Look Both Ways

[CarolNYC]

This piece was put together by a group of supporters....Use it as you wish.

LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE YOU VOTE! Eight Questions Asked Too Rarely

Two candidates are left standing on the Democratic ticket. We know a lot about only one of them. Even though Barack Obama is obviously a bright and talented man, we are still trying to learn who he is and what, beyond seeing him “on stage,” he has accomplished that would qualify him for the most difficult job in the world.

Here are a few of the questions that people are asking. You decide.

Question #1. Close your eyes. Can you name this tune?

“It’s time to put our cynicism down. Put it down. Stand with me and take that leap of faith. Because I’m not asking you to take a chance on me. I’m asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. Take a chance on hope.”

Barack Obama, right? No, that would be from Governor Deval Patrick’s inauguration speech in 2006. The two men’s campaigns were run by the same campaign manager, David Axelrod, whose clients have used messages of hope and change since his first campaign for senatorial candidate Paul Simon in the 1980s. “Yes we can!” is also taken from Axelrod’s playbook for Deval Patrick’s campaign, although when that similarity was pointed out Patrick’s was changed to “Together we can.” (The phrase itself has been the motto for four decades of the United Farm Workers, and they have endorsed Hillary Clinton.)

All candidates have speech writers and strategists. Yet Mr. Obama is presenting himself as a fresh, new, and different kind of candidate. As Jake Tapper puts it, “Thousands, if not millions, of Americans are inspired by Obama's words…But many of them also likely think they are at least somewhat original.” For more detail: http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com/deval_patrick_a_cautionary_tale.htm, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/obama-echoes-de.html

Question #2. Is experience all that important?

Barack Obama’s opponent has repeatedly expressed the need for considerable experience relative to the job of Commander-in-Chief, especially in these perilous and troubled times.

Mr. Obama apparently disagrees—or does he? On November 8th, 2004—just over 2 short years ago--he said, "I'm a believer in knowing what you're doing when applying for a job, and I think that if I were seriously considering running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who would be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people." Watch the video at http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27093

Question #3. Are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that much different when it comes to the war in Iraq? (You might be surprised by this one…)

Most Americans want this war to end. Many were against it from the start. Mr. Obama asserts that he is the only one who can lead our country because he was against the war from the beginning.

First, contrary to a popular misconception, Mr. Obama did NOT vote against going into Iraq. He did give a speech to a group in Chicago in 2002 stating his opposition to going to war, two years before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He later stated, however, ''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'' http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-speak.html

While running for the Senate in 2004, Obama said, “…he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country …” http://thepage.time.com/clinton-release-on-obamas-iraq-record.

Few have read H.J. Resolution 114 giving the President discretion to get tough with Iraq. Imagine that you were a Senator in 2002 as you read one very important section:

“Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated”

What would you have done based on what you were told by those who were entrusted to put out correct information, only a year after 9/11? The vast majority of Senators (77) voted in favor of HR 114, including Joe Biden, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, John Kerry, and Evan Bayh, as well as Hillary Clinton. (Remember, Obama was not in the Senate at this time.) Only later was this “so-called intelligence” discovered to be false.

Since coming on board in the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Hillary Clinton's. They differed on ONLY one vote related to the confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army. (Obama voted for, Clinton against.) Obama even conceded back in May of 2007 that his position on the war is not that different from that of Hillary Clinton. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_slams_cli.html

Question # 4. Aren’t “hope” and “change” great platforms on which to run a campaign?
Any Democrat will bring huge changes compared to our current administration, and we all hope that they are for the better! HOWEVER, running almost exclusively on the platform of “hope and change” typically describes an inexperienced candidate. George W. Bush ran on being the “The Uniter,” and look where we got without experience and qualifications. Whether running for a local school board or city council, those who lack long-term substantial, relevant experience related to the position to which they aspire have no choice but to run as the “change” or “anti-establishment” candidate.

The question is, are promises of hope and change the most important message from a candidate for commander-in-chief of these United States in such perilous times?

Question #5. How important is involvement in foreign affairs?
The next President will face continuing challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as many other hot spots around the world. These require astute insights and experience in world affairs. We know that Hillary Clinton has visited more than 80 countries during her service as First Lady, has conferred with world leaders, and was actively involved in policy matters during her husband’s 8 years in office. She has been closely involved in foreign policy issues and promoting America’s interests abroad since being elected to the Senate in 2000.

By comparison, last November, Mr. Obama cited his most relevant experience as having lived in Indonesia from ages 6 to 10: "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/19/obama-cites-childhood-in-helping-shape-world-view/ http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/20/sitroom.03.html

In the meantime, Obama vigorously speaks against taking our eyes away from Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have regrouped. However, as the chair of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, he has held no policy or oversight hearings since becoming chair in January of 2007, nor has he visited the European continent, save for a brief stopover in London. Ambassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations notes that there is a variety of urgent matters that Obama could have examined, including the role of NATO in Afghanistan. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/

Question #6. Political contributions—no special interest money?

Obama tells sorrowful stories in his stump speeches about Maytag workers in Illinois whose jobs were shipped to Mexico. These put a face on his vigorous complaints against special interests and how corporations use trade pacts to replace well-paid union workers with low-cost foreign ones. A powerful video, however, raises serious concerns about Barack Obama’s commitment to these workers, accusing him of abandoning them after he promised to help. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/20/machinists-union-tells-it-like-it-is/ The union that represents most of those workers now endorses Hillary Clinton.

It turns out that one of the Maytag board members raised over $200,000 for Obama since 2003. Although he has denied a conflict of interest and gathering up large sums of money is part of the reality of running any campaign, it does seem hypocritical that Obama would criticize Clinton for “old-style politics” and for courting special interests when he does so himself. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1057928/

Question # 7. Old Scandals, new Scandals—What’s the difference this time around?

Hillary Clinton has had her share of troubles. For example, Whitewater ate up $70 million of taxpayers money for nothing. Ken Starr’s final report conceded that there was no Clinton scandal. http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/03/21/whitewater/ But yet Mr. Obama tries to imply that he wouldn’t come with this sort of baggage.

Mr. Obama is new on the national scene. We have not had much time to take a close look at what has already happened and what may be coming down the pike. Dealings with Tony Rezko and the purchase of his million dollar home suggest very bad judgment; even Obama himself called entering into this deal “boneheaded.” http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article, http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article# Rezko was also one of Obama’s major donors, although some of that money has since been donated to charity. Rezko has since been indicted on extortion charges and goes on trial soon. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/812715,CST-NWS-rezko26.article No matter what happens, the Republicans will play the relationship between the two men for everything they can.

Question #8. Whom to denouce?
During the recent Ohio debate (Feb. 26, 2008) Obama was questioned about his reaction to the strong endorsement of his candidacy by the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, a man who has long vilified both whites and, especially, Jews. Obama firmly noted that he had not sought this endorsement and that he “denounced” Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic opinions of Jews. Obama restated his strong support for Israel.

There is a puzzling element, however, that was hinted at but not explored in the debate. If you denounce a person, why remain closely tied to one who firmly embraces the one you denounce? Obama’s long-time family minister, Jeremiah Wright, has continually heaped praise on Louis Farrakhan, traveled with him to Libya, and even granted him an award. “According to Trumpet , Rev, Wright applauded his ‘depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation.’ He praised ‘his integrity and honesty.’ He called him ‘an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.’”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/profiles/chi-070121-relig_wright,0,5184608.story?page=2&coll=chi_news_custom_religion_promo
According to Rolling Stone, Obama checks with Rev Wright before making any bold political moves. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama/3 More detail:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3177684.ece

Bottom Line: Take as close a look as you can at BOTH candidates.