Friday, February 8, 2008

A Higher Purpose

[Notes from the campaign trail, courtesy of the Candyman. -LNM]

The last few weeks have been some of the most whirlwind and intense of my life. I have been campaigning for Barack Obama in my home state of California. I am not a politician, but I've felt for a long time that Obama was special. His themes of unity and peacemaking appeal to me. It's a message we've all heard before, so simple, so powerful, yet somehow so difficult for us to achieve. I've never heard a politician speak that way before. So when I was presented with the opportunity to volunteer for his campaign in a leadership role, I took it. After all, these opportunities don't come along every day.

I've met so many people over the last few weeks. Bob, a soft-spoken, retired gentleman whose house became our neighborhood Obama headquarters, filled with volunteers on cell phones. JD, a videographer who decided to devote all his tape to the Obama campaign. Blake, a student at the local theological school and part-time Obama for America coordinator, who gave a rousing speech about the meaning of a grass-roots campaign. And so many others. These folks were inspired, and they inspired me. We became a diverse coalition, people of all ages, all races, united under the banner of unity itself.



The experience has changed me. For the first time since my early days in yeshiva, I feel like I'm part of something greater. It's like a wind at my back, pushing me forward with a greater purpose. It sends chills down my spine, just walking around town. I wonder if this is what the prophets felt like, when they were bursting with the word of God.

It has made me think about some of the conversations we've had in this space, conversations about priorities. I have long lamented the fact that Jews spend most of their spiritual time interacting with other Jews. I have opined that our time would be better spent serving the general community, even at the cost of religious services. The latter suggestion met with strong opposition from some readers of this blog. Some of them even challenged me to put my money where my mouth was. Why spend your time blogging? Surely there must be better ways to help the community, better ways to spend your time.

Reflecting on the Obama campaign, I am wondering whether perhaps I got it wrong. You see, different things will move different people. For me, it is the politics of hope that send chills down my spine. For others, it is a rousing chant of L'cha Dodi on Friday evening. And that's OK. That's spiritual. That's wonderful. If you enjoy it, if you find meaning in it, if this is what moves you, then by all means do not give that up. There's no right answer here, and it's not my place to judge how you spend your time. On the contrary: chase that feeling down, immerse yourself in it, delve into it, wrestle with it, follow it to its core. It's what works for you.

That being said, life is long. And you may find, as did I, that your priorities change over time. As Adyashanti once put it, the spiritual tools that work for you at one time in your life may not work at another time. If that happens, do not be afraid to cast yourself upon the river and see where the current takes you. Do not be afraid to experiment, to change. You see, change does not mean that what went before was wrong or stupid or useless or meaningless. Life is a development. Change does not incriminate the past, but rather elevates it into something relevant and important. In realigning ourselves with our own internal compass, we return meaning to our lives. We resurrect the dead within ourselves, and turn our sins into merits. So however you choose spend your spiritual time, I encourage you to continuously seek out experiences that send a chill down your spine. That give you the sense of something greater. For random globs of cells like us, there is really little more we can ask out of life.


73 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't get it. What does Obama inspire in you/ Yes he makes a nice first impression, and yes, if you relish the emotional high, then I can see why you might want to work for. But what you should be asking is what does he stand for? Because if you're not part of the fringe left, someday you'll be saying, OMG what Have I done?

Ichabod Chrain

Lubab No More said...

Ichabod Chrain,

> Because if you're not part of the fringe left, someday you'll be saying, OMG what Have I done?

Why would an Obama supporter say that? Which of Obama's policies do you think are wrong?

The Candy Man said...

Sorry I didn't make it more clear in the post. The emotional high I get from Obama is because of what "he actually stands for." Here's my understanding:

-he doesn't take money from lobbies
-he wants to represent all Americans and bring them together
-he's an amazing speaker
-he made the right call on Iraq from day 1
-he's getting grass roots involved in politics in mass numbers
-he's a gentleman

The guy is building an army. An army for change. And we take commands from the top down. For instance, we're not allowed to say anything negative about other candidates. It trickles down from the top to the foot soldiers. I think that's pretty cool.

That's not to say the other two candidates in the race are not excellent politicians and people. They all have strengths and weaknesses. It's just a matter of personal preference.

FWIW, Obama is hardly fringe left. Definitely no Kucinich. He opposes gay marriage, for instance. That proves he can be wrong, too.

Orthoprax said...

I kinda like Obama too, he stands out as a man of real character - I even voted for him in the primary since I'm a registered Democrat and I would be ok with him as president. But at the end of the day I feel like I see more eye to eye with Mccain, who I believe is also a man of real character and very long on experience, on most of the issues that I care about and that the president has power over. If the election happened tomorrow I'd probably vote for Mccain.

Hopefully Obama will beat Hillary for the nomination and we'll get to have a very interesting year.

Anonymous said...

Lubab, I'm glad you asked me that. The way I see it is that Obama is all hat and no cattle.

Obama hasn't had much of a going over by the press yet. If they had done the same job on him as they did on Hillary or the Republicans you'd probably think very differently about him. For example, one thing about Obama that you should be very,very worried about is his connection with Farrakhan, and the views of people in high places in staff on Israel. Actually that's two things you should be worried about.

And no he did not make the right call on Iraq. Anyone in the Senate who would have voted against the war based on what was known at the time is irresponsible. And now he's part of the surrender lobby.

And speaking of foreign policy, maybe Obama can inspire some leftists, but the Mullahs and the Russians are probably licking their chops at the idea that they'll be negotiating with him.

If he's in office, we'll be seeing more federal control over everything. The Supreme Court will swing wildly to the left. We'll have a health care system that will make England's look good. There will be racial quotas for everything. There won't be any freedom of speech because his cabinet appointees will believe that no one should express an idea that might offend anyone. Taxes will be higher, jobs will be fewer, and we'll have a military that will be every bit as effective as Canada's. Everything will be looked at from the standpoint of disparate impact.

But yes, he does talk a good game.

So that's why I hope you don't wake up one morning saying "OMG, what have I done?"


Ichabod Chrain

Orthoprax said...

IC,

"example, one thing about Obama that you should be very,very worried about is his connection with Farrakhan,"

You mean the person he publically denounced as an antisemite?

"and the views of people in high places in staff on Israel."

True, but he appears to be solidly pro-Israel himself even while he sympathizes for the Palestinian plight. Mccain by comparison is gung-ho pro-Israel.

"And no he did not make the right call on Iraq. Anyone in the Senate who would have voted against the war based on what was known at the time is irresponsible."

Well, I don't agree with that. At the time I wasn't convinced that Hussein was a real threat, though I understand why there were legitimate reasons to believe so. However, I think abandoning Iraq is the wrong move today. We all should take a lesson from Gaza.

As for the rest of your stuff, I think you are being unduly harsh on Obama.

Anonymous said...

I'll have to see who to vote for. Also by the time anyone's in office it may not make a difference as far as the West Bank anymore. Perhaps Abbas will be out already and Hamas in or overthrown by violence with no Palestinian leadership in the West Bank. As for Obama on gay marriage I see he is willing to show some conservatism. That's a plus. We don't need agenda. We need leadership. I'll have to see who to vote for. Since on the Democratic side I only have Obama and the Clintons to choose from in the primary that in itself makes me have an initial pull to Obama. Perhaps in the election I will cross party lines. I don't know.

Anonymous said...

I will probably vote for Obama only because I refuse to vote for that Kurva Hillary. I normally vote Republican so voting for Obama is a change, and I imagine my taxes will go up. Had Rudy been in the running I would have voted for him. Now there is a real man....Avi

The Candy Man said...

For example, one thing about Obama that you should be very,very worried about is his connection with Farrakhan, and the views of people in high places in staff on Israel.

He stood up on MLK day in Ebenezer church and told a crowd of African Americans that they needed to work on the anti-Semitism within their midst.

Good enough for me.

Personally, I don't vote based on Israel. I don't even care what a candidate's stance is on Israel. I think the less America tries to meddle with Israel, the better. But I do have the contact info for Obama's middle east staff person, and I intend to make contact with him and offer my advice and expertise. You see, with Obama's campaign, a regular guy like me can have a voice.

I feel like I see more eye to eye with Mccain, who I believe is also a man of real character and very long on experience, on most of the issues that I care about and that the president has power over.

I've always liked John McCain. He is willing to take stands even when they're unpopular with the rest of his party. I would consider voting McCain, but I don't think he has the depth of vision that Obama does. Plus, I'm more of a dove these days. I used to take a very hard-line against the Palestinians, but I saw that it just wasn't working. Staying in Iraq long-term probably won't work, either. I think we should just give peace a chance.

Anonymous said...

"Personally, I don't vote based on Israel. I don't even care what a candidate's stance is on Israel. I think the less America tries to meddle with Israel, the better. But I do have the contact info for Obama's middle east staff person, and I intend to make contact with him and offer my advice and expertise. You see, with Obama's campaign, a regular guy like me can have a voice."

You need to take a candidate's stance on Israel into deep account. Israel's biggest interests are the U.S. and vice versa. It's called freedom versus tyranny. You have to take into account a candidate's stance on NATO too.

"I used to take a very hard-line against the Palestinians, but I saw that it just wasn't working."

Well we tried everything else. If you can't have peace with them it's too bad but pretending you can is foolish. What do you gain by saying if we can't defeat them we will make peace with them even if they are not making peace? To what end?

"Staying in Iraq long-term probably won't work, either. I think we should just give peace a chance."

It takes two have peace, one to make war. Staying in Iraq is bad. Leaving is also bad. Whether we should have gone in or not and I don't think we should have, we can't just leave now. If we leave then the enemy will say with correctness that they defeated us and so the West can be destroyed.

Orthoprax said...

CM,

"Plus, I'm more of a dove these days. I used to take a very hard-line against the Palestinians, but I saw that it just wasn't working. Staying in Iraq long-term probably won't work, either. I think we should just give peace a chance."

I used to be more of a dove myself, but after seeing how giving Gaza as a peace offering was received and the absurdly bad consequences that followed I don't think peace has a chance before the Islamicist's jihad ideology is defeated. Leaving Iraq could easily turn that whole country into abject anarchy, make it a haven for terrorists and dangerously increase Iran's sphere of influence.

This isn't something that will "work" - we're holding a fort against a war of attrition. There is no shortage of people willing to martyr themselves for the cause. The terrorists are hoping that the West doesn't have the stomach to keep up the fight, and unfortunately they may very well be right.

"I would consider voting McCain, but I don't think he has the depth of vision that Obama does."

I think Obama is extremely intelligent and a builder of coalitions, but I'm wary of politicans who are carried by nebulous movements. George Bush also ran on being a "uniter." I don't know how much of Obama's shine is political hype.

The Candy Man said...

Leaving Iraq could easily turn that whole country into abject anarchy, make it a haven for terrorists and dangerously increase Iran's sphere of influence.

I don't think the Dems are planning on just jetting. An international coalition is the idea.

Based on Israel's experience, I'd say the longer we stay in foreign territory, the worse it gets. Occupation just stirs up the natives. I think Israel finally figured that out after 25 years and pulled out. I don't think McCain gets that.

Anonymous said...

"Based on Israel's experience, I'd say the longer we stay in foreign territory, the worse it gets. Occupation just stirs up the natives. I think Israel finally figured that out after 25 years and pulled out. I don't think McCain gets that."

Israel's not in Gaza and the West Bank will be Israel's because the Palestinians will kill each other.

Orthoprax said...

CM,

"I don't think the Dems are planning on just jetting. An international coalition is the idea."

Then they should talk more about that than about how early they intend to leave. The international community hasn't seemed too enthused about getting involved in Iraq. As far as I can tell, Obama is somehow banking on a diplomatic solution involving Syria and Iran. Risky and ill advised, I think.

"Based on Israel's experience, I'd say the longer we stay in foreign territory, the worse it gets. Occupation just stirs up the natives."

And appeasing the extremists - or even just appearing to appease the extremists - encourages them. That a stupid ragtag militia like Hezbollah was able to show up the Israeli army is absurd. That al Quaeda will show up the American army in Iraq is disasterous.

"I think Israel finally figured that out after 25 years and pulled out. I don't think McCain gets that."

What exactly did Israel gain by pulling out of Lebanon? A war. What did it win by pulling out of Gaza? Oh, also war and destabilization of the region.

When you have these crazy militias that use terrorism and prefer anarchy then giving them a power vacuum and they will gladly take it. And then later use it against you.

Anonymous said...

"Based on Israel's experience, I'd say the longer we stay in foreign territory, the worse it gets. Occupation just stirs up the natives. I think Israel finally figured that out after 25 years and pulled out. I don't think McCain gets that."

Israel took over territory for a reason and left Gaza for none but stupidity. It's easy to be an appeaser before the fact and a hardliner after it. Churchill the hardliner was proven right by history.

Anonymous said...

In terms of Obama "being right about Iraq from Day 1", a year or two into the war, when it was going great, he made a speech in support of it, only to take the speech of his website when it became unpopular again.

Anonymous said...

It wasn't a worthy experiment because it was plain to see that the Palestinians were going to go down the path of war.

Anonymous said...

CM

"For me, it is the politics of hope that send chills down my spine."

"Hope" is not a plan, and it's not politics. "Politics of hope" is an empty phrase, as though you're saying that you support Obama because he's being packaged well.


But if you're really concerned about hope, then look at leftist regimes around the world, and look at the European Union. The people there really have no hope. They have to do whatever crazy thing the bureaucracy tells them just to further the agenda of the elite. That's what you risk if you vote for Obama.

As far as being a unifier, so is McCain. But I don't see what the point of that is. In my book, disagreement is healthy. Besides why do you think people would unify around someone who's been endorsed by Moveon.org?

So you haven't given anyone a real reason for voting for Obama for president. You've given us reasons for inviting him to dinner, and while they are good reasons, we shouldn't confuse one with the other.

Orthoprax, whether or not Obama had called Farrakhan an anti-semite doesn't change the fact that the Nation of Islam is heavily involved in Obama's campaign.

So that's why I think we should beware of Obama.

Ichabod Chrain

Anonymous said...

""Based on Israel's experience, I'd say the longer we stay in foreign territory, the worse it gets. Occupation just stirs up the natives."


Foreign territory? Natives? Israel had ceasefire lines. This territory did not belong to the Arabs it was ceasefire lines. Empty territory doesn't belong to Arabs. It was supposed to be negotiated.

Anonymous said...

I guess you Obama supporters haven't noticed but he's a SCHVARTZE!

Lubab No More said...

Re: Gaza

The thing about withdrawing from Gaza is that it gives Israel the authority to respond to attacks emanating from in Gaza. Now when attacks come from Gaza Israel has responded with relatively little criticism. Responding to an attack from across a border is very different from attacking people within the borders of a territory you control.

As far as motive for withdrawing, I don't think Sharon withdrew to create peace or to prevent a war. I think he withdrew because the cost of maintaining the military presence there wasn't worth the small civilian presence Israel had there. Further, by leaving Gaza the Palestinians were left with two choices; run a civil state, which Israel could work with to make peace in the future. OR, fall into chaos, fight one another and Israel can point to the situation and rightfully say "We have no parter."


But here's another question...

Do you really believe that an American President can make Israel do anything, or make any deal, that Israel doesn't want to make?! Israel simply isn't going to do anything that they think will jeopardize their own security no matter who is President and no matter what they say.


------


Ichabod Chrain,

> the Nation of Islam is heavily involved in Obama's campaign.

I'd be interested in seeing some evidence of that.

Lubab No More said...

Here is a link to the Israel section of Barack Obama's website:

Barack Obama On Israel

badrabbi said...

This is what the CandyMan says of Obama:

-he doesn't take money from lobbies

What does this mean exactly? That he does not take lobby money? Does Candy man seriously believe that Obama does not accept money from lobbying groups? How much does the Candy man want to bet on that?

If by his “not making money from lobbies” he means that he personally does not make money off of it, well then realize that none of the politicians makes money personally from lobbying groups.

-he wants to represent all Americans and bring them together

Talk about an empty phrase! Which of the candidates have said that they wish to represent only a portion of America? What exactly representing “all America” mean? In terms of policy and action, what does that phrase represent?

-he's an amazing speaker

True. So? Have you, though, stopped to ask what he is saying in terms of concrete ideas?

-he made the right call on Iraq from day 1
What exactly was the right call? What exactly did he say? What exactly did he do?

-he's getting grass roots involved in politics in mass numbers

That may be a clever campaign strategy but this is no reason to get excited over a candidate.

-he's a gentleman

And you know this how? By his wearing nice suits and shaking hands as he smiles? By his youthful appearance? How is he a gentelman? Are you really excited about this guy because he is a gentleman?

-The guy is building an army. An army for change.

Change. Change. Change. Remember that not all change is good change. If someone comes and tells me that he wants to change something, I do not automatically jump for joy – instead, I ask “what is it that you are changing, dear sir!” Remember, Stalin, too, advocated and delivered on ‘change’!

- And we take commands from the top down.
Wow, what a novel concept!

-For instance, we're not allowed to say anything negative about other candidates.
It is early in the campaign, where the democratic candidates are trying to win, while jockeying for the number 2 role. It is not yet expedient to go negative.
Later, he will say something like "I went negative, because you started it!"

-It trickles down from the top to the foot soldiers. I think that's pretty cool.

You have drank the Obama cool aide. People have asked you why you are so excited about this candidate and you provided a pretty lame list. It is this list that convinces me more than anything else that you and your ilk have become enamored with an icon rather than a person, with a personality rather than a man, with a dream rather than reality. It may feel good, but be prepared for your dream to come crashing down whether he wins or not.

Lubab No More said...

BadRabbi

> If by his “not making money from lobbies” he means that he personally does not make money off of it, well then realize that none of the politicians makes money personally from lobbying groups.


You might want to hold off on that bet.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aqI.vDvKPq3s

Here's the quote you want to look for in the article:

"Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, doesn't take money from registered lobbyists, although he received $86,282 from employees of firms that lobby, according to the center."

Taking money from for people who work for companies which lobby seems like a fairly reasonable position and is not the same as taking money from lobbyists.

Anonymous said...

"Lubab No More said...
Re: Gaza

The thing about withdrawing from Gaza is that it gives Israel the authority to respond to attacks emanating from in Gaza. Now when attacks come from Gaza Israel has responded with relatively little criticism. Responding to an attack from across a border is very different from attacking people within the borders of a territory you control."

Criticism from lesser mortals is no reason to have your country's citizens killed. The U.S. wouldn't tolerate such nonsense.

" Further, by leaving Gaza the Palestinians were left with two choices; run a civil state, which Israel could work with to make peace in the future. OR, fall into chaos, fight one another and Israel can point to the situation and rightfully say "We have no parter.""

They still claim they are occupied even though they are not and if Israel cuts off ties they say Israel is not giving them their due.

"But here's another question...

Do you really believe that an American President can make Israel do anything, or make any deal, that Israel doesn't want to make?! Israel simply isn't going to do anything that they think will jeopardize their own security no matter who is President and no matter what they say."

Israel is expert at jeopardizing its own security without American help.

"-he made the right call on Iraq from day 1
What exactly was the right call? What exactly did he say? What exactly did he do?"

Bad Rabbi for a change I agree with an entire post of yours :-)Did we know what the right call was. I knew that America wasn't having 9-11 from Saddam but even his own men did not know much to their chagrin that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. The question is more why did Obama make what we see now as the right choice? Was it out of some Candy Man-feel-goodiness or was it based on real vision?

Lubab thanks for the Israel link. As far as lobby money guys who cares? Not me. That's not a reason for me to vote one way or another.

badrabbi said...

Lubab:

I will do some digging on this lobbying thing. But I followed your own link, which said:
"And while Obama doesn't accept lobbyists' money, he raised the $86,282 in cash from employees of firms whose business centers on lobbying. He takes in even more money from employees of law firms which also engage in lobbying, including $226,491 from those working for Sidley Austin LLP, his old law firm, which was paid $3.1 million to lobby by clients such as Caterpillar Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc."

We can begin to play word games if you like, and as I said, I will certanily look into the blurred difference of taking in money from registered lobbyists versus lobbyists, but I think the point is made that the distinction between the candidates on raising money is without a difference!

P8ON 34 said...

The guy has not even served one full term as a Senator. Sure he speaks well and gave a tremendous speech at the Democratic Convention, but that certainly does not qualify him to be President.

As far as getting young people/grassroots involved in politics...Remember that Howard Dean did this as well and that did not work out so well. Time will tell whether first time voters will come out for him.

It would also be nice to see Obama win a large state besides his own.

The Candy Man said...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/obama-returns-lobbyists-donations/

Lobbyies is an old story. The upshot is, Obama (and Edwards) won't take money from lobbyies, whereas Hillary wants to continue the status quo and does take money from them. She even takes money from the same PACS (political action committees) which supported George Bush.

Note that Obama decided to eschew lobby money only after starting his presidential run. He basically felt after two years in the senate that this lobbyist thing was not good for the nation... a concept the other two people in the race still don't get.

Saying no to lobbies may seem like a minor thing on my list, but it means that Obama will be beholden to no one if he wins the presidency. The other two candidates can't say this.

Have you, though, stopped to ask what he is saying in terms of concrete ideas?

I think Obama's ideas are very clear and very far-seeing. There are specifics in his speeches... they just aren't the kinds of specifics we're used to hearing about from politicians. Every speech he gives, I learn something new. I suggest you listen to his speech from MLK day and see for yourself.

And you know [that he's a gentleman] how?

Doesn't say anything negative about Hillary. Stopped mid-speech in seattle when a woman in the audience felt faint (google "obama speech woman feels faint youtube").

In fact, O is such a stand-up guy that even the right hasn't been attacking him. They respect him.

The Candy Man said...

As far as getting young people/grassroots involved in politics...Remember that Howard Dean did this as well and that did not work out so well.

With all due respect to Howard Dean, it's not even a comparison. Obama's movement dwarfs Dean's. And it's not limited to young people... most people I worked with were over 50.

Anonymous said...

CM,

You asked for evidence. Okay that's fair.

See Debbie Schlussel's Jan 30, 2008 posting:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html

"Responding to criticism by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, Barack Obama declared his strong opposition to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan:

I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan.

Obama also went on to condemn his Church's award to Farrakhan and his minister's tight relationship with him.

But a former Obama insider says that Obama's sudden aversion to NOI and Farrakhan is belied by the fact that Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs. I have verified that this person--who agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity--held a key position in the Obama campaign. The insider was so close to Senator Obama that they frequently personally discussed and exchanged direct e-mail messages on campaign and policy matters. This person is not connected with the Clintons and is not a disgruntled employee.

The insider says he frequently objected to Mr. Obama's placement of Cynthia K. Miller, a member of the Nation of Islam, as the Treasurer of his U.S. Senate campaign. When I contacted Miller, now a Chicago real estate agent, to verify whether she was a member of the Nation of Islam and whether she shared Louis Farrakhan's bigoted views about Jews, she responded, "None of your business! Where are you going with this?" She said her resignation as Obama's treasurer had nothing to do with her Nation of Islam ties. Then, she hung up.

The Obama insider says he also objected to Obama's involvement with Jennifer Mason, whom he says is also a member of the Nation of Islam. Mason is Obama's Director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office and is also in charge of selecting Obama's Senate interns. She did not respond to repeated calls for comment.

But it's not just that he employed these individuals in positions of power in his office, it's that when the former associate raised objections, he says Mr. Obama's position was that he saw nothing wrong with the Nation of Islam and didn't think it was a problem. If true--and the fact that Ms. Mason still holds her prominent Obama Senate staff position bears that out--Obama's condemnation of Farrakhan, this month, is phony.

But the insider says there is more to it than that. Obama's Illinois State Senate district consisted of prime Nation of Islam territory, including Hyde Park, home to Farrakhan's mansion. It is not possible, Illinois politicos say, to win that district without the blessing of the NOI leader. NOI members, including consultant Shakir Muhammad, held important roles in the Obama state senate campaign.

How many Nation of Islam members will work in an Obama White House?

Then, there is the issue of Israel. When Obama first ran for the U.S. Senate, he gave militant responses to the Chicago Jewish News about Israel. Obama denounced Israel's fence--which he called a "wall" and "barrier to peace"--to keep out terrorists and favored working with Yasser Arafat. When members of the Chicago Jewish community circulated his responses, Obama said that the answers were not his positions, but the work of a low-level intern. He submitted new answers. But that was a lie, the insider says. In fact, they were the work of Obama's Policy Director, Audra Wilson. Moreover, Obama told the insider that he blamed the Mideast conflict on the Jews:

Barack told me that he felt that Jewish community was too inflexible, and that was why the situation in the Mideast could not be resolved.

This is the man who says in a new campaign ad that Hillary Clinton will say anything but change nothing. Barack Obama will say anything, but change his answers.

Palestinian activist and Islamist Ali Abunimah, who was a close friend of Obama's, attended an Arab fundraiser at which the late Edward Said--plagiarist, fabricator, and prominent PLO/Arafat advisor--was the keynote speaker, and at which the Obamas were notably in attendance. Pictures on Abunimah's site, posted above, show Obama and wife, Michelle, sitting next to Said and engaging in conversation. Abunimah, in a must-read article, says the Senator has since "changed" his proclaimed views from those he expressed privately, in order to get Jewish donors and votes.

And he has succeeded in spades. Lee Rosenberg a top Illinois official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby is a big Obama donor. Ditto for former national AIPAC official Bob Asher. And Penny Pritzker of the pro-Israel family that owns Hyatt hotels. And there are so many others who have bought in to Obama's newly pro-Israel views. The insider says Obama pulled the wool over their eyes.

Then, there's Bettylu Saltzman, also Jewish and one of Obama's first major supporters and donors. She is a major Peace Now devotee, officer of the far-left, pro-capitulation New Israel Fund, and wrote a letter to a Chicago newspaper praising Jimmy Carter's book calling Israel an apartheid state. The Obama insider says she has Obama's ear on the Mideast and "will be a major policy person for Barack. Very dangerous."

The insider points to Mr. Obama's changing views in Iraq as another area of uncertainty. He has highlighted his opposition to the War in Iraq. The insider says there is strong speculation that Obama attempted to get his crony, Federal Indictee Tony Rezko, a contract to build a nuclear power plant in the new Iraq. Rezko, a Syrian Arab who helped Obama in a deal to purchase his home, was in a partnership with NOI founder Elijah Muhammad's son, Jabir.

Barack Obama can denounce Louis Farrakhan ad infinitum. But with supporters like Ms. Saltzman, high-level staffers who are Nation of Islam members, and constantly morphing views on Israel merely for donor appeal, a Barack Obama White House bodes poorly both for Israel and--far more important--for America."

There's more in the comments. (Sorry that I wasn't technically savvy enough to do it as a link.)

CM, I just want you to be fully informed. I suspect there's a lot below the surface that they're not telling you

Ichabod Chrain

Orthoprax said...

IC,

You have any substantiation for the statements from Debbie Schlussel's super secret insider source? This stuff isn't anywhere on the regular media - or, in fact, anywhere else on the web except stuff derived from her site.

I don't know if this stuff is true or not, but Debbie Schlussel is about as reliable as Ann Coulter.

Lubab No More said...

Ichabod Chrain,

As noted in the article you cited Obama denounced Farrakhan. Why do you "suspect there's a lot below the surface"? It seems pretty clear he wants work toward making peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I know some of you think that is grounds enough for voting against the guy but I think it's pretty clear what his stance toward Israel will be.


Here are more of Obama's comments regarding Farrakhan. This is from the Washington Post:

"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."

Link to text of the Post article

Anonymous said...

Ok so Obama is apparently a politician and not as much the steely unwavering saint the Candy man would have us think as much as the politician who sees he has to do what Hillary did and show a ProIsrael stance after an imperfect performance in that regard but still the stated views mean something too unlike in the Arab world in regard to Israel. If he really did denounce Farrakhan it also means something. Farrakhan gets ordinarily a lot of grassroots deference despite being a moron.

Anonymous said...

He condemned Farrakhan quite thoroughly I see.

Anonymous said...

Orthoprax,

Debbie Schlussel can be a bit tempermental, but I haven't seen where she's been factually inaccurate.

Anyway, it's not just Debbie Schlussel. See Carl in Jerusalem at Israel Matzav:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-on-israel-and-jews-actions-dont.html
(Sorry couldn't do it as a link) He says something very similar.

Ichabod Chrain

evanstonjew said...

Jews are running his campaign..Ram Emmanuel and I forget the other guys name,the one with the droopy mustache.

I agree the church he belong to is no bargain. Why did he choose this church when there are so many choices on the South Side. I think to prove to himself he is black ,having had a white mother,etc.

I heard his speech on hope Saturday night. He is so very good, a real master of the cadences of Martin Luther King and John Kennedy. It brings back memories of a different time in America, a more idealistic time.

The difference a new spirit in America will make means everything. America is a superpower going downhill. The world runs around us. We have guns but are quickly losing our relative economic strength. It is all LBO's and damn hedge funds that are just reshuffling the deck for their own gain. Hilary might be better for the labor unions and working man. Obama is better for everybody other than the right. The rich will suffer under his administration. They have has a good run. Enough.

badrabbi said...

"Obama is better for everybody other than the right. The rich will suffer under his administration. They have has a good run. Enough."

First, do not worry too much about the rich, as they will figure out ways to survive and thrive. They may learn to hide their monies from the grab of the tax man, or they may stay at the sidelines of America's business market, but they will figure something out. Stop and think for a moment, though, what would happen in an administration that is hostile to the rich. Imagine, for instance, what would happen if you are hostile to the likes of Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg. Imagine a society that excessively taxes the rich (even more excessive than what goes on today) and spends it on the poor. You can bet your poor and middle class dollar that such a society will rapidly collapse under the weight of high expenditure and low tax revenue.

The rich are not cows that you can milk before slaughter. They are trees that in the process of growth, provide shade and bear fruit for you. Start growing arrogant and cut their branches to stow your fires and the next thing you know, the forest is gone and you are in a desert!

badrabbi said...

Obama may or may not be a good candidate. So very little is known about him. Before voting for such an unknown entity, I would like to know the following:

1. Who is he? Who are his parents, what are his roots? What has done in his own community from the time after his graduation until public office?

2. What prompted him to run for public office? Who helped him get elected?

3. What has he done since taking public office? He has, what, three years in the Senate? Have we any significant records of what he has voted for? A little difficult to review a record since from the day he was elected in the Senate, he was essentially running for president!

4. What are his stances on policy issues:

- What position does he take on taxes (specifically, will he raise taxes, and if so, on whom and by ow much)?
- What is view of abortion, and on stem cell research?
- What is his view on the level of spending currently, and what will he do?
- By how much will he cut the military budget?
- What will he do about global warming?
- How will the tax code change?
- How will he change the energy policy?
- What is his view on legla immigration?
- what is his view on illegal immigration?
- What will he to exactly to secure our borders?

Etc. Stop saying "change" and tell us what these changes are...

On foreign policy, what is

- His plan about Iraq? What exactly is his plan?

- How will he bring energy prices down?

- What is policy in the middle east?

- How will he fight terrorism, if at all?

- How will he deal with the rising powers of the far East?


Answer those questions (instead of saying a meaning thing as 'he is a gentleman - the other day he stopped his speech because someone fainted'!!!) and I will think about voting for him. Answer also why I should vote for someone with essentially zero experience?

Lubab No More said...

badrabbi,

> You can bet your poor and middle class dollar that such a society will rapidly collapse under the weight of high expenditure and low tax revenue.

Another bet you may not want to make. Europe's nations have hardly "collapsed" under their tax-the-rich policies. I'm not saying their tax system is ideal, but society certainly hasn't collapsed.

The economics are that we can't run this country the way we have without a progressive tax system. For example, our military would have to make drastic cuts if we were to rely on a "fair tax" system like the one Mike Huckabee has offered.

Further, to stay competitive in the global economy we need to add nation-wide benefits like health-care. Many of our major corporations are unable to turn a profit because of the health-care coverage they're providing. Look at Ford for example.

The rich need to support the system that allows them to make their money.

evanstonjew said...

I fail to see if we increase the inheritance tax exemption to say 10 million and then revert to the old rates before Bush came to office how American business will stand on the sidelines.

Why would any democrat want to create a two tiered society with a permanent leisure class that need not work from day one?

evanstonjew said...

CHECK THIS OUT...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202657414830&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This is the old Likud and Bush doing this...not Labor,not Meretz.If Obama had suggested this Jews would go into orbit.

The future has arrived.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lubab No More said...

... Dah-leeted.

Orthoprax said...

IC,

"Anyway, it's not just Debbie Schlussel. See Carl in Jerusalem at Israel Matzav:"

It's just a lot of circumstantial arguments and some dubiously sourced material. I don't know how true any of this stuff is. That Obama empathizes with the Palestinian side is public knowledge and so is the fact that he has a relatively qualified support for Israel, but it is a leap to suggest he is anti-Israel or an antisemite based on this dubious material.


BR,

"Imagine a society that excessively taxes the rich (even more excessive than what goes on today) and spends it on the poor. You can bet your poor and middle class dollar that such a society will rapidly collapse under the weight of high expenditure and low tax revenue."

Hardly. Income tax rates on the richest today are among the lowest of the century. There were times in America when the top tax bracket was paying more than 90 cents on each dollar to the federal government (compared to today's 35%). It was called the 1950s. And throughout the 60s and 70s, it never went below 70%.

"Before voting for such an unknown entity, I would like to know the following"

To be frank, most of what you listed is information publically available and your ignorance is only from lack of looking.

Anonymous said...

" Europe's nations have hardly "collapsed" under their tax-the-rich policies. I'm not saying their tax system is ideal, but society certainly hasn't collapsed."

Lubab, what are you saying? If a society can still function at some level, it's okay because it hasn't really collapsed. Europe is having some real economic problems, even if they haven't collapsed.


EJ, Jews might be running Obama's campaign but there are plenty of self-hating Jews.

The rest of your comments echo CM's arguments, which is something like "I support Mr. Hope and Change because he makes me feel good, and isn't it great to have some hope for a change."

Sure Mr. Hope and Change inspires some people. But that's because the media has been fawning all over him.

Scratch the surface and what you'll see is a heavy dose of leftism. We'll have hope just like the French have hope. The working man doesn't benefit when jobs go away, and when his taxes increase, and when an unelected elite expands the administrative state to crush individuality. That's the change we're going to get.



Ichabod Chrain

Lubab No More said...

IC,

> Lubab, what are you saying? If a society can still function at some level, it's okay because it hasn't really collapsed. Europe is having some real economic problems, even if they haven't collapsed.

I was responding to BadRabbi's claim that "society will rapidly collapse" if we taxed the rich more.

FYI, our system is having some real economic problems too even with our relatively low tax policies.

badrabbi said...

Lubab no more said:
"I was responding to BadRabbi's claim that "society will rapidly collapse" if we taxed the rich more."

I stand by my claim that society will rapidly collapse if the rich class were to be oppressed. No society, not even the Europeans can thrive under conditions of oppressing the most productive and creative members of their community.

Orthoprax;

You have a tendency to quickly respond with personal attacks in a given argument. It is the reason why I have avoided discussing issues with you too much.

The fact of the matter is that I, like most average voters, am not very well versed on the stances of any given candidate. Neither I, nor any average voter would claim that we have culled the multitude of news sources to get at Obama’s political positions. We can not simply look at his record, as he essentially has none. We can not simply glean his positions from his ads or from his stump speeches, as he offers vague platitudes of ‘change’. So here comes the Candy man, all excited about this man whom he portrays almost as a Messiah. I ask him why he is so excited and he recites a lame litany of reasons, having mostly to do with his feelings about Obama. I then respond that to earn my vote, I being an average voter, I would need to know some fundamental information. You then insert yourself, claiming that I am ignorant, as this information is available. Forgetting the nasty tone for a minute, that this information is available – which is not at all clear to me that it is – is almost besides the point. I was saying that supporting a candidate involves much more than simply how one feels about a candidate.

Returning to the nasty tone again, I might suggest that if the information is so readily available, and presumably you have this information, I would suggest that your purposes would be much better served if you clearly stated the answers that I posed, rather than insulting the asker of the questions. Such a tactic will not win you any friends, and certainly will not cause you to win the argument (assuming that there was an argument in the first place).

Anonymous said...

Well, for those who might still be following this, I thought I'd point out that LGF has a post about a flag of Che at Obama's Houston headquarters.

And then there's this from Confederate Yankee:

"Eight Years of "Billary" was enough for most of us. Are we ready for "Barichelle?"

On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally couldn't stay silent any longer.

"Barack," she interjected, "Feel -- don't think!" Telling her husband his "over-thinking" during past debates had tripped him up with rival Hillary Clinton, she said: "Don't get caught in the weeds. Be visceral. Use your heart -- and your head."

The campaign veterans shut up. They knew that Mrs. Obama's opinion and advice mattered more to their candidate than anything they could say.

Considering his lightweight resume featuring no executive experience on any level and only fleeting legislative experience of less than one term in the U.S. Senate, do we really want a presidential candidate to run his campaign on feelings?

But when a candidate has nothing more substantial to fall back on, perhaps the feelings in Barack Obama's heart is all he has left... that, and the advice of Michelle Obama, who unlike her husband, does have some executive experience (though in healthcare, not government).

As Hillary Clinton fades and Barack Obama's sweep of Democratic primary and caucus races over the weekend give him the momentum going into Tuesday's votes in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., both Obamas will come under increasing scrutiny as they seem poised to take the nomination from once-favored frontrunner Hillary Clinton in a tight Democratic race.

So what do we have in the Obamas? Barack Obama has, in less than one term, established himself as the Democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. More liberal than Harry Reid. More liberal than Barbara Boxer. More liberal than Dick Durbin. He has, in his short career, established himself as the most extremist Democratic Senator. He speaks mightily and often of "change," but is America ready for the radical progressive, socialist agenda his record suggests, and that his campaign avoids mentioning? Based purely on his track record, he seems too liberal to lead France, much less represent the greater population of the United States.

Michelle Obama has been mostly out of the limelight compared to the other spouse of the candidate in contention, but her advice to her husband to run with his heart—"Feel -- don't think!"—is terrifying advice to give a man who would have nuclear weapons under his control when the next terror attack takes place on American soil, and eventuality which one day will occur, and one that could quite possibly occur during the next presidency.

As Bill Whittle noted in Tribes, feeling, caring people such as Obama are great to be around when things are going swimmingly, but as we saw when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and Kathleen Blanco melted in her role as chief executive of Louisiana, you do not want them in charge when the crap hits the fan.

Barack Obama has never faced a true crisis. He has never faced calamity. His character, judgment under pressure, and strength in a crisis have never been tested. He is woefully inexperienced in a leadership role. All Barack Obama has is his emotions... or at least, that is all he has shown us, and what his wife advises him to show.

Perhaps he is, down deep, made of sterner stuff. But he has not shown it. He instead issues threats against nuclear-armed states, while promising to lose the war in Iraq as recently as just days ago.

He promises the " audacity of hope" because the paucity of his substance is so revealing. Without his brilliant gifts as a motivating speaker, he has little. As the Bard might say, Obama is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

We can do better than a candidate that excels only at oratory, and who would be shell-shocked as one of the most unqualified presidents this nation has ever known.

We deserve better.

We can do better.

Yes, we can."

Ichabod Chrain

Orthoprax said...

BR,

"You have a tendency to quickly respond with personal attacks in a given argument. It is the reason why I have avoided discussing issues with you too much."

What was personal? You gave a list of mysteries about Obama when the information is publically available. See his site, see wikipedia, see CNN - there're no huge mysteries on his publicized views. Certainly no more mysterious compared to the other candidates.

Why you put CM or myself to task for your ignorance is beyond me.

Why you feel my comment so offended your overly sensitive ego is also beyond me. Buck up and do your own homework.

badrabbi said...

Orthoprax;

Thanks for your reply. At your behest, I read Wikipedia's entry on Obama. His life, his experience, and some content of his book are written about. There is a section about his political image, etc. It is interesting that essentially nothing is written about his stance on the issues that I asked about.

The issues I raised are typical ones that any candidate has an obligation to respond to in detail. From McCain's record of being in congress for decades, we can readily obtain a position. Even Hillary has some record as she is a senator in her second term and her views as a first lady are known. Admittedly she too is a lightweight, but at least something is kown about her. But what is known about Barak? His Wikipedia entry?

It is becoming clear to me that you, Orthoprax, are probably not aware of the answers to the questions either.

badrabbi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
badrabbi said...

Orthoprax;

And just in case you were concered that I have given you too much homework, I hereby absolve you of your homework duties so that you can attned to your other matters.

Orthoprax said...

BR,

There is a specific wikipedia entry on Obama's political views. His website goes into great detail and even CNN has information on the candidates too. I informed you of all of those sources.

I find it difficult to believe that you are seriously trying to blame me for your half-assed data collection. Do you not know how to use Google?

Orthoprax said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Do I need to spoonfeed you anything else? Can I do your taxes for you too?

evanstonjew said...

Ichabod Chrain... I am too far on the left and my blood pressure is too high to engage you in an extended and serious discussion. Maybe some other time.

There is one thing on which I agree with you...Obama is on the left, though politics and the need to acheive consensus might force him to moderate his position. I consider this a virtue. I have grown tired of reading in Jewish blogs the argument that goes " Oh, so and so is a liberal..." as if being on the left side of the political spectrum is a shanda. My parents and maybe your grandparents were proud to support FDR AND and Truman and Adlai Stevenson. They disagreed if they were Humphrey or Jackson democrats. How a bunch of Jewish neo conservatives managed to turn all this around, how everyone these days ends up supporting the most right wing candidates such as Giuliani is a topic I find endlessly fascinating. It is an example imho of much that is wrong in American Orthodoxy.

Anonymous said...

Politics makes funny bed fellows. I see from the commentators on this post that being on the right or left on religion doesn't indicate, certainly not to any great precision views on politics.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
badrabbi said...

Orthoprax;

It is interesting dealing with you on these blogs. I find myself often defending myself on two fronts. On one, you make interesting points that are worth responding to intellectually. For example, you mentioned tax rates approaching 90% during the Carter era and pointed out that society hardly approached collapse during that time. This was as a response to my assertion that making things too difficult on the rich class is counterproductive. I find this interesting and fun to discuss and moll over. Similarly, your defense of an essentially green candidate in Obama is quite interesting. I am fascinated by how thoroughly this guy has managed to captivate otherwise intelligent people with nothing more than pure rhetoric.

In the previous post, I asked some typical questions regarding this candidate. These questions are typical but specific. Based on his stump speeches, advertisements, debates, etc., it is not clear to me what Obama’s stance is on these issues. It is perfectly clear that he is a far left liberal democrat. Based on that, I can guess what some of his opinions might be, but the point is that he is clever enough not to commit to them. Essentially, Obama has no clear stance on issues. He also has essentially no records from which his stance can be gleaned. After having forced the issue with you, you direct me to Obama’s web page which is essentially a propaganda piece. Frankly how you do not realize that this web page is one giant advertisement for Obama is beyond me. But, in any case, I download the 64 page “blue print for change” document and read it. What I found in there are wordy platitudes. For example, in my previous comment, I had asked how he would go about securing the borders of the US. The most I could find on this topic was: “Obama wants to protect the integrity of our borders.” This sentence is as useful as a sentence declaring that 12 noon constitutes ‘daytime’! The document has one additional sentence: “He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and our ports of entry.” This is the sum total of his border securing policy! And yet you accuse me of not doing my homework and having to spoon feed me information!

Yet, I do not mind arguing issues with you. I enjoy it in fact. It is your tone, though, that I can not stand. Your tone is condescending and nasty. “Do I have to spoon feed you?” “Do your taxes too?” No, you don’t have to do that. I gather that you are not an accountant and I think you will not do a good job. I am not in the habit of engaging people in vitriolic talk, denigrating them and putting them down. A tit for tat childish slugfest is stupid and I will no longer participate in it. So, I will stop responding to childish comments. If you want to talk issues and ideas, great. If not, not.

The Candy Man said...

Just tuning back in. I want to point out that the point of the post was not to debate the merits of Obama as president. It was just that there is value in seeking a higher purpose, whatever that is for you.

That being said, for the Obamaphiles out there, BarackTV is now live at barackobama.com. Barack junkies can get their video fix anytime of day, any day of the week. This stuff isn't easy to find on youtube:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid900881681/bclid900480414/bctid1410385546

And this one:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid900881681/bclid900480414/bctid1414327589

Find more at barackobama.com. If you like what you see, think about contributing to the campaign.

The Candy Man said...

hey guys, can someone tell me how to get my URLs to appear as links in the comments? Having trouble with this.

Orthoprax said...

BR,

"Similarly, your defense of an essentially green candidate in Obama is quite interesting."

I'm not defending Obama, I just think you are completely mischaracterizing his supposedly deep mysteriousness which is easily solved with a modicum of detective work.

Ironically Obama is not my candidate of choice and his lack of experience is part of the reason why that is, so I wasn't about to go out of my way to present his views for you. Don't vote for him? Ok! However his views are available if your choose to explore them and if you choose not to then don't. No skin off my nose.

"Frankly how you do not realize that this web page is one giant advertisement for Obama is beyond me."

Of course it is, but in it he presents his views. If you want a place where they criticize his views then visit some conservative blogs or whatever.

"For example, in my previous comment, I had asked how he would go about securing the borders of the US. The most I could find on this topic was: “Obama wants to protect the integrity of our borders.” This sentence is as useful as a sentence declaring that 12 noon constitutes ‘daytime’! The document has one additional sentence: “He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and our ports of entry.” This is the sum total of his border securing policy! And yet you accuse me of not doing my homework and having to spoon feed me information!"

Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act, but beyond that what else would you expect any politician to say on border security? Adding guards and equipment is basically everybody's plan. As for his general plan on immigration, Obama has stated that his views are very similar to McCain's.

This is all data avilable on the internet to anyone who takes the time to search for it. Obviously his campaign site isn't going to be the exhaustive source, but it's a great place to start.

"It is your tone, though, that I can not stand. Your tone is condescending and nasty."

When a person isn't willing to do his own Google searches I get testy. I shouldn't have to do the heavy lifting for both sides of a debate.

"A tit for tat childish slugfest is stupid and I will no longer participate in it."

Good, then we can put an end to it.

Anonymous said...

I am not a racist but I don't think a colored person can handle running this country.

Anonymous said...

"Gene said...
I am not a racist but I don't think a colored person can handle running this country."

Maybe you'ld feel he can half run it because of his mother.
Rabban Gamliel

Anonymous said...

Anonymous
I agree a woman could not run the country. I think a Jew definitely could.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous
I agree a woman could not run the country. I think a Jew definitely could.

Sorry to tell you this Gene, but you probably are a racist. Why would you think that a Jew definitly can run the country, but not a black man. As far Hillary goes I agree with you.....Avi

badrabbi said...

I have been trying to educate myself a little about Barak Obama. He gave a speech in February in New Orleans. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/barack_obamas_speech.html

The content of the speech was very moving, which once again proves he is a good orator.

Essentially, though, he promised everything. In particular, he promised, among other things, to upgrade a levee system to protect against a category 5 hurricaine in New Orleans.

This promise alone, would easily cost at least $35 billion dollars (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/national/nationalspecial/29flood.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin). For those of you who keep track of candidates and what their promises would cost, this is but one example.

badrabbi said...

Here is Barak's official position on NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement):
"Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers."

This is the sum total of his position on it: NAFTA is not that good, and I will make it better.

People listen to this amorphous gobildigook and like Chris Mathews, "a thrill goes up" their legs! Are we this gullible?

Orthoprax said...

"WASHINGTON - U.S. Democrat Barack Obama has been complaining off and on for months about the North American free trade deal in a bid to curry favour with worried workers.

He took it up several notches Wednesday, looking to consolidate his surging campaign by courting working-class voters who've been loyal to Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination.

Obama slammed the deal as one reason the country is facing economic turmoil and issued a rebuke to Clinton, whose husband pushed hard for NAFTA over the objections of many Democrats.

"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control," he told workers at a General Motors assembly plant in Janesville, Wis.

"It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington - the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality its produced," he said.

"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear."

Obama didn't propose ending free trade, saying "we can't stop every job from going overseas," but he made a strong pitch for fair trade, promising that any new deal include protections for the environment and American workers.

He also pledged to pass an act to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas if he becomes president.

"That's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in," Obama said in a slap at Clinton, who has called for a review of NAFTA and has recently voted against a number of new deals."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/02/13/4845263-cp.html

Anonymous said...

CM:
"I want to point out that the point of the post was not to debate the merits of Obama as president. It was just that there is value in seeking a higher purpose, whatever that is for you."

Now you tell us.

Ichabod Chrain

badrabbi said...

"WASHINGTON - U.S. Democrat Barack Obama has been complaining off and on for months about the North American free trade deal in a bid to curry favour with worried workers.”

He has been complaining IN A BID TO CURRY FAVOR!

”He took it up several notches Wednesday, looking to consolidate his surging campaign by courting working-class voters who've been loyal to Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination. “

That’s right, say things TO COURT working voters.

”Obama slammed the deal as one reason the country is facing economic turmoil and issued a rebuke to Clinton, whose husband pushed hard for NAFTA over the objections of many Democrats.”

Ah, ok then; a position! Obama does not like NAFTA. Wow, we get it, he is against NAFTA. Fantastic! Here we come to a position he has taken on something!

"’We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control,’ he told workers at a General Motors assembly plant in Janesville, Wis.”

Oh, OK, he is saying that NAFTA is bringing us to the brink of recession. I am clear about Obama’s position: NAFTA IS BAD!

"’It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington - the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality its produced,’ he said.”

Oh yes, NAFTA is a failure of imagination. What a bad treaty! Shame on them insider Washingtonians who have dreamt up NAFTA!

"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear."

Oy vey, it is NAFTA that has caused millions of job losses. How terrible!

”Obama didn't propose ending free trade, saying "we can't stop every job from going overseas," but he made a strong pitch for fair trade, promising that any new deal include protections for the environment and American workers.”

Wait, what? No end to free trade? I thought NAFTA was bad bad bad! Now you are saying free trade is good? But…um..isn’t NAFTA all about free trade? I thought he hate NAFTA. Now he says we shouldn’t stop free trade? So, which is it, is he for NAFTA or against it?

”He also pledged to pass an act to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas if he becomes president.”

Wait! He ALSO pledged something? What was his first pledge? To repeal NAFTA? If someone understands this gobbledygook, please explain. Is he for NAFTA or against it?

Now, which tax breaks is he talking about? I personally own a company. I send some dictation services to India. I am wondering what tax breaks will be cut from me? I did not even know that I was getting a tax break!


"That's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in," Obama said”

Wait! What is this position of yours, cause I missed it. Are you, dear Barak for or against NAFTA? What part of the deal is offensive to you?

NAFTA has had several purposes, one of which was to promote the economy of Mexico. Even Obama, in his issues position has said the following (this quote is found on his web site, “a blueprint for change”):
“Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.”

This is incredible: A candidate manages to talk out of both sides of his mouth while at the same time managing to say absolutely nothing!

Orthoprax said...

BR,

I think it's fairly evident that Obama is against NAFTA as it currently stands, but isn't willing to repeal it. He wants to amend it in ways that protect American jobs. How that will actually play out in reality is anyone's guess.

But since Hillary is equally as two-tongued about NAFTA and has not publicized any specific intentions (they even have identical voting records - anti-CAFTA, pro-Peru), I fail to see how you can cite Obama as a special offender.

I don't even know why you find this behavior so shocking.

badrabbi said...

Oh, I am no fan of Hillary either. I agree that Mrs. Clinton has a forked tongue. Frankly, if I were pushed to vote between the two, I would swallow hard, hold my nose in the voting booth, and vote for Obama.

Its just that this post is about Obama that I talk about him. I must say that I actually like the guy as he at least is inspirational and has leadership qualities. With Hillary, we get all the same tired tricks of politicians without any inspiration.

The Candy Man said...

NAFTA has had several purposes, one of which was to promote the economy of Mexico.

LOL! A good friend of mine is a public policy graduate student and from Mexico. She says NAFTA has killed the Mexican economy... basically, it is heavily biased in favor of Canadian and American trade.

Just b/c it says "free trade agreement" in the title doesn't mean it's really doing that. You know these guys always come up with titles that sound good so it can pass through Congress. Like "no child left behind," etc.