Fellow PoughkeepsieJournal.com blogger Richard T. Cahill, Jr., posted a blog yesterday titled "Barack Obama in his own words," and I absolutely have to take issue with it (you can read the entire post here). In this post, he picks three quotes from Senator Barack Obama's books and presents them as reasons to not vote for the senator from Illinois. It's pretty sad.
The first quote, from Dreams of My Father:
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
I do not know Mr. Cahill personally, and I don't tend to agree with the points of view in his blog. But, I would like to ask him: why does he feel is it relevant to base his vote for president on one of the candidate's insecurities and identity issues during adolescence? I guess these problems are for lesser teenagers, not Mr. Cahill.
The second quote, also from Dreams of My Father:
"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela."
Now, be careful, because Mr. Cahill is trying to outrage you with words like white, brown, black, and Africa. What is Mr. Obama saying in this passage? He's saying simply that he does not model himself after those that he does not relate to and whose path he does not want to follow, no matter what their racial background. How is that any different from any of us? Mr. Obama then writes that he seeks to embody the attributes that he sees in Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, W.E.B. DuBois, and Nelson Mandela -- four men who were all instrumental in the civil rights movement. Mr. Cahill asks at the end of his post, "Is this really the kind of moral leadership we want in the White House?" Therefore, I would like to ask Mr. Cahill: has the fight for civil rights over the past 58 years been an immoral one?
The last quote is from The Audacity of Hope, and is actually a quote of Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
"White folks' greed runs a world in need."
Mr. Cahill wants you to think that Senator Obama is a racist for using this quote. This is what magicians call misdirection. But the fact is, as troubling and upsetting as it may be to accept, any serious student of history will tell you that Rev. Wright's statement is the truth.
Finally, the most outrageous quote comes from Mr. Cahill himself. He writes, "There are worse quotes in Audacity of Hope which I do not feel comfortable posting on this blog." Now, I have read The Audacity of Hope, and I do not know quite how to respond to this, other than to say that Mr. Cahill obviously means to scare you, the reader, into thinking Senator Obama writes and condones sinister, seditious ideas -- ideas so vicious and despicable that their very repetition would corrupt your mind in a way that can never be repaired. Ideas like freedom of expression, for example. I read nothing in the book that I would not repeat or post on this blog. Mr. Cahill is simply trying to frighten and create controversy.
I would like to think that we can move past this kind of petty, pathetic fear mongering, and focus on issues, not red herrings. I guess old habits die hard for some people.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
"Grandma - Friend or Foe?"
My 4th of July this year was more eventful than normal; not only did I attend a small family BBQ here in Poughkeepsie, but I also attended a gathering in Copiague, NY, down on Long Island. Technically the party in L.I. was a wedding rehearsal dinner, but it had the same effect: I was there for about 3 hours, the beer was plentiful, and the fireworks were continuously lighting up the sky from all directions.
This year's celebration got me thinking about patriotism. Specifically, I have been thinking about how recently the most pressing issue facing the citizens of this nation seems to be whether or not Sen. Barack Obama is a "patriot." Some people obviously believe that since he sometimes chooses to not wear an American flag pin and does not put his hand over his heart during the singing of the National Anthem, he does not love his country. This is a waste of brain cells.
I do not wear an American flag pin. Everyone that I know does not wear an American flag pin. I'm willing to bet that you do not wear an American flag pin, either. And when I go to a Met game, half the fans in attendance do not have their hands over their hearts during the singing of the National Anthem. Are all of us unpatriotic?
My point is this: the "issues" that will get the most attention in the upcoming election are the ones that matter the least. Boxers or briefs? PC or Mac? Wine or beer? Paper or plastic? Flag pins or no flag pins? "Next week: Grandma - Friend or Foe?"
And one additional note: any experienced concert goer will tell you that you do not wear the t-shirt of the band that you are doing to see. Therefore, if you are in the United States, why do you feel the need to wear the flag? You're already there!
This year's celebration got me thinking about patriotism. Specifically, I have been thinking about how recently the most pressing issue facing the citizens of this nation seems to be whether or not Sen. Barack Obama is a "patriot." Some people obviously believe that since he sometimes chooses to not wear an American flag pin and does not put his hand over his heart during the singing of the National Anthem, he does not love his country. This is a waste of brain cells.
I do not wear an American flag pin. Everyone that I know does not wear an American flag pin. I'm willing to bet that you do not wear an American flag pin, either. And when I go to a Met game, half the fans in attendance do not have their hands over their hearts during the singing of the National Anthem. Are all of us unpatriotic?
My point is this: the "issues" that will get the most attention in the upcoming election are the ones that matter the least. Boxers or briefs? PC or Mac? Wine or beer? Paper or plastic? Flag pins or no flag pins? "Next week: Grandma - Friend or Foe?"
And one additional note: any experienced concert goer will tell you that you do not wear the t-shirt of the band that you are doing to see. Therefore, if you are in the United States, why do you feel the need to wear the flag? You're already there!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Problem With the Truth
Over the past two weeks, I have found myself -- consciously or unconsciously -- shying away from politics, and spending less time trying to immerse myself in current political news. I don't know why; perhaps I reached my breaking-point with the horse race; perhaps I became numb to the repetitive nature of the political culture; perhaps I've just been too busy. I don't have a good answer for this question.
But one thing that peaked my interest this week is the "uproar" within the presidential campaign about whether or not a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would benefit McCain or Obama. In an interview with Fortune Magazine, McCain advisor Charlie Black stated that a terrorist attack on the United States "would be a big advantage" for John McCain. And everyone can now stop acting like they are shocked and appalled at the statement.
Should Mr. Black have said what he said? Absolutely not. Was he correct in what he said? You bet he was.
The upcoming general election will allow the American public to chose between that which is comfortable (Sen. McCain) or that which is new (Sen. Obama). A black president is probably a situation that many people are not comfortable with. Therefore, does anyone really doubt that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would cause more people to lean toward sticking with what is comfortable? Change is difficult for many people, and people are less likely to make a significant change is they are scared. And furthermore, the majority of the public views Republicans more favorably than Democrats when it comes to national security -- don't ask my why. It must be that red is a more confrontational color.
The McCain campaign and Mr. Black have come under fire for a statement of truth. And this is why in the current political culture, the truth is very often kept quite. And that is a problem.
But one thing that peaked my interest this week is the "uproar" within the presidential campaign about whether or not a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would benefit McCain or Obama. In an interview with Fortune Magazine, McCain advisor Charlie Black stated that a terrorist attack on the United States "would be a big advantage" for John McCain. And everyone can now stop acting like they are shocked and appalled at the statement.
Should Mr. Black have said what he said? Absolutely not. Was he correct in what he said? You bet he was.
The upcoming general election will allow the American public to chose between that which is comfortable (Sen. McCain) or that which is new (Sen. Obama). A black president is probably a situation that many people are not comfortable with. Therefore, does anyone really doubt that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would cause more people to lean toward sticking with what is comfortable? Change is difficult for many people, and people are less likely to make a significant change is they are scared. And furthermore, the majority of the public views Republicans more favorably than Democrats when it comes to national security -- don't ask my why. It must be that red is a more confrontational color.
The McCain campaign and Mr. Black have come under fire for a statement of truth. And this is why in the current political culture, the truth is very often kept quite. And that is a problem.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
My Barack Obama Lawsuit
On June 3, when Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, he and his wife did something that has apparently set the nation on fire, and really angered me. I am referring, of course, to the "fist-bump heard 'round the world."
Prior to his victory speech that night, when Obama emerged on stage with his wife, the pair chose to forgo the expected hug and kiss for the fist-bump. How hip. This immediately became national news, and I know for a fact that CNN did an entire segment on the occurrence (because war has become oh so boring).
So, why did this really steam my clams? Simple: I've been doing the fist-bump for years. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I could very well have invented the fist-bump. How dare he use it on national television? I fist-bump all the time, and not once has it garnered me national media attention.
Therefore, I will be filing my Barack Obama lawsuit sometime before the end of the week. Under the advice of my lawyer, I cannot disclose the specific amounts that I am seeking, but the lawsuit includes pain and suffering (for seeing my invention, which took me years to perfect, on national television with no credit for me) and compensation for the derailment of my career (my plan was to do the fist-bump on TV as soon as I had the chance, thus elevating the status of my career significantly).
Furthermore, we are attempting to coordinate our efforts with the trademark owners of the phrases "Yes We Can" and "Si Se Puede," as well as the inventor of the shoulder-brush.
Prior to his victory speech that night, when Obama emerged on stage with his wife, the pair chose to forgo the expected hug and kiss for the fist-bump. How hip. This immediately became national news, and I know for a fact that CNN did an entire segment on the occurrence (because war has become oh so boring).
So, why did this really steam my clams? Simple: I've been doing the fist-bump for years. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I could very well have invented the fist-bump. How dare he use it on national television? I fist-bump all the time, and not once has it garnered me national media attention.
Therefore, I will be filing my Barack Obama lawsuit sometime before the end of the week. Under the advice of my lawyer, I cannot disclose the specific amounts that I am seeking, but the lawsuit includes pain and suffering (for seeing my invention, which took me years to perfect, on national television with no credit for me) and compensation for the derailment of my career (my plan was to do the fist-bump on TV as soon as I had the chance, thus elevating the status of my career significantly).
Furthermore, we are attempting to coordinate our efforts with the trademark owners of the phrases "Yes We Can" and "Si Se Puede," as well as the inventor of the shoulder-brush.
Monday, June 9, 2008
And Then There Were Two
It's over. Finally. After 6 official months, and many more unofficial.
I remember during Hillary Clinton's reelection campaign of 2006, her challenger accused her of planning on neglecting her senatorial duties in favor of a run for the White House. She denied the certainty of such a run, stating that she had not made any decisions about that particular issue. I remember thinking how that was a joke. Of course she was going to run, and of course she was going to win. Except...
I remember sitting at home, watching Barack Obama stand in the cold on the steps of the old Illinois capitol in Springfield, IL, announcing his candidacy for the nation's highest office to a sea of people. I remember how his words that day -- and the days to follow -- made me feel like I wanted to get involved. How his speech following his victory in Iowa made me think in surprise: He's going to win.
And through it all -- the debates and the stump speeches, Joe Biden's un-PC descriptions, $400 haircuts, floating crosses, crying candidates, not black enough, not christian enough, Florida, Michigan, Rev. Wright, the many faces of Clinton, Tony Rezko, Iran, Hamas, gas price misdirection, Karl Rove tactics, the popular vote, delegate counts, and superdelegates -- we have learned a valuable lesson: These campaigns go on too long and make me want to pull my hair out!
Obviously, some of the above mentioned items will come up again in the next 5 months. And whether Obama can defeat McCain will be argued and not known until November 4th. But I am a big believer that the process matters more than the outcome. Obama is the candidate I want running for president, and let the chips fall where they may.
And then there were two.
I remember during Hillary Clinton's reelection campaign of 2006, her challenger accused her of planning on neglecting her senatorial duties in favor of a run for the White House. She denied the certainty of such a run, stating that she had not made any decisions about that particular issue. I remember thinking how that was a joke. Of course she was going to run, and of course she was going to win. Except...
I remember sitting at home, watching Barack Obama stand in the cold on the steps of the old Illinois capitol in Springfield, IL, announcing his candidacy for the nation's highest office to a sea of people. I remember how his words that day -- and the days to follow -- made me feel like I wanted to get involved. How his speech following his victory in Iowa made me think in surprise: He's going to win.
And through it all -- the debates and the stump speeches, Joe Biden's un-PC descriptions, $400 haircuts, floating crosses, crying candidates, not black enough, not christian enough, Florida, Michigan, Rev. Wright, the many faces of Clinton, Tony Rezko, Iran, Hamas, gas price misdirection, Karl Rove tactics, the popular vote, delegate counts, and superdelegates -- we have learned a valuable lesson: These campaigns go on too long and make me want to pull my hair out!
Obviously, some of the above mentioned items will come up again in the next 5 months. And whether Obama can defeat McCain will be argued and not known until November 4th. But I am a big believer that the process matters more than the outcome. Obama is the candidate I want running for president, and let the chips fall where they may.
And then there were two.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
A Sigh of Reli -- Oh God
Hillary Clinton never ceases to amaze me. She loses the nomination -- she has lost, by the way -- and she can't even admit defeat. I don't know if its arrogance, delusion, poor political judgement, or all three, but last night was just another example of why I don't ever want to have to pull a lever next to her name. Her campaign is blatantly dishonest and oily, choosing obfuscation over revelation.
I saw Matt Lauer's interview with Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign this morning on The Today Show. Lauer held up a copy of The Washington Post with the headline, "Obama Claims Nomination." He then asked Wolfson if the headline was accurate. Any sane, forward-thinking person knows that the answer is, "Yes." But that's not acceptable for Howard Wolfson. His response? To be honest, I stopped listening after he began by saying that Barack Obama ran a wonderful campaign and brought a lot of people to the Democratic Party. This is the same kind of obfuscation and backward-logic that allows the Clinton campaign to claim that Clinton won the popular vote (even though the Michigan and Florida contests were bogus), and exactly why I am so turned off by her and them.
Recently Barack Obama's (now former) church made headlines again, when a visiting priest openly mocked Hillary Clinton during a sermon. He claimed that she felt she was white and entitled to the presidency, and that a younger, black candidate does not deserve it. Well, apart from the white part, that's how many people feel about her -- that she feels she's entitled to this, no matter what. But honestly, she all but had his nomination sown up 16 months ago, and she presided over what could be the most significant and massive political collapse in United States history. That, to me, sounds like gross incompetence, and you don't hire someone who has shown themselves to be grossly incompetent.
Perhaps her non-concession is an attempt to force Obama to name her as his Vice-Presidential running mate, as some people are speculating. Is this a good idea? I don't know. She doesn't seem like she has the personality to be 2nd to anyone. And if it were to occur, I think that the public would have a hard time looking at an Obama administration and not seeing an internal power struggle between Obama, Clinton...and Clinton! Yes, her husband. Bill Clinton has turned into major baggage for his wife, and she should find a basement to lock him in. I personally look at a vote for Hillary as a vote for Hillary and Bill. Some believe that Obama needs Hillary to win, but I guess that's for smarter, more experienced people to decide.
I am a big proponent of putting country before party; doing what is best for the country, even if it is not in the interest of your party. However, I feel that in this situation what is best for one is best for the other. What is best for the Democratic Party is also best for the country: Hillary Clinton needs to get out of the way.
I saw Matt Lauer's interview with Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign this morning on The Today Show. Lauer held up a copy of The Washington Post with the headline, "Obama Claims Nomination." He then asked Wolfson if the headline was accurate. Any sane, forward-thinking person knows that the answer is, "Yes." But that's not acceptable for Howard Wolfson. His response? To be honest, I stopped listening after he began by saying that Barack Obama ran a wonderful campaign and brought a lot of people to the Democratic Party. This is the same kind of obfuscation and backward-logic that allows the Clinton campaign to claim that Clinton won the popular vote (even though the Michigan and Florida contests were bogus), and exactly why I am so turned off by her and them.
Recently Barack Obama's (now former) church made headlines again, when a visiting priest openly mocked Hillary Clinton during a sermon. He claimed that she felt she was white and entitled to the presidency, and that a younger, black candidate does not deserve it. Well, apart from the white part, that's how many people feel about her -- that she feels she's entitled to this, no matter what. But honestly, she all but had his nomination sown up 16 months ago, and she presided over what could be the most significant and massive political collapse in United States history. That, to me, sounds like gross incompetence, and you don't hire someone who has shown themselves to be grossly incompetent.
Perhaps her non-concession is an attempt to force Obama to name her as his Vice-Presidential running mate, as some people are speculating. Is this a good idea? I don't know. She doesn't seem like she has the personality to be 2nd to anyone. And if it were to occur, I think that the public would have a hard time looking at an Obama administration and not seeing an internal power struggle between Obama, Clinton...and Clinton! Yes, her husband. Bill Clinton has turned into major baggage for his wife, and she should find a basement to lock him in. I personally look at a vote for Hillary as a vote for Hillary and Bill. Some believe that Obama needs Hillary to win, but I guess that's for smarter, more experienced people to decide.
I am a big proponent of putting country before party; doing what is best for the country, even if it is not in the interest of your party. However, I feel that in this situation what is best for one is best for the other. What is best for the Democratic Party is also best for the country: Hillary Clinton needs to get out of the way.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
26 Years
On Friday, May 23, Senator John McCain's presidential campaign released his medical records since 2000, in an attempt to show that he is healthy enough -- despite his age of 71 -- to successfully campaign and, if elected, execute the job of president of the United States. Good for him. But age is still an issue.
Contrary to what the McCain campaign may want to lead you to believe, age is not simply a question of health and life-expectancy. Age is much more than that. Your age inherently influences the way that you see yourself, the way that you view the world, and the way that the world sees you. I know many people advanced in years who still use the term "colored." I know a World War II veteran who, on occasion, tends to use the term "Japs." Now, this is not to portray these people as racists (which they most definitely are not), but I am attempting to illustrate how age effects your point of view. Older people who use the term "colored" grew up in a different time. The WWII veteran who uses the term "Japs" comes from a different generation that fought a war against Japan. This is something for which we need fundamental understanding for the upcoming presidential election.
John McCain is 71. His presumptive opponent in the general election -- Sen. Barack Obama -- is 45. That's a difference in age of 26 years. 26 years. That's huge. 26 years is longer than I have been alive. 26 years is the difference between Germany breaking the Treaty of Versailles in 1936, and the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. 26 years is the difference of Nat "King" Cole in 1950, and Queen in 1976. 26 years is the beginning of the Vietnam War as we know it in 1965, and the end of the Cold War in 1991. 26 years is the difference of "Ghandi" in 1982, and "No Country For Old Men" in 2008 (no pun intended). 26 years is the age of 236 service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan fight the current "War On Terror."
26 years is everything. Age is an issue.
Contrary to what the McCain campaign may want to lead you to believe, age is not simply a question of health and life-expectancy. Age is much more than that. Your age inherently influences the way that you see yourself, the way that you view the world, and the way that the world sees you. I know many people advanced in years who still use the term "colored." I know a World War II veteran who, on occasion, tends to use the term "Japs." Now, this is not to portray these people as racists (which they most definitely are not), but I am attempting to illustrate how age effects your point of view. Older people who use the term "colored" grew up in a different time. The WWII veteran who uses the term "Japs" comes from a different generation that fought a war against Japan. This is something for which we need fundamental understanding for the upcoming presidential election.
John McCain is 71. His presumptive opponent in the general election -- Sen. Barack Obama -- is 45. That's a difference in age of 26 years. 26 years. That's huge. 26 years is longer than I have been alive. 26 years is the difference between Germany breaking the Treaty of Versailles in 1936, and the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. 26 years is the difference of Nat "King" Cole in 1950, and Queen in 1976. 26 years is the beginning of the Vietnam War as we know it in 1965, and the end of the Cold War in 1991. 26 years is the difference of "Ghandi" in 1982, and "No Country For Old Men" in 2008 (no pun intended). 26 years is the age of 236 service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan fight the current "War On Terror."
26 years is everything. Age is an issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)