Obama '08?

I have been around for a long time and I have done and seen a lot of things, from flying fighters to operating ships, the academic world and running businesses (and even there in things ranging from nuclear plant operations to construction and environmental consulting); and while doing it worked & lived in very diverse and different environments - a lot more than most people I meet and get to know - and I'm still at it. That doesn't mean mine doesn't stink, but it has given me a very good BS detector - to wrap things up on a scatological note.

Cyclo,
How are you going to react when you find out that Obama cant change Washington, and that he cant deliver on what he is promising?

Wow, you've never actually listened to any speeches he's given, have you?

The 'audacity of hope' refers to the fact that our country has plenty of folks who say that positive change will never happen; that our politics is so ran by corporations and special interests and corruption that it's silly to imagine things changing. That Republicans and Democrats disagree so fundamentally, the idea of working with each other is stupid. That, say, a black man could never be president.

And yet, some of us have the audacity to hope that these things are untrue. In the face of a lifetime of negativity - from both parties, not just one or the other - people still have hope that things will get better.

Cycloptichorn

THE WOODS FUND.
May 2, 2008

Ari Berman does some good investigative work and examines the Woods Fund, the nonprofit on whose board Obama and Ayers both sat. It turns out to have been an association dedicated to grants for community organizing, and Obama's involvement in it is actually quite worth exploring:

Lost in the media brouhaha are the facts about what the Woods Fund actually does, why it attracted someone like Obama and how Ayers came to be on its board. This story is less sexy than the current gotcha games, but the composition of the organization and its commitment to community organizing tell us a lot more about Obama than mischaracterizations of his association with Ayers. As Michelle Obama once put it, "Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change." The Woods Fund, in many ways, is responsible for helping start Obama as an organizer and shaping his political identity. In 1985 the foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama, at 24, as an organizer on Chicago's economically depressed South Side. Obama became friendly with Woods director Jean Rudd, and after he graduated from Harvard Law School and moved back to Chicago, Rudd asked him to join the board, which met four times a year to review grant proposals. (Obama also served on the board of the larger Joyce Foundation, which specialized in environmental conservation, welfare reform and education.) "Community organizing was a central priority of this foundation, so more and more we drew him in," says Rudd, who retired in 2000.[...] Established by Nebraska businessmen in 1941, with a current endowment of $68 million and annual grants totaling $3 million--a tiny figure in the foundation world--the Woods Fund has taken risks that larger foundations can't. It awards hundreds of small grants a year, usually no larger than $50,000, to activists, neighborhood groups, think tanks, and arts and culture projects in Chicago's most-forgotten and blighted communities. It has funded ex-offenders to lobby for the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences and unfair drug laws, organized senior citizens to advocate for affordable housing, pushed parents to get more involved in their children's crumbling schools. The fund has linked public policy groups with community organizers--wonks with activists--a particular interest of Obama's. "The grants are small, but the impact is significant," says Jesus Garcia, vice chair of the board and the first Mexican-American elected to the Illinois senate.

It's an interesting commentary on the state of our media that despite all the attention given to the Obama-Ayers connection, folks haven't even learned about the Woods Fund as a side effect. You'd expect that with all the words written, clips run, and tenuous connections aired, they'd at least be able to be accidentally informative as to the actualt relevance of the subject at hand. But no.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Wow, you've never actually listened to any speeches he's given, have you?

Yes, I have listened to some, and I have read his book, and watched many of the debates.

Quote:

The 'audacity of hope' refers to the fact that our country has plenty of folks who say that positive change will never happen; that our politics is so ran by corporations and special interests and corruption that it's silly to imagine things changing. That Republicans and Democrats disagree so fundamentally, the idea of working with each other is stupid. That, say, a black man could never be president.

Nobody I know says a black man can't be president. As far as I am concerned, it has nothing to do with race. We have a black man on the supreme court, but the Democrats, and many blacks did everything in their political power to prevent it. To say it is race is hogwash. It is politics, pure and simple, and I for one am not going to be browbeat into voting for Obama simply because his skin is black. It will be based on his political views, and the drumbeat is starting, you and your ilk will accuse any opposition to Obama as racism. If he loses, it will be because the country is too racist. This is totally repugnant as a strategy, but this is what your party does.

Quote:

And yet, some of us have the audacity to hope that these things are untrue. In the face of a lifetime of negativity - from both parties, not just one or the other - people still have hope that things will get better.

Cycloptichorn

It has nothing to do with hope, it has to do with political views and policy. I happen to believe corporations are far better than government. You better thank your lucky stars for corporations, and if Obama and his band of changers tries to subvert business, rob them of profits and productivity, and hurt the tens of millions of shareholders, he is going to be in big trouble. Contrary to what you might believe, corporations are producers of goods and services, and they provide jobs. Unless you want to eliminate all of that, I would suggest that corporations and all kinds of businesses should be able to have some input and freedom of speech, to heck with Obama. I happen to belong to the Federation of Independent Business, and they further my interests in Washington, thank you very much.

And by the way, we have parties, not to agree, but to further different political views, and the one that gets more support generally gets more power in Washington. You already have your Democratic Party, that should be enough without browbeating the Republicans into agreeing with everything you do, based on the false assumption that we should always get along and agree on everything. It has never happened and never will.

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
How are you going to react when you find out that Obama cant change Washington, and that he cant deliver on what he is promising?

I don't think he'll be successful in everything, or all at once. But I think he will succeed at some things.

And I believe he will compose himself honorably. I would be disappointed if he did not. More so then if he fails.

Cycloptichorn

A propos of nothing - that Bill Ayers guy, what a piece of work, eh. Seriously; no matter how much he has rehabilitated himself over the years since those revolutionary days in the sixties, I have trouble finding any sympathy for another of those erstwhile white college boy revolutionaries who got themselves into throwing bombs for the cause -- especially if he still doesnt regret it.

And yeah, Obama sat on the board of a charity that he was on too. We've heard all about it. But do you actually know what that charity did? Does anyone know? Have you heard any of those TV reporters going on about the "Ayers connection" say anything about it? Whatsoever?

Wow, usually you have to visit a cult to hear this kind of willful stupidity.

No thanks. I get enough banging my head against a brick wall talking to my mother.

I'm not Cyclo, but speaking for myself, I think it depends on the "thing". For instance, if he didn't immediately put a stop to warrantless eavesdropping I'd be pretty disappointed.

FreeDuck wrote:

I'm not Cyclo, but speaking for myself, I think it depends on the "thing". For instance, if he didn't immediately put a stop to warrantless eavesdropping I'd be pretty disappointed.

Unless he wants to put the country and your fellow citizens at much greater risk of another 911, I think he will become practical and begin to think logically and responsibly once the responsibility rests upon his shoulders. If he doesn't care about us, then he will stop all reasonable intelligence efforts that are being maligned as breaking the law, blah blah blah, which has been nothing more than a political vendetta against this administration. My guess is the entire scenario of how this is viewed and reported will change, and the perceived problem will evaporate into nothing, as it always was as an issue, nothing.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
How are you going to react when you find out that Obama cant change Washington, and that he cant deliver on what he is promising?

I don't think he'll be successful in everything, or all at once. But I think he will succeed at some things.

And I believe he will compose himself honorably. I would be disappointed if he did not. More so then if he fails.

Cycloptichorn

That doesn't answer mysteryman's question. Your answer is you think he will succeed in some things he's promising. Mysteryman's question was how you react if he didn't.

That doesn't answer mysteryman's question. Your answer is you think he will succeed in some things he's promising. Mysteryman's question was how you react if he didn't.

Obama Is Willing to Debate McCain at Town Halls This Summer

May 10 (Bloomberg)

Quote:

Obama Is Willing to Debate McCain at Town Halls This Summer

May 10 (Bloomberg)

Is anybody else excited about this idea of Obama and McCain debating each other at small-scale town halls through the summer?

Some on the Democratic side are already listing the strategical downsides for the Obama camp and saying that Obama should just play the conventional game, since he has the clear tactical advantage there. I think that'd be such a pity!

I mean, take a moment and consider it: done with the stilted, fearful no more than three debates in a campaign culture! Done with the articficial, ueber-choreographed, media-owned debates. Let's repeat that: done with the debates that are owned by the network media, and dominated by all the freakshow issues that these TV stations want to see debated because they make for good soundbites.

Back to small-scale, frequent debates, where many ordinary people get to witness 'em, where the candidates actually debate with each other, where there will be no Tim Russert to throttle through every last media hype trying to score a gotcha. Wouldnt that be amazing?