Archive for November, 2009

Obama Mania

Monday, November 23rd, 2009
Mandy Malone asked:


Barack Obama began his term in the Senate in 2005 for the state of Illinois. On February 10, 2007, he officially announced his candidacy for president of the United States. His historic campaign and subsequent election led to a fever in this country; a fever known as Obama mania. Much has led to the mania, but Obama himself has led to most of it. Obama is a man of great charisma and influential articulation; this combined with the country’s eagerness for change has led to this Obama mania in the United States and abroad.

People seem to come out of the woodwork when it comes to expressing their belief that Obama is the man who shall clean up our great nation. Oprah certainly added to the furor when she publicly endorsed Barack Obama. She said she felt he is “the One,” as if he were a messiah. Savior or not, we have yet to see, but the hope sparked in that comment echoes the hopes expressed all over the country.

Obama is not your normal political candidate. A self-described “mutt,” many Americans feel they can relate to him. This is just one aspect of his unending charm and wit. I know I am not alone in this opinion, as millions publicly flaunt these same feelings. Just look at the Obama Girl! Obama did not just campaign with town hall meetings and university speeches; this man was speaking to sold-out stadiums of 50,000 or more. This is a virtually unheard of status among politicians.

Even other countries are catching this Obama mania fever. Foreign nationals the world over were watching on election night as America declared Obama its president. Kenya, where Obama’s father hails from, declared November 5th a national holiday. Couples around the globe named their newborns after the President-elect. Obama mania is sure to stick around!

In a campaign full of historic significance, Obama stood out. Running in the primaries against the most formidable of female candidates, Barack showed he can take on the goliaths of Washington. Then, in the actual election, with opposition from yet another historic opponent, he showed that America can rise above its past. On Election Day, 2008, the United States made history and the Obama mania flames were fueled once again.



Caffeinated Content

Obama Appears Inevitable While Clinton Only Has Hope

Monday, November 23rd, 2009
James William Smith asked:


Political pundits are beginning to sense an end to the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Last week Peggy Noonan wrote a column questioning how gracious Hillary Clinton would be in defeat. This week **** Morris predicted an eventual nomination victory for Barack Obama and the end of the pursuit of the White House by the former First Lady.

So are these pundits correct? Is the race for the Democratic party nomination over? Will it in fact be Barack Obama and John McCain in a race for the White House in the fall? Since at this point in the campaign it is all about the delegate count, let’s look at the possibilities.

The delegate count after last night’s Potomac Primaries is still very close with Obama leading Clinton by just 67 delegates (1242 to 1175) according to CBS News. The magic number for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination is 2025. Nevertheless the campaign of Hillary Clinton certainly appears to be in big trouble.

Hillary Clinton has lost every primary and caucus since Super Tuesday and her prospects for victory are slim for the rest of the month of February. She has loaned her campaign five million dollars according to various news reports. Her senior staff has been working without pay and her campaign is currently raising half of the amount of new campaign funds on a daily basis in comparison to the campaign of her opponent. She has just replaced her campaign manager.

The Clinton current campaign strategy is to conserve money and concede the remaining state primaries in February to Obama. The campaign is concentrating on winning the remaining primaries in March, April, and May. This would give Barack Obama substantial victories in all the remaining primaries in February (Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Washington). It should give him about 1300 total delegates on March 1, 2008.

This February election result would insure that Clinton would trail Obama by around 90 – 100 delegates entering the March 4, 2008 primary contests of Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont. She will have not beaten Obama in a primary or caucus for a month. To remain in the race, Clinton would need victories approaching 60% of the vote in every remaining state except Mississippi in the month of March. If she somehow pulled this result off she would have about 1436 delegates on April 1, 2007. Obama would win about 165 delegates and his total would be 1465. The dubious news for Hillary Clinton is that Obama would still remain ahead at the end of March in delegates even if Clinton ran the table in March and won each contest (except Mississippi) by a 60-40% margin.

In April, 151 delegates will be at stake in the state of Pennsylvania. Let’s assume that Hillary Clinton wins that state with 60% of the vote and captures the same proportion of delegates. Her delegate total would be 1556 to Obama’s 1522, giving her a slight lead in delegate count. There would be 214 remaining delegates for the candidates to battle for during the primaries in the month of May.

Therefore, for Hillary Clinton to regain the lead on pledged delegates from Obama, she needs to win all the primaries (except Mississippi) with at least 60% of the vote in March and April. She needs to win the primaries in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. She needs to achieve these primary victories with 60% or more of the vote. She will be outspent by the Obama campaign since he is raising more money. She also needs to produce these victories after a month of non-stop primary losses. Clinton also must realize that this is the same dubious strategy that did not turn out well for Republican Rudy Giuliani at the beginning of the 2008 election season. Based on all these factors, her chance to secure the Democratic Party nomination at this point look like a long shot indeed.

It is true that there are still about 500 remaining Democratic Party super delegates that remain uncommitted to any candidate. These delegates are Democratic party members and insiders. The problem for Hillary Clinton is that these delegates will quickly jump aboard the campaign that looks like a winner during March. After the primaries on March 4, 2008, if Obama is still ahead by at least 100 delegates and has won most of the state primaries and caucuses ( he has won 23 of the 35 to date), the super delegates will begin to endorse him in significant numbers and the Democratic race will be all but over.

The fact is that Obama has been endorsed by too many Democratic party regulars to be a victim of a back room deal that would have most of the remaining super delegates endorse Hillary Clinton. Also, the Democratic party will be careful not to allow insiders to appear to overturn the actual voting results of the primary states. However, in a last desperate attempt to stave off defeat, Hillary Clinton will probably try to use the disqualified delegates in the Michigan and Florida primaries to her advantage. These delegates were disqualified because each state moved its primary forward in the 2008 election calendar. As a result of breaking party rules the states delegates are not currently included in the delegate totals of either candidate.

In general, Hillary Clinton has to hope she can stop Obama’s political momentum very soon. Indeed, it now looks like she will be behind by nearly 100 delegates after all the February primaries are finished. One hundred delegates is a dangerous number to be trailing in this election year with the Democratic Party rule of proportionate allocation of the vote for each states delegates. Her only remaining hope is to run the table with big (twenty percentage point) wins in all the remaining primaries during the months of March, April, and May. However, her campaign’s last stand may well turn out to be on March 4, 2008 in either Ohio or Texas.

It is interesting to see how things can change so quickly in politics. Six months ago, Hillary Clinton was the candidate of inevitability and Barack Obama was the candidate of hope. In February 2008, each candidate’s prospects for the Democratic Presidential nomination are now exactly the reverse.



Caffeinated Content – Members-Only Content for WordPress

What Will Barack Obama Do About Online Casinos?

Thursday, November 12th, 2009
Marcus Miles asked:


Millions of people eagerly viewed the recent American election. Millions of people in millions of countries stayed up late to get the result of this landmark election. Barack Obama and John McCain had worked around the clock. They had debated, they had argued, they had spent countless dollars trying to convince the American people – the Joe plumbers, the hockey moms – to tick their box in the voting booth. After the votes were counted, only one man walked out onto the stage the winner. He was Barack Obama. Many have speculated why Obama finally won. In the end, he promised change and after two terms of George W. Bush, it was what the American public, and the world, wanted. 

Barack Obama promises a different approach to politics and a confident press conference recently suggested he was going to keep to the script that got him elected. He told journalists his actions for his first months as president. Obama set out his aims for economic revival, stimulus packages and troop withdrawal from Iraq. It’s questionable whether many reporters in the group had questions concerning online gaming.  Indeed, the 44th president probably has bigger things on his mind. He is the new representative of the American people after all.

When the issues surrounding the recession, the war and fossil fuels have subsided though, the issue of online gaming will find its way into the Whitehouse. Obama’s call on online casinos will choose the fate of gaming in the US. The most important question left remaining is what will the President decide to do; to allow online casinos to operate in the US, or not?  While the 2006 Safe Port Act prevents online gamers from wagering money on online casinos, there are some positive omens that an Obama presidency may overturn the law introduced by the outgoing president, George W. Bush.

But, there are signs of hope for online gaming players. Comments made in the past from Obama hints he’d study the pros and cons of legalising online casinos across the United States. Asked a question by reporters during his election bid, Obama said that he could see the opportunities a regulated online casino industry could bring.  Although Obama hasn’t declared that he’d reinstate online casinos in the USA, his statement has heartened many players and online operators alike.  Obama’s comments from an appearance in Las Vegas, that online casinos was a good economic factor, gave more joy to online casinos wishing to play in America again.

American players shouldn’t be too eager to log onto their nearest online casino though Obama has told a number of reporters that he’s not the biggest supporter of online casino gaming. When a president, voted into the Whitehouse on a wave of change, talks to a newspaper and explains that online casino gaming can have devastating ethical and social costs, online casino companies hoping to run their casinos in America shouldn’t start buying up domain names. He’s also had a track of anti-casino voting, blocking the increase of the Illinois gaming  arena in 1999.

A lot of online casino companies will be troubled by Barack Obama’s wavering opinion on the issue of internet casinos. Although, a President can often change his mind and there may be a possibility for online casinos in America. A possibility, but don’t start dreaming of chips and cards at the moment.

As an occasional poker player, Obama is known for his calm poker game. As a member of the Senate, Obama often indulged in games of poker. He never bet huge amounts, rarely bluffed, and always kept his hand close to his chest. Could there be any similarities between his playing and presidential methods If you ask Obama about his opinions on online casinos, will he just glance at his cards and smiles?

 Given the scale of Democratic gains in The Senate, Obama should have no problems passing a law to allow internet casinos. Whether he will is another matter altogether.  The regulation of online casinos has been seen to provide a large of tax revenue for other countries; battling against a faltering economy and seeing a strong possibility of recession the USA, will Barack Obama be able to give a good reason for keeping the law on online gaming, purely because of  any possible moral protests he may have? No one really knows until Obama starts his presidency in dark nights of January. Until Inauguration Day, American casinos will have little option but to lie back and pray to the gaming gods for a successful throw of the die.



Caffeinated Content

American History in Obama’s Inauguration Speech

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009
Nate Gillespie asked:


As anyone who saw a campaign poster in 2008 could surely tell you, Barack Obama is all about change. Change in the White House, most profoundly in the simple, yet stunning, fact that we now have our first black president. Change in the tenor of politics, in an effort to step back from the ferocious partisanship of the past decade. And change in the direction of the country, in the form of a dramatic shift in the priorities and policies of the government.

Yet change, Obama also knows, can be frightening. Too much change can seem radical, threatening, dangerous. During the campaign, Obama had to overcome the deep-seated fears of many Americans that his particular brand of change would only mean change for the worse.

So Obama has always made a conscious effort to balance his calls for change with equal references to the timeless continuities of American history, seeking to cast his own political movement as nothing more than the culmination of the work of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jefferson, Kennedy, and the other great leaders of our past. (Obama deliberately began his campaign, for example, in the same place that Lincoln began his own run for the White House, and ended it by taking the oath of office on Lincoln’s bible.)

Obama’s best speeches have all been peppered with historical allusions and quotations. Over the course of the campaign, Obama breathed fresh life into some of the most moving phrases offered in the past by Lincoln (“a new birth of freedom”), Martin Luther King (“the fierce urgency of now”), and Cesar Chavez (“yes we can”).

Obama’s inaugural was no exception to his tradition of using the past to frame the present, as the inaugural address was full of historical allusions—some obvious, some not so obvious.

So what exactly was Obama referring to with each of his invocations of the past? Let Shmoop be your guide:

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

Actually, only 43 presidents have taken the oath. (Grover Cleveland, who won the presidency in 1884, lost it in 1888, and won it back again in 1892, counts as both President #22 and President #24… so while there have been 44 distinct presidencies, there have only been 43 different presidents.) Aside from that bit of random trivia, the new president’s point here is to emphasize the continuity of the presidential transfer of power, in times good and bad, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution (that’s what Obama’s invoking in his references to “We The People” and “our founding documents”).



Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted—for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things—some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

Here Obama invokes the experiences of a wide variety of Americans, from all walks of life, in triumphing over adversity. Those who “packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life” would include both the first European settlers of America—the rugged colonists of Jamestown and the Puritan refugees of Plymouth Rock—but also the later generations of immigrants who poured into the country through most of the 19th and 20th centuries. Those who “toiled in sweatshops and settled the West” were the factory workers of America’s industrial revolution and the pioneers of Manifest Destiny. The “the lash of the whip” is both an obvious reference to slavery and, perhaps, a sly reference to a line in Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural (“every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword”). Concord and Gettysburg and Normandy and Khe Sanh were momentous battles of the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War II, and Vietnam War, respectively.



As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Obama’s reference to a false “choice between our safety and our ideals” is almost certainly meant to echo Benjamin Franklin’s famous dictum that those who “give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The main peril faced by our Founding Fathers—Franklin among them, of course—was defeat and punishment at the hands of the British. The “charter” they drafted, the “charter expanded by the blood of generations,” is the Constitution of the United States.



Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.

Here Obama refers to American victories in World War II (over fascism) and the Cold War (over communism), both of which were achieved not only through force of arms but also through effective diplomacy—the Grand Alliance with Britain, the Soviet Union, China and France in World War II, and the NATO alliance of Western powers against the Soviet bloc in the Cold War.



This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed—why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

These words were perhaps Obama’s most direct (yet still fairly subtle) reference to the profound racial significance of his election as President of the United States. Throughout the Jim Crow era, Washington, DC was essentially a Southern city—which is to say a segregated city. As late as the early 1960s, when Martin Luther King came to the city leading the March on Washington, the most admired black man in America was still only able to stay and eat in certain establishments inside the city’s African-American districts.



So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Obama closed his speech by invoking the bitter winter of 1776, which George Washington and his soldiers spent in camp at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. American prospects in the Revolutionary War at the time looked bleak, as Washington’s men shivered and starved through the long winter knowing that they would soon have to go into battle against a fearsome British Army that regarded each and every one of them as a traitor to the crown.

The most famous quotation to emerge from the ordeal at Valley Forge was, interestingly, one that Obama chose not to use—Thomas Paine’s declaration that “These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” While our own predicament as Americans facing difficult circumstances in early 2009 can hardly compare to the hardships endured at Valley Forge, Obama’s choice to end his inauguration by invoking the nation-making struggles of our forebears was almost certainly offered in the hopes of restoring a sense of national unity and purpose similar to that fostered by George Washington two centuries ago. If Obama succeeds in that, he will surely join Washington in the pantheon of great American presidents.

Read More on Shmoop US History



Caffeinated Content

The Barack Obama Campaign of Hope

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009
James William Smith asked:


Barack Obama’s candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination has struggled throughout 2007 in the public opinion polls because his campaign has not developed a clear, focused message that provides Democratic voters with a reason to vote for him.

Obama has raised over thirty million dollars for his campaign during the first six months of the year and has considerable popular, grass root support, so the resources are available to deliver the message. But what is the message? Should Democrats vote for Obama and cross their fingers and hope?

Consider this from Barack Obama in February of 2007 at a Democratic National Committee Meeting: “There are those who don’t believe in talking about hope,” Obama told the crowd. “They say, Well, we want specifics, we want details, and we want white papers, and we want plans. We’ve had a lot of plans, Democrats. What we’ve had is a shortage of hope. And over the next year, over the next two years, that will be my call to you.”

In July, as the polls began to show Obama falling further behind Hillary Clinton, Davis Plouffe ( Barack Obama’s campaign manager) had this to say in a letter to reassure campaign contributors. “One of our opponents is also the quasi-incumbent in the race, who in our belief will and should lead just about every national poll from now until the Iowa caucuses. Expect nothing different and attach no significance to it. It is clear you did not in this past quarter and we would encourage everyone to keep our sights focused on doing well in the early primaries and caucuses, and then using our organizational advantage nationally to clinch the nomination in February.”

The fact is that the “quasi-incumbent” that Plouffe referred to was Hillary Clinton, who in some public opinion polls had a nearly forty percent unfavorable rating with Democratic voters. It also should also be pointed out that there is no discussion by Plouffe of the Obama message or the strategy to get that message out.

In a column in July 2007, by David Paul Kuhn, Obama campaign advisors outline the strategy of their campaign as being modeled after insurgency campaigns like that of Ronald Reagan. As Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan “Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats, but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan allowed him to “transcend” ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.”

It is true that Reagan projected hope and optimism. However, Reagan got elected with a clear message of smaller government, lower taxes, and less government bureaucracy. At the time that message was called the “Reagan Revolution.”. It should be pointed out that once again beside “hope” there is no discussion by Belcher of the Obama message or the strategy to get that message out.

In August, with John Edwards attacking Hillary Clinton for taking campaign contributions from Rupert Murdoch, (We later found out that John Edwards made $800,000 on his last book deal from a Murdoch publisher. ) the Obama campaign decided that their candidate was an outsider who was going to clean up Washington. Here is how that turned out (from the Associated Press): Democrat Barack Obama, who says he swims in “the same muddy water” of lobbyists and fundraising that corrupts Washington, is pledging to reform the system if elected President. “I have a bunch of friends who were state lobbyists. The fact of the matter is … I played poker with them, so I don’t think that lobbyists are evil,” said the first-term Illinois senator. “I just think they’ve got an agenda and you got to be clear about that, and not pretend that they don’t. Why else are they getting hired and making all this money unless they’re actually getting something done?”

If you were a Democratic voter and wanted to see real reform in Washington, D.C. would that message from Barack Obama be a catalyst for you to vote for him in 2008?

Also, consider that after attacking Hillary Clinton for months over her vote in the Senate to support the war in Iraq, Obama had this to say about Pakistan: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

It sounds like Obama who has called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be in favor of invading Pakistan. If you were a Democratic voter and wanted to see an immediate end to the hostilities in Iraq, would this message about Pakistan, from Barack Obama be a catalyst for you to vote for him in 2008?

The early 2007 strategy of the campaign was apparently to capitalize on Obama’s star qualities with the American public. The campaign would use Obama’s book , “ The Audacity of Hope” to formulate a positive message of “hope” that would be delivered by Barrack’s gifted oratorical abilities to audiences that were longing for a fresh new face in Washington, D.C. The campaign would raise a lot of money and spend much of it in the early primaries to insure victories that would create a “domino” effect in other primaries and propel Barrack Obama to the Democratic nomination. However, as the year progressed, the fresh new face began to look like a politically inexperienced fresh new face to potential Democratic voters. To counter that impression of political inexperience, we are now seeing his campaign search for a message for voters to consider beside hope. Searching for a message in the middle of the campaign can become a painful experience for a candidate on election night.

The result of this campaign strategy can be seen in the latest polling data. Barrack Obama trails Hillary Clinton by twenty two percent nationwide and has now fallen behind Clinton in the early primary states of Iowa and South Carolina .

Throughout 2007, Barack Obama’s political campaign has been based solely on a message of hope. In an insurgency campaign facing a formidable opponent, the candidate needs a message that has much more audacity than that.



Caffeinated Content for WordPress

Black Jew Paves the Way in “israel for Obama”

Friday, November 6th, 2009
Aaron Cohen asked:


Yeshiyah Amariel, a recognized Orthodox Jew of Hispanic (Cherokee) American descent, is all about Torah, unity and support for Israel.  His slender form, Chassidic styled black suit, black hat, and dark skin to match would give the first impression that he was a Black Hebrew or Ethiopian Jew, but there is much more to him than meets the eye.  He is a contributor to AIPAC, member of United Jewish Communities, and has also lived in Israel for several years as a volunteer for an Israeli archaeologist, the Nature and Park Authority and other worthy causes.  He has been involved in translations of artifacts and excavations of Tel Arad, which is considered the only archaeologically discovered “BYT-YHWH” in Israel, and received recommendations from colleagues to attend any university in the country to become an archaeologist.  He is also currently studying to take exams to receive semicha from the Chief rabbinic’s office in Israel. 

Amariel’s family are among the Native American tribes that many historical figures, such as the 1800s Jew Mordecai Noah, regarded as brothers to the Jewish people and a lost tribe of Israel.  In 2005 Yeshiyah’s father was published in a Jerusalem Post article by Sheera Frenkel that traced their family’s Jewish links through Cherokee roots and also spoke concerning his translation of the ancient Hebrew Tanakh into English (referred to as the first of its kind).  Howshua Amariel (Yeshiyah’s father) is also a rabbi who sits on a Torah-based judicial committee of black Jews with Rabbi Capers C. Funnye Jr., cousin of Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama (Senator Barack Obama’s wife).

In our interview, Yeshiyah Amariel claimed that his grandfather knew Senator Obama back when he was originally running for the Illinois State senate.  Amariel added “My grandfather told us that we should support Obama because he has good intentions.  And given Obama’s record of support toward Israel since he has been in the US Senate, I was inclined to agree with my grandfather.”  “From my work, I have received letters of recommendations from Rabbis, Jewish community leaders, and Orthodox Israeli Jews in support of my goals to become an official rabbi in the State; but it wasn’t easy” said Amariel, stating that it took years for them to know that he was sincere in his objectives.  He imagined that the same would be for Obama and decided to offer his assistance.  So Amariel called the Obama Headquarters in Chicago and volunteered directly with officials and offered his aid to anything he and other supporters in Israel could give.  “When we called the operators were excited to hear from Americans calling from Israel to volunteer for the movement for change.”  “From then I got in contact with Obama’s Mid-East and Jewish advisor Eric Lynn and let him know that we were starting this ‘campaign’ in Israel to support Obama.  I also urged him that Obama should consider a visit to Israel and if he did we would be there to show our support.”

On the political scene, Amariel is a member of Democrats Abroad in Israel, and the lead manager and strategist for the “Israel for Obama” campaign started in Israel.  His group of American Israelis helped comfort Jews and Israelis to the idea of an Obama presidency and organize Americans living in Israel to vote for Barack Obama.  One of the members of the group Samson Altman-Schevitz also lived in Chicago and knew Michelle Obama when she served as the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago.  They have a blog on Obama’s official page, but beside that Yeshiyah is also a member of other pro-Obama Jewish groups in the United States like Orthodox Jews for Obama and Jews for Obama (whom have supported their efforts in Israel).  After Senator Obama’s visit to Israel, Yeshiyah and his group have received letters of cooperation with DA Israel chair Joanne Yaron and DNC supported Middle-East regional director Bob Barad in Italy.

Amariel also has written and received at least two letters from the Senator concerning his positions on Iran (Sanction bills passed), Israel (his commit to their continued aid) and the Palestinian conflict (to abstain from additional fighting that could prevent the peace process).   Yeshiyah hopes to provide the Israeli people with a direct link to the Illinois senator to better understand his positions when concerning Israel and the Jewish people.  He also wants to establish this connection for average Israelis to express their views from the grassroots.

“We interview American Israelis all over Israel” stated Amariel as he referred to their ‘IsraelforObama’ YouTube Channel.  “…the number one reason why most Jews we talk to have a good opinion of Obama is because of the idea of unity within his campaign’s message.  Some believe that kind of idea of harmony may be what the Middle East could use to become peaceful.  I believe it’s what should be used to bring Jews together around our common goals.”

 

Sources:

Barack Obama Israel for Obama blog [http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/IsraelforObama]

American’s Election HQ; Wednesday, July 23, 2008; “Obama Calls for ‘Lasting Peace’ in Israel, Warns of Iranian Threat” by FOXNews.com.   [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/23/obama-defends-israels-right-to-self-defense-says-hell-work-for-peace/]

TIME Magazine; Wednesday, Jul. 23, 2008 “Obama Tours Holocaust Memorial” By AP/DAVID ESPO [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1825777,00.html]

Barack Obama  Orthodox Jews For BO group [http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/OrthodoxJewsForBO]

The Philadelphia Jewish Voice- Democrats Abroad Israel; Bridging the Gap between Israel and America Israeli-Americans: The Hyphenated Citizens. [http://www.pjvoice.com/v31/31200groups.aspx]

Democrats Abroad Israel  [http://www.democratsabroad.org/group/israel-jerusalem-area]

 



Caffeinated Content – Members-Only Content for WordPress

Will Barack Obama Change the Face of the US Green Economy?

Thursday, November 5th, 2009
New Energy World Network asked:


With the US on the brink of change following Barack Obama’s historic triumph in the presidential election, those in the clean energy space were left considering what this would mean for the US’ burgeoning green economy. In a web video released last week for the Bi-Partisan Governors Global Climate Summit, the President-elect pledged new leadership to address global climate change.

In the speech, posted on YouTube, Obama reaffirmed his positive intentions, stating that there are few challenges facing the world today that are more pressing than tackling climate change.

Obama said, ‘Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

‘My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership in climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process,’ he added.

In the speech, he reiterated his pre-election plan to invest $150bn over the next ten years to catalyse private efforts to build a clean energy future, and the need to implement clear steps to propel the US to a leading position in terms of new energy resources.

His pledges included establishing annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them by an additional 80 per cent by 2050.

‘We will invest in solar power, wind power and next generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power while making sure it is safe and we will develop clean coal technologies,’ he said in the speech.

For decades, the US has been the world’s largest petroleum consumer. However, a recent report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated that 58 per cent of all petroleum consumed by the US in 2007 was imported. The long-term implications of this situation were something that Obama appears keen to address. The proposed $150bn investment into homeland energy sources would seem to reflect this commitment.

Obama continued, ‘This investment will not only help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making the US more secure, and will not only help us bring about a clean energy future saving the planet, but it also will help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced.’

Obama also plans to introduce the Cap and Trade Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which seeks to reduce carbon emissions by the recommended 80 per cent below 1990 levels, by 2050. Through this programme, all pollution credits will be auctioned with approximately $15bn of revenue per year going towards the development of clean energy. In a bid to limit dependency on foreign resources, this $15bn will be reinvested into domestic basic research, technology demonstration and aggressive commercial deployment and clean market creation.

Such a massive commitment would surely pave the way for new investment and future innovation as both industries and individuals clamour to meet this target.

The recent volatility in the price of oil and ensuing record highs have thrust the theme of alternative energy firmly to the fore, with investors paying increasing attention to the sector. In terms of venture capital alone, private investment in the renewable energy space topped $2.6bn in 2007.

The overriding theme in the industry is that the change of leadership will be a positive force.

Jim Pettit of clean energy-focused private equity firm Navitas Capital, believes that despite the financial crisis sweeping the globe, Obama will still play a pivotal role in the expansion of renewable energy. ‘While President-elect Barack Obama is poised to inherit a ton of problems across every dimension of his presidency, we look for the Obama administration to become a strong advocate for a wide array of clean technologies.

‘As a result of policy at the federal level, we believe that Obama sees an enormous opportunity to simultaneously stimulate the economy and improve the environment for future generations,’ he added.

Obama’s policies, however, do raise the question as to whether a critical change can really be implemented and whether the legacy of the past eight years of a Bush presidency can be significantly altered.

Amidst a flurry of economic woes, some have argued that it would be a mistake to place climate change at the top of the agenda in a time of financial difficulty and instability. However, many in the industry feel that the economic downturn will have little long-term effect on renewable energy and clean technologies, reinforcing the profile of this sector as a long-term prospect.

Another challenge facing Obama is that the US must acknowledge that it requires the support of emerging countries such as India and China if it is to make a significant dent in the global carbon footprint.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for developed countries to slash their emissions by five per cent by 2012, yet scientific research suggests that emissions requires an 80 per cent reduction by then if climate change is to be significantly tackled. With even Kyoto’s requirements looking a daunting prospect, Obama faces a stern challenge.

Indeed, Obama himself recognises that the US alone cannot solve this pressing concern. While he acknowledged that it was time for the US to set the precedent, he added that countries such as China and Brazil would have to follow suit with their own binding commitments. To that end, Obama, alongside Vice President-elect Joe Biden, has pledged to re-engage with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and bring all the major emitting nations together to develop effective emissions reductions efforts.

With the US known for its unashamedly consumer lifestyle, Obama understands only too well how crucial it is to tackle the issue of energy consumption if the new administration is to show a deep commitment to change. To this end, fuel economy standards are set to increase by four per cent each year while one million hybrid cars are expected on the road by 2015.

The next president expects ten per cent of all electricity to be derived from renewable sources by 2012. With Barack Obama yet to step into the White House, we can only speculate whether his goals will be realised. It remains to be seen whether the US can lead the way in the world’s efforts to tackle climate change.

Copyright © 2009 newnet



Caffeinated Content