Let's begin with foreign policy qualifications, Obama style. At a recent fundraiser there were questions about whether or not Sen. Obama, should he become the Dem nominee, choose a vice president with foreign policy experience. Here is what he had to say:
"Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain. [...]So, living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10 makes Sen. Obama a foreign policy expert? Does he seriously think we will believe that the experiences of a 10 year-old, and he may have been a bright 10 year-old, somehow make him an "expert" on foreign policy? I think it takes a serious suspension of belief to buy this argument.
"When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'-- I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go. [...]
"You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . ."
Mayhill Fowler, who authored the article at Huffington Post, had this observation:
"...[E]ven though I've researched and written on Hillary Clinton's trips abroad and consequently been critical of her claims, my estimation of her foreign travels is that they were sometimes quite a bit more than a dance, a briefing and a tour. What Barack Obama's remarks last night in San Francisco reveal, however, is his self-confidence--to the point of cockiness--right now."Now THAT certainly isn't an understatement.
Could that cockiness be the reason why he felt comfortable making this comment about the people of Pennsylvania?
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.Oops. Might not have been one of his finer moments.
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Sen. Clinton's response:
“I saw in the media it’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience.You can listen to Sen. Clinton respond to this, and other issues, below.
“As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.
“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”
15 comments:
That's what is so scary, Obama actually believes his own PR! I think he snuck into the Kool-Aid cabinet and took a swig of his own juice.
I'm hoping that the media will see his arrogant smugness more and more. I wish they would have noticed it before. If nominated, it will be nothing but the W.O.R.M.---What Obama Really Meant. Everytime he makes a faux pax like he did in PA, he has to spend the rest of the week explaining himself.
What's he going to do when he pisses off another government with a stupid remark about "what he sees" in their country?
Just like Bush, his arrogance is going to hurt the U.S. image, overseas.
Good for Hillary ...too bad the only place that will give her a decent interview is Fox News.
He didn't say the time in Indonesia gave him foreign policy experience. It gave him real experience to what the people in foreign countries face daily. Real insight like that will keep him from arbitrarily authorizing wars in random countries...
Personally, I don't find it cocky or elitist to speak truth. I find it more telling when Clinton does a Romney while Obama is able to openly and honestly confront the issues and biases that are really confronting this country.
Generally Obama orates grandly but makes small statements. This time his statements were broader but more honest and truthful about the feelings of plenty of people.
Hillary may have supporters among those who have prospered from the redevelopment of Pittsburgh and Philadelpia, but there are former steel workers and others around the state who are bitter and angry about the turns their lives have taken due to changes in the Pennsylvania economy.
To pretend there are no angry or bitter people in Pennsylvania is ridiculous.
John - take off the rose colored glasses and then take an honest look at Obama. He was asked about whether or not he needed a VP with foreign policy experience. His response is basically that since he's lived overseas he doesn't. But John, he lived there from ages 6-10!! Now the man might be smart, but I hardly think the awareness and comprehension of a 10 year old is enough to build a foreign policy platform.
And as this campaign goes on Obama seems less capable of keeping his elitist attitudes in check.
And if Obama is so "open and honest" why won't he speak with lesbian and gay people in the sunshine, instead of behind closed doors? Why is he afraid to be seen or photographed with us?
And Maureen Dowd's description of how he behaved with some of the women in PA is appauling!! I will be writing more on this later.
Let's just say that not only is Obama NOT ready for prime time, he has a lot of growing up to do in general.
BAC
What is elitist about the truth?
You don't know the first thing about what a mid-western person feels beyond what you read in the Washington Post. At least I live in the area.
If you are looking for empty platitudes like McCain and Clinton are giving, enjoy them. The rest of America needs a president who is willing to recognize the hardships we are facing.
John, the way he phrased his message was condescending and out of touch. If he wants to appeal to ALL the people, to engage in a new kind of politics he can't do it by engaging in politics as usual. Even Obama supporter Donna Brazil said it was the wrong thing for him to say.
George Will summed up how this will be used against Obama, should he become the Dem nominee when he said this morning: "...it's an old liberal tradition to explain away cultural and political conservatism as a personality defect, a mental disorder, some kind of irrational flight from reality ... [referring to it as] clinging to religion, not embracing religion."
Will went on to talk about an appearance in Zanesville, OH, by Michelle Obama, where the median income is $37,000 -- well below both the Ohio and the national median, and said "... I'm sure you understand how hard it is for Barack and me to pay the $10,000 that we pay for dance, piano and sports", for their two daughters.
Is she kidding? She and Barack earned more than $900,000 in 2006, and she thinks they have it tough? The median income of the women in the room she was speaking to is a little more than $20,000. They are out of touch!!
John, you don't see it because you are as condescending as they are, claiming that I couldn't possibly know "the first thing about what a mid-western person feels beyond what [I] read in the Washington Post." I'm from Indiana, John; most of my family still lives in the state. I'm back there all the time and I know how people are struggling. But do I see a lot of "bitter people clinging to guns and religion?" No.
I grew up in a working class family. My sister has been in and out of work for the past seven years. She was employed during the Clinton years, but lost her job soon after Bush took office. She and my niece are both voting for Sen. Clinton, because they see Clinton as their hope for getting a decent job again.
I suggest you get off your high horse, remove the rose colored glasses, and look honestly at the candidate you are supporting.
BAC
Correction: the way the media and you have taken it out of context and re-framed it is condescending and, honestly, ignorant. How is being honest about the REAL issues, people's REAL feelings "politics as usual"? I would more call saying "people are positive" and similar platitudes ignoring the facts "politics as usual."
I saw the This Week round table and it showed how little any of the people around that table knew about what was said. The second gentleman (I forget his name) even said that once the whole quote is released it will turn out to have been blown out of proportion by the media. They're pundits; they're paid to talk about things whether they know anything about it or not.
If you want to talk about out of touch, the last time Clinton saw a "common person" outside of a campaign stop was probably about 30 years ago. Obama has at least been working on the local level much longer and much more personally than Clinton. He worked hand in hand with people who lost their jobs after a mill near Chicago closed. He fought to bring jobs back to the decimated neighborhood. He has family around the world, some of them who make in a year what the "common man" in this country makes in a week. He didn't have his college debt paid off until 2004.
"... the last time Clinton saw a "common person" outside of a campaign stop was probably about 30 years ago."
John, how can you possibly make a statement like this unless you have been stalking Sen. Clinton for the past 30 years? I doubt that is possible, since I'm not sure you are even 30 years old? When you post lies like this you lose whatever shred of credibility you might still possess.
I thought YOU were about wanting to change politics? I thought that is why you are supporting Obama? A comment like this is absolutely "politics as usual" ... and the worst kind at that, because you knew when you posted it that it was a lie.
Obama doesn't possess any more street cred than Sen. Clinton. They both have done community work and they both have moved into positions of power. It apparently doesn't matter that Obama just paid off his college debt in 2004, since he seems unable to connect with working class people.
Barack and Michelle Obama earn a combined income of close to a million dollars a year. If they have family members who are living in poverty, why aren't they helping them?
I did notice that you failed to respond to 1) how out of touch Michelle seemed to be with the women in Ohio, 2) that I might know something about life in the midwest, and 3) that even OBAMA has said he chose his words poorly when making his comment in San Francisco.
This isn't the first time Obama has said something, only to come back later and say he really didn't mean what he said. He didn't know Rezko, then he did. He never heard any of Rev. Wright's rheortic, then he did. How are we supposed to know when he is telling the truth?
I hate to break it to you John, but your guy simply does not walk on water. It's been demonstrated already that he's not in touch with working class people, women, lesbians and gays, and who else am I leaving out here???
BAC
Answers to your questions:
1) I want to re-listen to the quote. The way I had heard it said, it was a statement about Clinton, but I wanted to confirm and look into it more.
2)You know some people, I know others and I am not alone. His statement is true in many cases, but it won't be true in every case.
3)I haven't heard the apology and will look into it, but even if he did, it isn't the first time someone has been forced into apologizing for speaking the truth...
As far as the other things you said, He never said he didn't know Rezko - he did say Rezko was not involved in his home purchase and later admitted that Rezko did tour the house with him thus giving him minor involvement. He never said he hadn't heard Wright say anything inflammatory, only that he hadn't heard the quotes that have gotten the most air time, which is true.
I have never said he walks on water. In fact, I have been a thousand times more critical of him than you have ever been of your candidate.
As far as my statements about Clinton, lets go over her career over the past 30 years vs. Obama's.
1974 - faculty at University of Arkansas School of Law.
1977 - joined Rose Law Firm (specializing in intellectual property law - something it would probably have been better for her that I didn't just find out given my views on IP). She did work pro bono for child advocacy.
1978 - First Lady of Arkansas, along with numerous political positions. Also performed real estate and other investment activities like Whitewater.
1980s - served on numerous corporate and non-profit organizations
1992 - First Lady
2000 - New York Senator (ran against a no-name after Guiliani dropped out)
(all information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton )
Here's Obama:
1985 - community organizer in Chicago working on improving housing and getting jobs back into the area.
1988 - Entered Harvard
1991 - Graduated and went back to Chicago to represent community organizers and fight discrimination (after turning down jobs on Wall Street).
1993 through 2004 - Law professor at University of Chicago Law School
1996 - State Senate
2004 - US Senate
Thus the last time Clinton would have been working hand in hand with common working people directly was possibly her pro bono work in the late '70s. Afterwards she served as chairwoman of various committees and boards. Meanwhile Obama continued working on that level at least until 1996 and was still teaching until 2004.
(info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama )
Ok, looked up Obama's repsonse. "I didn't say it as well as I should have," is what he said. That statement doesn't change the meaning, the core, of what he said. From what I understand, he is saying that he was probably harsher than he would have been.
some more digging on this Michelle Obama quote. Unfortunately, most of the press coverage is just on the one sentence you and Will brought up. However, I am pretty sure, if it was said, it ties in with this: "The salaries don't keep up with the cost of paying off the debt. So you're in your forties, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids. Barack and I were in that position. The only reason we're not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books. It was like Jack and his magic beans. But up until a few years ago, we were struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids."
John -- take a deep breath. You are looking a little desperate here, so I'm going to try and help you out. At the end of this comment I will post the story that backs up George Will's comment on "The Week ..."
As I said earlier, I'm from Indiana. I grew up in a small (pop. 2,000) town. It was (and still is) a working class community. I visit the state often because the majority of my family still lives there. As I posted earlier, my older sister is going through some difficult times right now. I'm doing what I can to help her. She was employed full time during the 8 years of the Clinton administration, but almost as soon as Bush was elected the economy took a downturn, and she lost her job. She has not been able to find anything above minimum wage since, and even those jobs have not been steady. My niece currently works two minimum wage jobs to help pay the rent and keep the lights on. But hey, she's young and young people don't really need sleep ... or a life. (FYI - that was a sad joke.) I am not out of touch with how difficult it is for many people in this country. And that is precisely why I'm supporting Hillary Clinton. I think she has a much stronger plan for correcting the mistakes of the past 7 and a half years. And my sister thinks so, too.
Obama has a habit of saying things incorrectly, and then thinking a simple apology should be fine. Well, he's running for the highest elected office in the land, so he needs to be a little more careful about how he talks about the people who live here.
Obama said he didn't really know Rezko all that well, then that proved to be false. He said Rezko didn't have any involvement in the purchase of his house, and that proved to be false. He said he didn't think his pastor had said anything controversial, then he had to back peddle on that -- because he knew his original comment wasn't true. Do you sense a pattern here?
And PLEASE give me a link to anything you have said that is critical of Obama. You are a total Obama apologist here.
And John, you can post as many dates as you like, but they are simply NOT going to tell the story of someone's life. Unless you have been stalking Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years you have absolutely NO idea what she may, or may not have done.
How can you be sure that while she was on the faculty at the University of Arkansas School of Law she didn't inspire a whole cadre of public defenders? Do you know how many hours she devoted to pro bono work for child advocacy? As for her work in IP law, I will share with you that most non-profit entities need this service to protect the work of their organizations. As First Lady of Arkansas I'm sure she did work within the state that benefited its citizens. That is what politicians do when they are in public service. People like to beat her up for sitting on the Wal-Mart board, but she did that to try and get better working conditions for the employees, and to change the culture of sex discrimination within the organization.
Again, unless you have followed her around you have no basis for your sweeping criticism.
Obama is not a saint, and it is a mistake to try and make him into one. He is just a man running for public office. And you are correct in saying that I don't post critical comments about Sen. Clinton. Why should I, when the MSM and so-called "progressive blogosphere" is doing that quite routinely? There is certainly no need for me to pile on.
Now, as promised, here is an article that talks in greater detail about Michelle Obama's comment:
Michelle Obama's 'helping industry'
By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, March 10, 2008
There's not a lot of money in Zanesville. Nearly a quarter of the Ohio town's population, 22.4 percent, is living below the poverty line, including 32.3 percent of those under 18 years of age.
That's nearly double the national poverty rate, officially reported by the Census Bureau last August as 12.3 percent overall, nationwide, and 17.4 percent for those under 18.
Still, Michelle Obama stopped by the other day during a campaign visit and warned the locals to not go for the big money.
"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," she told a group of women at a day-care center. "Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond."
Faced with allegedly skimpy paychecks in the "helping industry," Mrs. Obama complained that "many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management."
Rather than an honest attempt at providing career advice for the women in Zanesville, few of whom in all likelihood had ever thought about getting a job in hedge funds, it seems that Michelle Obama was simply interested in taking a cheap political shot.
It just so happens that two of the people who took the exact path that Mrs. Obama was railing against -- i.e., choosing jobs in corporate law and hedge-fund management over working in the "helping industry" -- are Hillary Clinton and her daughter.
Hillary spent 15 years at the Rose Law Firm, one of the most prestigious corporate law offices in Arkansas, where she represented large companies and served on corporate boards, including Wal-Mart's.
In 2006, Chelsea Clinton started working for Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund that manages approximately $12 billion in assets, specializing in trading in distressed and undervalued credit-related securities and the debt of companies that are nearing or have filed for bankruptcy.
The New York Daily News estimated the former first daughter's salary at Avenue Capital to be in the range of $100,000 to $150,000.
What Michelle Obama didn't mention during the Zanesville visit is that she's done pretty well by helping herself to a sizeable slice of "helping industry" money at the University of Chicago Hospital.
Employed as vice president for community affairs, Mrs. Obama's annual compensation jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.
That's a $195,052 raise -- not bad for someone who looks down her nose at the "money-making industry."
All told, the total income declared by the Obama household on the couple's 2006 income tax return, figuring his Senate salary, book royalties and her compensation from sitting on corporate boards, was $991,296 -- again, not bad for sacrificing themselves in the "helping industry."
Still, Mrs. Obama complained about the amount of money she has to spend on piano, dance and other lessons for her two children and the burden of paying back student loans from her time at Princeton and Harvard.
"The salaries don't keep up with the cost of paying off the debt," she said, referring to the student loans, "so you're in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids."
It's doubtful that many in the audience could feel Mrs. Obama's pain. The median income for female workers in Zanesville last year was $20,142. In surrounding Muskingum County, 88 percent of adults don't have a college degree and an estimated 20 percent don't have high school diplomas.
"Barack and I were in that position," continued Michelle Obama, complaining about the college loans. "Up until a few years ago, we were struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids."
And then, Shazam!, capitalism saved the day.
"The only reason we're not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books," she explained. "It was like Jack and his magic beans."
And the truckers in the "money-making industry" who delivered the books? They're not in a "helping industry"? And they're more greedy than a community affairs coordinator at a hospital, pocketing $316,962?
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. He can be reached at rrreiland@aol.com.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_556214.html
BAC
Yes, I saw those articles plastered all over the right wing blogosphere. It is very good Republican spin, but thats all it is. Barack Obama turned down jobs that would have paid off his Harvard debt in one year in favor of working defending civil rights on the south side of Chicago. Bill, Hillary and now Chelsea Clinton all have done the opposite. I don't personally know Michelle's story, so I can't speak to her position at the hospital or her duties there or her other personal choices and I'm not trying to.
I am sorry that I mischaracterized your personal history. In the time I have been reading your blog, you don't talk about it much, and the attack you leveled against Obama for speaking the truth in this post led me to believe that you did not have such connections. I was wrong about that, and I'm sorry.
However, I can point you to hundreds of people across this area of the country that know exactly what Obama is saying and know it to be true. This is why Sen. Clinton got heckled by Alliance for American Manufacturing workers today for saying the same thing. WE know that he was telling the truth, and we find it shameful that acknowledging facts is enough to warrant such attacks.
I clarified your mis-remembering of the Rezko and Wright controversies already; you can stop repeating them.
http://johnsmentaldetritus.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-redefining-universal.html
Now you show me one post where you were even vaguely critical of Clinton. (I also have a post I have been working on for the past week regarding the Science Debate 2008 stuff, but I was giving Obama's campaign time to respond to me, which is quickly running out).
When discussing Clinton's vs. Obama's history, I was highlighting their connectedness to the "common person." It would be great if she had inspired public defenders, but we have no proof either way on that and I was unable to find any information on what her work there entailed. Her pro bono child advocacy work was in the late '70s; after that she worked as chairwoman on various boards. Her work in IP law was for the most powerful political law firm in the state, not the high minded ideal you were trying to push. These reinforce my statement that she hasn't worked WITH regular people; that she hasn't stayed "connected" in the past 30 years. Obama has.
These statements don't make him a saint. He is a man, same as anyone else. But he is a better politician than anyone I have seen running in the past 28 years of my existence. He could, and has, run circles around the current crop of political leaders. He has started a revolution that could change this country, or at the very least shake it off of the horrible course we are on now. If he fails at this, there will be hell to pay. But if we don't even try it will be far worse and he is the only one asking for us to try.
John - I may be one of the few liberals who DOESN'T think earning money is a bad thing. That might seem like an odd statement coming from someone who has now spent more than half their career as a paid activist. Before I became a full time activist I was in communications, and owned a successful advertising agency for a number of years. I made a decent amount of money. You know what that allowed me to do? HELP PEOPLE.
I not only had disposable income, but I had control over my time. If I wanted to spend the day helping to build a playground for the children in my community I could (and did) do it. If I wanted to contribute financially to the battered women's shelter in my community, I could afford to do it. There is NOTHING WRONG with making an honest dollar.
You have absolutely NO IDEA what Hillary Clinton has, or hasn't, done during the 30 year time period to talk about. You are making assumptions based on your experiences and your bias.
A quick glance at her background suggests she spent much of that time advocating for children, for women's rights and for the environment. Some of it ground-breaking work. So while Obama was helping hundreds of people in Chicago, Clinton's work was helping thousands of people -- setting in motion policies that continue helping people today. Their experiences are different, does that make either one better than the other? Not at all.
And if Sen. Clinton is so disconnected to "regular" people, why are the "regular" people supporting her in greater numbers than Sen. Obama? He has the educated, elite crowd ... while she is pulling votes from blue collar workers? All your hype over this doesn't match with the reality.
John, please read my comment to you slowly. I said that I would not post comments critical of Sen. Clinton. I'll let you and the MSM do that. There is no need for me to pile on.
Now, go back and read your comments about Obama. Protest now, but the reality is that you have turned him into Saint Obama.
The other reality is that which ever one of them becomes the Democratic nominee, and next president, they will change the terrible course this country is on. EITHER ONE OF THEM.
BAC
Post a Comment