I don't mean to keep harping on facts about Senator Obama, but...oh, yes I do. No use trying to skew my intentions as anything else, like someone else we all know...whose name starts with O.
I'm harping because now is the time to do it. If blogs such as mine do harp on the facts, then others will harp, and the circle will widen, and perhaps, just perhaps, real change will win out in time to eclipse Senator Obama's fake Change.
We are all quite aware of the sea tide of superdelegates that washed onto Senator Obama's shores following Senator Clinton's capitulation to what appeared to be a foregone conclusion. What was really foregone was the trail of money that led up to it.
Did you know that a non-partisan study showed that presidential candidates who gave the most money to superdelegates secured those superdelegate votes 82% of the time?
Senator Obama knew that little statistic. And he had the funds to make it a reality.
Did you know that in 2007 Hope Pac, Senator Obama's political action committee, gave out $299,000, compared to the non-existent amount given out by Senator Clinton?
Did you know that as of the end of March 2008, Senator Obama's PAC had given three times more ($711,000) to superdelegates than Senator Clinton ($236,000)?
Do you remember the mantra drilled into us by all who would see the nomination go to Obama: 'The superdelegates MUST vote in accordance with the popular vote and that vote is unarguably with the senator from Illinois”...?
Here are some facts I hope you'll all pass on, and, like widening circles in a global pond, may these facts speak volumes to the foregone conclusion.
All the following superdelegates endorsed Obama. I attach the monies received and the vote percentages in their states, not a one in accordance with the endorsement and every one defying the mantra.
Rep. Porter (NH)
$11,500 received from Obama
$ 2,500 received from Clinton
NH vote: Clinton 39%, Obama 37%
Rep. Hill (IN)
$12,500 received from Obama
$ 2,500 received from Clinton
IN vote: Clinton 51%, Obama 49%
Rep. Bingamon (NM)
$4,200 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
NM vote: Clinton 49%, Obama 48%
Sen. Lautenberg (NJ)
$9,500 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
NJ vote: Clinton 54%, Obama 44%
Rep. Klein (FL)
$11,000 received from Obama
$ 2,500 received from Clinton
FL vote: Clinton 50%, Obama 33%
Rep. Donnelly (IN)
$7,500 received from Obama
$0 received from Clinton
IN vote: Clinton 51%, Obama 49%
Rep. McNerney (CA)
$5,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
CA vote: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%
Rep. Altmire (PA)
$10,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
PA vote: Clinton 55%, Obama 45%
Rep. Tsongas (MA)
$5,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
MA vote: Clinton 56%, Obama 41%
Rep. Cardoza (CA)
$4,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
CA vote: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%
Rep. Giffords (AZ)
$9,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
AZ vote: Clinton 51%, Obama 42%
Rep. Costa (CA)
$4,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
CA vote: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%
Now we all know that had Senator Clinton had the same kind of funds to bestow, she'd have spread the wealth, too. Yes, she took money from lobbyists. Yes, she accepted money from corporate giants many of us might find distasteful. And yes, she is no innocent when it comes to the influence of money in campaigns. But I never heard her claim to be doing anything beyond working within the system as it's regrettably grown to be.
Senator Obama, however, has billed himself as the Candidate for Change. He has promised us Change We Can Believe In. He has built his case to the American public on A New Kind of Politics and A New Way of Doing Business in our capitol.
Sounds like the same ol' slimy dealings to me.
Showing posts with label Senator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator. Show all posts
03 August 2008
Unity Only Counts When it Helps Obama
I've got to wonder when I'll stop being shocked by the actions of Senator Obama. Reason and a good memory would dictate that point to be sometime well past.
But ZAP! He did it again. Lucky thing no one was in the opposite lane of traffic as I wandered into it while staring incredulously at the radio.
So sit back in your chairs to prevent falling out of them...
Today--after behaving thoroughly intractable, and without allowing even the hint of a compromise in the Florida/Michigan 'Dele-gate' affair--my friend the senator has written a letter to the co-chairs of the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee. He'd like, now, to give each delegate a full vote at the convention.
Never mind that his campaign was a full and participating party to the stripping and gifting of four Michigan delegates from Clinton to Obama.
Never mind that he chose, along with four other candidates, to remove his name from the Michigan ballot, then voraciously took not only the four delegates that belonged to Clinton, but the rest of the non-Clinton delegates that, minus the debacle of the name removal, would have been split between him and those other four candidates.
Never mind that, with both Clinton and Obama on the ballot in Florida, OBAMA LOST: Clinton got 857,000 votes to Obama's 569,000.
Never mind that in negotiations with the Credentials committee at the time, he steadfastly refused to accept the granting of full votes to either state.
Now he says, “I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories”.
My shock has now been supplanted by sheer revulsion.
And hope.
Hope that this latest mendacious, audacious, outrageous maneuver will shake the delegates to their toes and WAKE THEM UP.
It's not too late!
But ZAP! He did it again. Lucky thing no one was in the opposite lane of traffic as I wandered into it while staring incredulously at the radio.
So sit back in your chairs to prevent falling out of them...
Today--after behaving thoroughly intractable, and without allowing even the hint of a compromise in the Florida/Michigan 'Dele-gate' affair--my friend the senator has written a letter to the co-chairs of the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee. He'd like, now, to give each delegate a full vote at the convention.
Never mind that his campaign was a full and participating party to the stripping and gifting of four Michigan delegates from Clinton to Obama.
Never mind that he chose, along with four other candidates, to remove his name from the Michigan ballot, then voraciously took not only the four delegates that belonged to Clinton, but the rest of the non-Clinton delegates that, minus the debacle of the name removal, would have been split between him and those other four candidates.
Never mind that, with both Clinton and Obama on the ballot in Florida, OBAMA LOST: Clinton got 857,000 votes to Obama's 569,000.
Never mind that in negotiations with the Credentials committee at the time, he steadfastly refused to accept the granting of full votes to either state.
Now he says, “I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories”.
My shock has now been supplanted by sheer revulsion.
And hope.
Hope that this latest mendacious, audacious, outrageous maneuver will shake the delegates to their toes and WAKE THEM UP.
It's not too late!
28 July 2008
A Stunningly Sneaky Run for the Presidency
If there's anything I really dislike, it's slimy dealings. For the American media to harp incessantly on the 200,000 people who attended Senator Obama's speech in Berlin, all the while omitting the preceding two concerts by favorite European bands, AND free pizza, beer and bratwurst, is simply repugnant.
Evidently, this sort of modus operandi is not without precedent in the Obama camp. With respect and thanks to justsaynodeal.com, I excerpt a fragment of their comment on this mucky affair, and another, similar one:
“While coverage of Senator Obama's Berlin speech provided audiences here at home nothing less than a visual "shock and awe," it neglected to mention that the well-hyped speech had an opening act: a gratis concert by two wildly popular groups....
While we appreciate the Obama Campaign's hospitality, on behalf of furthering US-Germany relations, offering free bratwurst, pizza and even beer for three hours during the free rock concert, we question whether or not the monies might have been better spent here on financially strapped US citizens.
Similarly, back on May 20, 2008 in Portland, Oregon, Senator Obama took the stage following the critically acclaimed local band The Decemberists, who gave a rare free concert for 75,000 fans. While news stories generated by both appearances focused on the enormity of the crowd size, few mentioned the accompanying perks, leaving some to question whether revelers are showing up for Senator Obama or for free food and entertainment.
Without this additional information, Just Say No Deal contends that Americans are being misled about the presumptive Democratic nominee’s true popularity."
Misled? I'd certainly say so. Remember when we learned that a lie is still a lie when it's a fully cognizant omission? Guess the media missed that lesson.
Evidently, this sort of modus operandi is not without precedent in the Obama camp. With respect and thanks to justsaynodeal.com, I excerpt a fragment of their comment on this mucky affair, and another, similar one:
“While coverage of Senator Obama's Berlin speech provided audiences here at home nothing less than a visual "shock and awe," it neglected to mention that the well-hyped speech had an opening act: a gratis concert by two wildly popular groups....
While we appreciate the Obama Campaign's hospitality, on behalf of furthering US-Germany relations, offering free bratwurst, pizza and even beer for three hours during the free rock concert, we question whether or not the monies might have been better spent here on financially strapped US citizens.
Similarly, back on May 20, 2008 in Portland, Oregon, Senator Obama took the stage following the critically acclaimed local band The Decemberists, who gave a rare free concert for 75,000 fans. While news stories generated by both appearances focused on the enormity of the crowd size, few mentioned the accompanying perks, leaving some to question whether revelers are showing up for Senator Obama or for free food and entertainment.
Without this additional information, Just Say No Deal contends that Americans are being misled about the presumptive Democratic nominee’s true popularity."
Misled? I'd certainly say so. Remember when we learned that a lie is still a lie when it's a fully cognizant omission? Guess the media missed that lesson.
24 July 2008
The Better Part of a Valorous Run for the Presidency
I'd like to ruminate a bit about Senator Obama's faux state visits abroad.
It would be doing him a disservice to paint his efforts as distasteful, tasteless or in poor taste. Preposterous, embarrassingly offensive, asinine and inexcusable are more to the fore.
It's reported that official Obama campaign posters have appeared everywhere—including the most holy Western Wall--, his 'Change We Can Believe In' banners have accompanied his visits, and a spokesperson for the German chancellor has gone so far as to say officially, 'It is unusual to hold election rallies abroad. No German candidate for high office would even think of using the National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for a rally because it would not be seen as appropriate.'
Discreet, fact-finding visits to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Germany, and more would have been not only helpful to Senator Obama's application for the presidency, but would have indicated an individual who understood the powerful delicacy of the position he sought. Sadly, sentience and discretion would not seem to be players in the senator's vocabulary.
I have traveled the world and lived overseas many times and I find it personally discomfiting that a candidate for our presidency would campaign in countries other than the one he hopes to lead. Even my teenaged son compared it to a wannabe chancellor of Germany taking his or her campaign to New York, Dallas, and Los Angeles. Haven't we been mortified and shamed enough by our Bush years?
If this contretemps is any indication of what lies ahead, our public opprobrium may continue unabated.
It would be doing him a disservice to paint his efforts as distasteful, tasteless or in poor taste. Preposterous, embarrassingly offensive, asinine and inexcusable are more to the fore.
It's reported that official Obama campaign posters have appeared everywhere—including the most holy Western Wall--, his 'Change We Can Believe In' banners have accompanied his visits, and a spokesperson for the German chancellor has gone so far as to say officially, 'It is unusual to hold election rallies abroad. No German candidate for high office would even think of using the National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for a rally because it would not be seen as appropriate.'
Discreet, fact-finding visits to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Germany, and more would have been not only helpful to Senator Obama's application for the presidency, but would have indicated an individual who understood the powerful delicacy of the position he sought. Sadly, sentience and discretion would not seem to be players in the senator's vocabulary.
I have traveled the world and lived overseas many times and I find it personally discomfiting that a candidate for our presidency would campaign in countries other than the one he hopes to lead. Even my teenaged son compared it to a wannabe chancellor of Germany taking his or her campaign to New York, Dallas, and Los Angeles. Haven't we been mortified and shamed enough by our Bush years?
If this contretemps is any indication of what lies ahead, our public opprobrium may continue unabated.
17 July 2008
The Right Answer to the Real Question
When Senator Obama declined federal campaign funds totaling $84 million, there was a bit of a hue and cry. Some of the questions that flew included,
Why did he offer to take the federal funds?
Why did he turn them down, when his conditions for accepting them were met?
Why did he flip-flop?
What changed between the time he said he'd take them and then refused?
I got to thinking about those questions. And one very important one occurred to me but no one really asked it. And the more it wasn't asked, the more troubled I became. The answers to the well-trod questions seemed obvious.
In answer to the first, he said he'd 'aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.' We know now that at its most aggressive, it was a 45-minute discussion between counsels for Obama and McCain.
Why did he turn the funds down, flip-flop? Because he wants more money and he figures we'll soon forget the promise he made in November.
What changed since he said he'd take the federal funds? Nothing changed. Just his mind. Perhaps that's the one real Change We Can Believe In.
Simply put, Senator Obama refused the $84 million, squandered our trust, and lied about the reasons for it because he's convinced he can rake in record amounts of money by asking us for donations.
And what I mean by 'us' is we, the less-than-wealthy. That's how he managed to break all fundraising records in the first place. Almost half his donors are middle and lower working classes who gave less than $200. The ceiling for giving to a campaign is $2,300. The senator's campaign is positively gleeful about the fact that they can go back to these same donors for more.
I find this contemptible. And thoughtless in the extreme. At the end of eight long years, when the middle and lower classes have truly suffered and are continuing to do so, this man who would be president has no compunction about asking us to give over two grand of the precious little money we must stretch between soaring costs for almost everything.
So I'm going to ask the important question, the one that just keeps troubling me.
Why...
when gas is approaching $5 a gallon,
when grocery bills have doubled and tripled,
when health care is simply unaffordable for so many and so expensive for so many more,
when traveling has become prohibitive because our dollar is in a subterranean hole,
when so many of us are losing the roofs over our heads and whatever savings we've managed,
when we have already given enough of our small salaries to the Obama campaign to have allowed it to break all fundraising records,
and when so many of us must refuse our children so much,
why, why should we be asked to give more because Senator Obama slammed the door shut on $84 million in public funding?
The arrogance boggles the mind.
The exploitation of the electorate is shocking.
But the lordly, vainglorious callousness is unforgivable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
