Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / Medieval Period / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The Two Obamas -- Dr. Barack & Fast Eddie Obama -- New York Times Op-Ed

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
D. Spencer Hines - 01 Jul 2008 01:05 GMT
June 20, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist
The Two Obamas

By DAVID BROOKS
The New York Times

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some
academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t
proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor
damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve
university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most
split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is
Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past
winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency
of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the
promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck
for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal
fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our
lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so
calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian
ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay
attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in
“Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken
positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted
“present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power
under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown
his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and
Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t
do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the
truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John
McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the
country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range
conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the
truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has
worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to
political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much
of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In
January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In
February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed
to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said
he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest
Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a
longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie
Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt
a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing
that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s
got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He
did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that
somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding.
Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private
donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political
calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in
campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money).
Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a
phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post,
Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial
lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a
hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama
did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny
political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the
other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president
who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is
better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking
inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep
calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack
Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades.
Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending
to renounce politics.
J A - 01 Jul 2008 02:08 GMT
> June 20, 2008
>
> Op-Ed Columnist
> The Two Obamas
>
> By DAVID BROOKS

Brooks a sly slimy neocon. The only thing he excels at is at twisting the
truth.

In the Illinois legislature, "Present" counts as a vote in terms of
increasing the number of "ayes" that it takes to pass a bill.

In practice there, "Present" means you want to further negotiate/ammend the
bill before giving an aye.

Campaign finance and public funding came into being to stop the practice of
a small number of big money contributors buying elections and politicians.

Something like 80 pct of Obama's contributions are less than $100.

That IS campaign finance reform, in terms of eliminating the rich,
coporations and special interests buying politicians.

If Obama would have thrown away such an honestly gained advantage going into
a campaign against the slimest bunch of Swiftboaters known to man - *then *
people should have questioned his qualifications.
Nigel Brooks - 01 Jul 2008 07:43 GMT
>> June 20, 2008
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Something like 80 pct of Obama's contributions are less than $100.

\
Surely you don't honestly believe that crap.

The fact is that 80 percent of his "individual" contributions are less than
$100.

Individual means the common or garden variety of contributor such as you or
I.

It is also a fact that the top industries supporting his campaign have
bundled the following:

Lawyers/Law Firms - $20, 173, 458
Securities and Investment - $9, 078,803
Education - $7, 540,288
Real Estate - $5,509, 969

Then Corporate

Goldman Sachs     $571,330
University of California     $466,410
UBS AG     $364,556
JPMorgan Chase & Co     $364,157
Citigroup Inc     $360,304
National Amusements Inc     $322,050
Lehman Brothers     $319,147
Harvard University     $315,624
Google Inc     $309,714
Sidley Austin LLP     $294,445
Skadden, Arps et al     $278,163
Time Warner     $264,977
Morgan Stanley     $260,376
Jones Day     $249,375
Exelon Corp     $236,211
Latham & Watkins     $220,865
Wilmerhale Llp     $220,230
University of Chicago     $219,707
Microsoft Corp     $206,942
General Electric     $206,579

You might wish to ask yourself why he has declined to take public financing

Hint

Because he can raise more money from special interests - that why.

Nigel Brooks
J A - 01 Jul 2008 23:18 GMT
Why did you change what I wrote: "Something like 80 pct of Obama's
contributions are less than $100,  to  "The fact is that 80 percent of his
"individual" contributions are less than  $100"?

Or were you trying to say something else?

First of all, what is your source for the data you give below?  The numbers
are different than even Brooks gives in a current editorial.

Second, everybody has to work someplace, and in some industry and for
some company or organization.

Clinton and McCain also raise money from all those categories - just not as
much.

Why can't McCain raise as much or more  money from these same categories,
from numerous small doners?

Third, few of the people in any of those categories, anywhere, had heard of
Obama a year ago.

Are you saying that numerous small contributors on the internet actually
weren't  the main source of Obama's donations over the last year, during his
rise from obscurity as a freshman Federal Senator?

If so, the press and the people have been lied to and misled - you should
turn your data over to the Federal Election Commission immediately so that
legal action can be started.

That is, unless this is just the usual Swiftboat lying and spinning...

>>> June 20, 2008
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
>
> Nigel Brooks
Raymond O'Hara - 02 Jul 2008 01:47 GMT
> Why did you change what I wrote: "Something like 80 pct of Obama's
> contributions are less than $100,  to  "The fact is that 80 percent of his
[quoted text clipped - 104 lines]
>>
>> Nigel Brooks

i love the wingnuts,
this is the first election the dems have had more money so we get howls of
outrage from the right of "big money" buying the election.

now mccain is crying about clark pointing out being a POW is not a
presidential qualification and the wingnuts sy a person's service record is
nor fair game, swiftboaters anyone?

and mccain has caled for obama to jettison and curb others from getting
involved when he himself declared he had no control over the wingnut 520s.

hypocracy is not enough a word for the republicans.
J A - 02 Jul 2008 02:01 GMT
>> Why did you change what I wrote: "Something like 80 pct of Obama's
>> contributions are less than $100,  to  "The fact is that 80 percent of
[quoted text clipped - 120 lines]
>
> hypocracy is not enough a word for the republicans.

Well, all pols are hypocrits - either early on or as soon as they find out
what it's like trying to appeal to huge numbers of people with varying views
and needs.

It's all a matter of degree. But Obama has more freedom of than most with
all this money he's raising from small donations.

I think what he's doing in pandering to the evangelicals, is not just going
for a win, but a scorched earth result on the Corupticans.

All I can say is, mah nigga!!
Don T - 03 Jul 2008 00:09 GMT
>>> Surely you don't honestly believe that crap.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> hypocracy is not enough a word for the republicans.

I love the moonbats. Don't have enough education to know when they are
getting f.cked.  Can't spell, can't punctuate, can't use their shift key.
All they know was spoon fed to them by the machine.

Signature

Don Thompson

Stolen from Dan:  "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once,
and that makes me an expert. "

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
~Goethe

It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom;
it is another sight finer to fight for another man's.
~Mark Twain

Nigel Brooks - 03 Jul 2008 02:08 GMT
> hypocracy is not enough a word for the republicans.

Not only that, it's not in the dictionary either.

Perhaps you meant to say -  http://www.hypocrisy.tv/

Nigel Brooks
dapra - 03 Jul 2008 02:38 GMT
>> hypocracy is not enough a word for the republicans.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Nigel Brooks

Spell checking Nigel? Check the 'the family values' of Gingrich and
McCain! If you dare and have any honesty!

Dump the sick wife is the family value of the Republicans!
Nigel Brooks - 03 Jul 2008 03:12 GMT
>>> hypocracy is not enough a word for the republicans.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Dump the sick wife is the family value of the Republicans!

And Dem family values would be what precisely?

Invite the intern to the Oval office?
Give the campaign worker a ride home then go for a quick swim?
Let your Washington apartment be used as a homo cat house?

There's lots of that going around on both sides.

Nigel Brooks
dapra - 03 Jul 2008 04:12 GMT
>>>> hypocracy is not enough a word for the republicans.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Nigel Brooks

A b.j. in the Oval Office is comparable to dumping a dying wife? Well,
you must be a good fake Christen (or Jew) with complete lack of any
humanity.
J A - 03 Jul 2008 05:21 GMT
>>>>> hypocracy is not enough a word for the republicans.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> A b.j. in the Oval Office is comparable to dumping a dying wife? Well, you
> must be a good fake Christen (or Jew) with complete lack of any humanity.

Clinton had a young female volunteer intern, performing analingus on him.
That is contained in the FBI interviews.

He is a piece of degenerate scum, and his "wife" is whatever you would call
a "feminsit" who remains married to a degenerate piece of scum.

That is, she is hollowed out shell with ambitions to pretend that she was
qualified for high office.

Whatever the future holds, America owes a vote of thanks to Obama for
defeating her in the nominations.
D. Spencer Hines - 03 Jul 2008 07:30 GMT
<G>

> Clinton had a young female volunteer intern, performing analingus on him.
> That is contained in the FBI interviews.

Toward whom he had a fiduciary relationship -- and who was young enough to
be his daughter.

> He is a piece of degenerate scum, and his "wife" is whatever you would
> call a "feminsit" who remains married to a degenerate piece of scum.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Whatever the future holds, America owes a vote of thanks to Obama for
> defeating her in the nominations.
Raymond O'Hara - 05 Jul 2008 17:23 GMT
> <G>
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Toward whom he had a fiduciary relationship -- and who was young enough to
> be his daughter.

she was 22 and on her 3rd affair with a married man. hardly the innocent you
wingnuts believe.

rather ironic that hillary remained faithful to her marital vows and you
family values types rip her for it.

and what's up with larry "widestance' craig' and david 'dc madam' vitter
being in the lead of the defense of marriage act.

i'm really surprised the republicans don't support gay rights as so many end
up needing them.
Nigel Brooks - 03 Jul 2008 16:17 GMT
>>>>> hypocracy is not enough a word for the republicans.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> A b.j. in the Oval Office is comparable to dumping a dying wife? Well, you
> must be a good fake Christen (or Jew) with complete lack of any humanity

If the same thing had happened in corporate America between a Chief
Executive and an intern, the Chief Executive would have suffered dismissal
for a gross violation of ethics.

There are countless Military Officers, Corporate CEO's, College Professors,
and others who held positions of authority who engaged in consensual sexual
relations with subordinates and who were fired because of it.

It wasn't just a BJ.  It was a serious violation of the ethical standard one
expects from a President, but it shouldn't have been a surprise.

All throughout his history, WJC has lied, flouted the rules and considered
himself bulletproof and above the law.

In the late 60's he lied to and cheated on his country by agreeing to serve
a term in the US Military through the ROTC program and then not completing
the deal.

Who knows how many times he has lied to and cheated on his wife?

As for me being a "Christian or a Jew with complete lack of any humanity" -
what I chose to follow as a faith is of no consequence.

Given your opinion about Clintons serious ethical lapses - I'd hazard a
guess that you are the kind of person who would have no problem whatsoever
with his wife or 20 something daughter being alone in the same room with
Bill.

Nigel Brooks
D. Spencer Hines - 03 Jul 2008 18:04 GMT
Bingo!

And since he clearly lied to his wife wouldn't and didn't he lie to us
too -- on all sorts of things?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------------------

> If the same thing had happened in corporate America between a Chief
> Executive and an intern, the Chief Executive would have suffered dismissal
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Who knows how many times he has lied to and cheated on his wife?
D. Spencer Hines - 23 Jul 2008 01:31 GMT
June 20, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist
The Two Obamas

By DAVID BROOKS
The New York Times

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some
academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t
proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor
damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve
university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

<G> -- DSH

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most
split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is
Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past
winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency
of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the
promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck
for votes.

Absolutely! -- DSH

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal
fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our
lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so
calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian
ambition inside.

Yep... -- DSH

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay
attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in
“Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken
positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted
“present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power
under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown
his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and
Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Quick as a flash. -- DSH

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t
do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the
truck.

Yes -- Obama, like Kerry, is a Show Horse rather than a Work Horse. -- DSH

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John
McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the
country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range
conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the
truck.

He's AFRAID to debate McCain in an unscripted, free-range debate on Iraq,
Afghanistan and the War On Terror. -- DSH

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has
worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to
political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much
of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In
January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In
February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed
to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said
he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest
Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a
longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But it was all for SHOW. -- DSH

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie
Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt
a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing
that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s
got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He
did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that
somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding.
Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private
donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political
calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

Adroit Indeed -- Sucking In All The "Liberal" Press. -- DSH

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in
campaign-finance reform when the Republicans had more money).
Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a
phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post,
Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial
lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a
hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama
did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny
political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out?

He'd sell us ALL out.  After all, he's ALREADY thrown his own sainted
GRANDMOTHER under the BUS. -- DSH

On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a
president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin,
maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie
Obama lurking inside.

Yes, that's what made NIXON attractive. -- DSH

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep
calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack
Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades.
Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending
to renounce politics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

<G>

Clinton had much more BAGGAGE to deal with.
Signature

DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.