The Democrats are trying to run a candidate who is their equivalent to George Bush - Barack Obama. The press has given him a free pass.
Mr. Obama's ethical dilemma? - lying knowingly while in the pulpit of a prominent Black Church celebrating the anniversary of the March on Selma. Mr. Obama claimed he wasn't born yet, but his parents were able to marry because of Selma. His parents were married and he was in this world when Selma happened.
He was given top private schools, international opportunities-why the drugs, cocaine and alcohol use?
In a debate, Mr. Obama said it was an unfair characterization to say he represented a slum landlord because his only relationship with the man was through his law firm with only 5 or six hours of legal work - at a distance. When the man was indicted days later, it turned out Mr. Obama had taken much money from the man for his campaigns starting from his Illinois Senate campaign.
I have heard the constant claims that he is about "change", but every time I see someone supporting him they are from the old guard. He misrepresents his stands i.e. he says he is for universal health insurance, but when you read his program you find that isn't true. Try to get him to say anything substantial and instead he lapses into emotional examples to wrench the heart while tricking the mind. He and his wife play the race card constantly and the press ignores it.
At Harvard Law School, Black students in the middle of a huge civil rights fight for more to be accepted and for a tenured African American female professor Obama does nothing but accepts the benefits that come to Blacks who stay above the fray.
The fact that an African American and a woman are running against one another is high drama in the U.S.A. Our media, however, has given the entire credit for that excitement to Obama.
What Obama Brought to New Orleans
CNN showed a major excerpt of Barack Obama's Thursday morning Tulane University rally (though not carrying the whole thing live, as it did with Mitt Romney's CPAC appearance; if you want live coverage, quit the race, CNN appears to be saying). Later scouring of web coverage of the event reinforces the impression of the CNN excerpt: Mr. Obama was passionate in his call for a more robust federal effort in mobilizing the rebuilding of New Orleans, but vague or worse in his actual policy proposals. Full funding of 100-year flood protection? Aside from being identical to Ms. Clinton's policy, it's identical to Bush administration policy. No one at the Corps of Engineers complains they're getting insufficient funding for 100-year protection, which is scheduled for somewhere between 2009 and 2011.
However, that's what New Orleanians had been promised 40 years ago when the defective levee and floodwall system built by the Corps was first envisioned. Clearly, in the wake of the catastrophic failure of that system, some serious questions have had to be asked, and answered. Mr. Obama seemed oblivious to this development.
He referred to "Katrina battering the levees." Does he know (or care) that those levees gave way under surge conditions far less than they were advertised to withstand? (NOTE: Though Katrina was a Cat 5 storm when it made landfall in Mississippi, it was a strong Cat 1 or weak Cat 2 by the time it passed New Orleans) And that the Corps that "knowingly" (according to federal judge Stanwood Duval) built insufficient protection into that system continues to do its work without independent peer review? If so, he gave no indication in today's speech (that I can find so far).
I know commenters will say, "lighten up, he came to your town, he put it in the spotlight, he showed he cared." Here's my response: if a physician comes to your house, has a great bedside manner, and shows deep compassion, but misdiagnoses your condition and therefore misprescribes, are you supposed to be grateful?
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A lot of good points there. And I think the Republicans are holding back for now, biding their time and letting Obama and Clinton beat each other a bit. But I'll bet the Republicans are salivating at the prospect of having either one of these two to sink their teeth in. I haven't seen any overt public displays yet - but in private, I believe they are slapping each other on the back, lighting cigars, and expressing disbelief at their good fortune and the Democrats' collective stupidity.
This is an election that should have been a slam dunk for the Democrats. We should have been able to take the White House and increase our presence in Congress. Come 2009, we should have been able to start to salvage our place in the world, our economy, our environment. We should have been able to look forward to a brighter future.
As it stands now, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which we won't be inaugurating Pres. McCain and facing four more dreadful years of conservative policies.
Maybe because the excitement is from Obama and not HRC. Blacks who stay above the fray? Yes, run as a black candidate and see how quickly the media turns him into Al Sharpton. Why do you think Bill tried so hard to attach Jesse Jackson's name to Obama after the South Carolina victory? Equal to Bush? Have you ever heard of the war in Iraq? That alone is a huge difference between the too. You know the war Hilliary voted for. Obama spoke out against it. Bush had a dad who was already Prez. Obama does not have the family ties to help him get over. What a stupid comparison.
Harry...I am interested in your thoughts about Senator Clinton---who didn't even bother to visit New Orleans at all. If Obama 'got it wrong' in his 'only campaign stop in New Orleans before the primary' then please educate him, all of the other candidates and us ALL about the specifics. But at least give him credit for having shown up and tried.
HARRY RESPONDS: You can see on the accompanying post, "What (Mr.) Clinton Brought to New Orleans" that I'm not singling out Sen. Obama. As to 'credit for having shown up and tried", sorry, showing up only counts in Woody Allen movies.
"I know commenters will say, "lighten up, he came to your town, he put it in the spotlight, he showed he cared." Here's my response: if a physician comes to your house, has a great bedside manner, and shows deep compassion, but misdiagnoses your condition and therefore misprescribes, are you supposed to be grateful?"
Mmmm, well, not exactly, but close. In 2000 and 2004, Democrats were lambasted, repeatedly, for being too policy wonkish, (Gore) and too academic (Kerry). The fact that you beat up Barack for not knowing weaving all the specifics--you do, after live in New Orleans, right--into his speech kinda misses the point. Whether it was a Cat 5 Hurricane when it hit or a Cat 1/2, it *was still* Katrina.
I agree that Barack *does* need to integrate more policy specifics into his speeches, no question. I think you might be nitpicking a bit, though.
And btw, this doctor isn't just coming to *your* house--he's coming to *all* of our houses. And that's a HUGE change from the current quacks currently in charge of our "healthcare" system who have kept us in the waiting room for--whoa, look at the time: over seven years!
HARRY RESPONDS: "It was still Katrina"? It was the Army Corps of Engineers, designing and building a flawed "flood protection system". Is that too wonkish? It's the fact, and any politician (or journalist--welcome back, AC) who doesn't reflect the awareness of that one irreducible truth about the New Orleans disaster is not speaking usefully about the situation.
John Edwards is the real deal and not Barack Obama.
Polls actually showed that John Edwards has the best chance of beating Senator John McCain, but the political power brokers and carpetbaggers used their MSM to frustrate John Edwards and forced Senator Barack Obama on the ignorant and gullible generation of American youths and pseudo intellectuals.
Barack Obama and his political spin doctors with their handbook of soundbites are simply using political hypnosis to herd Americans into their political movement.
"People accept hypnosis in direct relationship to the amount of fear they have."
~ Gerald Kein.
Barack Obama used their angst against the war in Iraq to hypnotize them.
- "You hate the war in Iraq?"
"Yes, I do."
- "It was a dumb war and we don't like dumb wars."
"Yes."
-"We can end the war in Iraq."
"Yes, we can."
But has Barack Obama been to Iraq to know the true situation?
Shouting your opposition to the war in Iraq is not the solution.
Shouting that you will bring the American troops back home is not the solution.
The question American voters should ask is, how will you end the war in Iraq?
Bringing back American troops will not end the war in Iraq.
They need a reality check before it is too late.
I'm 48, I lived and worked in DC and on Capitol Hill for 25 years. I've met a LOT of politicians, and as someone who doesn't consider himself an "ignorant and gullible" person, I can honestly say that Barack has the vision, the humility, the intelligence, and yes, the bravery to lead and unify--more than any other candidate. Oh, and yeah, he has the substance to back it up, too:
He didn't just "shout his opposition" to the war:
In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq"s neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.
Enough of your ad hominem playground-level personal attacks. You, like a LOT of us in this country, haven't seen anyone who is as articulate and humble enter the political arena. The thing is, it apparently scares you into name-calling.
Oh, and btw, John Edwards is no longer in the race. I like him, but what, exactly, did HE do in the Senate regarding the Iraq war other than vote for it? Hmmm? It's a complicated issue, sure, but Obama is ON RECORD for having been against it from the beginning. My gawd, use some basic syllogistic logic and direct your ire at the people responsible for the 1,000,000 dead in Iraq--not the one who has the unenviable task of cleaning it up.
And soon as he got to Washington he voted for war funding every chance he got, he is much too weak to take a real stand and vote NO on Funding. He lacks the TESTICLES to be the DECIDER. He skipped the vote on Kyl-Liberman even though he was in the Building. In the State House he voted "Present" over 130 times and even had the nerve to say he hit the WRONG BUTTON 6 TIMES on tough votes.I could never trust this weak sister for the job of DECIDER, Hillary is the right man for the job, she has the toughness needed in that job.
He didn't support the war in Iraq in the FIRST PLACE and the votes after the war started were involved in other funding components, as well. There isn't legislation "for the war" and "against the war."
Hillary has supported the war from the start. She stood up during the state of the union and clapped last month when Bush said the surge was working. It's amazing--why we think the people who helped get us into this mess are the ones who can get us out.
The right "man" for the job? Testicles? Ugh. We had some REALLY TOUGH people in the administration now. What we need is vision and an ability to bridge the divide between the parties. Otherwise? Like the healthcare debacle of the '90s, nothing will get done.
If she's the nominee, we stand a strong chance of losing against McCain. Polls show that Obama stands a much stronger chance.
This is a waste of time: we killed 1,000,000 people based on a war that HILLARY helped authorize. Barack didn't vote to authorize the war.
Accept it and assign responsibility to those who *are* responsible. At least Edwards admitted that the vote was a mistake. Hillary doesn't have the same humility.
My god, a primer in syllogistic reasoning would really help some of the folks on this board...
Questions for the pro-Obama-Hillary-haters. Do you have a blackout moment every time Obama says Hillary is his friend? Does it mean that he is a poor judge of character?
Idiotic statement. We don't hate Hillary Clinton, if she wins we will support her, Obama is just the better candidate with a much better chance to win. Hillary will NEVER escape her 45% unfavorable rating and that is the sad truth. We need a democrat in the white house, but we do not need another divisive president.
Nicely stated. That's a key point: 45% of the people don't want her. Whether that's fair or not is a moot point. A lot of independents who have voted for Barack have stated flatly that they will vote for McCain if she's the nominee. I will support her, no question.
But one other note: Barack doesn't tear down Hillary to win. He draws well reasoned contrasts to make his case, and insists on civility. To her credit, Hillary has been civil as well (and now, even Bill is on board with it...)
Both Hillary and Barack have a *lot* more grace than many of their supporters. So many people can apparently only use puerile ad hominem attacks to make their points--that's the scary thing.
I believe Barack is more progressive and more humble than Hillary, and can unite people unlike anyone we've seen in a long time. Oh, and he's incredibly bright. For me, these considerations outweigh whatever positives I think Hillary has, in addition to the fact that I think she would unite a divided Republican party (however unreasonable their hatred may be). Personally, I don't need to "hate" her, though. But there are so many people whose oratorical quiver includes only the most basic of verbal arrows, that it's often difficult to have a decent debate on the subject.
But to answer your question, they'll probably never be best buds. But does he respect her? Sure; why wouldn't he? What amazes me is the unnecessary ughliness that supporters of both sides have shown throughout this election cycle. Thank god both of these people show more grace than most of us...
Appreciate your column and your cause. Heard you in NPR also, your loyalty to your hometown and the courage to pointout the flaws of the politicians is really refreshing !
"I know commenters will say, "lighten up, he came to your town, he put it in the spotlight, he showed he cared." Here's my response: if a physician comes to your house, has a great bedside manner, and shows deep compassion, but misdiagnoses your condition and therefore misprescribes, are you supposed to be grateful?"
No, you would not pay the bill, you would report them to the AMA and you would call your local law-tician and sue the crap out of them.
Thus belies the slow decay of our civilization. A vicious circle of he said, she said. Deny, accuse, point fingers, throw money at it, but never get a gawd dayum thing done.
I'm writing in my vote this year: None Of The Above.
Makes you kind of miss John Edwards, doesn't it?
RE:"HARRY RESPONDS: Read it. Here's the key passage on the levee issue:As president, Barack Obama will ensure that New Orleans has a levee and ..."
So, Harry, what's at issue here is the *enforcement* and *efficacy* of the plan that has been passed by the state congress, and promised but not delivered by the Federal government, No? Obama's got "the same ol' saw," if I'm reading you right. And, sure, (to beat a metaphor) a dull saw is not going to cut it, but that same same saw, when sharpened and used correctly, obviates the need for a trip to the hardware store. So, maybe Obama needed to acknowledge that his plan has been proposed before and poorly executed, and maybe he needed to try a little Q and A on this stump, to show that he knew this stop was a little bit different.
But, here's a good way to face down the closest primary campaign in recent historical memory: blame one of the nation's most significant tragedies in historical memory on national and regional legislators (some who are pledged delegates, some unpledged) either explicitly or by implication in your quest to respond to a beleagured and exhausted constituency who desperately need and want someone to blame. LA needs someone to be immediately accountable and willing to articulate how and what went wrong. It's understandable but absurd. Meanwhile, his political opponents, should they decide to show up at all, hug a few babies in front of FEMA trailers and lambast Bush for his inaction and catch the 5:45 flight to "Anywhereelse, USA". The irony is, I think this is the *one* candidate that would be more willing to listen to the People of the Gulf Coast in formulating and amending his plans for the region. I hope your folk get that chance...
On an unrelated note-- you are a comic genius. Thanks for your thoughts on this board. ;)
Harry your devotion to NOLA is breathtaking, and second only to your knowledge of the situation.
As an Obama supporter I agree with you. It is disappointing that his staff couldn"t take the time to research the issue further in order to address it better.
I understand, unlike some posters, that you are addressing this now because Obama choose to address it now. I also understand that your critique of Obama is not an endorsement of Clinton.
However I would like to suggest that in addition to everything you have been doing, you may want to reach out to both campaigns and offer yourself as a source of knowledge on this important topic.
In a perfect world they would come to you but unfortunately this is not a perfect world and sometime we need to give it a push.
good 1.
Rereading you piece I noticed you used Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton. It would be more appropriate to use Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Assuming your intent is constructive criticism and not to insult.
I applaud your courage to criticize Obama's apparent disingenuous passion and proposals for the levee systems. I am sure you will be bombarded by Obama supporters who are offended by anything negative about their most reverend and infallible Saint Obama.
Thanks for upholding your jounalistic objectivity which is so lacking amid the media frenzy gravitating around Saint Obama.
For real-time information about what is going on in New Orleans and other Katrina-ravaged areas, and what you can do to help:
http://tinyurl.com/2okcf2
i gather from this post that you'd curse the doctor who tried to help, and give a free pass to the one who ignored your cries for help.
at least he showed up, harry. give a guy a chance, for cryin' out loud.
~~~
http://www.ernietheattorney.net/ernie_the_attorney/2008/02/barack-obamas-s.html
"When President Bush came down to Jackson Square two weeks after the storm, the setting was spectacular and his promises soaring: "We will do what it takes," he said. "We will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives." But over two years later, those words have been caught in a tangle of half-measures, half-hearted leadership, and red tape."
Remember how many times the Bushies said and are still saying "who knew that they would do something like this? or "we didn't know they were capable of this" or "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie."
Do you want the next President of this country saying something like this?
Hurricanes Katrina & Rita did something dramatic to this country. They showed that although we (many governmental agencies, many elected officials at all levels) knew what could happen and what would happen (FEMA had a comprehensive study that was sitting on the shelf about the effects of direct hit Hurricanes to the gulf coast)a reasoned response was not undertaken either before or after Katrina and Rita.
Mr. Shearer's blogs are keen about this subject. Katrina is no less important than the Iraq war [we bombed them, they didn't bomb us, remember?]
Katrina's impact on the US, not just the gulf coast, is overwhelming. Katrina was one hurricane. How many more are coming? Are we prepared for them? Where is this issue specificlly addressed on anyone's platform?
When any candidate for President doesn't speak to horrific events, then that candidate is open to critical commentary. Katrina did not happen to them. It happened to all of us. And it will happen again if we are not willing to take necessary measures.
I want either Obama or Clinton as President. You decide and I'll vote for that one and hope their entourage does better than do nothing. Oh, how about giving the next President a democrat majority in both houses. Do you see what a minority of republicans can do in the Senate?
Nice post Paul. Too often we in the Gulf South have been treated as "them" and not "us". I hope no one else in this country EVER has to feel that way.
born and raised in alabama - have a cousin who was a dj in NO, and when katrina hit he lived and still lives in slidell.
i'm suggesting that at least obama came to new orleans, as opposed to the other candidates - and that harry, after months of leading the cause, is letting his frustration get the better of him - basically accusing obama of pandering rather than detailing his plans in a stump speech.
i'm not the enemy, harry's not the enemy, and i didn't think obama was the enemy, either.
These comments are really disturbing. Obama supporters are begining to sound exactly like the Bush supporters of the last eight years. The Obama Mob. What's going on people? Politics is discorse. Mr. Shearer makes a good point.
What you say is true of some Obama supporters; however it is also true of some Clinton supporters.
Frankly loaded terms like "Hillary Hater", "Obama Fans", "Saint Obama" "NObama" and "The Obama Mob" are all designed to provoke an emotional response and do not add to reasoned discourse. Just like "Pro-Abortion", "Support Our Troops", or "Cut-and-Run".
LutherVig, you have identified one of the reasons that I have not moved to support Obama after Edwards left the primary. Eight years ago I listened to the same type of shrill, blind support of Dubya and was disturbed at the drown-you-out, you're with us or against us tone of his supporters. I don't think that it's any better because it happens to be in favor of someone with a "D" as party affiliation. Right now I don't feel any more comfortable expressing my concerns with Obama than I did eight years ago expressing my concerns for Shrub so I don't see any change.
The black voters of Louisiana have been hood winked, Obama will not help them or bring any
attention to their problems. The levees need to be rebuilt not just fixed as they did, if there another Katrina category storm, if any homes are rebuilt they will be destroyed again.
Yes, at the end, only TRUTH stands - for peace, for harmony, for hope, FOR ALL...
"Without truth I know not how man can live."
Now let's see how much TRUTH America wants...
Clinton stands for SELF, self-pity, self-absorption, narcissism, "me"-winning...
McCain stands for LOYALTY, his belief, his people, his ideals, "us"-winning...
Obama stands for TRUTH, intellectual truth, compassion truth, UNIVERSAL TRUTH, truth for all...
So be it that the youth sees HOPE in TRUTH...
"Live the change you want to see in the world."
"Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed."
"A nation's culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people."
GO! OBAMA, TRUTH IS THE NATION, THE WORLD, THE HOPE!
I think you've hit the nail on the head with respect to Obama. I am getting old, and I, too, see HOPE IN TRUTH.
McCain is somewhat of a Caine Mutiny Character, it seems to me. He's a Captain Queeg type of character, and I think he's dangerous for us all.
Clinton is swiftly worded, awfully smug and glib, full of herself, and impetuous in attitude, as well as being quite impulsive. Would you buy a used car from her?
Is NY a better state for having elected Hillary? I don't see any evidence of it.
She certainly didn't do anything to stop our loose cannon president from riding roughshod over the constitution and our liberties.
She didn't get Cheney to reveal any details of his secret energy policy.
She hasn't held any Republican's feet to any fire, nor called for the impeachment of the manifold miscreants in the administration.
Shearer ought to stick to the realities.
Soon as Obama got to the Senate he voted YES on the Dick Cheney 2005 Energy Bill which was especially generous to the Nuclear Industry, oil and gas. Obama received $269,100 from the employees of Exelon Corp, a Nuclear Company for his vote on that, The CEO of Exelon, John Rowe, said Yucca Mt was the "Lynchpin" for the Nuclear Industry because it solves the nuclear waste problem. You can see where Obama is coming from.
You mean Clinton did not get Cheney to reveal details of the Engergy Plan that Obama voted for and also did not get Cheney to reveal details about prior to his YES vote? Is that what you really mean?
Well, NY did benefit from a lot of those record number of earmarks!
Posted February 7, 2008 | 03:09 PM (EST)