Tag-Archive for » Barack Obama «

November 05th, 2008 | Author: Leigh

When it was announced at around 9:05PM (MST) that Barack Obama had officially become the President-elect of the United States, I was instantly filled with joy and unmeasured excitement. I laughed. I cried. Then, a while later, as I sat and listened to him deliver his victory speech, I became overwhelmingly proud of America.

“This is our moment. This is our time — to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth — that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can.”

Yes! Now THAT is America!

I never thought I’d see the day that a majority of Americans would look past color and elect a black man to be President. Never. I began crying again. How stunningly amazing it was! How stunningly amazing it IS! The enormity of what happened yesterday is beginning to settle in, and I am seriously left rather speechless. All I can think about is how exciting the next four years are going to be with a President Obama, and how proud I am to be an American!

If you didn’t see his speech last night, here it is in its entirety:

Technorati Tags: ,

November 04th, 2008 | Author: Leigh

Not only is it a right and an enormous privilege and honor, but it’s also our duty. Our future and that of our children is at stake. Our reputation around the world is at stake. Our very foundation is at stake.

GO VOTE!!

October 29th, 2008 | Author: Leigh

I will be SO glad when this election is over and Barack Obama is our new president! Sarah Palin and John McCain are disgusting, loathsome liars. They are two of the biggest hypocrites I have ever had the misfortune of listening to. Want proof? How about this:

And now today Palin is going on and on about a man named Rashid Khalidi, who is a leading scholar of Middle Eastern studies at Columbia, and who was a contemporary of Obama’s while on the faculty of the University of Chicago. She is saying Khalidi was a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization back in the day, which he vehemently denies. It is true he has been a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and has accused the country of “occupying” Palestinian territories, but so have many other Americans. Does that mean they’re all “shady characters”, “dangerous” and “terrorists”? Yeah, I know, it’s supremely stupid. We do still have free speech in this country, don’t we? The Obama camp posted this, in part, on their web site:

“ugly insinuations about Barack Obama’s relationship with a former neighbor and university colleague … are completely false.”

Khalidi said Wednesday, “I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes.”

The Obama campaign called Palin’s remarks “another recycled, manufactured controversy from the McCain campaign to distract voters’ attention from John McCain’s lockstep support for George Bush’s economic policies.”

On the campaign trail Obama said this:

McCain has spent the last few days calling me “every name in the book.”

“I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”

Are you ready for more McCain Hypocrisy now?

During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank.

The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi’s group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of “sociopolitical attitudes.”

Ouch! Oh John, say it ain’t so! Are you trying to lose the election?? Does anyone on your staff EVER do fact-checking and/or research into the stuff they give you to say before they actually give it to you??? If it weren’t so pathetic and dangerous, it would be comical. But, I guess what you did is different, right? You only gave him thousands and thousands of dollars. Barack Obama attended a farewell dinner for Khalidi when he was leaving the University of Chicago for Columbia University. Yeah, that sounds pretty sinister.

McCain has run some of the DIRTIEST, most NASTY politics I have ever seen in all of my 50 years! They’ve been running most of their campaign on innuendo and evil insinuations. And all of that after he PROMISED he would run a clean campaign! I don’t want to hear any more of his whining about Barack breaking a promise regarding public financing — not after he’s broken promises himself! He’s just desperately jealous of the amount of money people have to given to Obama because they believe in him, including ME!

So what AREN’T they talking about? Well, I invite you to revisit this post of mine regarding why Todd Palin would probably NEVER be able to get a security clearance because of his relationship with the Alaska Independence Party (a very radical group, for which Sarah Palin recorded a video this year for their convention, telling them to “keep up the good work”), and this article about McCain’s relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. An excerpt:

McCain has attacked Barack Obama for his connection to former Weather Underground member William Ayers, who in McCain’s words “was unrepentant over his activities as a member of a terrorist organization.” In the final debate, McCain said that “we need to know the full extent of that relationship.”

But though he thinks it’s terrible for Obama to associate with dangerous militants, he thinks it’s fine for him to do the same thing. And he’d rather go back to the Hanoi Hilton than disclose “the full extent of that relationship.”

[...] I repeatedly e-mailed campaign aides Tucker Bounds, Jill Hazelbaker and Mark Salter with several questions about the association. Their response? The same response I would have gotten had I e-mailed a trio of wax dummies: silence.

This leads us to some inescapable conclusions. The first is that McCain lied when he promised to lay out his relationship with Liddy. The second is that he is hypocritical in demanding something of Obama that he won’t do himself. The third is that he is scared to tell Americans the truth because they won’t like what they hear.

I recommend you read the entire article.

He’s disgusting. And so is Palin. According to two different top McCain aides this week, she is, in fact, “a Diva” and a “whack job”. Nice. That’s a helluva way to get people to believe in your candidate, isn’t it? They’re ALL whack jobs in my opinion!

Don’t forget to watch Barack Obama’s 30-minute special tonight!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

October 26th, 2008 | Author: Leigh

Wow. Sarah Palin couldn’t even convince her own state’s number one newspaper — The Anchorage Daily News — that she and McCain have the answers for this country. That’s pretty bad, but completely understandable — and 100% correct! While praising Palin’s energy and bright future, the Anchorage paper’s editorial today added:

Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn’t show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.

It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove. And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions. Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans — not Iraqi oil — have had to pay for it. It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead.

The unqualified endorsement of Sen. Obama by a seasoned, respected soldier and diplomat like Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican icon, should reassure all Americans that the Democratic candidate will pass muster as commander in chief.

Furthermore:

Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time. (read it in its entirety here)

OUCH!

The Huffington Post states:

My magazine, Editor & Publisher, has been charting all of the editorial endorsements around the country and Obama now leads by a whopping 160 to 59. More than 35 papers have switched from Bush to Obama. The latest major papers to flip: The Providence Journal and The Fort Worth Star-Telegram today in Texas. That, amazingly, gives Obama three of the five major papers in that state, with the Houston and Austin papers earlier flipping their support from Bush to Obama.

Just today Obama picked up the backing of (besides the papers listed above) the Baltimore Sun, St. Petersburg Times, Des Moines Register, Charlotte Observer, Hartford Courant, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle and many, many others. McCain held on to his home state Arizona Republic and papers in Richmond and Cincinnati.

In a nutshell: The Indianapolis Star, which backed Bush the last time, decided not to endorse anyone. The Times-Picayune, which also sat out 2004, endorsed Obama today.

In fact, a Democratic candidate for president has never done this well with editorial endorsements. E&P reviewed our tallies since 1940 and in that time only LBJ in ‘64, Bill Clinton in 1992 and John Kerry last year earned the most backing, and in the last two cases, just barely.

In fact, Obama has carried at least 9 out of 10 major metros, including both dailies in Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles. He is even winning the majority of papers in Red states.

Right on! The majority of Americans, as well as the majority of publications in America, can see clearly and decisively that Barack Obama is the absolute best person for the job of President!

Too bad The Anchorage Daily News felt they had to praise Palin as much as they did, but I’m sure they thought it would only be right to throw her a bone. ;)

Technorati Tags: , ,

October 17th, 2008 | Author: Leigh

The Washington Post announced today that they are endorsing Barack Obama for President. The editorial is kind of lengthy, but I recommend you take the time to read it. They say some very thought-provoking things about both candidates, and explain their decision in a very detailed manner. One can easily sense that their decision to endorse Obama was not made lightly. At all. Here it is in full:

THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama’s relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

The first question, in fact, might be why either man wants the job. Start with two ongoing wars, both far from being won; an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan; a resurgent Russia menacing its neighbors; a terrorist-supporting Iran racing toward nuclear status; a roiling Middle East; a rising China seeking its place in the world. Stir in the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism, the burdens of global poverty and disease, and accelerating climate change. Domestically, wages have stagnated while public education is failing a generation of urban, mostly minority children. Now add the possibility of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.

Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet’s ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.

OF COURSE, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama’s economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health. Both men have pledged to tackle climate change.

Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn’t lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools.

A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. Mr. McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans. This system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways. But Mr. McCain’s health plan doesn’t do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. Mr. Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs.

The next president is apt to have the chance to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Given the court’s current precarious balance, we think Obama appointees could have a positive impact on issues from detention policy and executive power to privacy protections and civil rights.

Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis and the recession it is likely to spawn. It is almost impossible to predict what policies will be called for by January, but certainly the country will want in its president a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness — precisely the qualities Mr. Obama has displayed during the past few weeks. When he might have been scoring political points against the incumbent, he instead responsibly urged fellow Democrats in Congress to back Mr. Bush’s financial rescue plan. He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers — perhaps the best warranty that, unlike some past presidents of modest experience, Mr. Obama will not ride into town determined to reinvent every policy wheel. Some have disparaged Mr. Obama as too cool, but his unflappability over the past few weeks — indeed, over two years of campaigning — strikes us as exactly what Americans might want in their president at a time of great uncertainty.

ON THE SECOND set of issues, having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call. Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values.

But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America’s place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran’s nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.

Mr. Obama’s greatest deviation from current policy is also our biggest worry: his insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline. Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office. But if it isn’t — and U.S. generals have warned that the hard-won gains of the past 18 months could be lost by a precipitous withdrawal — we can only hope and assume that Mr. Obama would recognize the strategic importance of success in Iraq and adjust his plans.

We also can only hope that the alarming anti-trade rhetoric we have heard from Mr. Obama during the campaign would give way to the understanding of the benefits of trade reflected in his writings. A silver lining of the financial crisis may be the flexibility it gives Mr. Obama to override some of the interest groups and members of Congress in his own party who oppose open trade, as well as to pursue the entitlement reform that he surely understands is needed.

IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.

But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party’s tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn’t come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America’s national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.

ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama’s résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.”

But Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

I completely agree with everything they said. Obama WILL be a truly great President!

Technorati Tags: , ,