Is Barack Obama’s honeymoon with Europe over already?
After months of the most effusive and unrestrained praise for America’s first serious Black presidential candidate, some of Obama’s most energetic European backers - the Germans - are growing skeptical.
“In the end, a disappointment is a deceit. So it’s for the best that we cast a serous German glance in the direction of the American Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama. He has called for the death penalty for child rapists, defends the right to possess firearms and is the first candidate since the Watergate scandal to reject public financing of his election campaign in favor of private, unlimited contributions. ‘Hey,’ some on this side of the Atlantic now ask, ‘we thought he was one of us?’ Far from it.”
“The facade of the wise, eloquent and charming golden boy has begun to crumble. There is a second - other Obama. And he’s about to be discovered: unscrupulous, selfish, and overambitious.’
“Who is the real Obama? Nobody knows for sure. For now because of his vagueness, it’s still possible to project various expectations onto him, in USA as well as in Europe. But here and there the impatience is growing: Obama, perhaps the first Black President, must not only be flexible, he has to take a stand.”
July 1st, 2008 by BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
As Barack Obama and John McCain haggle over immigration and reasons for the energy mess, they are sticking their heads in the sand about the real problem.
That problem is the growing loss of faith among Americans in their ability to face the future as they struggle with consumer debt that has risen to $14 trillion from $8 trillion during George Bush’s sojourn in the White House.
The need now is not for slogans about hope or “Change we can believe in”. It is to rebuild the people’s ability to cope with changes and come out on top if possible.
This is not a Cassandra comment. The US may remain a global economic and military super power for a long time. But continuing to be rich and strong does not prevent foreign rivals from narrowing the gap or ensure that people will still have an “American dream” worth believing in.
The candidates have not yet given focused attention to the core problems of the vulnerability felt by ordinary citizens confronted by repeated domestic shocks and challenges to their way of life from rising foreign powers. This is compounded by the nation’s dilapidated physical infrastructure and malfunctioning financial, health and education systems.
These insecurities cannot be resolved without instilling new confidence in the people. Even if self-confidence improves, the gap may continue to narrow and that would of itself trigger massive shifts in the way that ordinary Americans live.
Such issues should be treated as top-drawer political questions instead of being placed on the back burner as longer term challenges compared with others seen as immediate concerns. Higher priority is necessary because the loss of confidence derives from the ordinary American’s fear of changes over which they and their government seem to have little or no control.
The causes of concern go far beyond such immediate issues as how to handle the Iraq war, slow down the flow of illegal immigrants, or soften the housing market’s gloom. In fact, the intensity of the immediate concerns indicates how far control of the country’s prosperity has slipped out of the hands of Americans and their government.
The immediate issues are surmountable. For instance, if the situation in Iraq becomes less hostile to the US, the media and politicians will put it on the back burner. If it worsens, whoever takes the White House in January 2009 will try to get out as soon as feasible.
If illegal immigration slows down, people will no longer harp on it. If the pace quickens, everyone will adjust to it because of the recognition that pushing immigrants out does not prevent them from returning so long as the economy needs their labor.
When home prices become low enough, buyers will seep into the market and banks will become less skittish because homes will once again have market value equal to or above the loan.
In each of these and other immediate issues, the cycles of fear sparked by 9/11 play significant roles that have amplified since. The oil crisis combined with the specters of simultaneous recession and inflation are the latest blows signifying to the persons-in-the-street how defenseless they are as they struggle to live the “American dream”.
This is a time when the Euro is threatening the dollar’s primacy and Europeans are trying to go their separate ways from Washington on critical economic and military matters. The BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – have increased their reserves ten-fold to over $3 trillion sending a clear signal that economic power is shifting towards them for the moment.
That moment might lengthen as the Middle East looks eastward for clients for its oil and financial investments instead of westward to the US, which treats them with suspicion bordering on resentment.
The fact is that American dominance of the world economy is no longer impregnable. That directly affects the livelihoods of almost all Americans. So far the candidates are looking away from this serious challenge.
The vulnerability is underlined by the mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan, perplexity regarding Iran and the increased danger for Israel. It is fed by the recent history of venality of respected companies starting with Enron and MCIWorldCom to the much admired financial giants currently hustling to cover losses.
Goldman Sachs said recently that another $65 billion may be needed in write-downs caused by incompetent risk-taking by financial institutions, in addition to the nearly $100 billion lost by them in the US and Europe during the past 12 months.
At the same time, the continuing impoverishment of many Katrina victims demonstrates not only White House confusion over a purely domestic tragedy but also the incompetence of US officials and the quarrels of local politicians. Those will continue after Bush is long gone.
Faced with such shattered icons, the feelings of incapacity are understandable. To dispel them requires much more serious thought rather than rousing catchphrases.
In a USA Today story, “Price of Power: McCain accepts ex-Swift Boaters’ donations,” we learn that Senator John McCain, who four years ago condemned the “Swift Boat’s” attacks on Vietnam veteran John Kerry as “dishonest and dishonorable,” has now accepted nearly $70,000 from the top donors of this group.
According to USA Today,
That’s nearly four times the amount McCain received from those donors in the 14 years before launching his current campaign at the end of 2006, campaign finance records show. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (later called SwiftVets and POWS for Truth) bankrolled ads charging that Kerry had lied about the incidents in Vietnam that led to his military decorations. The group included former members of the Navy who served in the same kind of river patrol boats as Kerry.
And,
McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said in an e-mail that McCain accepted the money because the donors are “interested in supporting (his) agenda of reform, prosperity and peace.”
Just a couple of observations.
First, is it morally and ethically correct for a presidential candidate to accept campaign contributions from, say, the most heinous organizations or people, just because they support his or her agenda?
Second: Of course, John McCain has every right to accept such contributions from the group that he condemned four years ago for smearing his fellow Vietnam War veteran, John Kerry. Just like he will have every right to –after having pocketed their contributions–once again condemn the group when and if its Swiftboating of Barack Obama begins.
On a related note, The New York Times in an article yesterday (June 30), “Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name ‘Swift Boat’,” describes how “Swift boat” “has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears, a shadow that hangs over the presidential race as pundits wait to proclaim that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates declare that they will not be Swiftboated,” and how the true “Swift boat veterans — especially those who had nothing to do with the group that attacked Senator John Kerry’s military record in the 2004 election — want their good name back, and the good names of the men not lucky enough to come home alive.”
Again, just two observations.
First, it is good to hear from those Swift boat veterans who had nothing to do with one of the most vicious and shameful smear campaigns in recent political history. By their Association’s count, only about 200 of the approximately 3,600 men who served aboard Swift boats in Vietnam, signed the letter that became the basis of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign in 2004. It is truly a shame that the actions of a relatively few have so gravely damaged the reputation of so many brave men.
As one of their own–Stan Collier, who according to the Times, served as an officer in charge on a boat based in Qui Nhon–says, “It was unconscionable,” “I thought those boys struck a new low.” And, “We’ve all been attributed to the sleaziness that those guys assigned to Kerry,”. “I think we’ve all been demeaned.”
Second, it is hoped that more and more of these heroes will come forward to disassociate themselves from the group that has brought them so much grief. Harlan Ullman, a Swift boat driver in Vietnam and a Pentagon consultant has written: “It is time to ban a word that is at once offensive, demeaning and obscene both to and for anyone serving in the naval profession. That word is ‘Swiftboating.’ ”
While it is unlikely that the word “Swiftboating” can or will ever be banned, one way for such an “offensive, demeaning and obscene” connotation to gradually diminish may be when and if those who initially brought about such an association discontinue such activities.
But, as Americans get to know more and more about those 3,400 brave people who did not participate in the besmirching of good men and women for purely political reasons, the quicker the original shine will be returned to the name Swift boaters.
For the past week or so, Barack Obama has been accused nearly non-stop of “shifting positions”, “moving to the center” (or to the right, depending on the source), and/or “flip-flopping”.
While there have indeed been a couple of shifts, there’s also a massive amount of disinformation coming out about Obama. He was not, for example, sweepingly against the death penalty. Furthermore, his position on NAFTA warped in Ohio; his recent statements are how I understood him all along. (Yup — he pandered in OH. Everybody did. It was ugly.)
Accusations of shifting and flip-flopping are part of the well-traveled political road, so most of this latest yammer is a big wide yawner. But this piece from ABC is a bit different:
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace Report: Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.
Really? He was against the legislation? ABC says so, therefore it must be true (my emphasis):
When implementation of welfare reform came before the Illinois state senate in 1997, Obama cited a lack of job training, insufficient oversight, and provisions blocking legal immigrants from receiving benefits as his reasons for opposing a federal welfare overhaul imposing work requirements and time limits.
Except that ABC is wrong. Obama didn’t oppose the implementation. Not only was he part of the bipartisan negotiating team that created the successful bill, he stood in the Illinois legislature and said this (my emphasis again):
I strongly urge that — although we’ve taken a good step on this bill, that we look at this carefully and continue to make a commitment to ensuring that all Illinois’ children and all Illinois families have an opportunity to succeed in this economy. Nevertheless, I think this is a good start, and I urge support of this bill.
He did not support the welfare “status quo” (i.e. he supported reform), but he did have concerns about details and ramifications — specifically about what types of training (there was a protection clause for union workers), adequate oversight (that’s a bad thing???), and the bill’s exclusion of immigrants here in the country legally.
It looks to me as if the MSM via ABC is willfully lying about Obama’s positions here.
Can we please retire the tired, and patently false meme about how the MSM is in the bag for Obama now?
In her article posted on Real Clear Politics, Arianna Huffington suggests that Obama should not tack to the center this fall but should instead move to the left. She claims that the her opinion is not based on her own progressive views but instead on real political considerations.
However with all due respect I must dispute this claim. If you read between the lines there is an unspoken assumption that everyone agrees with her liberal views and therefore it makes no sense to tack to the center.
Indeed her attitude towards those it the middle is contemptuous at best and on some levels quite hostile. This does not seem to be a very wise political course but then again we are talking about Huffington. Just as many of the hard right pundits would throw away elections for the GOP, so Huffington seems intent on doing so for the left.
Many Democrats have had reason to comment lately on the conventional wisdom that Democrats must always tack to the center to win an election in this country.
Count me among those who want to see more challenges to that conventional wisdom (which to me just means ‘last year’s assumptions’). While I understand the reasons why candidates do it, the fact is that eight years of neoconservatism has moved all the goal posts way to the right.
To repair the damage done by Bush and his gang of neocons, what’s needed isn’t a balancing bipartisan approach but immediate corrective action. It’s outmoded ‘conventional wisdom’ to believe that Democratic candidates always have to tack centerwards (meaning shift right) to prevail in a general election or to attract swing voters and independents. I don’t buy it.
What most Democrats I know want now is an entirely different approach. With the Republicans still mechanically spouting policies consistent with Bush-era neoconservatism, what’s needed to achieve balance again isn’t compromise action, but corrective action. What most Democrats I know want is a different choice: in our government’s approach to the economy, national security, civil liberties, health care, energy policy and the environment and on and on.
And back-room deals and trade-offs between our elected representatives just aren’t going to cut it. We want to see changes that will restore to us as a nation and as individuals what we lost during Bush’s failed regime.
In this Guest Voice “Raging Moderate” political comedian Will Durst takes a look at the Vice Presidential sweepstakes in the Democratic and Republican parties.
Talking Veepstakes
by Will Durst
This seems like a good time to talk about the race for the vice presidency. Not because of the overwhelming excitement involved in what is essentially a backstage safari. And not because of the dazzling personalities being rigorously vetted. Because nothing else is going on. Right now, the Veepstakes is the only game in town. The presidential campaign has entered what can only be described as its dormant hibernation phase. The whole damn thing has stalled like John Goodman over the dessert table at a 4-star casino’s Sunday Brunch on the Mississippi Coast.
Think of an endlessly looping PBS pledge drive.
The candidates have abandoned the playing field and are sucking down Gatorade while the trainers search for additional wads of cash to stuff into the hollow portions of their uniforms. And the score at halftime finds Barack Obama leading John McCain by about 15 points. Which should excite Democrats. I mean the last time they had this kind of a lead, at this point in the race, was way, way back, four years ago when John Kerry enjoyed a similar lead over George Bush. Oh.
Meanwhile, welcome to silly season. To demonstrate their unity, former sworn mortal enemies, Senators Obama (Crips) and Clinton (Bloods) met up in a New Hampshire town named Unity where, back in January, both received 107 votes. Get it? They’re not at each other’s throats anymore. They’re in Unity. You can’t make up stuff like this. And no, I have no idea if Truth or Consequences, New Mexico or Maggie’s Nipples, Wyoming were considered as alternates in case the civic fathers of Unity proved truculent.
We should relish these two months of campaign down-time before the conventions begin, and where, just like now, absolutely nothing will happen. The only difference is then, that nothing will be reported upon at such a great length, that grown men are developing rashes on the insides of their thighs just thinking about it. Read the rest of this entry »
A new BYU/Harris Poll of 2,602 U.S. adults surveyed in May by Harris Interactive shows that small individual contributions which may limit the “corrupting” influence of large contributions, especially from PACs and lobbyists, could have a lasting impact with the voters.
This latest study looks at candidates who raise most of their money from small donors ($200 or less) versus large donors ($2000 or more). Ultimately, Americans are more likely to respond positively to a candidate who raises campaign funds from small donors, concludes the report.
Specific findings include:
More specifically, the results include:
39% of U.S. adults say they would have a more positive view of a candidate who raises from small donors while just 5 percent would have a more positive view of one who raised from large donors
27% of Americans would have a more negative view of a candidate who raised more than half of his or her money from large donors
58% say their view of a candidate would be neither more negative nor positive about a candidate who takes mostly from small donors
68% say the same regarding one who takes mostly from large donors
Among the 11% of Americans who have made a political contribution in this political season:
38% were more likely to respond negatively to a candidate who relies primarily on large donors than were those who did not donate (26%)
Among this group of donors, 68% were more positive in their views of candidates who relied more on small donors
When asked how their feelings would change about a candidate who raised $84 million through his or her own efforts, 57% said that it would not affect their views negatively nor positively and, on balance, views were more positive than negative (28% positive vs. 15% negative). When compared against a similar candidate who raised $168 million, responses were virtually identical, says the report (25% positive, 58% neither, 17% negative).
Good news for the Barack Obama campaign, and for people who can only give a little, or only want to give a little. I also don’t think this is anything we didn’t already know, but certain strategists and politicians might prefer that such theories not be confirmed.
Some of you chided me (in a friendly sort of “get-a-grip” way) for my last post. Therein, I confessed my revulsion at the “discovery” that our newest presidential aspirants are nothing more than the same old politicians, after all.
To those who scolded, I can only say “point taken, lesson learned” — which is precisely why I yawned at the maelstroms surrounding the re-introduction of Wes Clark and Bud Day in the latest news cycle.
Such nastiness has clearly become the imbedded stuff of not only our politics but our culture — not only among Republicans but Democrats, as well; not only in the States but in Britain, too — as Libby Purves eloquently and mercilessly argued in a colum for the The Times, which I first read while vacationing last month.
Riffing on the book Makers and Takers by Hoover Institution Fellow Peter Schweizer, Purves concludes:
… every strong ideology offers a licence to loathe …
The fact is that deep down we are all a bit nasty and selfish. When we use ideologies to camouflage what should be our shame, any belief will do. Mr Schweizer calls his book Makers and Takers. He should have admitted that every banner also shelters fakers, snakes and haters: unoriginal sinners all.
So, yes, I remain sour on the human race. Nor do I see a splinter in the eye of our species without recognizing the beam in my own. I can only hope that recognition of our shared problem — acknowledgement of our collective faking, snaking, and hating — is the first step toward recovery.
——————
For those interested in more on and by Libby Purves, check out her brief bio next to the column I linked above, as well as her bio at BBC Radio 4. Her latest columns for The Times can be found here. She also blogs on “religion and thought” for The Timeshere.
I do not agree with all of the cases where opponents of Barack Obama have characterized him as “flip flopping” on various issues, and throwing various people or subjects “under the bus.” (And no, I do not subcribe to “This Week in Bus and Driver“) However, it certainly does appear that the Illinois Senator has once again taken up the issue of gay marriage and done a double back flip, pike position with a half twist.
In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group’s annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.”
“And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” Obama wrote.
Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
I remember quite clearly when Obama raised some eyebrows among his base as he came out during the debates opposing gay marriage but supporting civil unions. While I didn’t agree with him, I didn’t find it a shocking position and one held by many politicians trying to straddle the fence on this divisive issue. Just for the record, I don’t agree with McCain either. Even Bob Barr takes the states’ rights stance on it, while I feel that government at all levels needs to get entirely out of the business of marriage.
But back to Senator Obama, if he wants to be taken seriously he should pick a position and stick to it. This is a definite reversal in such a short period of time that one can not assume that his position has simply “evolved” over time as he ages and considers the matter further. This was an absolute flip-flop on an issue which raises controversy all across the country. I don’t see it as being quite as high on voters’ priority lists as energy policy, the economy or foreign affairs, but it would still be nice to see some conviction and consistency on the part of the candidates seeking the White House.
I don’t suffer fools gladly, so I kept MoveOn at arm’s length in 2004 and 2006, but after the General Betrayus ad controversy last year finally concluded that these trash talking and tone deaf so-called progressives are bound to do more harm than good as Barack Obama leads the charge to end the Republican hegemony in Washington.
And so it was gratifying when the presumptive Democratic nominee gently but necessarily chided MoveOn in his speech on patriotism yesterday in saying:
“[S]ome of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments - a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.”
Taking MoveOn to task does not come easily. I cut my social activist teeth in the late 60s and understood that while Students For a Democratic Society and some other groups could be off message and self absorbed, they were integral to fighting the good fight.
So is MoveOn. Indeed, I am not asking that it get with Obama’s program. Independent voices are more important than ever in this era of homogenized politics. But if MoveOn is determined to trample on Obama’s message because he is not sufficiently leftist and unwilling to jump through its hoops, then its stridency will not only be a negative force but a reliable punching bag for the right-of-center punditocracy, and the last thing Obama needs are surrogates who make things more difficult.
A final thought: Some MoveOn activists see themselves as the reincarnation of the Vietnam antiwar movement, but as someone who was in the midst of that movement, this is a bad joke and they’re the last people in the room to get it.
These adolescents have been notably unsuccessful in fashioning a cogent message, in part because they keep stepping on their willies when it comes to addressing the ancillary issue of terrorism, and opposition to the Iraq war has grown slowly but steadily without their help.
IT NEEDED TO BE SAID
While we’re kind of on the subject, former General Wesley Clark’s view that John McCain’s POW experience doesn’t automatically translate into him being prime commander in chief material has been widely criticized, taken out of context and otherwise flogged as being inappropriate.
It is in fact highly appropriate given McCain’s blindered view of Iraq and his willingness to bomb first and talk later when it comes to Iran. Too bad that Clark’s remarks have kind of upstaged Obama’s patriotism speech and the candidate himself does not approve of them, but they were a much needed pushback against the archaic and platitude driven views of what constitutes patriotism for too many Americans.
Tom Schaller’s by the numbers analysisalways wreaks ofoften elicits southern bashing to me. (Who wrote that headline?) He repeats it again today on the OpEd page of the NYTimes:
Two pervasive and persistent myths about racial voting in the modern South are behind the notion that Mr. Obama might win in places like Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi.
The first myth is that African-American turnout in the South is low. Black voters are actually well represented in the Southern electorate: In the 11 states of the former Confederacy, African-Americans were 17.9 percent of the age-eligible population and 17.9 percent of actual voters in 2004, analysis of Census Bureau data shows.
And when socioeconomic status is held constant, black voters go to the polls at higher rates than white voters in the South. In other words, a 40-year-old African-American plumber making $60,000 a year is, on average, more likely to vote than a white man of similar background.
The second myth is that Democratic presidential candidates fare better in Southern states that have large numbers of African-Americans. In fact, the reverse is true, because the more blacks there are in a Southern state, the more likely the white voters are to vote Republican.
I’ll follow the commentary his piece evokes through the day and tack it on to this post. Read the rest of this entry »
Roughly a week ago, much hay was being made of Barack Obama’s lack of a “bounce” following Hillary’s exit stage left. While many polls at the time still showed Obama with some sort of lead, the closely watched Gallup Daily tracking poll showed him in what was effectively a statistical dead heat with John McCain. I somehow doubt we’ll see the same sources pointing to that poll today, as Gallup shows Obama returning to a five point lead.
After more than a week of Barack Obama and John McCain being tied in Gallup Poll Daily tracking, Obama now holds a statistically significant five percentage point lead in the preferences of national registered voters, 47% to 42%, slightly larger than Sunday’s 46% to 42% lead for Obama.
Could these sagging numbers have something to do with a return of America’s attention to foreign policy? (One area which cools me off regarding McCain and finds me leaning a bit more toward Obama or Bob Barr.) My more Right leaning friends are often enraged - and sometimes correctly so - by left wing Brit George Galloway. He’s already ruffling feathers with his recent statement that he’s off to Iran before Israel bombs it. There’s plenty of room for debate over many of Galloway’s talking points, but he certainly raises one poignant - and to many, uncomfortable - question about the Middle East. He’s talking about the open threats being made by Israel, if not the United States, to bomb Iran’s nuclear reactor facilities.
As a signatory to the treaty governing the development of nuclear weapons, Iran has done nothing wrong under it either, at least according to the watchdog maintained by the international community, the IAEA.
Israel, on the other hand, refuses to sign the nuclear weapons treaty and thus, with a chutzpah which takes the breath away, claims it’s not in breach of it.
I’m never sure if we’re supposed to talk about it openly, but the “secret” has long been out that Israel has nukes. This is at the heart of the question Galloway is asking. This situation looks as if it could be coming to a boil sooner rather than later, and the media is paying attention for a change. The consequences of Israel drawing us into another shooting war - this time with Iran - are likely a bit much for most of us to swallow. McCain’s aggressive stance on foreign policy is possibly one reason for his numbers drifting southward.
Will this automatically mean a boost for Obama across the board? Perhaps not. Newshogger’s own Ron Beasely, never a McCain supporter, seems to be finding himself more and more disenchanted with Obama and is now giving a fresh look at Bob Barr.
Maybe a third Bush term is what it will take. I may just sit this one out even if it means McCain wins.
In reality I may consider voting for Bob Barr. I disagree with the Libertarians on many issues but on what I consider the two most important issues they and Bob Barr are the only ones who get it right. The first of the issues is the occupation of Iraq but even more important is the erosion of civil liberties and the slide into a totalitarian state. If we continue to move in the direction of a Soviet style police state the other issues won’t really matter and Obama has given me no reason to trust him on this issue and I never did trust Hillary.
The “prevailing wisdom” keeps telling us that Bob Barr won’t make much of a splash this year. However, in our season of discontent for so many voters, Barr may start looking more and more appealing. He’s coming into the race far later than the major party candidates, but money spent in the last few months carries far more bang for your buck than that spent in 2007.
“Will the one who wants to be the bringer of ‘change we can believe in’ keep his promise if elected on November 4? To win this election, Mr. Obama is ready to abandon or modify some of his strongest commitments. So he decided to refuse public financing for his campaign and the spending limits attached thereto. Thus he is prepared to vote yes in the Senate for a bill that would justify the wire tapping authorized by Mr. Bush. He has also revised his position on the presence of troops in Iraq and has given assurances to pro-Israeli organizations. … These are the rules of the game and we shouldn’t exaggerate the importance of such tactical gestures. And neither should anyone imagine that politics has ceased to be politics, nor that it’s possible to win an election in the United States or elsewhere without being a realistic politician.”
Of course, if a candidate is a good orator you MUST image-link him to Hitler (if you can’t debate a candidate on issues, just raise that wild, loudmouthed guy with the mustache who murdered so many of my Russian and Polish relatives). And that’s part of the content of the latest email sent out to smear Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama.
The email is credited to Bill Brown, former president of Graham’s ministry, which could be accurate or not accurate since anyone with a keyboard can type a name.
But to whoever sent it out (let’s just call him “Mr. X”):
Mr. X: My relatives on my grandfather Abraham Ravinsky’s side came in contact with the Nazis. They lived during the time of Hitler and under Hitler. They knew Hitler. Hitler was an enemy of theirs. Hitler murdered many of them. Hitler wiped out almost all of my grandfather’s family.
And, Mr. X, Barack Obama is no Hitler.
Also Mr. X: Just in case you don’t realize it. There are people who might not be enamored with Obama. But when you send out something as reprehensible and simplistic as this you’re likely to find that with some voters, you’re going to get them to vote FOR Obama. If you dislike him so much, why not send out an email that debates him on issues — if debate is what you really seek (and from the sound of the email, it isn’t serious debate on issues).
CNS News jumped out today with a provocative article titled, Obama’s for Equal Pay, Yet Pays Female Staffers Less Than Males. In it we find a horrible tale of woe, where Obama (who “has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president“) has a lower percentage of female employees on his staff and they ear less, on average, than their male co-workers.
On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.
This story was immediately picked up on by a number of McCain supporting outlets, such as Redstate, Macsmind, and (unfortunately) our good friend Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Sadly, this story has more holes in it than a a gross of donuts.
The first, and largest problem with the account is that there is no reference to the relative positions of the employees involved. How long has each been on the team? What experience and education did they bring with them at the time of their hiring? How skillful were they in negotiating their starting employment level? (and, following that, starting pay.) How many compensation reviews have they had?
You’re not going to pay your chief of staff, veteran of four other administrations, the same amount you pay the person who spellchecks the text submitted by your speechwriter. That’s only one of a limitless number of examples I could offer. I made a quick call to the Human Resources person at our consulting firm who told me that the odds of any group of employees that size winding up with the same average pay for men and women would be “virtually impossible.” In other words, either the men or the women will earn more, on average. In Obama’s group it seems to be the men. In McCain’s, the women.
From the Hot Air piece, the second complaint is brought to light, and none too subtly.
McCain, on the other hand, has more women in key positions — and the women on his staff average slightly higher salaries than the men:
Hold the phone and stop the presses. Have I just found the first Republican in favor of employment quotas based on gender? I thought we were all on board with the whole, “best person for the job, regardless of…” mantra? Yet the linked essay seems to imply that McCain is somehow superior to Obama for having more women in key positions?
Be still my heart!
e-mail the author: jazzshaw@gmail.com
UPDATE: Following up on e-mails and comments both here and in linked articles, a couple of points:
1. The figures we are a lacking here render any conclusions effectively meaningless. A better measure would be to look for any history of women complaining about unequal pay for equally responsible positions among the staff. Alternately, though it would be very hard to gather the information, we would need a comparison of the missing data on the employment history and starting conditions of each staffer.
2. Obama’s position on the “equal pay” question being bandied about is, in full, the “equal pay for equal work” complaint. You can’t really complain that the chief of staff is making more than a first year staffer who handles e-mails, even if they are of different genders.
3. The original linked article notes that McCain has more women in key, top positions. Combine that with their having a statistical majority… gee. Do you think their average pay would be higher?
That Barack Obama felt compelled to give a speech today on patriotism speaks volumes about the lousy state of political discourse in the U.S. That few minds will be changed although the speech was a noble effort is a fact of life for this African-American with a foreign-sounding middle name and an opposition with toxic intentions. That there are so many real issues crying out for attention in this deeply troubled land as the July 4th holiday draws near and he feels the need to wrap himself in the flag is disheartening.
What Obama sought to do at the Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri was redefine our archaic and platitude driven views of what constitutes patriotism by telling his own story in much the same way he did in a March speech on race and religion in Philadelphia prompted by the damage his problematic relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was causing.
That controversy has passed, but defusing the issue of his patriotic bona fides will not be so easy with so many rumor and fear mongers and the willingness of John McCain to lend a hand.
Look for Obama to tell and retell the story he shared today of a multiracial and multicontinental upbringing, of a heartfelt love of country that is not based on being a warhero or even a veteran, but on living the American dream through overcoming a childhood lived in poverty to excel in academia, community service and politics – and that stories like his could only happen here.
Wresting a piece of the patriotic franchise from conservatives who believe that only they are entitled to it will be difficult. Additionally, Obama is trying to be dispassionate yet passionate about a subject where emotion is an easy substitute for substance and trying to redress wrongs is akin to being unpatriotic.
Was Senator Hillary Clinton’s performance at the Unity rally with presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama so strong that she could be seriously in the running for Obama’s Veep? New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin, who had been highly-critical of her, thinks so.
My bet a month ago was that he shouldn’t and wouldn’t make the offer. Now I’m not sure. Clinton’s Friday performance adds to my growing belief the dream ticket is an on-again possibility.
Two things have happened that help her chances of extending the streak of having a Bush or a Clinton on one of the national tickets. It’s been the case every four years since Poppy Bush was Ronald Reagan’s running mate in 1980, and 2008 is trending in that direction.
One problem with that idea. There are some Americans who would like a ticket that does not include a Bush or a Clinton because (supposedly) we don’t have dynastic political governance in this country.
The first change is her behavior, where she has emerged from her vacation without the chip on her shoulder. The second thing that has happened is that Obama’s numerous flip-flops have created more doubts about who he is and what he stands for.
Clinton, who reportedly wants the veep spot, certainly didn’t hold back at their first joint appearance. She was so good she almost had me forgetting how she was arguing to superdelegates not long ago that Obama was unelectable.
She may still believe that, but how she acts is what matters. While part of the reason she’s leaning forward is that she doesn’t want to be blamed if Obama loses, she also realizes that enthusiasm for him serves her interests, too. Her future depends on repairing her relations with black Democrats, and there is no faster way to do that than by giving her best for Obama.
When she does that, as she did Friday, it’s obvious he has to consider putting her on the ticket. She gave a better speech than he did and won the gravitas weigh-in. She would help him reach more women and lower-income whites if she were on the ticket than a mere surrogate.
Goodwin then suggests Obama must have a reason to say no to her. He’s going to have to weight a variety of factors, pluses, minuses and the results of vetting, to reach his and his V.P. selection team’s choice. He can then pick someone else and praise their virtues. Obama is under no obligation to choose Clinton (although some of her supporters don’t see it that way) but Goodwin is correct that she has grown enormously as a candidate in the primaries. In fact, Hillary Clinton has grown more in terms of content, speaking skills and political nimbleness than any other candidate who ran in the primaries of either party.
Chances still are that she won’t be the pick. And, whether she is or isn’t, a question is: what about her reportedly-pouting husband, Bill Clinton? CNN reports that the former President will meet with Obama this week and that he insists he isn’t pouting:
[ahem] Personally, I shall never in all my life forget the howling persecution that we endured from the O-bot smear machine and the Clintonazi long-knifers. They have tried to marginalize us, but ho! now we will band together and marginalize them.
Yes, as Dodd is our witness, it will be “unity” on our terms.
UPDATE: Judging by the comments, I need to explain that this is satire.
I do not agree with all of the cases where opponents of Barack Obama have characterized him as “flip flopping” on various issues, and throwing various people or subjects “under the bus.” (And no, I do not subcribe to “This Week in Bus and Driver“) However, it certainly does appear that the Illinois Senator has once again 
