EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Obama Has Stirred the American Soul
When I heard it the first time, I was stunned. But now it helps explain the Barack Obama phenomenon.
"The American era is over," said someone last year in Doha, the capital of pro-American Qatar.
"How so?" I argued. "The U.S. is still the only superpower."
"A military power and a great killing machine, yes, but not much else," he said. "We maintain our relations with the U.S. but our thinking is now post-American."
I have heard variations of the theme across the Persian Gulf, the Indian subcontinent and the Far East. This partially explains their eastward tilt: mega-investments in local and regional stock markets, corporations, infrastructure and in educational, cultural and strategic institutions, Dubai to Jakarta.
Their outlook is, of course, coloured by Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is not all ideological. They wonder why the U.S., despite spending $700 billion in those two countries, has been incapable of providing clean water, electricity, security and essentials of life. Why it couldn't do so even for its own citizens post-Katrina. Why its soldiers and army of private contractors are so incompetent.
Many Americans sense this, too, their unease further burdened by mounting domestic woes:
* A huge deficit ($260 billion last year), record debt ($9.3 trillion, with China holding a tenth of the denominated assets), a weak dollar, a housing crisis, a credit crunch, soaring fuel/food costs, massive manufacturing job losses and a bleak future for the young. * Clogged jails (2.3 million prisoners, surpassing China's 1.6 million); busy death chambers (the only debate in the 36 states with capital punishment being whether to use lethal injection or the electric chair). * 45 million Americans with no health insurance and another 158 million with too little coverage or too high a deductible. * The common good lost to vicious partisanship, cultural warfare or undue indebtedness to moneyed interests; a justice department that subverts justice; and an administration that operates above the law, domestic and international. ("It's a no-brainer for me," said Dick Cheney of water boarding, a torture technique that only the Gestapo, the Khmer Rouge and the North Koreans used to approve of.)
Not all American voters are experts on all those issues but, cumulatively, they know that something is fundamentally askew (81 per cent say, "the country is headed in the wrong direction").
So when Obama talks about wholesale change and a new beginning, he stirs their souls.
That he is a black man comfortable in his own skin is an added bonus. He offers a break with a racist past and a disastrous present. When he says on the night of his Iowa win, "they said, this day would never come," his audience - white and black, in front of him or their TVs - is moved to tears. That he is young, handsome and intelligent, speaks eloquently in a soothing baritone and exudes a "presidential" presence only make him that much more irresistible.
Hillary Clinton, as hard-working, astute and well-briefed as she is, comes across as a pedantic product of the very system that needs fixing. She has managed to stay in the race thus far by demagoguery and pandering: The 3 a.m. red phone ad; the ad invoking the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, 9/11 and Osama bin Laden; the assertions that only she and John McCain are fit to be commander-in-chief, that Obama is not a Muslim "as far as I know," that Al Qaeda would bomb America to test Obama; and the striking of phony poses as a gun-loving hunter, a working mom or a champion of "hard-working white Americans."
And Bill Clinton, "America's first black president," has acted as her attack dog against Obama.
The Clintons' desperate efforts should come to an end Tuesday when Oregon votes for Obama. If not then, shortly thereafter.
And the greatest presidential race in modern history can begin, with the potential to change America.
--Haroon Siddiqui
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
76 Comments so far
Show AllI hope you are right about Obama Haroon.
He's got his work cut out for him.
Obama is an empty suit! He inspires people because you can read anything you want into his content free oratory.
And why do these people need to be inspired anyway? Actually all the inspiration most of his voters will get is to vote for him and expect Obama to do everything for them. He's a celebrity with a great smile and we like to be entertained.
This change voters want won't happen. Obama is a corporate Democrat with a neo liberal, imperialist vision on foreign policy. All his moves will definitely be inside the framework of the corporate captains who bankrolled his run.
Siddiqui is really on to something here, especially with his designation of the "post-American" era.
However, Rich M is probably alot closer to the truth. One of the big problems is that too much of the world (including Canada) continues to enable, and even imitate, the post-WWII corruption and murderousness of the US national security state, an animal that can find its origins in the inception of the European invasion of the Western hemisphere.
We are long past helping ourselves out of this morass and every day has become a struggle to survive in a sea of corruption, lies and mass murder.
Despite many who continue to make wonderful music, art and literature, the "American soul," simply does not exist. Our struggle is now one of seeing clearly and acting collectively to survive and stop our most destructive national acts.
So who are YOU going to vote for, Continually Amused?
You say Hillary "comes across as a pedantic product of the very system that needs fixing"
There's a reason for that.
She is a pedantic product of the very system that needs fixing, and has actually been instrumental in its present sorry state.
Yeah, Obama has stirred my soul to the extent of casting my vote for Nader again. This Cat has his paymasters drooling for their future raping of the earth via Bio Fuels and Nuclear, both of which Obama endorses with glee.
Fareed Zakariah, in a Newsweek article of two weeks ago, says that America isn't exactly disappearing as the only major world power, but that it is being joined by South America, India, China and others as they rise to our level.
The world can be extremely grateful, I'd say. Everywhere we poke our pointed snoot into the internal affairs of other countries people die, "civil wars" erupt and governments stress out, and emerging economies like those in Latin America are judged "socialistic" instead of mixed. I think Obama is the candidate who can lead us to sanity by DE-militarizing our foreign policy.
Yes, continually, like most american blacks your first response to any success by a fellow member of your race is to put them down. You could be a white troll I guess.
RickM is right, Obama can slow the race to the bottom, but it will take LOT more then him to fix the desperate economic problems we have in this country. What will Obama do about the national debt? What will Obama do about the iraq war? He has been taking massive amounts of corporate money, can he be trusted to tell these same corporations to slash exec pay and benefits, and to not outsource?
I'm not so sure.
formernadervoter May 18th, 2008 1:10 pm
Totally agree......
"Anyone but the two parties" is the mantra....
The U.S. lost its soul in 1968.
formernadervoter said: "Obama is a corporate Democrat with a neo liberal, imperialist vision on foreign policy. All his moves will definitely be inside the framework of the corporate captains who bankrolled his run."
Why should that be? When you're president don't you finally get to act with 'no strings attached'? That's what's so uncomfortable about the Bush administration: you eventually realize he actually thinks he's doing the right thing, so your mind turns to the next question: how did such an imbecile become President??
If you were to tell me that Obama was an imbecile, I might be concerned. But to tell me that, as President, he'll just be a corporatist tool, doesn't sound right, unless I'm missing something.
Haroon does have a point. But Americans are grasping at straws when what they need is a lifeboat. Obama's no lifeboat.
It's true as the author suggests that American empire is collapsing for a number of reasons, including its criminal foreign invasions, lack on infrastructure spending, home loan fraud and deficit spending on a bloated military infrastructure. The next president will be a small part of the solution because these problems have become systemic and distant from political control.
Let's examine the idea in this article that a good speech-maker, like Barack Obama, can inspire change, and will push for change, given present circumstances.
One of Obama's advisors is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Carter administration national security advisor. Brzezinski boasted about supporting the mujahedeen to provote the Soviets into invading Afghanistan. The Russians took the bait, giving them a protracted Vietnam-style unwinnable war. It's led to senseless carnage. Ironically, it's butressed the cause of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Does the hawkish Brzezinki represent a sign in Obama's camp of a more peaceful and hopeful tomorrow, given that Brzezinki boasted about doing this to the Soviets only a few years ago?
Obama has made public statements about wanting to bomb Pakistan. He made public statements about supporting Israel at time of widespread reports that tanks were rolling into the Gaza Strip and killing Palestinians. He's not balanced that talk by noting Israel's continuing defiance of UN resolutions regarding borders and Palestinian human rights. Do Obama's public pronouncements in these respects differ from current U.S. policies, leading to progressive change?
It used to be axiomatic that people examined the record and issues before making voting decisions. Speeches are one form of the record, but we all know that the point of the speech is more akin to advertising. It's like getting someone to buy a product. The emotional affect of a speech has meaning, but it's less important than the candidate's past actions, and it can be deceptive (as we learned with Bill Clinton's "real change" campaign).
Sure, this country needs a change from leaders that openly boast about torturing and murdering people. I'd feel more "inspired" by Obama if he were speaking to issues of militarism and empire that are killing the planet. However, he's got hawks as advisors, and his so-called anti-war speech wasn't strong at all ("I don't oppose all wars," he said three times in that speech).
I don't know why people write about inspiring speeches, without listening to policy statements and checking the record. Is it because we've actually lost hope that the agenda will be different this time, and we have to fool ourselves to have a modicum of hope?
This winner-take-all system has produced three candidates with rather shockingly similar positions on foreign and domestic policy. I feel that the root causes of domestic corruption, namely corporate control of the public sector, can't be addressed by any of the frontrunners, who are well funded by wealthiest of companies.
Articles such as this one - that praise political stagecraft while leaving out the context of the candidate's record - are not helpful to our political understanding. Obama, Clinton and McCain represent odious "choices," and the parties they represent are status quo corporatist parties. I just wish for a little truth telling among our writers.
The aim of truth telling is not to be hopelessness. It's so we can properly respond.
I think some men are jealous of Barack Obama.
Obama is the spoon. But the hand that holds the spoon is corporate America. They will continue to use Obama for their own purposes, for as long as they think it benefits them. Then he's history.
Hoa binh
Thoughts_Into_Action: excellent post.
Perhaps I'm less 'evolved', but I actually agree with Brzezinski/Carters's actions and positions re the Russian/Afghan War. I believe that war is sadly sometimes necessary, but that tactically it should be fought by those with a real stake in its outcome (i.e. Afghan rebels in Afghanistan) rather than by U.S. soldiers (i.e. Iraq). Carter saw a chance to take the Soviets DOWN the hell-hole of their own personal Vietnam. It, more than anything Reagan did, ENDED the Soviet union, and I think on balance that that was a good thing.
Perhaps, though, as you say, a peaceable action is ALWAYS the right action. I don't really know. I only know that, if Obama feels that wars aren't always unjust, that reflects what I feel.
God damn us both, I guess.
oh brother, another pro-Obama article with zero substance, just spouting the same old rhetoric about souls stirred, change and hope hope hope. I hope for a real change and it isn't Obama! No mention of: zero leadership as a U.S. senator; no vision; no passion; terrible policy positions; beholden to Wall Street; lack of experience; and IMO he IS the worst Democratic nominee in my lifetime. He still might win, if winning is what matters, but it's less important to me than substance. He doesn't have any.
Post-America indeed. But empires do not go down easilly, and can do a lot of damage during the process, especially with nuclear weapons.
Even if Obama gets to be elected, he will have to deal all that disasterous consequences of Bush era, which can get McCain or other Republican lunatic elected in 2012...
For:formernadervoter May 18th, 2008 1:10 pm
"Obama is an empty suit! He inspires people because you can read anything you want into his content free oratory."
Please, read David Mendell's 2007 biography "Obama (From Promise to Power)".
The "content" in his oratory cosists of equal parts compassion and integrity. He cares too much about those who cannot defend/care for themselves while caring not at all for the CEO's struggling to pay their taxes.
Michelle Obama finally accepted his quest for her hand after he showed her that he was really committed to public service. His father taught him that being brilliant is not enough; that a man must reach for that which completes and serves the whole community.
There is much to like about Barack Obama. A sincere, honest politician seems like an oxymoron, but after many, many hours of study and observation, I know that this man I can believe in; that if he fails it will not be that he cared too little, but that he believed in his fellowman too much.
No one man is our Saviour or our Hero, but the movement that is presently coalescing around this man is our best hope of survivng and leaving for our heirs a habitable planet and a social system that allows for the least of us to survive and even prosper a little.
Ray O. Driskill
Houston, Texas
Rich Griffin May 18th, 2008 4:18 pm .....And who in PRESENT politics has SUBSTANCE and is ELECTABLE??
I think Americans are finally starting to catch on to what the rest of the world has already figured out - we are a bunch of losers, bullies, liars, cheats, and sheeple. But let's not forget that most of the rest of the world was just as clueless such a short time ago.
Despite global outrage at the then-pending invasion of Iraq, world leaders did not respond to their own constituents - despite the greatest outpouring of protest in the history of the world. Much of the world swallowed American propaganda - as it has done since WWII - hoping the US would turn out to be 'the Good Fairy' - which was never more than a fantasy that had its roots in defending Europe from the Russian troops that defeated Hitler and his Nazis. Europe was decimated and could not have held off Stalin without Allied help - at the time. But they too allowed the illusion (fantasy) of American 'goodness' to blind them from the facts - the US was always acting ONLY in its own best interests.
Even when it became clear that the USSR was not the threat blown all out of proportion by Cold Warriors who lied their way through billions upon billions of needless wasted dollars on war machinery - those greedy opportunists with nothing more than wealth and job-security on their agenda - the rest of the world turned a blind eye to egregious attacks on vulnerable countries upon which the US Corporate State preyed (backed by US-sponsored military coups, genocide, 'brush wars' and iron-fisted dictatorships).
While Europe and Scandinavia embraced basic socialism (the 'mixed economy' model of regulated capitalism) and rebuilt their nations on a more humane scale, they effectively denied the same opportunities for others in the post-colonial era by ignoring US interference in Latin America, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, etc. Millions of people were executed - socialists and communists alike, exterminated - simply because their ideology clashed with the new imperial model. We are all well aware of the 'dirty little secrets' of the Cold War era, as well as open support for anti-democratic purges, and even open warfare against anyone who dared challenge the US economic model - neoliberalism - that impoverished and/or silenced the survivors.
Let's face it - the US HATES freedom, democracy, human rights, and prosperity for anyone outside their privileged circle of corporate co-conspirators. Cuba has been a thorn in the side of the US ONLY because of the threat a successful socialist nation would pose to the US model imposed on the rest of the world. What would have happened if the US had simply reimbursed those who lost property on that tiny island, and then treated it fairly - as a friendly neighbor? (After all, Castro DID get rid of a nasty dictator.) What if Cuba had received 'Most Favored Nation' trade status - like COMMUNIST CHINA? What would Americans - let alone other peoples - expect if the Cuban socialist system actually worked? Yeah. That was the REAL threat all along: that another - more humane, more egalitarian, less predatory - model might succeed. Couldn't let that happen - the world might go to hell in a handbasket... oh wait, that's already happening... and Cuba sends teachers and doctors all over the world, as well as disaster-relief teams - like the ones turned down to go to New Orleans after Katrina. The US sends 'contractors' and death squads and the MIC war machine. And we ask "Why do they hate us?" Give me a break. I just don't understand why Europe gets a pass - perhaps for being 'the lesser evil' - but people in the Third World are finally getting wise to that too. Agricultural protectionism (among other man-made causes) is driving up food prices, and once self-sufficient nations - even those who once exported foodstuffs - are suffering from food riots and starvation. US-European 'dumping' and monoculture are taking their inevitable toll.
It isn't just 'fat lazy apathetic Americans' causing the current problems - it takes the combined acquiescence of the entire planet to allow things to get to this abysmal point. China won't complain because they're taking our future to the bank. Russia is trying to avert another Cold War - under vicious provocation, I might add. And Europe (and Scandinavia, the UK and the whole Anglo-centric world) are just sitting on the sidelines - hoping they won't end up in the crossfire. Fat chance. They should know better - they let Hitler and the other fascists destroy their world before, always thinking they'd somehow dodge the bullet. Ain't gonna happen - the world is too globalized - too interconnected - for any one region to survive the devastation at the expense of others.
Haroon Siddiqui has a point - but he's still missing the Big Picture. It isn't just the US, but the entire 'First World' is complicit in the catastrophes we now face. And I'm not about to let the rest of the world off the hook by solelly blaming the US. That myopic perspective is how we got into this mess in the first place - and we can't get out of it by using the same principles and strategies that got us into it. It's time for a few 'mea culpas' from the others - including Canada - and time for all of the industrialized world to take off their blinders. America is only part of the problem - the enablers have to own up to their responsibility as well, or the situation will only degenerate further.
It's all too easy to point fingers and choose a bogeyman - but as an American, I'm not about to let them appoint me or my country as 'It' in this stupid game. Yes, we have wackos running the government and yes, we have a Frankenstein monster instead of a defensive miitary - but whose fault is that? Who allowed the US to become the world's bully? Who looked the other way? Who stayed silent while the abuses piled up?
I've got one thing to say to those countries who look upon the US with revulsion - get the damned log out of your own eye first!
willybill.....rich griffin will never answer your question....HE'S A TROLL ! AND JUNNA WAS CORRECT,,,SOME ARE jealous of barak obama
Armybrat: It is true that especially some European countires (UK, France for example) can be indirectly blamed for many bad things happening in particulary Africa, mostly becuase of post-colonial policies, but accusing the Europeans of "sitting on the sidelines" and doing nothing is rather silly. What should we do, declare sanctions on USA? After WWII people here realized that direct confrontation is not a solution but rather the problem itself.
USA was and for now still is the sole superpower both in military and economic terms. You do not go into direct confrontation with country like this, especially not when lunatic like Bush is the president...
But I have to agree with you on the Cuba issue, good point there...
"...His father taught him that being brilliant is not enough..."
How did his father teach him anything, never mind that! I believe that they had "parted company" by the age of two.
Just what is the real story of Sen. Obama?
Contributions made to Obama 2008
Goldman Sachs $544,481
University of California $371,266
Ubs Ag $363,257
JPMorgan Chase & Co $353,808
Citigroup Inc $331,946
National Amusements Inc $313,511
Lehman Brothers $312,597
Google Inc $293,974
Harvard University $292,441
Sidley Austin LLP $287,795
Skadden, Arps et al $266,413
Morgan Stanley $253,576
Jones Day $245,875
Time Warner $245,828
Exelon Corp $229,861
Wilmerhale Llp $215,231
University of Chicago $208,007
Latham & Watkins $199,966
Microsoft Corp $196,093
Kirkland & Ellis $190,976
here is the web page once again:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
.
It explains far better than I…
.
Vote Nader 2008… You'll be glad that you did.
.
"When I heard it the first time, I was stunned. But now it helps explain the Barack Obama phenomenon.
"The American era is over," said someone last year in Doha, the capital of pro-American Qatar."
If the author of this piece was stunned by this observation, and only a year ago at that, then they have not been paying attention.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign Howard Dean was crucified (or maybe just raked over hot coals) for only hinting that the U.S. would not always be the world's foremost superpower.
It was probably inevitable that the United States would, at some time, cease to hold the position as the world's most powerful nation (no nation/state has ever maintained that position), Our policies have made it a forgone conclusion; the Bush administration and their ilk have only sped up the
process.
Our only ranking as a super power now, is militarily.
Obama has the ear of the masses; that's for sure. I was leaning that way until I read up on his support of infanticide, which tossed me off his train.
No, it isn't a neocon october surprise, it's what he does. Google it, read it, consider it before you vote.
Nader '08
Nannie May,
"Vote Nader 2008… You'll be glad that you did."
If you are successful in convincing enough citizens to vote for Nader, to actually elect him President in 2009, I am fine with that. However, if you fail to do so, then you have an obligation to explain your reasoning to our children, our grandchildren, as well as the majority of the people who reside on the planet earth.
You too, pdf.
roncypert May,
Nader's Honesty, Truth, and accomplishments are my reason to wnat him for the Presidency.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Nader Issues:
Adopt single payer national health insurance.
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget.
No to nuclear power, solar energy first.
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare.
Open up the Presidential debates .
Adopt a carbon pollution tax .
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East .
Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax .
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism .
Work to end corporate personhood.
.
Wasn't his claim about US waning power clear when Bush went a beggin to Saudi Arabia to churn out more barrels of oil and they said, "sorry, buddy." Even with our alleged military superiority, the rest of world knows "the USA is soooo yesterday!" And it won't bne too long before our population starts waking up to that fact as well.
Good, because maybe before I die, I can actually feel good about being a citizen of the US. If we develop some humility, compassion and wisdom.
The powers that be seem to favour Obama. Thats enough to scare me off. Makes you wonder, has Obama sold his soul to be President. You dont get favoured by the PTB w/o kissing their arse and promising to do their bidding.
This guy came out of nowhere, the Media destroyed his opponents in the Senate race, had a do nothing record in the Senate, and today is going to be the democratic nominee.
He is backed by people like Paul Volcker who destroyed our productive economy under Jimmy Carter and then Reagan, Zbig Brzezinski who gave us Islamism and is a Russia War Hawk, and also one of the founders of the TLC whose mission is globalization and lowering living standards for Americans.
I don't care that he is black. In fact, if he came out and discussed frankly some of the issues Wright brought out, which I believe to be true, I might have overlooked some of the above.
I find it so ironic how some people here continue to attack Obama for lacking substance or being inexperienced. Suddenly, so many of the very same fools that helped put Bush in office are now demanding absolute perfection from a black man. They've even tried to attack him for his name, for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel, for not putting his hand over his heart while standing during the national anthem, or for having lived in Indonesia as a child. They attacked him for being a Muslim (implying that all Muslims are terrorists) even though he was always a Christian and they attacked him for the supposed controversial words of his pastor. Call it whatever you like but in my book it's crude racism. Indeed, racism comes in many guises and is now often coded (like the racism in Hillary Clinton's "hard working white Americans" remark). Yeah, racism.
What will help get this country back on track is a reasonably intelligent and sophisticated president with real compassion and absolute respect for human rights, someone that will, once again, enshrine our Constitution and not tear it to bits. It will also take constant vigilance and pressure by all Americans that the next president keeps his promises. Obama's not perfect but at least he has demonstrated integrity and intelligence. More than anyone, Obama has earned the right to be a candidate for POTUS.
Hillary is certainly a close second in intelligence and sophistication but her scorched-earth campaign style has left me cold. What's more, as someone aspiring to be the first female president, her reliance on her ex-president husband is unseemly and off-putting. Nevertheless, I'd vote for her if she was the Democratic candidate.
As for McCain, he's just a senile flip-flopping tool that sold his soul to the neo-con fascists. Talk about an empty suit, McCain now aspires to be a clone of George Bush, the worst president in American history and the very same man that destroyed McCain's chance for the presidency in 2004 with vicious lies and ugly rumors. McCain, the man that was implicated in the Keating scandal, a man without principles, without scruples. Like Bush, the present-day McCain is just a puppet that will dance to any tune when so ordered by his sponsors. He's an absolutely perfect fit for the neo-con fascists that hijacked the Republican Party.
This election is no longer just about left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican (or Independent), this or that domestic policy. It's about saving this nation.
As an onlooker from the other side of the Pacific it seems to me that the
2-3% who voted for Nader in 2000 cost Gore the presidency.
It would appear from some posts here that the same could happen again this year.
Speaking from a unbiassed perspective, I suspect Nader and some of his supporters may be closet Republicans. I have read many fine words from Ralph over the years but where the 'rubber hits the road', actions speak far louder than words.
Nader cost Gore nothing. I and everyone I know who voted for Nader oppose the 2 party system and are trying to eliminate it.
Closet Republicans we sure aren't. Neither are we closet Democrats.
How long is going to take for people to understand? The idea is to break up the 2-party system. We are against it. We will vote against it.
To bet all your chips on one man is foolish. There is only so much he can do. Unless, of course, the "change" he talks about is to further increase Presidential Power.
Maybe Americans really want a dictator. Just give them plenty of entertainment and a lot of money on credit. That's freedom right?
What does Obama want to CHANGE? anybody know? has anybody aheard? Is it written? Why is it a secret?
I know what Ralph Nader will do.
Nannie May 18th, 2008 8:53 pm:
Contributions made to Obama 2008
...
University of California $371,266
Harvard University $292,441
University of Chicago $208,007
...
If you read the fine print in opensecrets.org, which you linked to, you will find that these organizations did not make donations. Under 'Summary, Source of Funds', Obama took 0% PAC money (well, $250). His funding is all from individual contributions. Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided.
So, that $371,266 from University of California ? It could very well be 1,856 grad students and professors, that all happen to be paid by U of C. If Harvard, Univ. of California, and University of Chicago are the 'special interests' Barack is beholden to, I really don't mind. :-) And how many people work at Google ? (Google Inc adds up to $293,974 donated) If 1000 people working there gave $293 each (for example), does that give them lots of sway over Obama's future Internet policy ? People giving over $200 are usually working somewhere.
Compare small contributions going to Obama and McCain:
In the $200 - $499 donation category, Obama has 39,978 donors. McCain has 9,013.
Which one will be more beholden to large contributors ?
Also note: 100 million Americans vote for President. Only 10's of thousands are backing their choice for the future of the country with money ??? It's kind of pathetic, when you think about it. If only corporate officers bother to donate, guess what kind of President you will get ?
here is the web page once again:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
It explains far better than I…
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
I guess you could call it " beating around the bush"...
It is or it isn't.
l_vacek - Plenty of people opposed the Nazis - and they were both an economic and military powerhouse (thanks to certain corporate and financial supporters). There is no reason why Europeans (and others) can't challenge the US right now. My family risked their lives, sacrificed, and some died fighting the Nazis - how about a little payback, now that Americans are in a bind? We're living under fascism - not as open as were the Nazis, but these guys are just getting started...
roncypert ~
I do think long and hard about this, and I cannot make a consious decision to cast my important and meaningful vote for a man who calls himself "godly" who also has been a strong supporter of infanticide. If you research Obama's voting record, you will see that he has taken his suppport of abortion rights outside the birth canal and supports the concept of letting a live, healthy baby die because this child beat the odds in an attempted abortion.
This is wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to describe it.
In any case, once I read about Obama's support for this hideous and literally inhuman policy ~ I could never, ever vote for him, regardless of how well he speaks in public.
And I will explain to my children, grandchildren and whomever will listen that this is the correct and logical opinion to have. No problem with that stance whatsoever.
pdf
Though I think Mr. Nader would make a better president, I hope Mr. Obama picks an Native American as his VP.
Who said Bill Clinton was America's first Black President, Toni Morrison? He may have been to her and White America, but not to the rest of Black America. Playing a saxophone while wearing dark glasses on TV does not make him a man of African Ancestry. If you want to continue refering to him as the unofficial first black president do a DNA test and let's see. Maybe his natural father was a Black man. How about that?
nannie... those numbers you listed add up to less than 6 million dollars.... according to Time magazine Obama raised over 100 Million in 2007 alone.
That says it better than I can.
And 'continually amused' is obviously white, and my guess is that they don't live near or probably even know any black people.
armybrat (post on May 18, 5:39 p.m.),
You nailed it! Great post.
There is no doubt that Obama is almost a total unknown in terms of his core beliefs and political positions, but that can only be expected. Gaming the system is an essential factor in getting elected. Without getting a majority of voters in enough states to win enough electoral votes, the game is over. All I can say is that Obama offers more "hope" for change than does Clinton - and as for McCain, he offers worse than "more of the same".
And even if elected, Obama can only "lead" or "obstruct". He cannot compel anybody to "follow", nor can he prevent a veto override.
In the final analysis it is the voting public that holds the power to make things happen, but they will need to get a lot sharper and more informed to become effective.
Nannie May & pdf,
I never said that Ralph Nader would not be a good President. I think that it would be a wonderful thing for the American (and world's) people. His election would necessarily mean that the citizenry had turned the corner and were finally electing governmental representatives whose knowledge and policies would put the country (and world) on the road to a truly just society. A citizenry that would elect Nader President would also elect a like minded Congress (as well as representatives on the state and local level), which would be needed in order to make the changes necessary to accomplish
this goal.
I would be ecstatic if this were to happen. However, it is not going to happen in this election cycle. We can, and should, work toward these goals. I hate to paraphrase Donald Rumsfield; but you do have to work with what you have, not what you wish you had.
We are on the same page as to what we need; we just differ with regards to how we are to get there.
PEACE.
"Actually all the inspiration most of his voters will get is to vote for him and expect Obama to do everything for them."
The people who are voting for Obama are not asking what their country -- or president -- can do for them, but what they can do for their country.
These are people who are already engaged, and want to be engaged more, in the daily local battles, who don't want to get on the inside & play Risk with the planet.
The indication is that Obama has not at any time pointed to his own virtues as some sort of reason to vote for him. He is plainly embarrassed by flattery & fulsome introductions; when HRC is praised, she basks in it.
It also speaks eloquently that Michelle Obama openly tells the press that she discouraged him from entering politics, that "those people are MEAN".
No one who has read Obama's books, which he himself wrote, can possibly regard him as "an empty suit".