Reply
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 01:25 pm
The content of Obama's character
By Tom Mountain - Saturday February 9 2008
Barack Hussein Obama. What is it about him that has captured the support of so many within the American Jewish community?
He's only been a senator for just over three years. For seven years before that he was a state legislator from Illinois. In the 2004 Illinois senate race he beat out a few lackluster Democratic opponents, then went into the general election against Republican commentator Alan Keyes, who jumped into the fray for the last 12 weeks after the previous scandal-ridden candidate dropped out. And so Barack Obama waltzed into the Senate with 70 percent of the vote.
So anyone in the Jewish community or, for that matter, anyone in America who believes they're voting for the 46-year-old Obama based on his extensive national, or even statewide, political experience is playing let's pretend. The comparisons with other notable presidents who entered the presidency at a younger age hardly measure up. Such as John Kennedy, who was 43 when elected but had already served three terms in Congress, and was on his second term in the Senate when he became president.
Many are undoubtedly captivated by the junior senator's oratory skills. He's good at the podium, in an interview, or one-on-one with the public, with or without a prepared script. The man definitely has charisma, and he's as charming as any politician can be. Some say Obama is as great an orator as John Kennedy, at least that's what JFK's own daughter Caroline seems to think. But so was the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan, and Jews hardly came out en-masse for him.
Some in the Jewish community are prone to cite Senator Obama's "superior vision for the country." When queried as to what exactly is that vision, they're at a loss for words. For that matter, so is Obama. The senator's message is a catchy one, "Change We Can Believe In." What that change is or will be is anyone's guess. Perhaps it's the whole concept of Barack Obama becoming president, or the mere fact that he's competing well enough to attract a national audience. And despite Bill Clinton's less than subtle suggestion to the contrary, he's no Jessie Jackson, at least as far as his widespread national support indicates.
But what is it exactly that separates him from Hillary Clinton? Or perhaps we should be asking what he plans to do should he be elected president, other than implementing the change-we-can-believe-in?
Yet the only logical and obvious reason why American Jews would support Barack Obama is because he's black. Or rather African-American, something which, given his Kenyan father, is quite true. But he's actually half-black, something that liberals choose to minimize. Because to those who label people, and by extension presidential candidates, not by "the content of their character" but by the color of their skin, the primary reason why they're supporting Obama in the first place is because he's black, or at least looks black. Obama's many fans in the Jewish community won't admit this, but it's true.
If Obama were solely white, no one would take him seriously as a presidential candidate with just three years in the Senate. But even veteran white guys from the Senate can't cut it with the liberal Democratic electorate this year. Just ask Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, and the latest victim, John Edwards.
So if the Jewish bellwether of supporting a presidential candidate is the traditional "is it good for the Jews?" - which these days translates into "is it good for Israel?" - then any sensible Jew will vote Republican. But if they're really that partisan (i.e., Democrats) then the clear choice is - and it pains me to say this - Hillary Clinton. Say what you want about the Hillster, she's got a proven track record on Israel, even if she's soft on Iran. And Barack Hussein Obama? Well, his father and stepfather were African Muslims, he's left-wing, he belongs to an anti-white, afro-centric church, his pastor hangs out with Louis Farrakhan and calls Israel a racist state, and one of his top advisors is an anti-Israel propagandist named Malley.
My liberal Jewish brethren, ask yourselves, do you really want to support a guy who's the equivalent of a black Jimmy Carter?
Note: In last week's column on Rudy Giuliani I assumed that he'd gain momentum after the Florida Primary and score big on Super Tuesday. Instead he left the race the very day that column hit the newsstand. As they say in Hebrew, "mah la'asote?
Jewish Advocate
My own opinion as to why so many Jewish "liberals" support Barack is, because many Jewish liberals like the "underdog" in any situation. Barack was considered initially the underdog against Hillary.
Then there's also the thought (my opinion) that many liberal Jews see in Barack a way to prove their idealized liberalism. And, many liberal Jews, in my opinion again, like to identify with the liberalism of America's liberal WASP's, and that's who is siding with Barack (and some of the Kennedys).
Plus, it may just make for some interesting conversations/arguments around the Seder table this spring. Why not? (With a shrug of both shoulders.)
Or maybe it has nothing to do with the color of his skin at all (this continual focus on exactly how black he really is reminds me of the whole one drop caste system for categorization during Jim Crow in this country - and it's really pretty offensive).
Maybe it has to do with the fact that they've taken (as accurately as they can, given what information they have) the measure of the man. Maybe he seems to embody the characteristics they value in a person they would trust to represent our country in our dealings with the rest of the world.
When you stand him side by side with George Bush, it's hard to find him lacking in any way in terms of the traits and characteristics one would find to be beneficial in a president- even though he is young and relatively inexperienced.
I think it's demeaning to attribute his success to the color of his skin. From my experience in this country- I'd say he deserves credit that he's made it this far despite the color of his skin. And I think that says something about the content of his character.
Yet another Obama thread.
Yeah, you know - I'm starting to get excited now. I didn't really allow myself to hope until now- but now...it looks like we might actually have a chance to have someone in power who is an enlightened, thinking, caring person and not a political machine.
aidan wrote:...it looks like we might actually have a chance to have someone in power who is an enlightened, thinking, caring person and not a political machine.
That's what I thought too and that's why I voted for Mrs. Clinton this past Tuesday in Boston.
As far as Obama is concerned I wouldn't believe a single thing the man says.
Well, I guess we just read things differently- ALTHOUGH- I grant you, I never place very much faith in anyone who aspires to such power- so I wouldn't be surprised to have all my hopes and beliefs dashed.
And while I have absolutely no problem with Hillary - I really personally don't- I just don't believe she's electable in this country and I'm afraid if she's the democratic nominee, even people who are somewhat centrist and reasonable in other circumstances will react viscerally and negatively and either refuse to vote or vote republican and I ABSOLUTELY do not want four more years of a republican government.
I guess I also believe that leaders of other countries may have trouble relating to or communicating with her. Not because she's a woman- but because of what other people interpret as being her abrasiveness (again, I don't particularly see it myself - I like her personality). I think this could be detrimental. You know if she had her brain and Bill's personality- I think she'd be perfect and acceptable as a leader to most men in the world - but as she is right now ( a strong woman) alot of men are threatened by her.
That's my reasoning. I hope you're wrong about Obama.
aidan wrote:
And while I have absolutely no problem with Hillary - I really personally don't- I just don't believe she's electable in this country and I'm afraid if she's the democratic nominee, even people who are somewhat centrist and reasonable in other circumstances will react viscerally and negatively and either refuse to vote or vote republican and I ABSOLUTELY do not want four more years of a republican government.
The inference, I believe, in your above statement is you may not be comfortable with the democratic process, since that process includes much visceral voting? In effect, if the people of the United States want a Republican president over a specific Democratic nominee, you are against the voice of the people?
If many Democratic voters do want a Republican nominee over a specific Democratic nominee, doesn't that mean the Democratic party might just have a paucity of electable candidates?
I only have one little vote. It is so little, I consider it a humble vote. Therefore, if it turns out that my vote was not for the winner, I applaud the democratic process for electing a winner, regardless if voters voted viscerally, or with a methodical analysis. It's only one vote we get, and I would not want to have "sour grapes," if my vote was not for a winner.
Quote:The inference, I believe, in your above statement is you may not be comfortable with the democratic process, since that process includes much visceral voting? In effect, if the people of the United States want a Republican president over a specific Democratic nominee, you are against the voice of the people?
That may be what you infer, but it's not what I implied. I meant that my preference would not be for any of the republican nominees that are in the running to be elected, so I hope that the democratic party puts forth its strongest nominee, in an effort to achieve a democratic government, for at least the next four years.
This particular year, in my opinion, that's Obama, for the reasons I stated.
I can't even say that I would never vote republican. If there were ever to be a republican candidate who embodied what I believed was the right combination of platform and integrity- I might.
And I don't believe I even addressed the issue of democracy - but since you did, I guess I'll have to admit that right along with my core beliefs in equality and the right of every citizen to have his or her voice be heard and recognized, I do also have various socialist leanings-in that I believe a government should make opportunities for what I believe are necessities, like education and health care, equally available to all citizens.
But I also have strong individualist leanings- so I could just as easily label myself a libertarian as a socialist as a democrat, as an independent...that's why I don't label myself.
Believe me, I'll live no matter who's elected- I always do.
And I sure wouldn't waste my life on sour grapes- especially about something that's so beyond my ability to control.
Miller wrote:aidan wrote:...it looks like we might actually have a chance to have someone in power who is an enlightened, thinking, caring person and not a political machine.
That's what I thought too and that's why I voted for Mrs. Clinton this past Tuesday in Boston.
As far as Obama is concerned I wouldn't believe a single thing the man says.
Which suggest you think Clinton is the light of honesty????
woiyo wrote:Miller wrote:aidan wrote:...it looks like we might actually have a chance to have someone in power who is an enlightened, thinking, caring person and not a political machine.
That's what I thought too and that's why I voted for Mrs. Clinton this past Tuesday in Boston.
As far as Obama is concerned I wouldn't believe a single thing the man says.
Which suggest you think Clinton is the light of honesty????
Where did I mention Mrs. Clinton's honesty?
Read the print on the screen not the print in your imagination.
Miller wrote:woiyo wrote:Miller wrote:aidan wrote:...it looks like we might actually have a chance to have someone in power who is an enlightened, thinking, caring person and not a political machine.
That's what I thought too and that's why I voted for Mrs. Clinton this past Tuesday in Boston.
As far as Obama is concerned I wouldn't believe a single thing the man says.
Which suggest you think Clinton is the light of honesty????
Where did I mention Mrs. Clinton's honesty?
Read the print on the screen not the print in your imagination.
I never said you did say she was honest. Your reason for voting for her suggested that you felt she was "enlightened, thinking, caring person and not a political machine."
I guess I was wrong. therefore, please explain exactly why you voted for Clinton?
aidan wrote:Yeah, you know - I'm starting to get excited now. I didn't really allow myself to hope until now- but now...it looks like we might actually have a chance to have someone in power who is an enlightened, thinking, caring person and not a political machine.
Actually while I agree with you; my point was that it was another miller obama thread.
I did a search of Miller and Obama in this forum; the results were 29 referrences with miller starting 13 of them. I went back and looked through the thread and the search left some out so there are even more.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/search.php?mode=results
(tried to leave a link for the search but the link don't work)
Personally I think his/her support of Hillary is just to keep Obama from winning out of this sick obsession he/she has against Obama.
Where as you and Soz just attack anyone who says anything good about Clinton. You each seem to think its much better to post 10,000 attacks than look objectively at both their careers. What exactly has obama done to warrant his messiah status besides be a fair speaker and spout the word change every 5 minutes. Something specific please, no more generalities.
rabel22 wrote:Where as you and Soz just attack anyone who says anything good about Clinton. You each seem to think its much better to post 10,000 attacks than look objectively at both their careers. What exactly has obama done to warrant his messiah status besides be a fair speaker and spout the word change every 5 minutes. Something specific please, no more generalities.
He is not a messiah, and he doesn't have that status. It's a false question.
Cycloptichorn
Fact: the number of anti-Obama threads started by Miller is directly proportional to Obama's success in the primaries.
The more ass he kicks, the more threads of this nature.
In short, things are looking good for Barack.
Than don't answer my post. And ill be the judge of whats false and whats not. Also your belief that picking one statement out of a post and denying it makes the whole post irreverent isn't true.
revel wrote:aidan wrote:Yeah, you know - I'm starting to get excited now. I didn't really allow myself to hope until now- but now...it looks like we might actually have a chance to have someone in power who is an enlightened, thinking, caring person and not a political machine.
Actually while I agree with you; my point was that it was another miller obama thread.
I did a search of Miller and Obama in this forum; the results were 29 referrences with miller starting 13 of them. I went back and looked through the thread and the search left some out so there are even more.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/search.php?mode=results
(tried to leave a link for the search but the link don't work)
Personally I think his/her support of Hillary is just to keep Obama from winning out of this sick obsession he/she has against Obama.
Why can't anyone just be FOR Hillary, and therefore would be against Hillary's one rival (Obama)? The race is close, and Obama does not give specifics for his planned "change" (or have I missed something?).
Also, if anyone would be better at Messiah status, I believe it would be Hillary, since like Jesus, her emphasis on health care reform would
heal the sick.
Anyway, this might all be academic, since McCain is likely the winner in the General Election. So, in my opinion, this thread may just be putting people at more unnecessary risk for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Foofie wrote:revel wrote:aidan wrote:Yeah, you know - I'm starting to get excited now. I didn't really allow myself to hope until now- but now...it looks like we might actually have a chance to have someone in power who is an enlightened, thinking, caring person and not a political machine.
Actually while I agree with you; my point was that it was another miller obama thread.
I did a search of Miller and Obama in this forum; the results were 29 referrences with miller starting 13 of them. I went back and looked through the thread and the search left some out so there are even more.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/search.php?mode=results
(tried to leave a link for the search but the link don't work)
Personally I think his/her support of Hillary is just to keep Obama from winning out of this sick obsession he/she has against Obama.
Why can't anyone just be FOR Hillary, and therefore would be against Hillary's one rival (Obama)? The race is close, and Obama does not give specifics for his planned "change" (or have I missed something?).
Also, if anyone would be better at Messiah status, I believe it would be Hillary, since like Jesus, her emphasis on health care reform would
heal the sick.
Anyway, this might all be academic, since McCain is likely the winner in the General Election. So, in my opinion, this thread may just be putting people at more unnecessary risk for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Health Care? Not the NUMBER 1 issue on my agenda for President of the US. Since Congress woul dneed to negotiate any "plan" put forth by a President, I do not see "HEALTH CARE" as a top line issue when voting for the Commander in Chief. Both Obama and Clinton are talking the CHANGE line. What exactly can a President change, except finding a reasonable way to get our troops home?
rabel22 wrote:. Something specific please, no more generalities.
Quote:
In October 2006, Clinton spoke about exceptions to a no-torture policy when speaking to the New York Daily News. Clinton mentioned a "ticking time bomb" scenario in which a captured terrorist has knowledge of an imminent terror attack and interrogators want to use torture.
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said. "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."
Then, on Sept. 26, 2007, Clinton said something different. During a debate, Tim Russert asked her about the ticking bomb scenario and here's what she said: "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period." She said she met with military generals who told her there is "very little evidence that it works."
In the days after the debate, the Republican National Committee criticized her for flip-flopping, and Obama said he would oppose torture "without exception or equivocation," according to Daily News reports.
Did Clinton change position because of her talks with the generals or because of the "politics of the moment"? We can't see inside Clinton's head, so our ruling doesn't reflect on that part of the statement. But it is clear she changed her mind about the "ticking bomb" scenario. So we rate Obama's claim True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/329/
But for me it is more of an attitude thing; I like Obama's approach to problems a little more than I like Hillary's. I guess it is just gut instinct. However; I don't think I have really said anything against Hillary or Hillary supporters because I admit it is very hard to find concrete differences between them when it comes to policy and their voting records. You have to really search and stretch to do it. I think Hillary is more political driven than Obama seems to be; but again that is just an impression I have and nothing really provable so it is not really worth much in the long run.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace