Barack Obama: The World's Choice
by Mark Rathbun
In the Hollywood classic White Men Can't Jump Wesley Snipes' Sidney lectured Woody Harrelson's Billy, "you may listen to Jimi Hendrix, but you don't hear him." Those who actually hear Barack Obama might say the same to those who claim Obama is all rhetoric and no specifics. His forty-five minute standard stump speech alone is chock-full of detail about what he intends to accomplish from the White House. End the war in Iraq, restore world order by negotiating from moral high ground rather than manufacturing conflicts with belligerent arrogance, penalize corporations that ship jobs overseas and reward corporations that create U.S. jobs, make health care affordable to all Americans, offset student loans with grants exchanged for public service, raise teacher salaries, restore fully rounded education and eliminate legislation confining teachers to teach only for tests, create a built-in cost-of-living minimum wage increase, secure the border while creating a path to citizenship for those undocumented workers already part of the U.S. work force, eliminate Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy and give tax breaks to middle class working families, eliminate offshore tax havens and recoup those substantial tax dollars, invest in alternate energy sources.
Right-wing pundits who violently oppose such measures (from close-to-home radio hosts Bob Jones, Eric Von Wade and Jim Lago, to their national heros Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilley, et al) have lately become increasingly insistent they haven't heard any specifics from Mr. Obama. But their desperate resorts to labelling him "socialist", "Islamic" and worse (all on cue with national polls showing Obama forging ahead of Clinton, and in perfect lemming lock step) betrays their understanding that Mr. Obama's agenda is crystal clear to them. Their inability to hear Mr. Obama is apparently really an unwillingness to hear him.
While Bob Jones was presumably too busy, or disinterested, to cross town to witness Mr. Obama's Corpus Christi appearance, the first person we encountered at the American Bank Center event had journeyed across an ocean and one and a half times across the continent to be there. In December 2007 forty-year-old Rupert Davis embarked from Cambridge England to campaign in California for Barack Obama. Davis was among the first to arrive for Mr. Obama's Corpus appearance on February 22. He intends to return home in a couple weeks but says he’ll probably come back again. He explained his support for Obama, "People really love him in England, and in the world in general, because he’s got such an interesting background. He has lived overseas, he had an African father, his mom is from Kansas. I think the rest of the world really trusts that he can also see things from their perspective, not just from a narrow, inward-looking perspective, but from a global perspective."
But why come all the way from England to rally for an American Presidential hopeful? "The world actually wants to love America and Barack is really speaking to those high values that unify the whole of America. You know, people used to love America for this idea that the dream can happen, as a meritocracy of freedom. He really speaks to and includes everybody in a way that doesn't sort of bully the rest of the world as if their voices are not important." Mr. Davis said he has become even more impressed with Obama since working with his supporters, "the way he organizes his campaign he is reaching right into the grass roots. So many ordinary people are volunteering who have never been involved in politics before. And they are doing that because he has inspired them and because he has a background as a community organizer." Davis added that the failure of America to lead with moral suasion is clear to those who would be led, "with George Bush over the past eight years it’s been an extremely bullying, dominant kind of view, almost arrogant. I think that is some of the response from the rest of the world."
When we shared Davis' story with a CNN international correspondent at the arena he told us he had just completed nine months of service in Europe and he found Mr. Davis' views to be common throughout the continent. Opinion polls in Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy have shown a broad-based support for Mr. Obama. A French poll of 3,000 citizens had Obama ahead of Clinton by a two to one margin. A Facebook.com poll of 1,000 Iraqis showed 62% support for Obama versus 38% for McCain and Clinton combined.
What has the rest of the world's view got to do with the healthy future of America? According to former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell, everything. In early February Secretary Powell said,"I will ultimately vote for the person I believe brings to the American people the kind of vision the American people want to see for the next four years. A vision that reaches out to the rest of the world, that starts to restore confidence in America, that starts to restore favorable ratings to America. Frankly, we've lost a lot in recent years." Significantly, when Hillary Clinton deemed Mr. Obama's willingness to talk with leaders of Iran "naive", Colin Powell leapt to Obama's defense.
The loudest applause during Mr. Obama's Corpus Christi speech came when he spoke of his history of opposing the war in Iraq and his intention for ending it. One of the more than 6,500 who expressed enthusiasm for Mr. Obama's judgment was seventy-four year old Dolores Dees. Ms. Dees said she supports Obama "because he's a breath of fresh air. I think we need to get rid of all the old politicians, just sweep it clean." Her daughter Kim attended the speech with Ms. Dees. She said, "I think Barack Obama is going to be bringing change for the better for this country, and it will involve all of us." Asked what distinguishes Obama from Clinton, Kim said, "I've heard lies come from Hillary. She said she was the only one who was for universal health care. I don't know how many times she needs to be in a debate with Barack Obama to know that he also is for universal health care. If she is lying to us now I know she'll lie to us later. He has so far not lied.We'll give him a chance."
I spoke with Juan Garcia and with the national field director of Obama’s campaign. It is anticipated that national staff will arrive in Corpus Christi tonight. An office will be opened. They are shooting for doing so by this Saturday. They said, while they appreciate the anxiety to get something organized here quickly - particularly with the Clinton announcement in the CT about Wednesday - Obama is not ignoring the other several primaries set to occur prior to March 4. If she is a few days ahead, it means nothing - particularly if she is not here to stay. Obama is opening an office here - confirmed! It is better for us to await the announcement of the office opening and be there en masse for the ocassion, rather than have a premature, off shoot office opening confuse the message and potentially steal the thunder of the actual office opening. Apparently, a meeting is still on for tomorrow at the PPC on Waco Street for all who want to start a grass roots volunteer movement of some sort. In the meantime, it is not the opening of the official Obama '08 office - that will come later in the week. You’ll be the first to know the actual day and time - and personnel involved - in the opening of the official office. It will be a few short days away.
Mark Rathbun
Super Tuesday Confirms Obama Electability
Barack Obama won nearly double the number of states as rival Hilary Clinton on Super Tuesday. With wins from Alabama, through the heartland of America, to Alaska Obama’s sweep makes a strong argument that he is the more electable candidate in the general election. Obama won eight states that voted red (Republican) in the 2004 general election. Factoring in previous primaries and caucuses Mr. Obama has won ten red states, double Ms. Clinton’s total.
In significant red states such as Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, and Colorado, Mr Obama received more than two times the number of votes as the Republican winners. It seems Barack Obama may in fact make good on his promise to be rid of the notion of red and blue states - - some are already turning purple.
Early utterances by political pundits on CNN, MSNBC, AP and the NY Times blog demonstrated that mainstream media went simply gaga over the "unity" evident between Clinton and Obama in Thursday night’s debate in Hollywood. None of them commented on what was clearly the most obvious differences between the candidates, accountability and honesty.
As was the case in the South Carolina debate, Mr. Obama showed a superior ability to answer a direct question. Ms. Clinton continued avoiding direct answers by cranking up stump speech responses. After seven years of suffering a Chief Executive whose unwillingness to be held to account for his policies and actions that worked to the detriment of the majority of Americans one would expect Mr. Obama’s directness was a quality to highlight.
Two specific Clinton responses spoke volumes to those carefully listening. The first occurred at the outset when the candidates were asked to identify the most important difference between themselves in terms of policy. Ms. Clinton gave a rambling soliloquy covering a number of issues, without drawing any distinctions between her proposed policies and Mr. Obama’s. Finally, the only difference she uttered was that she, unlike Mr. Obama, would not meet with "dictators."
Later in the debate, when she was being held to account for her Iraq war powers vote, Ms. Clinton let fly that she would use "aggressive diplomacy" in getting the U.S. military out of Iraq and that she would include at the table Syria and Iran. She would meet with the same dictators she had implied earlier in the same debate, and directly charged months ago, Mr. Obama was "naive" to consider worthy of communicating with.
The second bit of intellectural legerdemain occured in a single answer to a question. When asked how she would keep her husband in check in the White House, Ms. Clinton began by stating she will be the decider and she ought to be judged on her own merits. Apparently unsatisfied with the audience applause decibal level of that direct answer, she reversed tack and began evoking memories of the "Clinton" years, culminating with her much-quoted line about it taking a Clinton to clean up for Bush.
It fairly made Mr. Obama’s contention that his opponent would say anything to get into the White House a demonstrable fact.
Perhaps the greatest dissimilarity between the candidates on Thursday had nothing to do with policy and positions. It too went unremarked by the experts. That is what each presidential hopeful did while the other was talking. Mr. Obama listened attentively and thoughtfully, ocassionaly making notes and politely gesturing to the debate coordinator that he had something to say.
In stark contrast Ms. Clinton continually flashed a sarcastic grin each time Mr. Obama's comments began to resonate with the audience. I suppose it could be written off as a sign of a kinder, gentler, less-divisive Hillary. But those I watched the debate with saw something else, a desperate and jealous attempt to invalidate an opponent with subtletly in a forum where overt, vicious attack will not be tolerated.
Wake up folks. Quote: "The one (presidential candidate) that is the most problematic is Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq War...He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record." - Sen. Russ Feingold
There is one great silver lining in the gathering establishment storm clouds attempting to rain on Obama’s campaign. Since the Clinton’s have called in their chips with mainstream media to cover for them at any cost - cowering the likes of MSNBC’s Chris Mathews - we are beginning to see a lot of prominent folks for who they really are.
New York Times "economics" columnist Paul Krugman has been passing himself off as "progressive" for years. Admittedly, a lot of what he says about economics is progressive. But over the past couple months - coincident with the rise in Obama’s poll numbers - he has gone beyond the economy to take unprincipled pot shots at Mr. Obama.
His latest column is so dishonest as to expose Krugman for what he is - a prejudiced putz at best, and a rank propagandist for Clinton at, hopefully, worst.
He pronounces that the "furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown." In a virtual parroting of the Clintons’ unconscionable misrepresentation of what Mr. Obama really said about Reagan, Krugman concludes his column by writing that Mr. Obama "seem(s) to be saying that Reagan had it right."
This is the epitome of the Goebbel’s propaganda technique of repeating a big enough lie enough times till folks begin to believe it. Those who have a double digit IQ and heard the whole
Mr. Obama’s comments understand that.
What relatively intelligent folks might not understand is that Krugman’s lavish pronunciamento that all that was right with the economy in the nineties was the handiwork of Bill Clinton is, at best, ill informed. In fact, Bill Clinton was under such blistering and continuous attack from the moment he took the oath of office that he pretty much adopted the Republican "Contract With America Plan" (remember Newt Gingrich?).
Clinton - as Mr. Obama accurately stated during the same interview in which he made the Reagan statement - did not himself originate much of anything (let alone vision) during his eight years in the White House. The source of this analysis is a book written by Media matters’ David Brock: Blinded By The Right. Mr. Brock wrote the book to expose the depravity of the right-wing’s smear tactics against Mr. Clinton. In a work principally in defense of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Brock detailed Clinton’s adoption of the right-wing agenda to illustrate how senseless the right-wing attack was.
Funny how soon Krugman forgets how eager Clinton was to get his signature on NAFTA, and how Clinton in one of his last great acts of treason signed an executive order gutting the Glass-Steagal Act. The Act was passed in the early thirties to curb corporate Wall Street greed from causing another Black Monday and Great Depression. Krugman himself has written an entire column attributing the Great Depression to the elite using Wall Street as its own private casino; and predicting, accurately we could be headed in the same direction today.
It fairly makes one wonder what Krugman’s agenda is for continually sniping at Mr.Obama.
I have written several pieces taking issue with Limbaugh's far right positions over the years. But, I will tell you there is no better defense and support for Obama being delivered DAILY by Limbaugh these days. Corporate media has been co-opted by the Clinton political machine. I suggest you tune in. Realize, once Obama gets ahead or wins the nomination Limbaugh will turn on him like a jackel. In the interim, he is providing the mostly truthful material on Clinton and her unprincipled attacks on Obama anywhere.
John Edwards is a menace to the Democratic party and a detriment to the progressive cause. He has managed to pull off what tens of millions of campaign and public relations dollars have failed to accomplish in two decades.
Edwards has made two of the most unlikable and callous political figures in America look sympathetic.
He began his handiwork in the 2004 Vice Presidential debate. On the heels of John Kerry finally finding his voice and clearly besting Bush, Edwards took it all way in a single paragraph. Never before had anyone had such a perfect opportunity to drive a political stake into the heart of the Darth Vadar of crony capitalism.
Armed with tomes of material to expose the first Bush II administration as the most corrupt in the history of this nation, Edwards came across like an ill-mannered, carping personal injury lawyer.
Worse, he made the Democratic ticket look more hypercritical than the Republicans by covertly attacking not the war profiteering of the Vice President, but instead the sexual orientation of Cheney’s daughter. Remarkably, Edwards accomplished the impossible - making perhaps the most unsympathetic politician in modern history look sympathetic. The campaign went south at that precise moment.
A little more than three years later Edwards managed to do for Hillary Clinton what he had already done for Cheney.
At the January 5 New Hampshire primary debate Barack Obama was calmly and methodically addressing Senator Clinton’s ill-tempered swipes at himself. Without provocation Edwards interjected, carefully making it appear he was coming to Senator Obama’s defense. In his inimitable style (betrayal in the guise of help) he launched on Senator Clinton, immediately resurrecting the at-that-point-dead story line of "two guys ganging up" on the damsel in distress.
My heartfelt advice to the Obama campaign team is to spend as much effort in distinguishing Barack from Edwards as you do in distinguishing Barack from Clinton. Do not ever again permit another public perception that Edwards is allied in any fashion with Barack. Edwards is trouble with a capital "T."
In the event any of your local papers ran Thomas' column "Obama's nice words won't defeat enemy" I'm posting the letter I sent to our local paper that ran it.
Obama: "Hope is the bedrock of this country."
Please stop running Cal Thomas columns. The man’s material is reactionary. His piece printed in the January 11 Times also demonstrates he is igorant and intolerant. He attempts to write Barack Obama off as part of the "black leadership"that includes Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Barack Obama has been critized by both Sharpton and Jackson as not toeing the line with their positions. And not without cause. Barack Obama is his own man. In his life and in his political career he has transcended race. Regardless, based solely on the color of his skin, and ignoring the fact his mother was white as was his grandfather who helped raise him, Thomas positions him as just another black activist being "lionized" by the "liberal media." Thomas also demonstrates his propaganda skills, or perhaps utter ignorance, by mischaracterizing Mr. Obama’s entire foreign policy position as "talking to Islamic leaders rather than defeating radical Islam." First, any candidate who is afraid to speak to world leaders - of whatever poltical or religious stripe - doesn’t qualify for dog catcher, let alone President. Second, several months ago when Mr. Obama was the first to declare he would cross the Pakistan border to take out Bin Laden if he knew his location with certainty he was lambasted by all - including the "liberal media" - for alleged naivete. Fast forward to today, I challenge Thomas to find me one candidate - Democrat or Republican - who hasn’t mimicked Mr. Obama’s position. But Thomas wants to continue the vague goal of "defeating radical Islam." How are we going to accomplish that, by hauling out religious censors to determine what beliefs are acceptable, mainstream, extreme, or radical? Or are we going to do what most American citizens thought George Bush was going to do when he said he was going to hunt down the terrorists who had attacked our country? If the latter is naive, then Thomas is calling the entire country naive, not just Mr. Obama. Perhaps the fact that Mr. Obama is at the top of the polls indicates that average Americans are not as stupid as Thomas thinks they are nor as intolerant as Thomas himself is. Certainly those supporting Mr. Obama are not as cynical nor as apathetic as Thomas. Compare Thomas’ "No one changes Washington" line to Mr. Obama’s Iowa victory speech, "Hope is the bedrock of our nation."
Ingleside Texas
The Obama Phenomena: Coastal Bend Connection
Until the eve of the Iowa caucuses, Hilary Clinton - and many political commentators - had positioned herself as the "inevitable" winner for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Senator Barack Obama beat Ms. Clinton in Iowa by nine percentage points and came in a close second in the New Hampshire primary the question of who will be the Democratic presidential nominee is anything but inevitable. The biggest surprise of the first two primaries are the record number of voters turning out to participate. Many have attributed that to the excitement Mr. Obama has brought to the race.
Political pundits of all stripes seem mesmerized by what former Clinton advisor Dick Morris called a "new poltical phenomenon to be reckoned with." Morris, a democratic turncoat who now serves as color commentator for the likes of right-wingers Bill O’Reilley and Sean Hannity said on national radio that Senator Obama’s post Iowa caucus win speech gave him goose bumps. He said that he hadn’t heard such an inspiring speech "since the Kennedy era" (JFK/RFK).
District 32 State Representative Juan Garcia was at the speech with his wife Denise. He described the atmosphere as "electric, it just felt historic."
Mr. Garcia's ties to Mr. Obama go back eighteen years. Both Juan and Denise Garcia attended Harvard law school with Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle in the early nineties. Juan and Barack played intramural basketball together and have been personal friends since.
However, Mr. Garcia said his support of Mr. Obama goes beyond friendship. He told the Herald he supports Mr. Obama "because he represents a chance to close a chapter in our country's history where race colored every issue. More than anything in a country increasingly divided between red states and blue states, from the beginning he spoke purple. In a tiny way it is what we tried to do in our race too in a very conservative district. He believes Mr. Obama is unique among candidates because he is so connected to the average American citizen, and likes the idea of having a president "who still has kids in school, who still remembers what it is like to figure out how you're going to pay for your kids' college or cover a morgtage."
A former naval pilot himself Mr. Garcia acknowledged that the eventual Republican nominee will attempt to exploit Mr. Obama's lack of military history. Not mentioning the fact that the man Mr. Obama would replace as president was a draft-dodger, Garcia said "I think he's got to make a very conscientious decision on his running mate." He has confidence Mr. Obama will make a wise choice. He has heard insiders talking about possibly choosing long-time chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn.
Some local supporters aren't worried about Mr. Obama's lack of military credentials. One of them is Gerald Garrett, a retired 20-year Navy veteran who resides in Port Aransas. Mr. Garret said he likes "Obama because he will not play games with our military and will be a straight shooter." He believes that if Obama had been president when former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told soldiers in Iraq that 'you fight a war with what you are given' in response to their complaints about riding vehicles with no armour plating, "Obama would have fired him on the spot." Mr. Garrett added, "Obama is strong, a man of integrity and true grit. I can't wait to see him in action front and center in the White House."
Realize that national polls that show Clinton with a large lead over Obama are extremely misleading. They poll a CROSS SECTION across all demographics. Remember, Obama received 72% of the African American vote, 49% of "other race" vote, 57% of 17-29 vote, and 42% of 30-44 vote in Iowa. And the latter two categories came out in such numbers as to make the win, well, inevitable. I believe a great deal of the large turn outs in those categories was due to Obama himself stressing for Iowans to get out and caucus. We have got to make that an ever present message, each and every one of us. Get folks to register and get them out to the polls. Realize too, that many Democrats, and particularly African American Democrats, were disenfranchised in 2000 and 2004. We have got to include a pledge "never again" will we let this happen. Never again. Al Gore thought it was fine and dandy that tens of thousands of African Americans were disenfranchised in Florida. He cut a deal to recount certain precints only, because he thought he would win in that limited sphere. We have got to adopt policy that we will not settle with anything less than one citizen-one vote - no matter what the outcome. Never again.
Obama's Iowa victory was a monumental statement that today's youth in America gets it. While I was inspired years ago after reading many of Obama's speeches and writings; the Iowa results took it to a higher plane. That young voters came out in numbers and decidedly voted progressive reinstilled hope that humanity may well survive after all. Make no mistake, the disaster capitalists have this world on a collision course with extermination of mankind. It will take a man of Obama's integrity and independence to start reversing that trend. And that will take a majority of Americans insisting on it. That it happened in the heartland of America and was sprearheaded by younger voters is a heartening development. No wonder the right-wing radio jocks assault public education 24/7/365 - and particularly attack its emphasis on diversity and the community of nations. Support free public education, Obama 08.
