Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Obama: Hope or Hype?


George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. Mahatma Gandhi. Martin Luther King Jr. The names of these men are almost universally associated with greatness. All of them have brought true hope and change to their countries in times of strife and struggle.

Does the name Barack Obama deserve to be uttered in the same breath as these men? Can Barack bring about the changes and provide the hope that he has claimed on so many occasions that he can and will do? Is Barack the “new generation of leadership” as Ted Kennedy has claimed? Can he “bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad?” as Bill Richardson has claimed? Can he “Heal our nation and save our souls” as Michelle Obama has asserted? Or is it just politics as usual on the campaign trail?

No one can answer these questions with a definite yes or no. Therefore, we need to take a look at what kind of leader Obama has been in the past and what experiences have shaped him as a human being. We as voters have a duty to ourselves and to our country to see what kind of people the leaders we elect have been in their lives and how they have led.

At first glance, Obama is an impressive man. Obama is a brilliant orator and as any good lawyer should, he possesses a strong and persuasive voice. Obama’s speeches have been known to be touching and inspiring. He has bridged the issue of race. He has vowed fight inflating health care costs. He has vowed to never take any money from political action committees or big corporate lobbyists. He has vowed to take on NAFTA. He has stated that he has the experience to lead. Can we believe him?

Who is Barack Obama?

As we discussed in class, a persons ideologies are formed early in their lives.
Obama was born in 1962 in Honolulu, Hawaii. His mother and father separated when he was 2. When he was 6, Obama moved with his mother and new step father to Indonesia where he lived until he was 10 years old. At this point in his life, Barack or “Barry” as he was called at the time returned to Hawaii to live with his Methodist, “typical white grand mother” in her high-rise apartment where he lived until his high school graduation in 1979.

Obama attended Occidental College and Columbia University, receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1983. In 1985, Obama moved to Chicago where he first joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ congregation.
In 1988, Barack attended Harvard Law School and graduated in 1991. He was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

Obama returned to Chicago and was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, where he served 4 terms.

One fact that is of no importance but is interesting none the less is that on his mothers side Obama has “blood kinship with Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell, George Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, James Madison, Dick Cheney, Brad Pitt and confederate general Robert E Lee

Can Barack stand on the issues?

Obama began his political life in the Illinois State Senate where he championed ethics and health care reform; Issues that have persisted in to his U.S. Senate experience and in his Presidential bid.

While it is normal for a presidential candidate who is in the house or the Senate to miss a few votes while running for office, Barack has missed 37.4% in the 110th session of Congress. However, in his first ever term as Senator in the 109th session of Congress Barack only missed 1.7%. Barack’s votes have been fairly consistent with his positions developed in his early career. However, Obama has regularly avoided votes on abortion laws.

In 2004, Barack spoke at the Democratic National Convention giving a speech that inspired many people including Oprah Winfrey. After which, Oprah began throwing around Obama’s name as a man who she would like to see run for president. And if Oprah says it, the people of the world must obey or suffer the wrath of Dr. Phil.

Most of Obama’s national identity has been during his campaign. Unfortunately, Obama has had several recent flaps that have been highly publicized which may impact his presidential bid.

In September of 2007, Obama slammed Hillary Clinton in regards to her comment that it was ok to take money from P.A.C.’s and Lobbyists as they represented the common people. Obama had stated that he would not take campaign contributions from lobbyists. However, while he was serving in Illinois he did take money from health care lobbyists while he was working on healthcare legislation. Seems like politics as usual to me.

In March of 2008, at the Democratic primary debate in Ohio, Obama stated that he would renegotiate NAFTA with Mexico and Canada and stated that he had been consistent about his position on the issue. However, when Barack was questioned about NAFTA in 2004, he stated that he would not repeal NAFTA as he thought that it would cause more harm than good giving to the fact that NAFTA has been entrenched in to America’s economic system for 10 years. Even worse and more “Politics as usual”, Canadian CTV reported the day after the debate an Obama staffer contacted the Canadian Embassy and assured them that Obama’s statements were just “Political rhetoric” and insinuated that no matter what he said, Barack was simply trying to get elected.

Of course no discourse on the recent history of the presidential campaign would be complete without mentioning the shit storm that surrounded Barack’s ties to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. While I will not rehash the comments made by Wright, his “retirement” and Barack’s subsequent inspiring “A More Perfect Union” speech trying to explain the race relations (that he fully experienced in Hawaii and Jakarta.) I will say that if Barack wanted to experience true America, he should have chosen a different congregation.

In Summation, I feel that Obama is simply another Hamiltonian politician who believes the elite know and understand what’s best for the common man. Obama is a Marcus Garvey for our times if you will. He is a man whose own privileged upbringing taints his views and will lead to decisions that are not in the best interest of the rest of the population.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote



New York: One of Americas original Thirteen Colonies. New York: The state represented by Hillary Clinton in the United States Senate. New York: Would Hillary cheat to win her home state?

In this February 16th article in the New York Times, Sam Roberts takes an objective look at the vote tally issues that faced New York Democratic Primary voters. The article explains how major voting errors were initially reported during the primary. In New York’s “94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District” it was initially reported that Obama did not receive any votes at all. Although there have been several articles on this subject, Roberts article has been the most objective and the most thorough in its speculation of what has happened.

Some articles have decried blatant fraud such another February 16th article in the rival publication the New York Post. In her article “Obama ‘Robbed’ in NY”, author Ginger Adams quotes Brooklyn City Councilman Charles Barron as saying "I think this is an all-out effort to stop a campaign that is about to make history and render America's first black president,” As it happens, Barron happens to be a former member of the Black Panthers and holds some rather controversial views of American Government. Adams did not quote anyone else in her article.

In what could only be described as a side bar in the February 20th edition of the New York Post, “Mike Claims Vote ‘Fraud’”, David Seifman used only 64 words to quote New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as saying "If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that's a euphemism for fraud," Seifman offered no other explanations or elaborations in this poor simulacra of an article.

Of Course Alex Jones, whom I single-handedly blame for Ron Paul’s loss, (yes that is bias boys and girls) is still busy with the supposed fraud in New Hampshire and Willie Nelsons calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush

Even with the media hysteria over the caucuses and primaries of late it seemed that this issue has had a very light level of coverage. Our very own Austin American Statesman held no coverage of the alleged voting issues

However, in Sam Roberts’ article many options are explored. Roberts and his staff look at the possibility of “Voter confusion”, a term anyone who watched the 2000 elections is familiar with. (Think “Hanging Chads”). The “Voter Confusion” Theory was attributed to Jerome A. Koenig. Koenig happens to be an advisor to the Obama campaign and is also a former chief of staff to the State Assembly’s Election Law Committee. Magnanimously, Roberts, et al. do not stop there. The article also quotes Gordon J. Davis who is an Obama poll watcher claiming that “the machine had a mind of its own” In his previous job as the President of the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts, many New Yorkers would say Davis had the same issue.
The article also poses some very interesting points as to who was in charge where during this election primary.


In spite of all the speculation and finger-pointing, it is thought that the full recount and final confirmation will not be complete for several weeks.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -- Russian Dictator Joseph Stalin