The Mendacity of Hope: Obama’s Agenda for Abortion
Ken Roebuck asked:
It has been over 35 years since the controversial Roe v Wade Supreme Court (7-2) decision to make early term abortions legal in the US. Despite the landmark decision in 1973 abortion rights are still being vigorously contested in many quarters of the country. For those against abortion mainly for religious beliefs but also for profound moral reasons argue that abortion as defined by Roe is the willful taking of a precious human life endowed with all the rights, privileges, and protections guaranteed everyone by our government. On the other side those in favor of the right to abortion argue that women should have control over their own bodies making it an issue of privacy; a personal decision that should not be privy to our government. These disparate and contentious points of view underscore the essence of the debate that has been ongoing for nearly four decades and in all likelihood will continue to rage on for the foreseeable future certainly through and beyond the Obama administration.
So where does our newly elected “post partisan” President stand on this inflammatory issue of abortion? As the most liberal democrat while in the US Senate, Obama strongly supports a women’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy for any reason through legal and safe abortion procedures as defined by Roe. If you accept his voting record as well as his public speeches and policy statements, Obama will apparently do just about anything and everything he can to preserve a women’s right to affordable and unfettered abortion on demand as promoted by tax subsidized abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Indeed, Obama’s explicit even enthusiastic support for abortion on demand has rightly earned him a 100% rating from NARAL (National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America as well as an enthusiastic endorsement from Planned Parenthood the largest abortion provider in the US. In contrast, Obama not surprisingly has received a rating of 0% by the NRLC (National Right to Life Committee) the largest and most influential nonprofit prolife advocacy organization.
Obama’s wife Michelle who is his closest political advisor is also pro choice and strongly supports a women’s right to abortion on deman. Like her husband Mrs. Obama who also graduated from Harvard law school holds extreme views on abortion and wrote a controversial fund raising letter defending a partial birth abortion procedure known as “intact dilation and evacuation”, a contentious late-term abortion technique. In her letter she called partial birth abortion a “legitimate medical procedure” and declared the federal ban “a flawed law” that “is clearly unconstitutional”. However, the Supreme Court in 2007 disagreed with her albeit narrowly upholding the ban with a vote of 5-4.
As for Obama’s voting record as an Illinois legislator he opposed the bill to ban partial birth abortion and the state’s “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” that ensures the rights of children who survive failed abortion attempts. He also voted against legislation banning state funding for abortions. In fact Obama has never supported any limitation of abortion to either lessen its availability or reduce its public funding. He has made it unambiguously clear that he opposes any and all government restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortions. Obama even strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the federal law banning partial-birth abortion and in 2007 also voted to expand research on embryonic stem cells. Obama seems to hold a rather extreme position on abortion that is widely considered outside the mainstream. Most Americans support for abortion is highly conditional and overwhelmingly (71%) reject unrestricted abortion viewing abortion as a profound moral issue that should be limited with reasonable regulation by the government preferably at the state and local levels. Only about 28% of Americans support abortion at any time for any reason.
To circumvent the mainstream Obama along with 18 other pro abortion senators has sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and in July 2007 Obama gave an impassioned speech to a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event promising “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” The passage of FOCA would essentially nullify every federal, state, and local law limiting or regulating abortion including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion and the current federal ban on partial birth abortions signed into law in 2003 by President Bush. FOCA besides making abortion on demand a “fundamental right” throughout the United States would simultaneously invalidate all laws on informed consent and parental notification as well as any mandatory waiting periods. It also would eliminate all state restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions and health safety regulations for abortion clinics. Moreover, in opposition to the first amendment it would require for the first time Catholic and other religious hospitals to provide abortions.
Perhaps Obama’s most personally revealing statement regarding abortion was when he said if his daughters “make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement for family values. In another interview when asked when life begins Obama glibly replied “I don’t know” that “is above my pay grade”. Now as the 44th President of the United States and new commander in chief, it is surely no longer above his pay grade since he will likely have the opportunity to select the next Supreme Court justice. As for the type of justices he might choose, Obama believes the constitution is a “living document” and is likely to appoint liberal non strict constructionalist to the bench along the lines of Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter. Obama voted against both of Bush’s appointments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Sam Alito each confirmed by comfortable senate margins.
Obama’s constitutional philosophy on Supreme Court appointments was aptly revealed when he implored that “we need someone who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it is like to be a young teenage mom”. He elaborated saying “the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” Empathy means “judicial activism” and seems a strange criterion by which to select judges for an intellectual who taught constitutional law for a decade. Ironically, Obama claims he would not have appointed Clarence Thomas, who’s only the second African American ever appointed to the court, saying Thomas “was not a strong enough jurist or legal thinker”.
Obama orchestrated a brilliant “cult of personality” campaign centered on the banal platitudes of HOPE and CHANGE. His charismatic persona, soaring rhetoric, and ubiquitous campaign slogans of “Change We Can Believe In” and “Audacity of Hope” were overarching themes on which he built his bipartisan presidential bid. Let’s all “hope” Obama as “the one we’ve been waiting for” will indeed bring “change” but not just to America but also to himself with a repudiation of his militant commitment to unrestricted abortion with the appointment of non activist judges that respect our constitution and the inalienable rights of all Americans whether they be born or unborn.
Within days of becoming the historic 44th President of the United States and only a day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade, Obama signed an executive order to reverse the ban on federal aid to international family planning organizations that perform abortions for population control. The policy known as the “Mexico City Policy” bans U.S. taxpayer money from going to international family planning organizations that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. Anti abortion groups roundly criticized the presidential order. The legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, Douglas Johnson, lamented “President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control”. Apparently Obama’s campaign mantra “Yes We Can” doesn’t apply to policies reducing abortion in the third world. Once again Obama affirms his militant commitment to unrestricted abortion not only in the U.S. but in the rest of the world. This change in US policy doesn’t bode well for those that had hoped Obama would govern from the center and moderate his radical support for abortion on demand.
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
It has been over 35 years since the controversial Roe v Wade Supreme Court (7-2) decision to make early term abortions legal in the US. Despite the landmark decision in 1973 abortion rights are still being vigorously contested in many quarters of the country. For those against abortion mainly for religious beliefs but also for profound moral reasons argue that abortion as defined by Roe is the willful taking of a precious human life endowed with all the rights, privileges, and protections guaranteed everyone by our government. On the other side those in favor of the right to abortion argue that women should have control over their own bodies making it an issue of privacy; a personal decision that should not be privy to our government. These disparate and contentious points of view underscore the essence of the debate that has been ongoing for nearly four decades and in all likelihood will continue to rage on for the foreseeable future certainly through and beyond the Obama administration.
So where does our newly elected “post partisan” President stand on this inflammatory issue of abortion? As the most liberal democrat while in the US Senate, Obama strongly supports a women’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy for any reason through legal and safe abortion procedures as defined by Roe. If you accept his voting record as well as his public speeches and policy statements, Obama will apparently do just about anything and everything he can to preserve a women’s right to affordable and unfettered abortion on demand as promoted by tax subsidized abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Indeed, Obama’s explicit even enthusiastic support for abortion on demand has rightly earned him a 100% rating from NARAL (National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America as well as an enthusiastic endorsement from Planned Parenthood the largest abortion provider in the US. In contrast, Obama not surprisingly has received a rating of 0% by the NRLC (National Right to Life Committee) the largest and most influential nonprofit prolife advocacy organization.
Obama’s wife Michelle who is his closest political advisor is also pro choice and strongly supports a women’s right to abortion on deman. Like her husband Mrs. Obama who also graduated from Harvard law school holds extreme views on abortion and wrote a controversial fund raising letter defending a partial birth abortion procedure known as “intact dilation and evacuation”, a contentious late-term abortion technique. In her letter she called partial birth abortion a “legitimate medical procedure” and declared the federal ban “a flawed law” that “is clearly unconstitutional”. However, the Supreme Court in 2007 disagreed with her albeit narrowly upholding the ban with a vote of 5-4.
As for Obama’s voting record as an Illinois legislator he opposed the bill to ban partial birth abortion and the state’s “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” that ensures the rights of children who survive failed abortion attempts. He also voted against legislation banning state funding for abortions. In fact Obama has never supported any limitation of abortion to either lessen its availability or reduce its public funding. He has made it unambiguously clear that he opposes any and all government restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortions. Obama even strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the federal law banning partial-birth abortion and in 2007 also voted to expand research on embryonic stem cells. Obama seems to hold a rather extreme position on abortion that is widely considered outside the mainstream. Most Americans support for abortion is highly conditional and overwhelmingly (71%) reject unrestricted abortion viewing abortion as a profound moral issue that should be limited with reasonable regulation by the government preferably at the state and local levels. Only about 28% of Americans support abortion at any time for any reason.
To circumvent the mainstream Obama along with 18 other pro abortion senators has sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and in July 2007 Obama gave an impassioned speech to a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event promising “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” The passage of FOCA would essentially nullify every federal, state, and local law limiting or regulating abortion including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion and the current federal ban on partial birth abortions signed into law in 2003 by President Bush. FOCA besides making abortion on demand a “fundamental right” throughout the United States would simultaneously invalidate all laws on informed consent and parental notification as well as any mandatory waiting periods. It also would eliminate all state restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions and health safety regulations for abortion clinics. Moreover, in opposition to the first amendment it would require for the first time Catholic and other religious hospitals to provide abortions.
Perhaps Obama’s most personally revealing statement regarding abortion was when he said if his daughters “make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement for family values. In another interview when asked when life begins Obama glibly replied “I don’t know” that “is above my pay grade”. Now as the 44th President of the United States and new commander in chief, it is surely no longer above his pay grade since he will likely have the opportunity to select the next Supreme Court justice. As for the type of justices he might choose, Obama believes the constitution is a “living document” and is likely to appoint liberal non strict constructionalist to the bench along the lines of Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter. Obama voted against both of Bush’s appointments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Sam Alito each confirmed by comfortable senate margins.
Obama’s constitutional philosophy on Supreme Court appointments was aptly revealed when he implored that “we need someone who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it is like to be a young teenage mom”. He elaborated saying “the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” Empathy means “judicial activism” and seems a strange criterion by which to select judges for an intellectual who taught constitutional law for a decade. Ironically, Obama claims he would not have appointed Clarence Thomas, who’s only the second African American ever appointed to the court, saying Thomas “was not a strong enough jurist or legal thinker”.
Obama orchestrated a brilliant “cult of personality” campaign centered on the banal platitudes of HOPE and CHANGE. His charismatic persona, soaring rhetoric, and ubiquitous campaign slogans of “Change We Can Believe In” and “Audacity of Hope” were overarching themes on which he built his bipartisan presidential bid. Let’s all “hope” Obama as “the one we’ve been waiting for” will indeed bring “change” but not just to America but also to himself with a repudiation of his militant commitment to unrestricted abortion with the appointment of non activist judges that respect our constitution and the inalienable rights of all Americans whether they be born or unborn.
Within days of becoming the historic 44th President of the United States and only a day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade, Obama signed an executive order to reverse the ban on federal aid to international family planning organizations that perform abortions for population control. The policy known as the “Mexico City Policy” bans U.S. taxpayer money from going to international family planning organizations that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. Anti abortion groups roundly criticized the presidential order. The legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, Douglas Johnson, lamented “President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control”. Apparently Obama’s campaign mantra “Yes We Can” doesn’t apply to policies reducing abortion in the third world. Once again Obama affirms his militant commitment to unrestricted abortion not only in the U.S. but in the rest of the world. This change in US policy doesn’t bode well for those that had hoped Obama would govern from the center and moderate his radical support for abortion on demand.
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
Obama to Make First Pentagon Visit
sandeep singh chauhan asked:
President Barack Obama will make a short trip from the White House to the Pentagon on Wednesday, for fresh “unvarnished” advice from military brass on his Iraq withdrawal plan and the Afghan war.
In his first week in office, the new US commander-in-chief Obama has already instructed military planners to draw up proposals which would allow him to honor his campaign pledge to get most troops out of Iraq within 16 months.
The meetings on Wednesday were the latest step of a process initiated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to introduce Obama to all the key players in formulating his war strategy, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
The president will get to meet “all the people that are involved in these decisions and all the people that are involved in committing the lives of men and women in our uniform,” said Gibbs.
The ultimate idea was for the generals to offer Obama advice in an “unvarnished way,” he said.
In his first days in office last week, Obama sat down with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command.
During his first visit to the Pentagon, Obama is to meet with Mullen and Gates. He is also to meet for the first time with the chiefs of staff of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
“They want an opportunity to talk about Afghanistan and continue the discussion on Iraq,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said on Monday.
Obama will also, at a later date, get some time for in-depth talks with General David McKiernan, commander of NATO forces and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, Gibbs said.
The new president has pledged to boost US forces in that country amid deteriorating security.
Some 36,000 US troops are currently deployed in Afghanistan, half of them operating under NATO. The Pentagon has promised to deploy up to 30,000 additional forces to Afghanistan, nearly doubling the US force there.
Obama argued last week that the war in Afghanistan, which he called “the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism,” could not be separated from the volatile border area with Pakistan, where Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements have regrouped.
“My administration is committed to refocusing attention and resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan and to spending those resources wisely,” said Obama when he appointed Richard Holbrooke as US envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan on Thursday.
As part of his diplomatic push, the president said he would work with NATO allies and other states in the region, which could include central Asian countries and India — Pakistan’s arch-rival.
A debate is brewing over Obama’s 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, where 143,000 US troops are currently deployed.
Following their meeting with Obama on January 21, Gates and Mullen shied away from endorsing the accelerated timetable. Gates cautioned that the session was just “the beginning of a process of evaluating various options.”
Gates and Mullen have stressed that a series of elections in Iraq make this an important year for stabilizing the country.
Provincial elections are scheduled for January 31, marking the first time that Iraq’s Sunnis will be going to the polls in large numbers after boycotting the last elections in 2005.
Obama will face the demands of the military joint chiefs, who want to ease the stress on their forces deployed on both fronts for several years, and those of General Raymond Odierno, commander of US forces in Iraq, who worries that a precipitous withdrawal could threaten security gains there.
US Marines Corps Commandant James Conway said he was ready to send “20,000 or less” Marines to Afghanistan, where about 2,200 Marines are currently deployed. He cautioned however that “anything you put into Afghanistan must necessarily come from a reduction of the number of Marines in Iraq.”
Under an agreement signed between Washington and Baghdad in November, the US military is due to withdraw its combat troops from the country by the end of 2011.
In his first formal interview as president earlier this week, Obama told the pan-Arab Al-Arabiya television network his administration would be more actively engaged in Middle East diplomacy than Bush.
He told the Muslim world that “Americans are not your enemy,” and pledged that his administration would “do a more effective job of reaching out, listening as well as speaking to the Muslim world.”
Caffeinated Content
President Barack Obama will make a short trip from the White House to the Pentagon on Wednesday, for fresh “unvarnished” advice from military brass on his Iraq withdrawal plan and the Afghan war.
In his first week in office, the new US commander-in-chief Obama has already instructed military planners to draw up proposals which would allow him to honor his campaign pledge to get most troops out of Iraq within 16 months.
The meetings on Wednesday were the latest step of a process initiated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to introduce Obama to all the key players in formulating his war strategy, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
The president will get to meet “all the people that are involved in these decisions and all the people that are involved in committing the lives of men and women in our uniform,” said Gibbs.
The ultimate idea was for the generals to offer Obama advice in an “unvarnished way,” he said.
In his first days in office last week, Obama sat down with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command.
During his first visit to the Pentagon, Obama is to meet with Mullen and Gates. He is also to meet for the first time with the chiefs of staff of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
“They want an opportunity to talk about Afghanistan and continue the discussion on Iraq,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said on Monday.
Obama will also, at a later date, get some time for in-depth talks with General David McKiernan, commander of NATO forces and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, Gibbs said.
The new president has pledged to boost US forces in that country amid deteriorating security.
Some 36,000 US troops are currently deployed in Afghanistan, half of them operating under NATO. The Pentagon has promised to deploy up to 30,000 additional forces to Afghanistan, nearly doubling the US force there.
Obama argued last week that the war in Afghanistan, which he called “the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism,” could not be separated from the volatile border area with Pakistan, where Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements have regrouped.
“My administration is committed to refocusing attention and resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan and to spending those resources wisely,” said Obama when he appointed Richard Holbrooke as US envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan on Thursday.
As part of his diplomatic push, the president said he would work with NATO allies and other states in the region, which could include central Asian countries and India — Pakistan’s arch-rival.
A debate is brewing over Obama’s 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, where 143,000 US troops are currently deployed.
Following their meeting with Obama on January 21, Gates and Mullen shied away from endorsing the accelerated timetable. Gates cautioned that the session was just “the beginning of a process of evaluating various options.”
Gates and Mullen have stressed that a series of elections in Iraq make this an important year for stabilizing the country.
Provincial elections are scheduled for January 31, marking the first time that Iraq’s Sunnis will be going to the polls in large numbers after boycotting the last elections in 2005.
Obama will face the demands of the military joint chiefs, who want to ease the stress on their forces deployed on both fronts for several years, and those of General Raymond Odierno, commander of US forces in Iraq, who worries that a precipitous withdrawal could threaten security gains there.
US Marines Corps Commandant James Conway said he was ready to send “20,000 or less” Marines to Afghanistan, where about 2,200 Marines are currently deployed. He cautioned however that “anything you put into Afghanistan must necessarily come from a reduction of the number of Marines in Iraq.”
Under an agreement signed between Washington and Baghdad in November, the US military is due to withdraw its combat troops from the country by the end of 2011.
In his first formal interview as president earlier this week, Obama told the pan-Arab Al-Arabiya television network his administration would be more actively engaged in Middle East diplomacy than Bush.
He told the Muslim world that “Americans are not your enemy,” and pledged that his administration would “do a more effective job of reaching out, listening as well as speaking to the Muslim world.”
Caffeinated Content
Seven Reasons I’m Voting for Barack Obama for President
Marvin J Markus asked:
g for Barack Obama this November 4th for President of the United States. What follows in this article are 7 of the many reasons I am voting for Obama and not John McCain.
1. Obama was against the Iraq war from the start. Very few politicians had the integrity and the judgment to know that the Iraq war was a mistake before it began. John McCain certainly did not. McCain was one of the many politicians who thought Iraq would be a short easy war and that American soldiers would be “greeted like liberators” in Iraq.
2. Obama will lower taxes for people making less than $111,645 per year (that includes me, unfortunately!) more than John McCain will. McCain has been running many misleading advertisements which make the claim that Obama is raising taxes across the board. That is not true. Obama is only raising taxes for the very rich and for corporations (who have not paid their fair share of taxes.)
For 90% of Americans, Obama’s plan will bring lower taxes than McCain’s will. This is an important fact not only because of the lower taxes that most Americans will pay but also because it speaks to McCain’s lack of integrity. McCain continues to run disingenuous ads which claim a vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes.
3. Obama is pro choice and will nominate pro choice judges for the Supreme Court. McCain has said he will be a “pro life President.” Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s not the role of the government to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.
If you believe in a woman’s right to choose it is essential that you support Barack Obama as it’s very likely the next President will be nominating 2 to 3 Supreme Court Justices. If McCain is the one nominating those judges, it’s very possible that Roe V. Wade could be reversed.
4. Foreign policy. Obama showed he had far superior foreign policy judgment with his stance on Iraq. The things he said about the Iraq war before it had even begun all turned out to be true. We need a President who has judgment and the ability to know when and where to strike. The shoot first ask questions later cowboy mentality of the Bush/Cheney administration would be made even worse by McCain who, as Pat Buchanan put it, would make “Cheney look like Gandhi.”
5. International respect. George W. Bush has been a humongous embarrassment for Americans. People all over the world now think of Americans as morons. Barack Obama is already loved all over the world. He is a brilliant speaker who understands the nuance of how to converse with people from different cultures. He’s preferred in Europe over McCain by enormous margins. Obama as President would instantly make America popular again.
6. Health care. While I do not believe that Obama’s health care plan is the universal plan that our country really needs, it is a good step towards a better plan and it will help to lower overall health care costs. McCain’s approach would hurt more than help. There would be even more people without health care with McCain as President.
7. Energy. While McCain is harping on the ridiculous non-issue of off shore drilling because he knows it plays well to the many uneducated voters in this country, it is Obama who has a real plan for energy independence. McCain’s off shore drilling plan would only help to make extremely rich oil companies even more rich. It would not lower gas prices.
Caffeinated Content
g for Barack Obama this November 4th for President of the United States. What follows in this article are 7 of the many reasons I am voting for Obama and not John McCain.
1. Obama was against the Iraq war from the start. Very few politicians had the integrity and the judgment to know that the Iraq war was a mistake before it began. John McCain certainly did not. McCain was one of the many politicians who thought Iraq would be a short easy war and that American soldiers would be “greeted like liberators” in Iraq.
2. Obama will lower taxes for people making less than $111,645 per year (that includes me, unfortunately!) more than John McCain will. McCain has been running many misleading advertisements which make the claim that Obama is raising taxes across the board. That is not true. Obama is only raising taxes for the very rich and for corporations (who have not paid their fair share of taxes.)
For 90% of Americans, Obama’s plan will bring lower taxes than McCain’s will. This is an important fact not only because of the lower taxes that most Americans will pay but also because it speaks to McCain’s lack of integrity. McCain continues to run disingenuous ads which claim a vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes.
3. Obama is pro choice and will nominate pro choice judges for the Supreme Court. McCain has said he will be a “pro life President.” Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s not the role of the government to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.
If you believe in a woman’s right to choose it is essential that you support Barack Obama as it’s very likely the next President will be nominating 2 to 3 Supreme Court Justices. If McCain is the one nominating those judges, it’s very possible that Roe V. Wade could be reversed.
4. Foreign policy. Obama showed he had far superior foreign policy judgment with his stance on Iraq. The things he said about the Iraq war before it had even begun all turned out to be true. We need a President who has judgment and the ability to know when and where to strike. The shoot first ask questions later cowboy mentality of the Bush/Cheney administration would be made even worse by McCain who, as Pat Buchanan put it, would make “Cheney look like Gandhi.”
5. International respect. George W. Bush has been a humongous embarrassment for Americans. People all over the world now think of Americans as morons. Barack Obama is already loved all over the world. He is a brilliant speaker who understands the nuance of how to converse with people from different cultures. He’s preferred in Europe over McCain by enormous margins. Obama as President would instantly make America popular again.
6. Health care. While I do not believe that Obama’s health care plan is the universal plan that our country really needs, it is a good step towards a better plan and it will help to lower overall health care costs. McCain’s approach would hurt more than help. There would be even more people without health care with McCain as President.
7. Energy. While McCain is harping on the ridiculous non-issue of off shore drilling because he knows it plays well to the many uneducated voters in this country, it is Obama who has a real plan for energy independence. McCain’s off shore drilling plan would only help to make extremely rich oil companies even more rich. It would not lower gas prices.
Caffeinated Content
Obama’s Speech: How Does it Stack Up to History?
Nate Gillespie asked:
In January, Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States, taking his oath of office on the steps of the Capitol before what is believed to be the largest crowd ever to witness a presidential inaugural in person.
Following the swearing in ceremony—which was conducted on Abraham Lincoln’s bible—Obama gave a powerful speech, promising the American people that they could and would unite to overcome the economic and military difficulties facing the nation. “Our challenges may be new,” the president said. “The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends—honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism—these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility—a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship.”
Instant reviews of Obama’s speech from the TV talking heads were quite positive, and the huge crowds along the Washington Mall roared their approval. But will Obama’s inaugural address stand the test of time? How will Obama’s speech go down in history?
Only time will tell. But truth be told, the historical bar against Obama’s words will be judged is actually pretty low.
Yes, a few presidents’ inaugurals have gone down as great moments in our history.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan memorably encapsulated his own philosophy and set the political agenda for an entire generation with his declaration that “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
In 1961, John F. Kennedy captured the imaginations of a more idealistic generation by asking his fellow citizens, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped lift his countrymen’s spirits at the darkest hour of the Great Depression by declaring, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
In 1865, Abraham Lincoln began to heal the wounds of the Civil War by closing his second inaugural with the words, “With malice toward none; with charity for all… let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds… to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
And in 1801, Thomas Jefferson tried to soothe the nation’s original partisan discord by proclaiming, in the wake of a bitter election fight, “We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists.”
Those were all, without a doubt, successful inaugural speeches. (And perhaps not coincidentally, those were all successful presidents.)
But what about the other 39 presidents and the other 50 inaugural addresses? They mostly fall somewhere on a spectrum ranging from forgettably mediocre to memorably awful.
John Quincy Adams, who was often criticized for being an out-of-touch elitist with no clue how to relate to ordinary people, did nothing to challenge that reputation in 1825 when he began his presidency with this whopper of a sentence: “In compliance with an usage coeval with the existence of our Federal Constitution, and sanctioned by the example of my predecessors in the career upon which I am about to enter, I appear, my fellow-citizens, in your presence and in that of Heaven to bind myself by the solemnities of religious obligation to the faithful performance of the duties allotted to me in the station to which I have been called.” No one was too shocked when Adams was defeated four years later by “man of the people” Andrew Jackson.
James Buchanan, often ranked by historians as the worst president ever, took office in 1857 at a moment when the nation was torn by bitter sectional controversy over slavery. In his inaugural address, he essentially told the country to just get over it: “Most happy it will be for the country when the public mind shall be diverted from this question to others of more pressing and practical importance,” he said. Most unhappy it was for the country when Buchanan’s head-in-the-sand approach led directly to the Civil War.
Warren G. Harding turned his inaugural into a long discourse on his personal philosophy of business. The speech was said to bore listeners to tears.
But the worst inaugural address in American history, without a doubt, belonged to William Henry Harrison. For his 1841 inauguration, Harrison penned a monumental 8,500-word treatise, much of it devoted to explaining—for reasons that remain baffling even today—obscure lessons from ancient Roman history. Undeterred by a ferocious blizzard on inauguration day, Harrison refused to wear his overcoat and insisted on plowing through the entire two-hour speech, bitter cold be damned. Then he caught a wicked case of pneumonia and died 31 days later.
To this day, William Henry Harrison holds the all-time records for both the longest inaugural speech and the shortest presidency. At Shmoop, we hope that neither record will ever be broken.
If we can be fairly certain that no incoming president’s inaugural address will ever beat William Henry Harrison for length, we can be equally sure that none will ever beat George Washington for brevity. Washington’s second inaugural, delivered in 1793, was exactly four sentences long—less than 150 words. While no one made a recording of the speech, for obvious reasons, our best guess is that the address lasted two or maybe three minutes.
And that, friends and countrymen, is why George Washington is on the dollar bill and William Henry Harrison is… dead of pneumonia.
Obama’s speech, delivered on another cold winter’s day in Washington, clocked in at about 17 minutes, which is just about average for modern times; every inaugural since 1980 has lasted between 14 and 22 minutes.
While it’s too soon to say whether Obama’s words will go down in history alongside the great speeches from Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy et al, there is no question that Obama’s inaugural was historic in nature. Apart from the obvious—yet still remarkable—fact that Barack Obama just became our nation’s first black president, his inaugural itself was unlike any that ever came before. More people crowded into Washington, DC, to see January’s events in person than for any previous presidential inauguration. That crowd—which reflected the Obama campaign organization in its unusual size, diversity, and enthusiasm—may well end up being the feature of Obama’s inauguration best remembered by history. That crowd reflected the feeling that something special happened, that Obama’s inauguration into the White House marked the renewal of America’s democratic spirit.
Like most eruptions of democratic enthusiasm, Obama’s inaugural festivities had both their positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, it was hard not to be moved by images of American flags waving over hundreds of thousands of happy faces, all wide smiles and tears of joy, their voices filling the Mall with chants and cheers of jubilation. On the other hand, the same crowd greeted outgoing president George W. Bush with widespread booing and even a taunting song of “Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye!” Not too classy… but still not nearly as bad as the crowd of Andrew Jackson supporters who trashed the White House in 1829, breaking antique furniture and tracking mud all over the place, or the mob of Abraham Lincoln fans who ran off with the White House silverware in 1865.
Will Barack Obama’s presidency live up to the phenomenal excitement of his inauguration day? History will be the judge of that.
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
In January, Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States, taking his oath of office on the steps of the Capitol before what is believed to be the largest crowd ever to witness a presidential inaugural in person.
Following the swearing in ceremony—which was conducted on Abraham Lincoln’s bible—Obama gave a powerful speech, promising the American people that they could and would unite to overcome the economic and military difficulties facing the nation. “Our challenges may be new,” the president said. “The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends—honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism—these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility—a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship.”
Instant reviews of Obama’s speech from the TV talking heads were quite positive, and the huge crowds along the Washington Mall roared their approval. But will Obama’s inaugural address stand the test of time? How will Obama’s speech go down in history?
Only time will tell. But truth be told, the historical bar against Obama’s words will be judged is actually pretty low.
Yes, a few presidents’ inaugurals have gone down as great moments in our history.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan memorably encapsulated his own philosophy and set the political agenda for an entire generation with his declaration that “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
In 1961, John F. Kennedy captured the imaginations of a more idealistic generation by asking his fellow citizens, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped lift his countrymen’s spirits at the darkest hour of the Great Depression by declaring, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
In 1865, Abraham Lincoln began to heal the wounds of the Civil War by closing his second inaugural with the words, “With malice toward none; with charity for all… let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds… to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
And in 1801, Thomas Jefferson tried to soothe the nation’s original partisan discord by proclaiming, in the wake of a bitter election fight, “We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists.”
Those were all, without a doubt, successful inaugural speeches. (And perhaps not coincidentally, those were all successful presidents.)
But what about the other 39 presidents and the other 50 inaugural addresses? They mostly fall somewhere on a spectrum ranging from forgettably mediocre to memorably awful.
John Quincy Adams, who was often criticized for being an out-of-touch elitist with no clue how to relate to ordinary people, did nothing to challenge that reputation in 1825 when he began his presidency with this whopper of a sentence: “In compliance with an usage coeval with the existence of our Federal Constitution, and sanctioned by the example of my predecessors in the career upon which I am about to enter, I appear, my fellow-citizens, in your presence and in that of Heaven to bind myself by the solemnities of religious obligation to the faithful performance of the duties allotted to me in the station to which I have been called.” No one was too shocked when Adams was defeated four years later by “man of the people” Andrew Jackson.
James Buchanan, often ranked by historians as the worst president ever, took office in 1857 at a moment when the nation was torn by bitter sectional controversy over slavery. In his inaugural address, he essentially told the country to just get over it: “Most happy it will be for the country when the public mind shall be diverted from this question to others of more pressing and practical importance,” he said. Most unhappy it was for the country when Buchanan’s head-in-the-sand approach led directly to the Civil War.
Warren G. Harding turned his inaugural into a long discourse on his personal philosophy of business. The speech was said to bore listeners to tears.
But the worst inaugural address in American history, without a doubt, belonged to William Henry Harrison. For his 1841 inauguration, Harrison penned a monumental 8,500-word treatise, much of it devoted to explaining—for reasons that remain baffling even today—obscure lessons from ancient Roman history. Undeterred by a ferocious blizzard on inauguration day, Harrison refused to wear his overcoat and insisted on plowing through the entire two-hour speech, bitter cold be damned. Then he caught a wicked case of pneumonia and died 31 days later.
To this day, William Henry Harrison holds the all-time records for both the longest inaugural speech and the shortest presidency. At Shmoop, we hope that neither record will ever be broken.
If we can be fairly certain that no incoming president’s inaugural address will ever beat William Henry Harrison for length, we can be equally sure that none will ever beat George Washington for brevity. Washington’s second inaugural, delivered in 1793, was exactly four sentences long—less than 150 words. While no one made a recording of the speech, for obvious reasons, our best guess is that the address lasted two or maybe three minutes.
And that, friends and countrymen, is why George Washington is on the dollar bill and William Henry Harrison is… dead of pneumonia.
Obama’s speech, delivered on another cold winter’s day in Washington, clocked in at about 17 minutes, which is just about average for modern times; every inaugural since 1980 has lasted between 14 and 22 minutes.
While it’s too soon to say whether Obama’s words will go down in history alongside the great speeches from Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy et al, there is no question that Obama’s inaugural was historic in nature. Apart from the obvious—yet still remarkable—fact that Barack Obama just became our nation’s first black president, his inaugural itself was unlike any that ever came before. More people crowded into Washington, DC, to see January’s events in person than for any previous presidential inauguration. That crowd—which reflected the Obama campaign organization in its unusual size, diversity, and enthusiasm—may well end up being the feature of Obama’s inauguration best remembered by history. That crowd reflected the feeling that something special happened, that Obama’s inauguration into the White House marked the renewal of America’s democratic spirit.
Like most eruptions of democratic enthusiasm, Obama’s inaugural festivities had both their positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, it was hard not to be moved by images of American flags waving over hundreds of thousands of happy faces, all wide smiles and tears of joy, their voices filling the Mall with chants and cheers of jubilation. On the other hand, the same crowd greeted outgoing president George W. Bush with widespread booing and even a taunting song of “Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye!” Not too classy… but still not nearly as bad as the crowd of Andrew Jackson supporters who trashed the White House in 1829, breaking antique furniture and tracking mud all over the place, or the mob of Abraham Lincoln fans who ran off with the White House silverware in 1865.
Will Barack Obama’s presidency live up to the phenomenal excitement of his inauguration day? History will be the judge of that.
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
President Obama Ringtones – Barack Obama Ringtones
Daniel Sitar asked:
Click Here & Sign Up to Download Barack Obama Ringtones
Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States of America. He is expected to take office as the forty-fourth President of the United States on January 20, 2009. He also is currently the Junior United States Senator from Illinois. Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States and was the first to be nominated for President by a major U.S. political party. Obama is also the first candidate born in Hawaii to have been nominated and subsequently elected president. Obama announced his presidential campaign in February 2007, and was formally nominated at the 2008 Democratic National Convention with Delaware senator Joe Biden as his running mate. In the November 4, 2008 United States Presidential election he won 53% of the popular vote, and 349 electoral votes to rival John McCain’s 162
Click Here to Get Bonus Ringtones for Your Phone!
If you are a Barack Obama supporter, click on the link below to download Barack Obama ringtones for your phone. Even if you were not old enough to vote for Obama in the election, you can still get a Barack Obama ringtone to celebrate his victory. Just click on the link below and sign up to get access to thousands of hot ringtones, including President Obama ringtones! Congratulations to Barack Obama on his election victory and making history on November 4th.
Click Here & Sign Up to Download President Obama Ringtones
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
Click Here & Sign Up to Download Barack Obama Ringtones
Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States of America. He is expected to take office as the forty-fourth President of the United States on January 20, 2009. He also is currently the Junior United States Senator from Illinois. Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States and was the first to be nominated for President by a major U.S. political party. Obama is also the first candidate born in Hawaii to have been nominated and subsequently elected president. Obama announced his presidential campaign in February 2007, and was formally nominated at the 2008 Democratic National Convention with Delaware senator Joe Biden as his running mate. In the November 4, 2008 United States Presidential election he won 53% of the popular vote, and 349 electoral votes to rival John McCain’s 162
Click Here to Get Bonus Ringtones for Your Phone!
If you are a Barack Obama supporter, click on the link below to download Barack Obama ringtones for your phone. Even if you were not old enough to vote for Obama in the election, you can still get a Barack Obama ringtone to celebrate his victory. Just click on the link below and sign up to get access to thousands of hot ringtones, including President Obama ringtones! Congratulations to Barack Obama on his election victory and making history on November 4th.
Click Here & Sign Up to Download President Obama Ringtones
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
Michelle Obama plays unique role in campaign
adityasnv asked:
Campaigning for Barack Obama
Although Michelle Obama has campaigned on her husband’s behalf since early in his political career by handshaking and fund-raising, she did not relish the activity at first. When she campaigned during her husband’s 2000 run for U.S. House of Representatives, her boss at the University of Chicago asked if there was any single thing about campaigning that she enjoyed; after some thought, she replied visiting so many living rooms had given her some new decorating ideas.
In May 2007, three months after her husband declared his presidential candidacy, she reduced her professional responsibilities by eighty percent to support his presidential campaign. Early in the campaign, she had limited involvement in which she traveled to political events only two days a week and traveled overnight only if their daughters could come along. In early February 2008, she attended thirty-three events in eight days. She has made at least two campaign appearances with Oprah Winfrey. Obama writes her own speeches and speaks without notes.
In 2007, Michelle gave stump speeches for her husband’s presidential campaign at various locations in the United States. Jennifer Hunter of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote about one speech of hers in Iowa, “Michelle was a firebrand, expressing a determined passion for her husband’s campaign, talking straight from the heart with eloquence and intelligence.” She employs an all-female staff of aides for her political role. She says that she negotiated an agreement in which her husband gave up smoking in exchange for her support of his decision to run. About her role in her husband’s presidential campaign she has said: “My job is not a senior adviser.” During the campaign, she has discussed race and education by using motherhood as a framework.
The presidential campaign was her first exposure to the national political scene and even before the field of Democratic candidates was narrowed to two she was considered the least famous of the candidates’ spouses. Early in the campaign, she exhibited her ironic humor and told anecdotes about the Obama family life. However, as the press began to emphasize her sarcasm, which did not translate well in the print media, she toned it down. A New York Times op-ed columnist, Maureen Dowd, wrote:
I wince a bit when Michelle Obama chides her husband as a mere mortal—comic routine that rests on the presumption that we see him as a god … But it may not be smart politics to mock him in a way that turns him from the glam JFK into the mundane Gerald Ford, toasting his own English muffin. If all Senator Obama is peddling is the Camelot mystique, why debunk this mystique?
Asked in February 2008 whether she could see herself “working to support” Hillary Rodham Clinton if she got the nomination, Michelle Obama said “I’d have to think about that. I’d have to think about policies, her approach, her tone.” When questioned about this by the interviewer, however, she stated “You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is.”
Despite her criticisms of Clinton during the 2008 campaign, when asked in 2004 which political spouse she admired, Obama cited Hillary Clinton, stating, “She is smart and gracious and everything she appears to be in public—someone who’s managed to raise what appears to be a solid, grounded child.”
On October 6, 2008 Larry King Live Obama was asked if the American electorate is past the Bradley effect. She stated that Barack’s achievement of the nomination was a fairly strong indicator that it is. The same night she also was interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show where she deflected criticism of her husband and his campaign.Her first Daily Show appearance came after her husband had made three such appearances.
The Obamas enjoy a victory fist bump upon his winning the Democratic nomination. (2008-06-03)
Obama was involved in two of a trio of references to Barack Obama by Fox News that were controversial. On June 11, 2008 during an interview with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin about whether Michelle Obama had been the target of unfair criticism, the network flashed a chevron that showed the message “Outraged liberals: Stop picking on Obama’s baby mama,” which implied that Michelle Obama was not married to the father of her children. Because Barack and Michelle Obama are lawfully married to each other, the network recognized the poor judgment of its own producer in an official statement made to The Politico. Earlier on E. D. Hill’s Fox News show America’s Pulse, Hill referred to the affectionate fist bump shared by the Obamas on the night that he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination as a “terrorist fist jab.” In June 2008, Hill was removed from her duties on the specific show, which was then canceled.
Throughout the campaign, the media often labeled Obama as an “angry black woman,” and some websites attempted to propagate this perception, causing her to respond: “Barack and I have been in the public eye for many years now, and we’ve developed a thick skin along the way. When you’re out campaigning, there will always be criticism. I just take it in stride, and at the end of the day, I know that it comes with the territory.”By the time of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in August, media outlets observed Obama’s presence on the campaign trail had grown softer than at the start of the race, focusing on soliciting concerns and empathizing with the audience rather than throwing down challenges to them, and giving interviews to shows like The View and publications like Ladies’ Home Journal rather than appearing on news programs. The change was even reflected in her fashion choices, with Obama wearing more and more sundresses in place of her previous designer pieces. The View appearance was partly intended to help soften the perception of her,and it was widely-covered in the press.
Criticism for “For the first time in my life” comments
On February 18, 2008, Obama commented in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” Later that evening she reworded her stump speech in Madison, Wisconsin, saying “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.” Several commentators criticized her remarks,and the campaign issued a statement that “anyone who heard her remarks … would understand that she was commenting on our politics.” In June 2008, First Lady Laura Bush commented on Michelle Obama’s words, indicating that they had been misrepresented in the media: “I think she probably meant I’m ‘more proud,’ you know, is what she really meant,” adding, “I mean, I know that, and that’s one of the things you learn and that’s one of the really difficult parts both of running for president and for being the spouse of the president, and that is, everything you say is looked at and in many cases misconstrued.”
2008 Democratic National Convention speech
Michelle Obama was regarded as a charismatic public speaker from the very beginning of the campaign. She delivered the keynote address on the first night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention on August 25, during which she sought to portray herself and her family as the embodiment of the American Dream. Other speakers that night included Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Edward Kennedy, who some expected to steal the limelight. She described Barack as a family man and herself as no different from many women; she also spoke about the backgrounds that she and her husband came from. Obama said both she and her husband believed “that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond, and you do what you say you’re going to do, that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”She also emphasized her love of country, in response to criticism for her previous statements about feeling proud of her country for the first time. Her daughters joined her on the stage after the speech and greeted their father, who appeared on the overhead video screen.
August 25, 2008 speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention
Obama’s speech was largely well received and drew mostly positive reviews.A Rasmussen Reports poll found that her favorability among Americans reached 55%.Political commentator Andrew Sullivan described the speech as “one of the best, most moving, intimate, rousing, humble, and beautiful speeches I’ve heard from a convention platform.” Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, described it as a “beautifully delivered, and smartly crafted, speech”and described Obama as “coming off as wholesome and, frankly, familiar.” One U.S.News & World Report commentator described her speech as one that embraced the crowd and that put Obama in her element.Meanwhile, another noted that the speech presented a formidable case for the Obamas as an All-American first family.Arianna Huffington and Howard Wolfson both lauded the speech. The speech made Juan Williams tear up over the thought of the significance of her presentation as a representative of Black America. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick described the speech as fearless for bringing family issues to the forefront.Chris Cillizza wrote at The Fix, a political blog from The Washington Post, that the speech helped America relate to the Obamas.
The speech had its detractors. Katherine Marsh of The New Republic, however, said she missed “the old Michelle … not the Stepford wife fist-bumping Elisabeth Hasselbeck, but the sassy better half who reminded us that while Barack was the answer, he was also stinky in the morning and forgot to put the butter away. She both affirmed his promise and humanized him.” Jason Zengerle, also of The New Republic, said Obama should have emphasized her professional and educational achievements as well as her mother, daughter and sister qualities; Zengerle wrote, “It almost makes you long for the days when politicians’ wives were seen but not heard. After all, if they’re not permitted to really say anything, what’s the point of having them speak.” National Review also had a host of articles that pointed out negative aspects of the speech while noting praiseworthy points. One derided “Isn’t She Lovely”, the musical selection used following the speech as she walked off the stage with her daughters, even though it praised her speech and wardrobe. Another by Amy Holmes led with the fact that Karl Rove felt the speech was impersonal, although it compared favorably to speeches by Karenna Gore and Teresa Heinz-Kerry at previous DNCs. A pair of articles, including one by Byron York, noted that although the speech presented America as the land of opportunity, it conflicted with her campaign trail speeches that described dark aspects of the country.Despite all these articles, National Review editor Rich Lowry summarized why he felt the speech was a success.
Create a video blog
Campaigning for Barack Obama
Although Michelle Obama has campaigned on her husband’s behalf since early in his political career by handshaking and fund-raising, she did not relish the activity at first. When she campaigned during her husband’s 2000 run for U.S. House of Representatives, her boss at the University of Chicago asked if there was any single thing about campaigning that she enjoyed; after some thought, she replied visiting so many living rooms had given her some new decorating ideas.
In May 2007, three months after her husband declared his presidential candidacy, she reduced her professional responsibilities by eighty percent to support his presidential campaign. Early in the campaign, she had limited involvement in which she traveled to political events only two days a week and traveled overnight only if their daughters could come along. In early February 2008, she attended thirty-three events in eight days. She has made at least two campaign appearances with Oprah Winfrey. Obama writes her own speeches and speaks without notes.
In 2007, Michelle gave stump speeches for her husband’s presidential campaign at various locations in the United States. Jennifer Hunter of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote about one speech of hers in Iowa, “Michelle was a firebrand, expressing a determined passion for her husband’s campaign, talking straight from the heart with eloquence and intelligence.” She employs an all-female staff of aides for her political role. She says that she negotiated an agreement in which her husband gave up smoking in exchange for her support of his decision to run. About her role in her husband’s presidential campaign she has said: “My job is not a senior adviser.” During the campaign, she has discussed race and education by using motherhood as a framework.
The presidential campaign was her first exposure to the national political scene and even before the field of Democratic candidates was narrowed to two she was considered the least famous of the candidates’ spouses. Early in the campaign, she exhibited her ironic humor and told anecdotes about the Obama family life. However, as the press began to emphasize her sarcasm, which did not translate well in the print media, she toned it down. A New York Times op-ed columnist, Maureen Dowd, wrote:
I wince a bit when Michelle Obama chides her husband as a mere mortal—comic routine that rests on the presumption that we see him as a god … But it may not be smart politics to mock him in a way that turns him from the glam JFK into the mundane Gerald Ford, toasting his own English muffin. If all Senator Obama is peddling is the Camelot mystique, why debunk this mystique?
Asked in February 2008 whether she could see herself “working to support” Hillary Rodham Clinton if she got the nomination, Michelle Obama said “I’d have to think about that. I’d have to think about policies, her approach, her tone.” When questioned about this by the interviewer, however, she stated “You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is.”
Despite her criticisms of Clinton during the 2008 campaign, when asked in 2004 which political spouse she admired, Obama cited Hillary Clinton, stating, “She is smart and gracious and everything she appears to be in public—someone who’s managed to raise what appears to be a solid, grounded child.”
On October 6, 2008 Larry King Live Obama was asked if the American electorate is past the Bradley effect. She stated that Barack’s achievement of the nomination was a fairly strong indicator that it is. The same night she also was interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show where she deflected criticism of her husband and his campaign.Her first Daily Show appearance came after her husband had made three such appearances.
The Obamas enjoy a victory fist bump upon his winning the Democratic nomination. (2008-06-03)
Obama was involved in two of a trio of references to Barack Obama by Fox News that were controversial. On June 11, 2008 during an interview with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin about whether Michelle Obama had been the target of unfair criticism, the network flashed a chevron that showed the message “Outraged liberals: Stop picking on Obama’s baby mama,” which implied that Michelle Obama was not married to the father of her children. Because Barack and Michelle Obama are lawfully married to each other, the network recognized the poor judgment of its own producer in an official statement made to The Politico. Earlier on E. D. Hill’s Fox News show America’s Pulse, Hill referred to the affectionate fist bump shared by the Obamas on the night that he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination as a “terrorist fist jab.” In June 2008, Hill was removed from her duties on the specific show, which was then canceled.
Throughout the campaign, the media often labeled Obama as an “angry black woman,” and some websites attempted to propagate this perception, causing her to respond: “Barack and I have been in the public eye for many years now, and we’ve developed a thick skin along the way. When you’re out campaigning, there will always be criticism. I just take it in stride, and at the end of the day, I know that it comes with the territory.”By the time of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in August, media outlets observed Obama’s presence on the campaign trail had grown softer than at the start of the race, focusing on soliciting concerns and empathizing with the audience rather than throwing down challenges to them, and giving interviews to shows like The View and publications like Ladies’ Home Journal rather than appearing on news programs. The change was even reflected in her fashion choices, with Obama wearing more and more sundresses in place of her previous designer pieces. The View appearance was partly intended to help soften the perception of her,and it was widely-covered in the press.
Criticism for “For the first time in my life” comments
On February 18, 2008, Obama commented in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” Later that evening she reworded her stump speech in Madison, Wisconsin, saying “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.” Several commentators criticized her remarks,and the campaign issued a statement that “anyone who heard her remarks … would understand that she was commenting on our politics.” In June 2008, First Lady Laura Bush commented on Michelle Obama’s words, indicating that they had been misrepresented in the media: “I think she probably meant I’m ‘more proud,’ you know, is what she really meant,” adding, “I mean, I know that, and that’s one of the things you learn and that’s one of the really difficult parts both of running for president and for being the spouse of the president, and that is, everything you say is looked at and in many cases misconstrued.”
2008 Democratic National Convention speech
Michelle Obama was regarded as a charismatic public speaker from the very beginning of the campaign. She delivered the keynote address on the first night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention on August 25, during which she sought to portray herself and her family as the embodiment of the American Dream. Other speakers that night included Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Edward Kennedy, who some expected to steal the limelight. She described Barack as a family man and herself as no different from many women; she also spoke about the backgrounds that she and her husband came from. Obama said both she and her husband believed “that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond, and you do what you say you’re going to do, that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”She also emphasized her love of country, in response to criticism for her previous statements about feeling proud of her country for the first time. Her daughters joined her on the stage after the speech and greeted their father, who appeared on the overhead video screen.
August 25, 2008 speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention
Obama’s speech was largely well received and drew mostly positive reviews.A Rasmussen Reports poll found that her favorability among Americans reached 55%.Political commentator Andrew Sullivan described the speech as “one of the best, most moving, intimate, rousing, humble, and beautiful speeches I’ve heard from a convention platform.” Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, described it as a “beautifully delivered, and smartly crafted, speech”and described Obama as “coming off as wholesome and, frankly, familiar.” One U.S.News & World Report commentator described her speech as one that embraced the crowd and that put Obama in her element.Meanwhile, another noted that the speech presented a formidable case for the Obamas as an All-American first family.Arianna Huffington and Howard Wolfson both lauded the speech. The speech made Juan Williams tear up over the thought of the significance of her presentation as a representative of Black America. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick described the speech as fearless for bringing family issues to the forefront.Chris Cillizza wrote at The Fix, a political blog from The Washington Post, that the speech helped America relate to the Obamas.
The speech had its detractors. Katherine Marsh of The New Republic, however, said she missed “the old Michelle … not the Stepford wife fist-bumping Elisabeth Hasselbeck, but the sassy better half who reminded us that while Barack was the answer, he was also stinky in the morning and forgot to put the butter away. She both affirmed his promise and humanized him.” Jason Zengerle, also of The New Republic, said Obama should have emphasized her professional and educational achievements as well as her mother, daughter and sister qualities; Zengerle wrote, “It almost makes you long for the days when politicians’ wives were seen but not heard. After all, if they’re not permitted to really say anything, what’s the point of having them speak.” National Review also had a host of articles that pointed out negative aspects of the speech while noting praiseworthy points. One derided “Isn’t She Lovely”, the musical selection used following the speech as she walked off the stage with her daughters, even though it praised her speech and wardrobe. Another by Amy Holmes led with the fact that Karl Rove felt the speech was impersonal, although it compared favorably to speeches by Karenna Gore and Teresa Heinz-Kerry at previous DNCs. A pair of articles, including one by Byron York, noted that although the speech presented America as the land of opportunity, it conflicted with her campaign trail speeches that described dark aspects of the country.Despite all these articles, National Review editor Rich Lowry summarized why he felt the speech was a success.
Create a video blog
Cool & Unique President Barack Obama Gifts & T-shirts on Sale
Robert Walsh asked:
Robert Walsh Kids Clothing announces the publication of their newest page, “President Barack Obama Gifts & T-Shirts On Sale”.
Today in history, November 4, 2008, the presidential election of 2008 will place an asterisk in the history of US Presidents next to the 44th President as the first black American President, Barack Obama. His name will be found on lists that include major historical events, American history, famous people in history, history of racial discrimination, famous black Americans, and historical event dates.
The “Obama for President” theme was a dream for many Americans, particularly the Afro-American community. Given very little chance to succeed at the start of the primary season in 2007, history channel will chronicle his journey to the White House. The historical events timeline of his run for the Presidency began on a cold winter day on the steps of the Old Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, where President Abraham Lincoln announced his run for the Presidency almost one hundred fifty years before.
This will be included among the interesting president facts that historically connect these two tall young lawyers from Illinois who made their way as little known individuals to the nation and reached the White House to heal a divided nation. Each attracted attention of their political parties through speeches they gave prior to running for office. And each will be historically mentioned in the almanac of Black American History.
This day in history also makes internet history with the fact that prior to going out to make his Election Day victory speech Barack Obama texted a message to all his supporters. His Speech in Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois, his home town, brought out almost a quarter of a million people and journalist from around the world.
This is why Robert Walsh Kids Clothing wants to invite people from across America and around the world to have the opportunity to share in this historic moment and event by purchasing their own Barack Obama themed t-shirt from www.robertwalshkidsclothing.com/21.html. This new page will give all an opportunity to purchase a cool and unique Barack Obama t-shirt whether they live in the United States, Kenya, Indonesia, or just feel they want to proudly celebrate with pride and joy American Democracy at work in electing her first Afro-American President.
Kansieo.com
Robert Walsh Kids Clothing announces the publication of their newest page, “President Barack Obama Gifts & T-Shirts On Sale”.
Today in history, November 4, 2008, the presidential election of 2008 will place an asterisk in the history of US Presidents next to the 44th President as the first black American President, Barack Obama. His name will be found on lists that include major historical events, American history, famous people in history, history of racial discrimination, famous black Americans, and historical event dates.
The “Obama for President” theme was a dream for many Americans, particularly the Afro-American community. Given very little chance to succeed at the start of the primary season in 2007, history channel will chronicle his journey to the White House. The historical events timeline of his run for the Presidency began on a cold winter day on the steps of the Old Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, where President Abraham Lincoln announced his run for the Presidency almost one hundred fifty years before.
This will be included among the interesting president facts that historically connect these two tall young lawyers from Illinois who made their way as little known individuals to the nation and reached the White House to heal a divided nation. Each attracted attention of their political parties through speeches they gave prior to running for office. And each will be historically mentioned in the almanac of Black American History.
This day in history also makes internet history with the fact that prior to going out to make his Election Day victory speech Barack Obama texted a message to all his supporters. His Speech in Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois, his home town, brought out almost a quarter of a million people and journalist from around the world.
This is why Robert Walsh Kids Clothing wants to invite people from across America and around the world to have the opportunity to share in this historic moment and event by purchasing their own Barack Obama themed t-shirt from www.robertwalshkidsclothing.com/21.html. This new page will give all an opportunity to purchase a cool and unique Barack Obama t-shirt whether they live in the United States, Kenya, Indonesia, or just feel they want to proudly celebrate with pride and joy American Democracy at work in electing her first Afro-American President.
Kansieo.com
OBAMA LIES – to voters
Obama Lies asked:
OBOAMA’S LIES
Stop the Cap & Trade vote – NOW in the U.S. Senate. CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW.
The 1,500-page cap-and-trade climate legislation, also known as Waxman-Markey, passed by a narrow margin late in the day on June 26. Members of Congress added 300 of those pages early in the morning on the day of the vote. It is safe to assume that hardly any of the 435 Members of Congress read the bill in its entirety, meaning one of the costliest bills in American history was rushed through so politicians could enjoy their 4th of July recess.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a massive energy tax, which is why its chief alternative is a carbon tax, and it has been sold under the following false pretenses:
* It will not cost anything;
* It will increase jobs;
* It will increase green investment; and
* It will save the environment.
A Lot More Than a Stamp a Day
A commonly quoted cost estimate of Waxman-Markey comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which claims that cap and trade will cost the equivalent of a postage stamp per day–$175 per household in 2020.[1]
But CBO admittedly ignores economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill[2] and the fact that consumers and business will change their behavior as a result of higher energy prices. This is a serious oversight that has significant economic consequences.
In The Heritage Foundation’s economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP loss in 2020 was $161 billion (in 2009 dollars).[3] For a family of four, that translates into $1,870–more than 10 times the size of the $175 CBO claim.Furthermore, the Heritage analysis found that for all years, the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or more than double the 2020 loss. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage), the inflation-adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four.
Energy-intensive industries will also suffer significant losses. For instance, farming is very energy-intensive, with fuel, chemical, electricity, and fertilizer costs; since cap and trade drives up the cost of energy prices, farmers’ losses will undoubtedly outweigh any money they collect from offsets (the money businesses would pay farmers to reduce carbon emissions by either not farming or using more efficient technologies). The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that farm income (or the amount left over after paying all expenses) is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 percent, respectively. The average net income lost over the 2010-2035 timeline is $23 billion–a 57 percent decrease from the baseline.
It Is a Jobs-Destroying Bill
President Obama and Democratic House leaders claimed that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill. With the lavish subsidies for green investment placed in the bill, surely companies will hire workers to build solar panels and windmills; however, the number of “green” jobs will pale in comparison to the number of jobs lost due to higher energy prices and slower economic growth.
The goal of cap and trade is to drive up the costs of energy in order for people to use less of it. Because just about every business uses energy to produce goods and must pay their own electricity bills, the cost of production for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons:
1. Price hikes on goods reduce demand, and
2. People have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.
Overall, production cuts and reduced consumer spending destroy jobs and slow economic growth, which further increases unemployment.
The Heritage analysis found that over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline–without a cap-and-trade bill.[4] Some jobs will be lost completely, while others will move to different countries where the cost of production is cheaper. Again, these losses are on top of “green jobs” created as a result of the bill.
Less Renewable Energy
The final House bill contained many renewable energy investments in an effort to attract votes. The Waxman-Markey proposal even requires that more electricity come from so-called renewable sources, chiefly wind energy but also others like biomass and solar. Ironically, according to an analysis of the bill by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Waxman-Markey would actually result in less renewable energy produced than without the bill because of the overall decline in electricity use.[5]
Green projects do not pay for themselves; it is the taxpayers who fund the research and development of renewable energy and the cost of the subsidies that are required to make renewables competitive. Yet renewable energy still only provides a small fraction of America’s energy needs, and it is more expensive per kilowatt hour than traditional, reliable sources of energy. Consumers lose doubly, paying more as taxpayers and as ratepayers.
It Will Not Save the Planet
The alleged benefit from cap and trade is that the regulations will reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to slow warming and reduce global temperatures.
According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[6] Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson concurred, recently saying, “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”[7]
A multilateral approach would not fare much better. In the case of international cooperation, India, China, and the rest of the developing world would have to revert to their 2000 levels of CO2 emissions by 2050. On a per-capita basis, China would backtrack to about one-tenth of what the U.S. emitted in 2000. India and most of the developing world would have to drop to even lower levels. This scenario, in addition to being highly unlikely, would de-develop the developing world.
Moving Forward
Now that the bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, it will likely move to the U.S. Senate this fall. It is important to remember that everything policymakers have promised this bill will do will in fact do the opposite. Cap and trade will drive up energy costs for years to come, resulting in economic pain and higher unemployment. All of these points will be equally important, if not more so, in the Senate debate.
Stop the Cap & Trade vote- NOW in the U.S. Senate CALL 1-212-224-3121 or www.usa.gov Email, Fax , Call State Local Phone Number SEE Gov. Website For Info.
STOP THE SENATE VOTE NOW!
http://www.squidoo.com/obamalies
Obama and his lying team are telling the people exactly what they want to hear. The people are getting half-truths or down right lies, after they tell them what they want to hear. Obama and his lying team must be STOPPED NOW.
Obama’s plan to give all U.S. citizens one thing, that is LIFE TIME ******* TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR EVERY PART OF YOUR LIFE WILL BE UNDER CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT, check it out for yourself. Read all the bills that have been passed and sign in to law, go to www.usa.gov/. Or www.heritage.org/ Read the book of REVELATION in the Holy Bible and looking at 2 Timothy 3:1-5. DO NOT BE A NAIVE PERSON it is time to be a RESPONSIBLE PERSON for yourself, family, other people and the United States and the world. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A VOTER and a citizens of the U.S.A. and the world.
http://www.squidoo.com/obamalies
Kansieo.com
OBOAMA’S LIES
Stop the Cap & Trade vote – NOW in the U.S. Senate. CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW.
The 1,500-page cap-and-trade climate legislation, also known as Waxman-Markey, passed by a narrow margin late in the day on June 26. Members of Congress added 300 of those pages early in the morning on the day of the vote. It is safe to assume that hardly any of the 435 Members of Congress read the bill in its entirety, meaning one of the costliest bills in American history was rushed through so politicians could enjoy their 4th of July recess.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a massive energy tax, which is why its chief alternative is a carbon tax, and it has been sold under the following false pretenses:
* It will not cost anything;
* It will increase jobs;
* It will increase green investment; and
* It will save the environment.
A Lot More Than a Stamp a Day
A commonly quoted cost estimate of Waxman-Markey comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which claims that cap and trade will cost the equivalent of a postage stamp per day–$175 per household in 2020.[1]
But CBO admittedly ignores economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill[2] and the fact that consumers and business will change their behavior as a result of higher energy prices. This is a serious oversight that has significant economic consequences.
In The Heritage Foundation’s economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP loss in 2020 was $161 billion (in 2009 dollars).[3] For a family of four, that translates into $1,870–more than 10 times the size of the $175 CBO claim.Furthermore, the Heritage analysis found that for all years, the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or more than double the 2020 loss. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage), the inflation-adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four.
Energy-intensive industries will also suffer significant losses. For instance, farming is very energy-intensive, with fuel, chemical, electricity, and fertilizer costs; since cap and trade drives up the cost of energy prices, farmers’ losses will undoubtedly outweigh any money they collect from offsets (the money businesses would pay farmers to reduce carbon emissions by either not farming or using more efficient technologies). The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that farm income (or the amount left over after paying all expenses) is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 percent, respectively. The average net income lost over the 2010-2035 timeline is $23 billion–a 57 percent decrease from the baseline.
It Is a Jobs-Destroying Bill
President Obama and Democratic House leaders claimed that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill. With the lavish subsidies for green investment placed in the bill, surely companies will hire workers to build solar panels and windmills; however, the number of “green” jobs will pale in comparison to the number of jobs lost due to higher energy prices and slower economic growth.
The goal of cap and trade is to drive up the costs of energy in order for people to use less of it. Because just about every business uses energy to produce goods and must pay their own electricity bills, the cost of production for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons:
1. Price hikes on goods reduce demand, and
2. People have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.
Overall, production cuts and reduced consumer spending destroy jobs and slow economic growth, which further increases unemployment.
The Heritage analysis found that over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline–without a cap-and-trade bill.[4] Some jobs will be lost completely, while others will move to different countries where the cost of production is cheaper. Again, these losses are on top of “green jobs” created as a result of the bill.
Less Renewable Energy
The final House bill contained many renewable energy investments in an effort to attract votes. The Waxman-Markey proposal even requires that more electricity come from so-called renewable sources, chiefly wind energy but also others like biomass and solar. Ironically, according to an analysis of the bill by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Waxman-Markey would actually result in less renewable energy produced than without the bill because of the overall decline in electricity use.[5]
Green projects do not pay for themselves; it is the taxpayers who fund the research and development of renewable energy and the cost of the subsidies that are required to make renewables competitive. Yet renewable energy still only provides a small fraction of America’s energy needs, and it is more expensive per kilowatt hour than traditional, reliable sources of energy. Consumers lose doubly, paying more as taxpayers and as ratepayers.
It Will Not Save the Planet
The alleged benefit from cap and trade is that the regulations will reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to slow warming and reduce global temperatures.
According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[6] Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson concurred, recently saying, “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”[7]
A multilateral approach would not fare much better. In the case of international cooperation, India, China, and the rest of the developing world would have to revert to their 2000 levels of CO2 emissions by 2050. On a per-capita basis, China would backtrack to about one-tenth of what the U.S. emitted in 2000. India and most of the developing world would have to drop to even lower levels. This scenario, in addition to being highly unlikely, would de-develop the developing world.
Moving Forward
Now that the bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, it will likely move to the U.S. Senate this fall. It is important to remember that everything policymakers have promised this bill will do will in fact do the opposite. Cap and trade will drive up energy costs for years to come, resulting in economic pain and higher unemployment. All of these points will be equally important, if not more so, in the Senate debate.
Stop the Cap & Trade vote- NOW in the U.S. Senate CALL 1-212-224-3121 or www.usa.gov Email, Fax , Call State Local Phone Number SEE Gov. Website For Info.
STOP THE SENATE VOTE NOW!
http://www.squidoo.com/obamalies
Obama and his lying team are telling the people exactly what they want to hear. The people are getting half-truths or down right lies, after they tell them what they want to hear. Obama and his lying team must be STOPPED NOW.
Obama’s plan to give all U.S. citizens one thing, that is LIFE TIME ******* TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR EVERY PART OF YOUR LIFE WILL BE UNDER CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT, check it out for yourself. Read all the bills that have been passed and sign in to law, go to www.usa.gov/. Or www.heritage.org/ Read the book of REVELATION in the Holy Bible and looking at 2 Timothy 3:1-5. DO NOT BE A NAIVE PERSON it is time to be a RESPONSIBLE PERSON for yourself, family, other people and the United States and the world. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A VOTER and a citizens of the U.S.A. and the world.
http://www.squidoo.com/obamalies
Kansieo.com
The Barack Obama Effect on Black Men
Gian Fiero asked:
When I was a boy, I would overhear older black men talking about this evil, mythical figure called “The Man.” I thought there was Batman, Spiderman, Superman, and The Man.
The Man was accused of selfishly hoarding power and resources that prevented black men from getting jobs, owning businesses, and having greater opportunities in general. As a young impressionable child, The Man seemed like one bad mutha. It took me some time for me to figure out that The Man was the white man.
As humorous and antiquated as this notion may be, it surprises me that The Man still lives in the minds of many black men today. After listening to Barack Obama make his presentation at the Democratic National Convention, which coincided with the 45th anniversary of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, there is a palpable energy, optimism, and pride that I’m sensing in my conversations with other black men. An awakening that’s almost spiritual. A fertile synergy that can produce the seeds of a movement – a black male movement.
While the women’s movement has been legitimized and publicized in the press since their struggles for liberation began, there is a potential – and much needed – black man’s movement that’s underway. Of course the media has not picked up on it because they don’t consider it newsworthy or noteworthy, but conscious black people, especially those who desire and seek financial, mental, and vocational liberation for themselves and their children, are well aware of it.
It’s the effect that Barack Obama’s campaign and legacy will have on black men.
To really understand the magnitude of this effect you have to go back in history to another speech. It was given at a graduating ceremony for Howard University in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson in the aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s assassination and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘Now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair…This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity-not just legal equity but human ability-not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”
The bill was later amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender. That amendment largely benefited white women and opened the floodgates for their entry into the workplace.
As more white women migrated into the workplace in 1964, occupying jobs they were “allowed” to have and armed with new legislature and a spirit of liberation that would gain momentum and evolve into the women’s movement, black women would soon follow suit and be deployed in less desirable roles while black men would essentially be displaced; spawning an employment imbalance in the black community where the men consistently have higher rates of unemployment and underemployment than black women.
This statistic holds true to this very day.
When I Juxtapose today’s work environment with yesterday’s, I see that black men still comprise the bulk of the work force that’s relegated to manual labor or undesirable jobs with marginal pay. I searched, but did not find, statistical data on the ethnic composition of the labor force of FedEx and UPS, but through observation, I’m willing to bet they are among the top – if not 1 and 2 – employers of black men, closely followed by any company that provides security (guard) services.
They are all jobs that place physical demands on their employees. Black men have always been used and valued for their physical strength since they stepped (chained) foot into this country. After all this time, we are still more likely to be paid millions for our muscles than our minds.
The Barack Obama Effect will cause the pendulum to swing in the other direction.
In the 60s, gainful employment was denied due to racism, fear, and distrust. Racism is not what leads to unfavorable employment conditions that black men have to overcome, it’s negative perceptions about black men as a group that have proven to be a greater economic and psychological barrier to our success. It’s the internalization of these perceptions that impact us. There’s extensive research that proves how devastating these perceptions can be when internalized by young black males.
According to Dr. Alvin Poussaint, psychiatrist and author of Lay My Burden Down: Unraveling ******* and the Mental Health Crisis among African Americans over the last twenty years, ******* rates among young black males between the ages of 15 and 19 increased 114%. Head coach of the Indianapolis Colts lost his 18 year old son to ******* in 2005 and finally the epidemic caught the media’s attention, albeit for a fleeting moment.
With commonplace scenarios such as fragmented families that are often headed by single mothers, lack of male leadership, negative influences, and continued discrimination in our schools from teachers who do not embrace, nurture, or support young black males as readily as their white peers, it’s no wonder that so many young black males fabricate false bravado and a cool facade to camouflage low self-esteem, and often seeking validation through sports, entertainment and sexual conquests. Even worse, it creates a fixed mindset.
Author Carol S. Dweck, Ph.D., who is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading researchers in the fields of personality, social psychology, and developmental psychology, notes that psychologists know that negative stereotypes and labels are harmful, but they are still discovering just how negative labels harm achievement. She writes in her book Mindset: The New Psychology Of Success, that a fixed mindset limits achievement. It fills people’s mind with interfering thoughts. It makes effort disagreeable, and it leads to inferior learning strategies. What’s more, it makes other people into judges instead of allies.
My father told me at an early age that black men have to work two to three times harder than white men to achieve the same success. We also have to work smarter to be as successful. There are political, psychological, racial, and legal elements at play in every arena that we thrive in. It behooves us to know how to best navigate through situations that pose a threat to our success.
Whether it’s working harder or smarter, extra “work” is inevitable. Dealing with the inertia that stems from apathy in many of our neighborhoods, communities, and homes; dealing with lingering fears and stereotypes, and having to exert constant effort to fit in with white men who don’t feel as comfortable with us or in our presence. Historically, our prosperity as black men has always been tied to our ability to successfully interface with white men.
I imagine that living life as a paraplegic or without one’s sight is probably harder in terms of difficulty and adaptability, but certainly not capability. That’s where the line gets drawn and a new way of thinking can begin. Yes, being a black man is harder for some black men and it certainly has some societal drawbacks, but like those with the aforementioned physical challenges, we must view them as just that; challenges not disabilities, and certainly not handicaps. Being a black man is hard, but being a black man who is president will be inconceivably hard.
What do we find when we delve into Barack Obama’s background? Let’s see:
Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Kansas-born mother, Ann Dunham (who is a distant relative of Robert Duvall) and a Kenyan-born father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., who met while both were attending the University of Hawaii, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student.
His mother and father divorced when he was two and his mother re-married and they relocated to Indonesia. His father attended Harvard, traveled around the world on official business for Kenya and saw Obama only a few times by the time he turned 10, at which point he was sent back to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents so that he could attend the highly-regarded non-sectarian private Punahou School where he graduated from.
Obama studied for two years at Occidental College in California before transferring to Columbia University, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations. He became a community organizer for a small Chicago church-based group for three years, helping poor South Side residents cope with a wave of plant closings. He then attended Harvard Law School, and in 1990 became the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review.
He turned down a prestigious judicial clerkship, choosing instead to practice civil-rights law back in Chicago, representing victims of housing and employment discrimination and working on voting-rights legislation. He also began teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. Eventually he ran as a Democrat for the state senate seat from his district, which included both Hyde Park (where he currently lives) and some of the poorest ghettos on the South Side, and won.
In 2004 Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat, representing Illinois, and gained national attention by giving a rousing and well-received keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston; won a Grammy for Best Spoken Word for the CD version of his autobiography “Dreams From My Father” (2006); won his second Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for “The Audacity of Hope” (2008); sought the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Presidency (2008).
It’s a brief overview that highlights great accomplishments, but his origins are similar to most black men I know: He came from a single parent household, had a strained relationship with his father, a close relationship with his grandparents, and had to make choices.
Law school, community organizer, civil-rights activist, Grammy award winner, member of the U.S. Senate, Presidential candidate – they are all talent and value based decisions. None of them would be feasible if Barack Obama did not truly believe that these goals were possible and put forth the consistent effort to reach them.
What will happen if Barack Obama gets elected president? What will happen when black men stop blaming the man, and start being The Man? Every door will be open. Every American dream – including being president – can be a reality.
Our view and definition of The Man will finally be flipped; replaced by a positive self-image and greater awareness of the super powers we possess, but seldom activate. We will become more motivated to utilize resources, get better jobs, start successful businesses, and capitalize on opportunities because the leadership and role model that so many of us have lacked, will have emerged in the highest visible position in the country – the presidency.
In short, The Barack Obama Effect will mean that our statute of limitations on excuses will have officially run out. The fixed mindset that has plagued black men for centuries from the aforementioned internalization of negative perceptions will be repaired. The Effect Of Barack Obama will germinate a growth mindset which will benefit black men for centuries to come.
Dweck writes: The growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts. The growth mindset takes the teeth out of stereotypes and makes people better able to fight back. They don’t believe in permanent inferiority. She also writes: Prejudice is a deeply ingrained societal problem…a growth mindset helps people see prejudice for what it is – someone else’s view of them.
The Barack Obama Effect will inspire little black boys to find the courage to choose the road less traveled and explore the many options available to them. The Barack Obama Effect will motivate the parents of little black boys to instill an authentic, deeply rooted confidence which allows and enables them to have personal and professional lives that are only limited by the boundaries of their imagination and efforts, not lack of opportunities. The Barack Obama Effect will linger because black men and black boys will know that in their hearts and in their minds, they are The Man – the only man – who controls their own thoughts, actions, and destinies.
Caffeinated Content
When I was a boy, I would overhear older black men talking about this evil, mythical figure called “The Man.” I thought there was Batman, Spiderman, Superman, and The Man.
The Man was accused of selfishly hoarding power and resources that prevented black men from getting jobs, owning businesses, and having greater opportunities in general. As a young impressionable child, The Man seemed like one bad mutha. It took me some time for me to figure out that The Man was the white man.
As humorous and antiquated as this notion may be, it surprises me that The Man still lives in the minds of many black men today. After listening to Barack Obama make his presentation at the Democratic National Convention, which coincided with the 45th anniversary of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, there is a palpable energy, optimism, and pride that I’m sensing in my conversations with other black men. An awakening that’s almost spiritual. A fertile synergy that can produce the seeds of a movement – a black male movement.
While the women’s movement has been legitimized and publicized in the press since their struggles for liberation began, there is a potential – and much needed – black man’s movement that’s underway. Of course the media has not picked up on it because they don’t consider it newsworthy or noteworthy, but conscious black people, especially those who desire and seek financial, mental, and vocational liberation for themselves and their children, are well aware of it.
It’s the effect that Barack Obama’s campaign and legacy will have on black men.
To really understand the magnitude of this effect you have to go back in history to another speech. It was given at a graduating ceremony for Howard University in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson in the aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s assassination and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘Now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair…This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity-not just legal equity but human ability-not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”
The bill was later amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender. That amendment largely benefited white women and opened the floodgates for their entry into the workplace.
As more white women migrated into the workplace in 1964, occupying jobs they were “allowed” to have and armed with new legislature and a spirit of liberation that would gain momentum and evolve into the women’s movement, black women would soon follow suit and be deployed in less desirable roles while black men would essentially be displaced; spawning an employment imbalance in the black community where the men consistently have higher rates of unemployment and underemployment than black women.
This statistic holds true to this very day.
When I Juxtapose today’s work environment with yesterday’s, I see that black men still comprise the bulk of the work force that’s relegated to manual labor or undesirable jobs with marginal pay. I searched, but did not find, statistical data on the ethnic composition of the labor force of FedEx and UPS, but through observation, I’m willing to bet they are among the top – if not 1 and 2 – employers of black men, closely followed by any company that provides security (guard) services.
They are all jobs that place physical demands on their employees. Black men have always been used and valued for their physical strength since they stepped (chained) foot into this country. After all this time, we are still more likely to be paid millions for our muscles than our minds.
The Barack Obama Effect will cause the pendulum to swing in the other direction.
In the 60s, gainful employment was denied due to racism, fear, and distrust. Racism is not what leads to unfavorable employment conditions that black men have to overcome, it’s negative perceptions about black men as a group that have proven to be a greater economic and psychological barrier to our success. It’s the internalization of these perceptions that impact us. There’s extensive research that proves how devastating these perceptions can be when internalized by young black males.
According to Dr. Alvin Poussaint, psychiatrist and author of Lay My Burden Down: Unraveling ******* and the Mental Health Crisis among African Americans over the last twenty years, ******* rates among young black males between the ages of 15 and 19 increased 114%. Head coach of the Indianapolis Colts lost his 18 year old son to ******* in 2005 and finally the epidemic caught the media’s attention, albeit for a fleeting moment.
With commonplace scenarios such as fragmented families that are often headed by single mothers, lack of male leadership, negative influences, and continued discrimination in our schools from teachers who do not embrace, nurture, or support young black males as readily as their white peers, it’s no wonder that so many young black males fabricate false bravado and a cool facade to camouflage low self-esteem, and often seeking validation through sports, entertainment and sexual conquests. Even worse, it creates a fixed mindset.
Author Carol S. Dweck, Ph.D., who is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading researchers in the fields of personality, social psychology, and developmental psychology, notes that psychologists know that negative stereotypes and labels are harmful, but they are still discovering just how negative labels harm achievement. She writes in her book Mindset: The New Psychology Of Success, that a fixed mindset limits achievement. It fills people’s mind with interfering thoughts. It makes effort disagreeable, and it leads to inferior learning strategies. What’s more, it makes other people into judges instead of allies.
My father told me at an early age that black men have to work two to three times harder than white men to achieve the same success. We also have to work smarter to be as successful. There are political, psychological, racial, and legal elements at play in every arena that we thrive in. It behooves us to know how to best navigate through situations that pose a threat to our success.
Whether it’s working harder or smarter, extra “work” is inevitable. Dealing with the inertia that stems from apathy in many of our neighborhoods, communities, and homes; dealing with lingering fears and stereotypes, and having to exert constant effort to fit in with white men who don’t feel as comfortable with us or in our presence. Historically, our prosperity as black men has always been tied to our ability to successfully interface with white men.
I imagine that living life as a paraplegic or without one’s sight is probably harder in terms of difficulty and adaptability, but certainly not capability. That’s where the line gets drawn and a new way of thinking can begin. Yes, being a black man is harder for some black men and it certainly has some societal drawbacks, but like those with the aforementioned physical challenges, we must view them as just that; challenges not disabilities, and certainly not handicaps. Being a black man is hard, but being a black man who is president will be inconceivably hard.
What do we find when we delve into Barack Obama’s background? Let’s see:
Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Kansas-born mother, Ann Dunham (who is a distant relative of Robert Duvall) and a Kenyan-born father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., who met while both were attending the University of Hawaii, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student.
His mother and father divorced when he was two and his mother re-married and they relocated to Indonesia. His father attended Harvard, traveled around the world on official business for Kenya and saw Obama only a few times by the time he turned 10, at which point he was sent back to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents so that he could attend the highly-regarded non-sectarian private Punahou School where he graduated from.
Obama studied for two years at Occidental College in California before transferring to Columbia University, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations. He became a community organizer for a small Chicago church-based group for three years, helping poor South Side residents cope with a wave of plant closings. He then attended Harvard Law School, and in 1990 became the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review.
He turned down a prestigious judicial clerkship, choosing instead to practice civil-rights law back in Chicago, representing victims of housing and employment discrimination and working on voting-rights legislation. He also began teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. Eventually he ran as a Democrat for the state senate seat from his district, which included both Hyde Park (where he currently lives) and some of the poorest ghettos on the South Side, and won.
In 2004 Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat, representing Illinois, and gained national attention by giving a rousing and well-received keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston; won a Grammy for Best Spoken Word for the CD version of his autobiography “Dreams From My Father” (2006); won his second Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for “The Audacity of Hope” (2008); sought the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Presidency (2008).
It’s a brief overview that highlights great accomplishments, but his origins are similar to most black men I know: He came from a single parent household, had a strained relationship with his father, a close relationship with his grandparents, and had to make choices.
Law school, community organizer, civil-rights activist, Grammy award winner, member of the U.S. Senate, Presidential candidate – they are all talent and value based decisions. None of them would be feasible if Barack Obama did not truly believe that these goals were possible and put forth the consistent effort to reach them.
What will happen if Barack Obama gets elected president? What will happen when black men stop blaming the man, and start being The Man? Every door will be open. Every American dream – including being president – can be a reality.
Our view and definition of The Man will finally be flipped; replaced by a positive self-image and greater awareness of the super powers we possess, but seldom activate. We will become more motivated to utilize resources, get better jobs, start successful businesses, and capitalize on opportunities because the leadership and role model that so many of us have lacked, will have emerged in the highest visible position in the country – the presidency.
In short, The Barack Obama Effect will mean that our statute of limitations on excuses will have officially run out. The fixed mindset that has plagued black men for centuries from the aforementioned internalization of negative perceptions will be repaired. The Effect Of Barack Obama will germinate a growth mindset which will benefit black men for centuries to come.
Dweck writes: The growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts. The growth mindset takes the teeth out of stereotypes and makes people better able to fight back. They don’t believe in permanent inferiority. She also writes: Prejudice is a deeply ingrained societal problem…a growth mindset helps people see prejudice for what it is – someone else’s view of them.
The Barack Obama Effect will inspire little black boys to find the courage to choose the road less traveled and explore the many options available to them. The Barack Obama Effect will motivate the parents of little black boys to instill an authentic, deeply rooted confidence which allows and enables them to have personal and professional lives that are only limited by the boundaries of their imagination and efforts, not lack of opportunities. The Barack Obama Effect will linger because black men and black boys will know that in their hearts and in their minds, they are The Man – the only man – who controls their own thoughts, actions, and destinies.
Caffeinated Content
Barack Obama Shirts are a Hit With the Younger Voters
James Smith asked:
When it comes to reaching out to the public Obama can achieve the unity he wants, as a candidate Obama was not even known less than a year ago. However, he was able to use the Internet to connect with millions of young people who are also voters who do not have a TV set or who do not watch the candidates in their debates. Obama has been known as saying we have not even scratched the surface of with this new political landscape, meaning the Internet and the computer users who might not hear from the candidates directly. Obama has not only stayed on track with what he said here over a year ago, but has also gone on to develop plans of how he can enact many of his ideas to make changes if he is elected.
Obama has also maintained a strong stance in all areas of his campaign while focusing on the problems of the country and what changes need to be made. Along with bringing these ideas of change to the Internet user so that they hear it in his words and not in the medias method of telling only parts of what a candidate has to say.
There are many voters that have learned what Barack Obama stands for, what his policy changes would mean to the country and what they can expect if he is elected as the next President of the United States. They have learned all this with their Internet connection on the web without all of the added extras or opinions of the media.
While some people are content watching the televised debates and the local news to form their opinion of who they want to run the country as the Commander and Chief for the next four years. There are many people who know with the Internet this is no longer the best way to make the decision of who they should vote for and to many people information is power. The power to be informed, the power understand just what a candidate plans to change, add and omit during their presidency.
It is only by a voter thoroughly educating themselves about the candidates that they will make the correct decision for which candidate they feel can do the best job of running the country.
The Barack Obama campaign has made this much easier by bringing Obama’s stand on what needs to change in the country to the internet and with this many more young voters know what he stands for. Many voters in general for the first time in many years are getting the unbiased information they need minus the media. Who in many cases decides who they feel should be the proper candidate to win the election and push that agenda and the voters either begin to believe it or they feel they must make a choice with out all the information they need if they are going to be a part of the voting process.
To assist in this campaign the supporters who have heard Obama’s message loud and clear are now wearing t-shirts to help support his continued campaign efforts.
Buy yourself a Barack Obama shirts and help support him in every way possible that will help him get elected as president. You can help support Barack Obama by wearing trendy Barack Obama t-shirts or by making a donation to the campaign. All the Barack Obama designs mentioned here are not official but rather are inspired by who might possibly be one of the most influencial politicians in a long time.
Caffeinated Content
When it comes to reaching out to the public Obama can achieve the unity he wants, as a candidate Obama was not even known less than a year ago. However, he was able to use the Internet to connect with millions of young people who are also voters who do not have a TV set or who do not watch the candidates in their debates. Obama has been known as saying we have not even scratched the surface of with this new political landscape, meaning the Internet and the computer users who might not hear from the candidates directly. Obama has not only stayed on track with what he said here over a year ago, but has also gone on to develop plans of how he can enact many of his ideas to make changes if he is elected.
Obama has also maintained a strong stance in all areas of his campaign while focusing on the problems of the country and what changes need to be made. Along with bringing these ideas of change to the Internet user so that they hear it in his words and not in the medias method of telling only parts of what a candidate has to say.
There are many voters that have learned what Barack Obama stands for, what his policy changes would mean to the country and what they can expect if he is elected as the next President of the United States. They have learned all this with their Internet connection on the web without all of the added extras or opinions of the media.
While some people are content watching the televised debates and the local news to form their opinion of who they want to run the country as the Commander and Chief for the next four years. There are many people who know with the Internet this is no longer the best way to make the decision of who they should vote for and to many people information is power. The power to be informed, the power understand just what a candidate plans to change, add and omit during their presidency.
It is only by a voter thoroughly educating themselves about the candidates that they will make the correct decision for which candidate they feel can do the best job of running the country.
The Barack Obama campaign has made this much easier by bringing Obama’s stand on what needs to change in the country to the internet and with this many more young voters know what he stands for. Many voters in general for the first time in many years are getting the unbiased information they need minus the media. Who in many cases decides who they feel should be the proper candidate to win the election and push that agenda and the voters either begin to believe it or they feel they must make a choice with out all the information they need if they are going to be a part of the voting process.
To assist in this campaign the supporters who have heard Obama’s message loud and clear are now wearing t-shirts to help support his continued campaign efforts.
Buy yourself a Barack Obama shirts and help support him in every way possible that will help him get elected as president. You can help support Barack Obama by wearing trendy Barack Obama t-shirts or by making a donation to the campaign. All the Barack Obama designs mentioned here are not official but rather are inspired by who might possibly be one of the most influencial politicians in a long time.
Caffeinated Content