About Me

Name: Lady Logician
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The Incredible Lightness Of Obama

Jim Geraghty over at the Campaign Spot points readers to a Houston Press article written by a former Chicago reporter for yet another example of Senator Obama's temper.  However, as I read the article, I was more taken in by the vacuous depths of the Senator's paper thin record.  That and just how much of a machine politician he really is.

Let me start by saying I grew up in Chicago so there is nothing about Chicago politics that surprises me.  So when I read things like this:

 

Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.

The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.

Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's ­kingmaker.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio ­program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"

"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"

"Barack Obama."

I am not surprised then to see this:

 

So how has Obama repaid Jones?

Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones's Senate district.

Shortly after Jones became Senate president, I remember asking his view on pork-barrel spending.

I'll never forget what he said:

"Some call it pork; I call it steak."


follow it up.  And when it comes to his claims of being someone who gets things "done":

 

On the stump, Obama has frequently invoked his experiences as a community organizer on the Chicago South Side in the early 1990s, when he passed on six-figure salary offers at corporate law firms after graduating from Harvard Law School to direct a massive voter-registration drive.

But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues, from historic preservation to the rapid demolition of nearby public-housing projects, according to many South Siders.

Harold Lucas, a veteran South Side community organizer who remembers when Obama was "just a big-eared kid fresh out of school," says he didn't finally decide to support Obama's presidential bid until he was actually inside the voting booth on Super Tuesday.

"I'm not happy about the quality of life in my community," says Lucas, who now heads a black-heritage tourism business in Chicago. "As a local elected official, he had a primary role in that."

 

Emphasis mine.  Let's just say that reality is much colder...

Obama's aloofness on key community issues for years frustrated Lucas and many other South Siders. Now they believe he was just afraid of making political enemies or being pigeonholed as a black candidate. Lucas says he has since become an ardent Obama supporter.


Again emphasis mine.  The reality is that Obama made a cold, calculated political move...then again, that has been the story of his political life.  It has been one calculated political move after another....

 

Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position.

He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets — to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district — to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

"A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career," wrote Tribune political reporters David Jackson and Ray Long. "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."


Emphasis mine.  That has long been the local conventional wisdom on Obama....the ruthlessness with which he dealt with anyone who challenged him.  We have only seen glimpses of this during the primary...the RNC would be wise to learn from this - as should the McCain Campaign.  This candidate will talk the talk, but when it comes to "playing nice" he will not walk the walk.

 

Three years later, in September 1999, Obama was already preparing his first national campaign. He ran for U.S. Congress against veteran incumbent Bobby Rush, a former co-founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party.

Rush painted the largely unknown freshman lawmaker as an out-of-touch elitist, and won the 2000 primary by more than 30 percentage points.

 

You know....when Bobby Rush calls you an "out of touch elitist" you are in deep water.

If you want to know how Barack Obama will handle any dissent from the Democratic ranks during this campaign all you need to do is read the closing paragraphs....

 

A week after my profile of Obama was published, I called some of my contacts in the Illinois Legislature. I ran through a list of black Chicago lawmakers who had worked with Obama, and was surprised to learn that many resented him and had supported other candidates in the U.S. Senate election.

"Anybody but Obama," the late state Representative Lovana Jones told me at the time.

State Representative Monique Davis, who attended the same church as Obama and co-sponsored several bills with him, also did not support his candidacy. She complained of feeling overshadowed by Obama.

"I was snubbed," Davis told me. "I felt he was shutting me out of history."

In a follow-up report published a couple weeks later, I wrote about these disgruntled black legislators and the central role Senate President Emil Jones played in Obama's revived political life.

The morning after the story was posted online, I arrived early at my new offices. I hadn't taken my coat off when the phone rang. It was Obama.... He said the black legislators I cited in the story were off-base, and that they couldn't have gotten the bills passed without him.

I started to speak, and he shouted me down...I asked if there was anything factually inaccurate about the latest story.

He repeated that his former colleagues couldn't have passed the bills without him.

He asked why I wrote this story, then cut me off when I started to answer.

He said he should have been given a chance to respond.

I told him I had requested an interview through his communications director.

He said I should have called his cell phone.

I reminded him that he had asked me months ago to stop calling his cell phone due to his busier schedule.

Today I no longer have Obama's cell phone number. I submitted two formal requests to interview Obama for this story through his Web site, but have not heard back. I also e-mailed interview requests to three of his top staffers, but none responded.

Maybe he'll call the day after this story runs. I'll get to the office early just in case. And this time I'll have my recorder ready.


Todd Spivak has seen the "real" Barack Obama up close.  The real Barack Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine.  He is a man who quickly figured out how to use the political machine to his advantage.  However, as a product of the machine, you have to realize that the "empty suit" that most people see is not what it appears to be.  It is all part of the chameleon like nature that is necessary to "win at all costs".

Spivak's story is a cautionary tale of what Republicans can expect this fall from the candidate of "Hope and Change".

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sweetie?

Senator Barack Obama was in Michigan talking to a group of workers in an automobile plant when a member of the press shouted a question his way...





EXCUSE ME?!?!?!?! What did you say Senator?




Now I have to admit that the reporter's  snide remark in closing the story was pretty good.  I know that I would not have been quite as restrained as she was.  After all, we women have come too far to be relegated back to "sweetie" by some guy....especially some guy who is running for President.

I wonder what the press reaction will be to this.  I wonder what it would have been if John McCain had said it....
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Tale of Two America(n)s

We've all seen the bumper stickers...."Better a Bleeding Heart Than None At All" and "Republicans Are People Too....Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" but how accurate are those statements?

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

 
The Logical Household is not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination but we do faithfully give to charity.  Last year, we gave almost 14% of our total income to church and charity (Lupus Foundation, DAV and others).  I don't say this to brag - I say it as confirmation of the thesis of the article.   I also know from conversations past that there are many liberals here whose actions blow this thesis apart....however, in general the thesis is valid.  Which leads us to...Barack "We Can Be Better" Obama.
 
Recently Sen. Obama released his tax records for the last 1o years.  For a man who bitterly complains about how poorly certain portions of the country are treated...who exhorts us to do better, the records are another example of a politician who couldn't "
walk the talk" if their lives (or careers) depended on it.   
In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas
reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income.

 That amount increased when Senator Obama hit the financial "lottery" by signing two book deals.

Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006, with the explosion of their annual income to near $1 million, and the advent of Mr. Obama’s national political aspirations (representing a rare case in which political ambition apparently led to social benefit).

What is so laughable (and hypocritical) about this is how the campaign tries to excuse this miserly giving...
 
According to an Obama spokesman, the couple’s miserly charity until 2005 “was as generous as they could be at the time,” given their personal expenses. In other words, despite an annual average income over the period of about $244,000, they simply could not afford to give anything meaningful.
Before we dismiss this explanation, it is worth noting that this is not an uncommon upper-income excuse for not giving. According to 2000 data from the Independent Sector (a trade group for nonprofit organizations), among people with above-average incomes who do not give charitably, a majority actually say it is because they don’t have enough money.

Well if I may be so bold as to borrow a piece of advice you give all of us poor working stiffs when we dare to complain about or tax burdens "maybe you should find somewhere to cut back".
 
The release of this data can backfire on the candidate as the Chicago Tribune (a REAL newspaper) points out...
Candidates who skimp on personal donations risk a political price, said Lehane, a former spokesman for Gore who also worked in the Clinton White House."For a Democrat in particular, given that they tend to be professing a 'we, not me' message, it's always an opportunity to step on the third rail if your charitable contributions don't stack up," Lehane said.

It is especially dangerous for a candidate like Barack Obama who has made the inequity of America the lynchpin of his political career and his Presidential run.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »